Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Judge Rules Police Dash Cam Videos Can Be Kept Secret

page: 3
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Yes, a very good idea.

If it's legal (I live in Illinois, unfortunately).




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by eXia7
Well Seattle prepare for some martial law.



How the hell did you make that leap?



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkcaw
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Yes, a very good idea.

If it's legal (I live in Illinois, unfortunately).


I believe it is legal if you inform the officer that he/she is being recorded. In all states. I could be wrong though and I'm sure if I am XCathdra will correct me.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


Christopher Drew of Chicago was not charged federally. Contrary to popular belief the State and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns. The states have the legal authority to establish laws in their state, including infractions, misdemeanors as well as felonies.

His charge was a felony charge under State law, not Federal law.

Secondly please understand the term jurisdiction and the various levels and areas of responsibilities.

* - A Municipal court has primary jurisdiction over all infractions and city enforced ordinances (no felonies).

* - The County Court (acts as the States representative) has primary jurisdiction in all felony cases. If a person commits multiple crimes in a municipality, with one being felony, there are 2 options. Split the charges between the city court (misdemeanors) and the felony charge (County) OR file all charges under state statute, which is what occurs.

* - Federal jurisdiction occurs when crimes committed cross State Lines or an action that is specifically reserved to the Federal Government for prosecution occurs.

* - A Federal investigation can occur with regards to a State action and an accusation of violation of civil rights. This is contained in 42 USC 1983 and is most often applied to law enforcement. This investigation is separate and is restricted to constitutional violations only.

For dual jurisdiction crimes (counter-fitting, Credit card fraud, identity theft, etc) the State gets with the US ADA for their region to see who has the better case in terms of prosecution. In almost all matters the State has primary jurisdiction (there are a few exceptions).

When a person is charged under state law, tried and convicted, he has the ability to appeal his ruling. When it makes it to the State Supreme Court that is where State action ends. To appeal a State Supreme Court ruling to the federal level there has to be a defect in the manner in which the case was handled and that defect must rely on constitutional / civil rights violations / errors.

For example the Illinois State Law in question can be challenged on 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment as well as the 14th, just off the top of my head. Since other Federal circuits have heard and ruled on cases of recording the police in public and ruled against the states, Illinois is time limited with their law and any person convicted by state courts using the Illinois law in question will be over turned, as they should be.

Any thing else you would like to know about?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by Xcathdra
If there is nothing on the video but basic patrol actions then there is really no reason to waste resources storing the video. In order to store it most departments have to have a separate isolated system with limited access (if its used as evidence).

Xcathdra, you and I normally agree on most of these police threads, but I have a gripe about your reasoning here. The Federal Government REQUIRES that private medical facilities hold all their records (including sizable paper files and films), for 7 years. The fact that this is unreasonably expensive is never given any leeway by the feds on private industry, so why should it be different when the money has to come from local governments police budget?

Tax dollars were used to put these cameras in the cars, public dollars were used operate them, and the reasoning being given was that it provided public accountability. Now they of course still want the toys when it benefits them, but they want to waffle on the actual reason we agreed to pay for them. This again comes down to money. Its darn hard to fight when an officer screws up, and its caught on film, and its very costly to the city and the department.

You guys wanted them, you got them, and we paid for them, now you have to deal with all the consequences that entails.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Xcathdra, you and I normally agree on most of these police threads, but I have a gripe about your reasoning here. The Federal Government REQUIRES that private medical facilities hold all their records (including sizable paper files and films), for 7 years. The fact that this is unreasonably expensive is never given any leeway by the feds on private industry, so why should it be different when the money has to come from local governments police budget?


The Medical Industry is regulated by the States with Federal oversight. HIPAA is proof of that dual role, even more so because health actions cross state lines more often than crimes do. A Hospital is not a public entity - they are private. However the same privacy issues exist in the Hospital setting as it does in the Police setting.

A 3rd parties attempt to gain access to medical records of someone else is no different than 3rd parties attempting to gain access to police files / videos of someone else. The parties involved in those videos have an expectation of privacy. If wrong doing is alleged then the court system, rules of evidence etc come into play and those items can be subpoenaed.

