New Hampshire Group Tests Their Rights: Extent of USA Tyranny Revealed!

reply to post by seachange


OK, I'm back. Let's pick it back up...

On public property people should be allowed to drink whatever they want where-ever they want in a free country, and I don't see how it would be anything but tyrannical to have it just about any other way. Whether or not I'm using the term loosely is totally opinional. To me its a pretty big deal to be able to consume whatever I wish in public places. To you it isn't.

As an example, there are alcohol-free zones everywhere. I wouldn't want to see the adults swigging Jim Beam at the kids' soccer game, and then get into a parent's rage situation.

You're right that It does not happen yet that a judge will sentence someone to life in jail because they looked at him funny. You missed the point. Sam Dodson proved in New Hamphire that under current US court procedueres a judge may sentence you to life in jail for remaining silent. If that isn't a tyranny then what would be? The reason that insane penalties do not happen on a regular basis is because people know they actually don't have a right to remain silent as they are jokingly told, and therefore know better than to attempt to assert a non-existent right and therefore face LIFE IN JAIL. Sam Dodson in specific is among the first to assert his right to remain entirely silent. So instead of saying "Please. That does doesn't happen." you should research what actually does happen when a person decides to test his right to remain silent such as follows:

"The first order states $10,000 cash bail and only when he reveals his name. In the latest order they have discovered his legal name, but again they say until he tells it to them, and tells them his address, he's staying in jail. In both orders they refuse to schedule any more dates, including trial, in this matter. They will not see him for arraignment, they will not see him for preliminary hearings, and they will not see him for trial until he gives them his name and address," said Dodson's attorney


Source: www.prweb.com...

Sam Dodson was told he would get no hearings. Sam Dodson was told he would get no trial. Sam Dodson was told he would recieve an infinite (life-time) jail sentence. How can you say it didn't happen when it clearly did happen to Sam Dodson? And why did it happen? Its true that Sam Dodson was released about two months later, but it was not because his sentence was overturned. It was because Burke was ending up looking like the dictator he actually is. Sam Dodson remained silent when he was ordered to express his name & address. Burke had every precident to do exactly what he did (the life-time jail sentence) under the current court system in the US. I'd call it legislating from the bench, or I'd call it a problem of absolute dictatorship in US courtrooms. You'd call it what, "much ado about nothing" and "being histerical to complain about"? And what actually happened? The judge turned out to be bluffing and Dodson was eventually let out, AFTER TWO MONTHS OF PUNISHMENT. What makes you so sure it would have been impossible for Dodson to remain in jail forever, given there is precident for exactly that as set by the 14 year punishment for contempt of court?

So if when you say "Please. That doesn't happen." you mean infinite jail sentences don't happen, then I'd say you should take a look at New Hampshire case (docket #) where judge Burke of the NH court system was sentenced to an infinite jail sentence explicitally for failing to state his name!

Why was Dodson so uncooperative? The judge cannot allow his courtroom to be a test case for limits of contempt. We should have a basic level of respect for our legal system.

Dodson would never have stayed in jail forever because he would have appealed and won. If he didn't appeal, he deserves what he gets. A 60 day sentence for contempt is not unusual.

And taking the 5th does work. Just witness the Solyndra execs.

Trials are supposed to be public events. Part of a sentence hearing is part of a trial. Therefore, the hearing in Keene was in fact supposed to be a public event. But, it was a closed event. Having secret trials is considered tyrannical. Ian Freeman's recent trial hearing was a secret trial. A secret session like that is absolutely an obvious assault on human rights. I can't imagine why you'd disagree with that, but you sure seem to.

Because I don't think that trials are by definition "public events". Just try sitting in on a juvenile case sometime.


ETA

I can also understand how you believe the idea that cops responding to non-crimes as being something other than tyrannical and admit I'm at a loss to articulate that position, though I do believe it. Maybe others on the thread can chime in as to why it would or would not be tyrannical or oppressive for police to be investigating things that are not crimes. Its a good question you have about that.

