It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ian Freeman from nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live has been arrested while in court over a couch and jailed for 93 days.
As you know if you’ve been reading this website for a while, the men and women calling themselves the “City of Keene” attacked me and my family because my tenants had a couch in their yard. I offered to move the couch if the complaining party (who was later revealed to be a city bureaucrat) would just come and talk to me like an adult, she refused, the government people continued to prosecute, and I continued to refuse to obey to see how far they would push it. It all culminated in their courtroom with me being thrown in jail on a sentence of 93 days - three days for the couch and 90 days on three charges of “contempt of court”
Originally posted by alphabetaone
It really depends on the state.
Some states will consider it an illegal act to withhold your name when asked for it, others won't.
Originally posted by Schaden
You have a right to remain silent, but you don't have the right to withold giving them your name if you're arrested.
Originally posted by Phlegmi
I was arrested for DUI and when I was at the police station they wanted to draw my blood to get an accurate reading which I refused. The officer had 6 other officers walk into the room military style stomping their boots to scare me into the test I guess. I refused a second time and they held me down and took my blood anyway.
So no, you really cant refuse a test
Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.
Originally posted by Schaden
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.
You're wrong. Giving the police your name isn't self-incrimination.
Originally posted by keeb333
Originally posted by Schaden
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Sure you do. Your 5th Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination doesn't have any "except in this case" clause, at least not that I've ever seen.
You're wrong. Giving the police your name isn't self-incrimination.
It is if they happen to be looking for YOU!
This case is crazy, I can't believe they are holding this guy for not stating his name. WTF kind of police state has Amerika become?
Originally posted by Unit541
Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.
How to you try a mute?
To address your statements, this is when the judge opens his mouth and says "let the record show..."
Originally posted by jd140
You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.
Originally posted by jd140
Originally posted by Unit541
Originally posted by jd140
He cannot have a trial until he provides his name.
How to you try a mute?
To address your statements, this is when the judge opens his mouth and says "let the record show..."
I'm not going to argue it with you.
The guy is being a pain in the butt just for no reason other then being a pain in the butt. Their is no reason at all for him not to give his name.
You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.
Originally posted by Unit541
Originally posted by jd140
You show me a legal reason why he won't give his name and then there might be an arguement.
How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so. The court is strong arming him, and he refuses to be strong armed. Simple as that. What's the official charge? What is the maximum punishment for this charge? There are plenty of actual offenses that are much more detrimental to society at large than not stating your name, that carry maximum punishments of fines less than $100, and no jail time.
He is simply exercising his right to remain silent. Period, end of story, no argument needed. Unless of course you want to argue the pros and cons of being a sheep vs a free man.
Just wait. Revisit this case in another month or two, after the ACLU has had a go at this judge. Even in a justice ( ) system as corrupt as ours, this judge has no legal right to incarcerate this man, and he's going to regret his actions in the near future. At the very best, it's a frivolous use of the contempt of court charge.
So, why don't you walk your talk, and show me how this man was legally required to give his name.
[edit on 5/8/2009 by Unit541]
Originally posted by Unit541
How about the fact that he's not legally required to do so.