IF there is a disagreement over the content of a video, where the police want to destroy it and a 3rd party challenges it because of what it might contain then we go back to doing what has always been done. Take the argument to a judge who can then put a temporary injunction on the destruction of the items in questions. That happens all the time, especially when there is probative value.

The judges ruling has nothing to do with a situation where the video contains evidence. It revolves around people wanting full access to all videos regardless of need or standing.


Originally posted by defcon5
Tax dollars were used to put these cameras in the cars, public dollars were used operate them, and the reasoning being given was that it provided public accountability.

I agree to an extent. While tax dollars go into it, the use of tax dollars does not trump privacy or a persons rights. The courts have ruled on topics like this and there is a reason the responses by the courts have favored law enforcement in the bulk of those actions.

The Supreme Court has ruled through the years that law enforcement, bu its very nature, is not completely understood by the people who are not familiar with it. Because of that you have totality of circumstances when it comes to police actions coupled with threat perception by an officer.

Those rulings are to prevent Monday morning quarterbacking of an incident that occurs in a split second. The benefit of 20/20 hindsight is specifically excluded and prohibited as a factor in reviewing police actions. As far as the information being public, it eventually makes it to that realm. Again though the law will protect the individual in terms of criminal accusations and the process. The public has a right to know up to the point knowing affects the rights of those individual involved.

At which point the publics right to know ends until resolution.



Originally posted by defcon5
Now they of course still want the toys when it benefits them, but they want to waffle on the actual reason we agreed to pay for them. This again comes down to money. Its darn hard to fight when an officer screws up, and its caught on film, and its very costly to the city and the department.

Anything caught on film is going to be considered evidence if the situation is challenged / ends up in court. When an incident does occur and is caught on tape, its evidence. Destruction of that evidence can result in dismissal of charges. I think people are taking the judges ruling to a level that is not included.

The judge, by his ruling, acknowledged the right of the public to request and have access to dash cams. He also noted that under State Privacy laws the PD can deny those requests and keep the tapes secret. The judge in this case did exactly what people demand of judges - uphold the law and not legislate from the bench. That judge did this and its up to the legislature to change the law (see below).

This should be whats being used by the Judge -
RCW 9.73.090 Certain emergency response personnel exempted from RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080 — Standards — Court authorizations — Admissibility.

That chapter is specific on who is covered, how it works and what can and cannot be disclosed.


Originally posted by defcon5
You guys wanted them, you got them, and we paid for them, now you have to deal with all the consequences that entails.

I think you mean we all paid for them - Police are taxpayers as well. Secondly the result of this case is not because of the Police, its because of the legislature and the way the law is worded. The actions that resulted in the court challenge stem from an investigation into police violations (or perceived depending on what side of the fence you are on). As with Obama and his citizenship status a person must have standing.

Simply demanding all law enforcement dash cam videos to look for improper actions is a fishing expedition and no court is going to allow that to occur. The same holds true for the medical industry, where a judge is not going to allow blanket access to all files so a person can attempt to find wrong doing.

The Washington law in question....

It's flawed...

Just like Florida's Stand your ground law.
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-4-2012 by Ahabstar because: bb code needed fixed.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
However the same privacy issues exist in the Hospital setting as it does in the Police setting.

A 3rd parties attempt to gain access to medical records of someone else is no different than 3rd parties attempting to gain access to police files / videos of someone else.

You cannot hide behind privacy as being their excuse when so many law enforcement offices now post arrests online, including personal address, phone number, and photograph of the arrested...

BEFORE they are even convicted of a crime....

Being arrested is not the same as being convicted, yet they offer up all personal info to anyone who wants to look.

The state of Florida has even gone so far as to endanger people by SELLING this information to publications such as “Look Who's in Jail”, that are specifically targeted to pick young or attractive people (mainly females) from the current jail population, and put their personal information in a magazine that is sold in stores.

Again, these people have not even stood before a judge yet, they are in jail, not prison...

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in the state of Florida?

Once again, its all about money, humiliation, getting people fired so they lose their financial ability to defend themselves, and winning a court case at any cost.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Anything caught on film is going to be considered evidence if the situation is challenged / ends up in court. When an incident does occur and is caught on tape, its evidence. Destruction of that evidence can result in dismissal of charges. I think people are taking the judges ruling to a level that is not included.