Police respond to public health and safety incidents every day. Respond to accidents. Traffic control. Many other such mundane incidents.

reply to post by mishigas


I do realize a certain level of public danger warrants forcing a change of behaviour. An obvious example would be someone pointing a gun at you and saying "I think I just may shoot you". That would certainly be dangerous and warrant someone stopping it from happening in public. Technically people have not been harmed yet in such a case, but you can be reasonably sure that you wil be harmed without stopping that from happening. On the other hand, if you go to a kids soccer game and see a guy chugging vodka, I think its wrong to say you have a reasonable expectation that someone will get hurt from that. It is not a dangerous activity except for the guy risking alcohol poisoning.

There are unlimited number of things that may be considered dangerous and an unlimited number of things people don't like to see in public, and that is why so much as *starting* the list is tyrannical. In many public places you cannot have alcohol. But the list is allowed to keep growing until there is only water, fruit juice, and vegetable juice left since all other options may be determined to be "junk food and therefore dangerous". Hey! You are not drinking a Monsanto-approved juice! You're under arrest!". That is the precedent set when you say its okay to tell people what they can and cannot put inside their own bodies in a public place.

If you want a law saying "doing anything that is X level of endangerment to others is illegal" then that makes sense. That way you stop discriminating against people's personal choices is by letting the facts speak for them self in court. Then when the trial goes to jury regarding that, they can put a few things on a chart and decide where X falls on that chart. If X is over the danger limit, then it was dangerous. That makes ever so much sense vs. making a rule like "no alcohol in public places" which is actually unenforceable given if a guy wants to drink a Jim Beam at a kids soccer game he'll just put the Jim Beam in a soda can.

So, any other system than "doing anything over endangerment level X" is illegal" also opens up another can of tyranny because people can so easily skirt around laws they don't agree with. For example, if they want a shot of Jim Beam at a school stadium they as I mentioned could put it in a soda container. So then the tyrannical people will want yet more rules about for example making it a crime to put alcohol into an unlabelled container. And you could go on forever and keep making more and more laws making such a thing more difficult.

Regarding your courtroom point, the fact is we have certain limits of what you can and cannot do in court. It is very good to know as precisely as possible what you can and can't do in court. And we don't know that until the limits are tested. Thanks to heros like Sam Dodson who test such limits, we now know the courtroom system is an unmitigated tyranny because you can't even remain silent without spending at two months in jail. So, people should test the limits and the judges should better appreciate those efforts. When a test case is something a judge agrees with they are often very happy to have received that case. In Burke's case it was only bad to him because remaining silent was something he didn't agree with. Had he agreed with that concept, there would have been no indefinite trial announced and he would appreciate Sam's efforts.

Authority should be questioned regularly, and the limits of authority should regularly be tested when they are not known. That is good for society because we should know where the limits are of what we can and cannot do with a good level of certainty. Uncertainty is bad in the justice system because it results in chaos, which is what we have now in the justice system. The reason its important to question authority is that sometimes authority is wrong and sometimes authority is tyrannical.

Trials actually are supposed to be public events both legally and ethically speaking. That is very clear in the US constitution and also the New Hampshire state constitution. The reason for that is simple: accountability. Judges must remain accountable for their actions and that can only happen with public access to trials. The only person who has a right to close the trial to public should be the defendant since that is who public access is designed to protect. So for example public access to a juvenile trial should be controlled by the parent, not by the judge.

US courtrooms are a place of complete chaos for a number of reasons. People who put courtrooms to the test are the first step in correcting that problem.

reply to post by seachange


Before I go any further in this discussion, I need to ask you a question. And it is a serious question, not one to be taken personally:

How old are you?

The reason I ask is that your line of thinking does not instill a sense of experience. It sounds like you're still pushing the limits your parents set for you. If that is so, then I must bow out of the discussion, since I expect certain levels of stipulation that you want to question. Things like the judge having control of the courtroom. That should be a given, but you seem to think that the defendant should control it. That is naieve.

Understand? Please don't take it as personal attack, it isn't.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by seachange

 

How old are you?

I'm old enough to know not to post any personal details on ATS. I'm experienced enough to know that drunks hide their vodka or other drinks in coke cans and other methods. I'm experienced enough to know practically nobody is going to chug a Jim Beam (especially out of the bottle) at a children soccer game, and that banning such drinks is fair to call youthful idealism. I'm knowledgeable enough to know smoking in public is worse than drinking in public, but until recently smoking in public has been legal. I'm well versed in history enough to know that alcohol prohibition resulted in a dramatic volume of gang violence with no decrease in alcohol poisoning.