But this is all about the court of public opinion.
When a video shows a cop mishandling a person, its bad public relations for the police department, and can often sway public opinion in favor of the defendant.

When the police can do stuff like they are above, then it sways public opinion against the defendant, and will often cause them to lose their source of income, and thereby their ability to challenge the states unlimited prosecution resources.

The law is supposed to be about justice...
Anymore its about winning at any cost so as not to cost the city/county/state money.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
The judge, by his ruling, acknowledged the right of the public to request and have access to dash cams. He also noted that under State Privacy laws the PD can deny those requests and keep the tapes secret.

Funny that a defendant cannot request to have their personal info kept from public record in publications such as those above, or on the governments own websites.

The state cannot ,“have their cake and eat it too”, by claiming privacy only when it behooves their case, and deny it when it hurts it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/17/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I should also point out that using tactics like the state of Florida CAUSES people to resist arrest for fear of being falsely arrested, and the ramifications of that (loss of a job). The police of course LOVE this because even if your not guilty of anything else, they can tag on fleeing, resisting...

Again, anything to win a case down here.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You cannot hide behind privacy as being their excuse when so many law enforcement offices now post arrests online, including personal address, phone number, and photograph of the arrested...

BEFORE they are even convicted of a crime....

Being arrested is not the same as being convicted, yet they offer up all personal info to anyone who wants to look.

And a booking photo and probable cause sheet is not evidence. Dash Cam footage can be and as such release can be denied. Again though we are not talking about investigations. We are talking about a group that has issues with the Police Department and wants access to dash cam footage to fish for potential wrong doing.

Which by the way, is also evidence.


Originally posted by defcon5
The state of Florida has even gone so far as to endanger people by SELLING this information to publications such as “Look Who's in Jail”, that are specifically targeted to pick young or attractive people (mainly females) from the current jail population, and put their personal information in a magazine that is sold in stores.
Again, these people have not even stood before a judge yet, they are in jail, not prison...

Again the info is not evidence.. There is a difference. Any person who is arrested and charged are placed into jail pending and during their trial. If convicted and time is less than a year they go to county jail. If longer than a year they go to the department of corrections (prison). Situations dictate procedure though.


Originally posted by defcon5
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty in the state of Florida?

A question I have been constantly asking with regards to Zimmerman.


Originally posted by defcon5
Once again, its all about money, humiliation, getting people fired so they lose their financial ability to defend themselves, and winning a court case at any cost.

If thats how you really feel then your issue needs to be taken up with the prosecuting attorneys office and not the police, since the PA is responsible for charges and prosecution and the judge / jury is responsible for fines / punishment.


Originally posted by defcon5
But this is all about the court of public opinion.
When a video shows a cop mishandling a person, its bad public relations for the police department, and can often sway public opinion in favor of the defendant.

And when a person is not versed in how the law works and Supreme Court rulings covering the use of force its not out of the realm of possibility for a person to come to wrong conclusion or accuse a person of violating a law / civil rights when in fact they did not. While your scenario is bad for the PD, my scenario - a fishing expedition by people who just dont know, is worse. You would tie up department resources (officers / legal / etc) for some time based on a misunderstood / no legal standing view point.

I am all for oversight, provided that oversight is trained and has an understanding of the issues involved.



Originally posted by defcon5
When the police can do stuff like they are above, then it sways public opinion against the defendant, and will often cause them to lose their source of income, and thereby their ability to challenge the states unlimited prosecution resources.

It is not illegal for an officer to lie to a suspect, contrary to popular belief. The Supreme Court has specifically acknowledged that issue based on the reality of police work. I know people will disagree and have issues with that, and there is not much I can do to even attempt to explain it without derailing the thread into something it should not be. If people want me to explain I will try.

As for the comment about a States unlimited prosecution resources - can you show me one PA's office that has enough resources to even meet basic case loads? 95% of all cases are resolved through plea bargains. If they all went to trial you would be looking at years if not decades for your case to make it to court.


Originally posted by defcon5
The law is supposed to be about justice...
Anymore its about winning at any cost so as not to cost the city/county/state money.

Creating laws is the legislature -
Enforcing Laws is the Executive
Prosecuting Laws is Judicial

Specifically which branch is your issue with? The Police do not determine if a person is charged nor do we determine guilt or innocence. The police do not craft legislation or laws. In this case the seattle PD did not craft the law that allowed them to refuse to release dash cam footage. The legislature did. The police did not tell the media outlet there accusation was incorrect - the judge did that.


Originally posted by defcon5
Funny that a defendant cannot request to have their personal info kept from public record in publications such as those above, or on the governments own websites.

So its ok to demand an unreasonable standard towards law enforcement and privacy while creating a double standard for civilians? The same law that covers the civilians also cover the police.


Originally posted by defcon5
The state cannot ,“have their cake and eat it too”, by claiming privacy only when it behooves their case, and deny it when it hurts it.
edit on 4/17/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Which the police are not doing. The issue revolves around a media outlet wanting access to dash cam footage in an effort to fish for wrongdoing based off a few issues to date.

By the same token the police are not allowed to get a search warrant and go through a persons homes in an effort to find evidence of a crime. They must have a specific and articulable explanation as to who what when why and how.

Like the police, the court of public opinion has no more authority to determine guilt or innocence. The situations they are referring to - What does Washington state law say about the actions of the police for each scenario?

The actions occurred - The question though is whether or not those actions were legal. The people involved in those videos have standing, the media does not.
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-4-2012 by Ahabstar because: bb code again



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I should also point out that using tactics like the state of Florida CAUSES people to resist arrest for fear of being falsely arrested, and the ramifications of that (loss of a job). The police of course LOVE this because even if your not guilty of anything else, they can tag on fleeing, resisting...

Again, anything to win a case down here.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Again, prosecution has nothing to do with the police, but the PA / AG's office. It sounds like your issue is with them and not so much law enforcement.

Also, Supreme Court rulings cover an officers use of force to effect an arrest if its determined later the arrest was based on a false premise. The problem developed is the perception of the false arrest. As we can see people are not completely versed in how the law or judicial system works.

When it comes to determining if an officers actions are legal or illegal rests with the court, not the public. That same standard applies to the public when dealing with police. A private individual has no more authority to determine if an officers actions are illegal than an officer does towards the individual.

Police are required to investigate, submit reports, collect evidence and send it off for processing etc and when all done, submit the report to the PA for a decision to prosecute or not. A civilian should not be allowed to be the sole determining factor for a false arrest. It needs to use the same system as law enforcement does. That means the individual should file a complaint with the system and use the laws in place for a redress of grievances against the government and its agents (the police).

Allowing a civilian to act as judge and jury at that exact moment only results in the police exercising force to overcome that resistance. A person can be the subject of a false arrest as well as resisting arrest all at the same time. Most state laws do not allow an individual to resist an unlawful arrest simply because its the purview of the courts.

Allowing the public as a whole to determine on their own whats legal and illegal while ignoring any and all laws and case laws is as much as a problem as police denying access to dash cam footage where no wrongdoing is ever brought up or present..
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
And a booking photo and probable cause sheet is not evidence. Dash Cam footage can be and as such release can be denied. Again though we are not talking about investigations. We are talking about a group that has issues with the Police Department and wants access to dash cam footage to fish for potential wrong doing.

But it's only evidence if its entered as such in an ongoing legal case, otherwise it's public record.
If it's submitted by either side as evidence, then it's the judges decision, on a case by case basis, whether or not that evidence is to be publicly released.

If a police video has wrong doing in it, it cannot be found as such unless it is viewed by someone. Since not all that footage is entered and reviewed as part of an active case, then the public has the right to view it, then submit it as containing wrong doing.

Police like to claim that recordings made in police detainment are “public” recordings, and not subject to privacy. Again, this makes it a sword that cuts both ways. If an officer can place an audio recorder in the backseat to record two suspects conversation, claiming that its “public”, then so is their dash-cam footage.

Police are becoming victims of their own policy’s that they have used against people for years, and the fact is that they all don't like it.

Don't get mad simply because people have gotten smart to using your own rules to hold you to a standard.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again the info is not evidence.. There is a difference.

That's right, and dash-cam video that is not being used in an active investigation or entered into evidence is not evidence, its public record. Again, I point to police use of recordings made in holding cells or backseats, as there s no “expectation or privacy” in those areas. As there is no “expectation of privacy” they are public record, and must be provided to the public upon request unless they have been sealed by a judge.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
A question I have been constantly asking with regards to Zimmerman.

Oh, there's no doubt that Florida has become the worst police state in the US.
This is partly because its a source of income used to cover for our lack of state and local taxes.
It also allows the state to pass on the savings to all the tourists.
As an example, FL has long been known for its ridiculous number of speed traps, and Georgia also gets into the act by doing the same to the traffic that flows in/out of Florida.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
If thats how you really feel then your issue needs to be taken up with the prosecuting attorneys office and not the police, since the PA is responsible for charges and prosecution and the judge / jury is responsible for fines / punishment.

It's the whole Florida legal system in general, and there's no fighting it. Florida is set up to maximize the amount of money that defendants have to pay, while at the same time making it impossible to retain your employment. The police are not ignorant of how this system works, and know exactly how to further maximize it to their advantage.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
And when a person is not versed in how the law works and Supreme Court rulings covering the use of force its not out of the realm of possibility for a person to come to wrong conclusion or accuse a person of violating a law / civil rights when in fact they did not. While your scenario is bad for the PD, my scenario - a fishing expedition by people who just dont know, is worse. You would tie up department resources (officers / legal / etc) for some time based on a misunderstood / no legal standing view point.

And my answer to that is.... Tough!..
You wanted the systems, used oversight as an excuse to get them, now you face public oversight.
If that requires the police to retain an entire separate legal department just to review those oversights, it's not really the public’s problem. Whats fair is fair, whats good for the goose is good for the gander, and if officers don't like having the public overview the quality of their “work”, maybe they should act correctly or get into a different field of employment.

Think about it as the public's one oversight on you, to check on how professionally, and honorably you do your job. If your doing it right, you should never even have to give the camera a second thought.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
It is not illegal for an officer to lie to a suspect, contrary to popular belief.

No its not, I know this.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As for the comment about a States unlimited prosecution resources - can you show me one PA's office that has enough resources to even meet basic case loads? 95% of all cases are resolved through plea bargains.

They can afford unlimited legal counsel that is well beyond the normal persons ability. If it looks like they might lose they love to tag on all sorts of financial obligations to cause the defendant to waste their money.
An individual can have to pay upwards of $500 per hour for an attorney, the state has them as employees.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Creating laws is the legislature -
Enforcing Laws is the Executive
Prosecuting Laws is Judicial
Specifically which branch is your issue with?


It used to be that way, but its not anymore. They all work together for the cause of the state. The prosecutors tell the officer how to do things to ensure prosecution, regardless of whether a person is guilty or not. A prime example being charge stacking.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/17/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


For some reason replying to posts is acting goofy, erasing the entire post.

I want to take the time to respond so ill be back later on tonight after I get done with work.
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
edit on 17-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again, prosecution has nothing to do with the police, but the PA / AG's office. It sounds like your issue is with them and not so much law enforcement.

Law enforcement is told by their superiors how to best effect a prosecution. Again I point to things such as charge stacking. Resisting being the most common stacked charge that is often done simply to cover against a wrongful arrest suit.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
Police are required to investigate, submit reports, collect evidence and send it off for processing etc and when all done, submit the report to the PA for a decision to prosecute or not.

That means the individual should file a complaint with the system and use the laws in place for a redress of grievances against the government and its agents (the police).

That seldom works for the common man anymore.
For example, lets say you are pulled over for a DUI. The officer stacks charges of Reckless Driving, etc on that case. The officer is shown by his own dash cams to have been lying, exaggerating, and had no legal right to pull the defendant over. The state, know they could face a wrongful arrest suit if they do not win, so they start to apply financial pressure using sources such as the DMV. They arrest you, place your photo on public display, notify your employer, the DMV cancels your license, issues you an expensive temporary license that has to be renewed on a monthly basis, and you have yet to even face a judge.

When you go before the judge they have financially bled you to the point that you plea to the lesser charge of misdemeanor “reckless driving”. Now you have been exonerated of DUI by a COURT OF LAW... HOWEVER, there is another court that you have to face that is run solely by the DMV, whose job is to rape you for as much money as humanly possible. They can make you go to counseling of their choice at your expense, DUI classes, Driving classes, they continue to keep you charged with a DUI on record, keep making you get expensive temp licenses, etc.... All money into the states coffers.

I've seen this happen to folks.
Edit: (I suppose I should add that this was common MO at a tourist local.)
Don't even tell me that these groups all do not work together in a concerted effort to bypass justice for financial reasons on behalf of the state. The whole system is stacked against the defendant so the officer wins 99.9999999% of the time. Even if he loses in court, they still have ways to ensure that he ultimately ends up winning.

Of course the bottom line for law enforcement is:
If there were fewer criminals, we would need fewer judges, lawyers, and police officers with less budget. Of course lets not forget where most judges, lawyers, and elected police officers end up.... As politicians making new laws...

Its a self perpetuating system to ensure an influx of quiet taxation on folks on the behalf of the state.They use financial means, embarrassment, and humiliation to silence most of those they wrongfully victimize. They add thousands of new laws every year to ensure a proper harvest of new income. We might as well just drop the facade of what the police are, and start calling them, “corporate interest enforcement and government tax enforcement agents”, after all they no longer “protect and serve” the public, they all just “enforce the laws” of the elite lawyers and politicians.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 4/17/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Whole thread is acting goofy.
Be careful when you quote me because of my mod tags.
You might need to go back and eidt your posts above.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Defcon5 and others,

The statements in your posts right or wrong, perceived or not is the reason individuals like yourselves need to start studying the material on my threads. If you truly are tired of the madness by the system and their ever growing need to suck every penny from their citizens then its time to begin your education.
I have said this before and will say and show you the law again, ALL citizens of the Unites States have Volunteered for this whether you know it or not. The good news is there is but ONE lawful way to remove yourself from their jurisdiction, takes about 90 days to complete after you have absorbed all the material since this is a one time offer only and if you make a mistake volunteering yourself back into their jurisdiction you can not get out again, not PAC rules but the rules of the process passed by Congress. The only ONE lawful way is the process perfected by PAC passed by Congress prior the 14th Amendment, this process will make you totally 100 percent free from all of their statue private laws.

Everyone talks about wanting to be free, however very few people really do want total freedom they prefer to have their cake and eat it too. They want their freedom but they also want the benefits and that is unlawful and what so many of these patriot groups try to teach you but none have standing. 100 percent total freedom means you can no longer Vote since voting is a crime, you can no longer collect unemployment, you can no longer collect or use Social Security, you can no longer have dealings with the IRS so no more big checks at the end of the year. You will be 100 percent accountable to and for yourself, no money no job oh well, because you get no food stamps or any system benefits to help you out.

So what do you gain by doing the process? Freedom, what does that mean exactly and simply put, zero interference in your life from the system, you get back all your God given rights meaning without permit ie permission to drive a car, carry a gun, do anything you like, start your own business through contracts since you have the unlimited right to contract and never have to worry about getting a ticket, filling out tax reports or ever spending a day in their jails plus a whole lot more.

You are bond by common, international law only meaning simply if your actions does not cause harm or damage to another's person or property or by your actions cause the infringement of someone else's rights. Then nothing you do can or will be considered against the law including all statue laws and federal laws for they are private laws that only apply to their citizens. Every wonder why Aliens legal or not seem to have a different set of laws that apply to them, that's because almost all laws passed except those covered in the common international laws are considered private and ONLY apply to citizens of the United States. Legal Aliens do have other laws they have to abide by but that is a different paper.

Does that mean the process makes you an Alien? NO, the process puts you back in the proper system de jure, your proper country of birth under the guaranteed Republic as the founders intended. Your new Status will be that of a State National coined by PAC, but more direct title will be National of Florida, or what ever country you where born in your Nationality is the key. Yes country, you need to correct your verbiage from the propaganda indoctrination BS you have been taught your whole life, its all a lie but until people start to put their heads in the law dictionary books and continue to watch and listen to ya' hoo' patriot BS youtube videos claiming unlawful things like strawman freeman ucc capital c citizen and the big one sovereign citizen all of which have NO standing in law all of which will get you put in jail and empty your pockets, instead of learning studying the truth in law. Nothing will change, Most would rather blather on some thread about # they have no clue of especially when it comes to constitutional issues instead of doing the right thing. Correct your Status and come out of her as Jesus has said many times, then when enough people learn the truth and come out of her, like Rome the U.S will fail as it was designed to do. Or you could remain a citizen slave under their jurisdiction and get rounded up in cattle cars when FEMA comes for you.

The choice is clear, freedom as the founders intended or slave to the system with their private laws and their enforcers.
Which will you chose?

Ok that's my rant for today. Sorry for being so long winded.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


All domestic US laws, whether State or Federal, apply to anyone inside the political boundaries of the State / United States, regardless of their nationality (with the exception of diplomatic protocols). International law that the United states is a signatory to becomes a part of the Us Federal Body of law per the Head Money Ruling back in the day. It resolved the issue where International law was thought to be equal to or above the US Constitution. That ruling clarified international treaties and law and their standing in the US, making them a part of Federal Law and applicable to the states throutgh through the 14th as well as theSupremacy Cluase.

Those international laws / treaties, because the Us is a signatory to them and how they are incoroperated into US domestic law, allows the Us Congress and the Us court system, as well as the individual,the ability to challenge those laws in US courts. This is one of the main reason enhanced interrogation techniques were not in violation of the CAT.

As far as private law and what not thats another conversation for another day. As far as nationality goes I ahve tried to explain Us citizens have dual citizenship. They are a citizen of the State they reside in and are a citizen of the United states while abroad.
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Yeah apparently the mod tag was causing the issue... The police have nothing to do with what is considered a matter of public record and what is not. As I stated and people seem to be missing that is the realm of the legislature.

As far as accepting a judges ruling on whats considered evidnce and whats not I point this out - A judge did rule on what is a matter of public record and what is not, based on current Washington State Law, and yet people, including yourself, dont like the ruling and are still targeting the police, when we have absolutely nothing to do with the creation or the judges ruling on that law.

So my question is does a judges ruling carry any weight if the ruling goes against what the people think it should be?

Each state has their own criteria and laws regarding matters of public record, ncluding what is considered public record. People have a tendency to just assume that all records by law enforcement, the courts etc are public, when in fact they are not.

Public Record - United States - Wiki

In the United States

Access to US national public records is guided by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Requests for access to records pursuant to FOIA may be refused by federal agencies if information requested is subject to exemption, or some information may be redacted (deleted).

In addition to the national FOIA, all states have some form of FOI legislation. For example Colorado has the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA);[5] in New Jersey the law is known as the Open Public Records Act[6] (OPRA).

There are many degrees of accessibility to public records between states, with some making it fairly easy to request and receive documents, and others with many exemptions and restricted categories of documents. One state that is fairly responsive to public records requests is New York, which utilizes the Committee on Open Government[7] to assist citizens with their requests. A state that is fairly restrictive in how they respond to public records requests is Pennsylvania, where the law currently presumes that all documents are exempt from disclosure,[8] unless they can be proven otherwise. The California Public Records Act - California Government Code §§6250-6276.48 - covers the arrest and booking records of inmates in the State of California jails and prisons, which are not covered by First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and of the press). Public access to arrest and booking records is seen as a critical safeguard of liberty[citation needed].



Also -

Types of public records

While each state has its own standards about what information is considered public record, the following information is generally available under the Freedom Of Information Act.
Census records
Consumer protection information
Court dockets
Criminal records
Government spending reports
Legislation minutes
Professional and business licenses
Real estate appraisal records
Sex offender registration files
Voter registration


For my state, and most others the one area that is grey is personnel issues. Personnel matters (disciplinary actions / investigations) can be withheld from the public, including the findings in those cases, if the actions are a violation of departmental policy but not state laws. As I stated, and I am sure you know, the process when it comes to an invesitgation into law enforcement is not the same as an invesitgation into a civilian. You often have 3 different invesitgations ongoing at the same time utilizing state and federal agencies, not to mention Miranda Rights in addition to Garrity Rights. Those procedures were not put into place by law enforcement, but the legislatures at the State and Federal levels as well as Federal and State Case law.

Because of that, I maintain my position that a fishing expedition being undertaken by an entity or group who do not have an understanding of the law and how it applies to law enforcement is a bad idea. I do support the media and their right to mind the people's business when it comes to government operations. At the same time though a less than knowledgeable entity doing their own investigation can cause more problems than people realize, up to and including the possibility of jeopradizing any investigation.

Washington State Law - Public Records Act
Specifically - RCW 42.56.050: Invasion if Privacy

RCW 42.56.050

Invasion of privacy, when.

A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "privacy," or "personal privacy," as these terms are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The provisions of this chapter dealing with the right to privacy in certain public records do not create any right of privacy beyond those rights that are specified in this chapter as express exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records.

[1987 c 403 § 2. Formerly RCW 42.17.255.]
Notes:
Intent -- 1987 c 403: "The legislature intends to restore the law relating to the release of public records largely to that which existed prior to the Washington Supreme Court decision in "In Re Rosier," 105 Wn.2d 606 (1986). The intent of this legislation is to make clear that: (1) Absent statutory provisions to the contrary, agencies possessing records should in responding to requests for disclosure not make any distinctions in releasing or not releasing records based upon the identity of the person or agency which requested the records, and (2) agencies having public records should rely only upon statutory exemptions or prohibitions for refusal to provide public records. Further, to avoid unnecessary confusion, "privacy" as used in RCW 42.17.255 is intended to have the same meaning as the definition given that word by the Supreme Court in "Hearst v. Hoppe," 90 Wn.2d 123, 135 (1978)." [1987 c 403 § 1.]

Severability -- 1987 c 403: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [1987 c 403 § 7.]


I know people get highly annoyed when I link laws but in this case the laws in question are paramount to understanding the decision of the judge and the police department.

In this case the issue in Washington is not with the Police Department. It is with State law and the legislature, as well as the court system upholding State law. When the court sided with the news media in terms of their legal fees the judge was sending a message that the media should have access to the records. By refusing to release those records and siding with the police the judge upheld Wahsington State Law, forcing the issue back to the legislature.

In this case the actions of the court were appropriate. They cited their issue with the law while at the same time upholding it, instead of legislating from the bench.

All privacy laws that law enforcement deals with is a direct result of the legislature, not the police department. As I stated before, and I still maintain now, the issue people have with this specific incident is not the direct result of the police department.

I wanted to give a lot longer of a reponse and counter the claims one by one, but its been a long day and im exhausted. If you want a more indepth response let me kniow and I will reply with one.

thanks for the debate by the way...

edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Hello my friend,

I fully understand where you are coming from and have several papers on the duel citizenship, you are correct and we can discuss that at another time on the other thread.
For those whom do not understand the duel citizenship you may further your study's here:

www.pacinlaw.org...
www.pacinlaw.org...
www.pacinlaw.org...
www.pacinlaw.org...

This last one explains the State Nationality and shows you the law, PAC has been correcting status publicly for 15 years without one single arrest, ticket or fine. Privately not on the web for almost 35 years. Again it is the ONLY lawful way to remover yourself from citizenship the process is approved by Congress, Unite Nations and upheld in all Courts recognized by all Attorney Generals of each State ie Country including the United States AG Eric Holder. It has nothing to do with being abroad or claiming citizenship to a Country outside of the UNION.

This is the information THEY do NOT want you to learn. PACs record speaks for itself.

This is possible the most import document you will ever read.
People of all walks of life and professions including law enforcement need to read this.
SHOW ME THE LAW!
Well here it is: www.pacinlaw.org...
edit on 18-4-2012 by drmeola because: To add last link
edit on 18-4-2012 by drmeola because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


Under Federal Immirgation law the only manner in which a persn can revoke their own citizenship revolves around their own actions to do so. I am not entirely sure, respectfully, why you keep making posts to some group that wishes to confuse the masses with laws that are not applicable to the situation at hand.

Secondly the Federal Governmet is a legitimate government and its makeup and realm of authority is established in conjunction with those of the individual states. My constantly invoking the United Nations, which was not in existence during the birth of our nation, I find the arrguement being made lacking and partisan, serving only one purpose while confusing people in the process.

Respectfully...






top topics



 
25
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join