Man jailed a month & counting for not stating full name.

There are lots of little stories that crop up in the news like this one that show quite clearly that governments down to the local level are really just mafia strong arm operations. Yet, these stories don't seem to turn into issues of corruption of government and conspiracy of government. It seems there is a desensitizing effort underway to make government criminal behavior just accepted and taken for granted by the people. I would expect higher levels of government to intercede.

Originally posted by alphabetaone
reply to post by itinerantseeker

 

That's nonsense, plain and simple.

This isn't the first time it's ever happened and it won't be the last. I suggest perhaps maybe you should look at the circumstances surrounding the case first, then go do some research on law, then go do some more research on the laws revolving around those states.

Yes, he's being a crybaby seeking attention ... "oh he wanted my name and i didn't give it to him!!! now he wants to jail me for contempt!!" ...

If he really thought "stop and identify" was such an egregious issue within his community, I'm sure there were better ways than to get arrested for leaving a couch out in his yard, THEN refusing to abide by such law, to attain the results necessary to garner support for his cause.


He wanted the media attention, that's all there is to it.



AB1

Perhaps you should learn reading comprehension. I don't know what me researching laws has anything to do with what I posted, but I guess you can't see beyond your little bubble. Whether he knew this was the law or not prior to doing this, who knows, but that's not the issue. This guy is being held for no real reason while gangs are shooting at each other in my neighborhood and nothing is being done about it! There are real criminals out there that need to be behind bars but instead this guy is sitting in jail only because some judge is on some ego trip. Our court system is screwed up just like everything else and these judges abuse their power just like all others in the positions of authority. This story is an example of this.


You can call this guy a cry baby all you want, but being flamed is part of the game if you are willing to make a point. Good that he is getting media attention, that means that if the state has a laws like this, then they can be changed. Fact is, you're jealous of people like him, it's ok it takes guts to do it. You tell me to do research, a weak counter to my post by the way, I'm telling you to wake up and actually take a stand for corruption rather than worry about defending B.S laws that make things like this happen to innocent people!

this thread inspired me to finally write up my "why judges are obsolete" style thread that ive been sitting on for a long time

thats a bad thing tho, i wish i never Had to write that stuff. Id rather it be bogus but sadly its the way things really are.

Originally posted by Unit541
you have the right to remain silent. Period. This includes giving your name, your birthday, your SSN, your favorite color, or what you ate for dinner last night. You don't have to open your mouth and utter a single sound, under any circumstances. This negates every statement you've made in this thread.

Your legal analysis is faulty. Did you read the cited Supreme Court case ?

I think many people are replying out of emotion rather than facts.

If this guy was imprisoned wrongfully, don't you think there'd be a dozen Johnnie Cochran's lined up to spring him from jail, while simultaneously suing the court system for millions ?

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by marg6043
I wish him good luck for standing up for his rights.

You don't have the right to not provide your name when you're arrested.

Under the 5th amendment of the constitution, and the Miranda ruling, you DO have the right to say nothing at all. That would include your name.

This would have to be a "contempt of court" ruling, for the judge to give an open-ended sentence. That begs the question of : is it really wrong to be in contempt of a court, when the court itself is so contemptible?

nenothtu out

reply to post by Ben Niceknowinya

A federal judge lifted a seven-year-old civil contempt sanction on the financial adviser Martin A. Armstrong yesterday, allowing him to begin serving a five-year sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud. The decision by Judge P. Kevin Castel of Federal District Court in Manhattan ends one of the longest-running cases of civil contempt in American legal history.

Jailed 7 Years for Contempt, Adviser Is Headed for Prison

7 years in contempt, 5 year sentence. Sheesh.
This law is out of control.



[edit on 8-5-2009 by Cyrin]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here:

He should have to state his name to show he is, in fact, a citizen of the United States, before he should be allowed to rely on those rights.

Some things are too far fetched, but giving one's name in my opinion is a fair enough legal duty to be living in America and enjoying much that it has to offer.

I mentioned Devil's Advocate above because I hnestly think this is absurd and the egoic judge should be punished, but trying to think both sides.


edited to change . to ,


[edit on 8-5-2009 by notreallyalive]

reply to post by Schaden


You have the *right* to do anything you please, right or wrong, legal or illegal, as long as it does not harm another person. You do not *have* to give your name to cops, regardless of the law or the consequences.

If you go the police station to file a complaint, they ask for your name, you refuse, and they jail you, you have to right to anonyminity, regardless of the "Law."

5th amendment.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Liquesence]

reply to post by Liquesence


Could you please present to me a single instance that someone went to jail, for GOING to the police to file a COMPLAINT, simply for not giving their name?

Please?



AB1

reply to post by Unit541


I think yours may well be the pride getting in the way, not mine.

The Hiibel case has everything to do with contempt of court as much as it has to do with deciding not to divulge his name.

By your logic, anyone at all can committ any crime and feel they have the absolute right to be set free after 60 minutes if the authorities can't compel him or her to divulge their identity.

Judges can rule anything they WANT as contempt of court, from what you're wearing to how you sit or how you speak OR choose not to.

That's THEIR rights as a sitting judge. The only POSSIBLE claim you could make as debate is whether it's civil contempt of court or criminal contempt of court.

In this case only civil would be appropriate as:

Civil contempt of court involves a failure to obey an order from a court. It can be purged by obeying the order. For example, someone may speak out of turn in a courtroom during trial proceedings, disrespecting the basic rules of the courtroom. The judge can indicate that he or she will find the speaker in contempt of court unless the speaker sits down and remains silent until it is appropriate to talk. Or a witness could fail to answer a question, in which case the judge will instruct him or her to answer or be held in contempt of court.

AB1

[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

Originally posted by Estharik
Same thing happened to me with the breathalyzer test. I asked the officer what would happen if I didn't breathe in the machine and if I should and he would only tell me he couldn't advise me. I was released that night and given my license back but nobody ever told me that it was suspended. I drove around for 4 months until I found out it was suspended when I went to court. It's a big corrupt system IMO. I applaud this man for not giving his name out just to exercise this right and I hope he gets a good attourney to represent him after it's said and done. Maybe this judge will get thrown from his throne.

The cop cannot advise you because it appears as a threat.

In the State of Texas, when your license if suspended, they are only required to inform you via a public notice. This means that they can stick it in some small print in the newspaper.

The scam? That you end up doing 6 months probation and paying around 2k in fines when they are able to arrest you for driving with a suspended license. it is a money making scam for the counties. It is how you exploit the poorer people.

RE: the man referenced in the OP, he is required to provide his true first and last name when asked by an officer of the law. Not doing so is reason to be detained until they can identify you.

With the judge, however, the man is in Contempt of Court. It is more an issue of expecting to show respect to a judge. Is it moral? Not really...but the idiot is behind bars by his own choosing. No pity for him, to say the least (except to pity his own stupidity for failing to see the course of action that will alleviate him of this suffering).

It is advisable to NOT get in a test of wills with a judge. It is like bringing a knife to a gunfight: you are outmanned.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Schaden

 

You have the *right* to do anything you please, right or wrong, legal or illegal, as long as it does not harm another person. You do not *have* to give your name to cops, regardless of the law or the consequences.

If you go the police station to file a complaint, they ask for your name, you refuse, and they jail you, you have to right to anonyminity, regardless of the "Law."

5th amendment.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Liquesence]

***sigh*** 5th amendment??? How are you incriminating yourself by providing your identity?

If you want anonymity, don't go to the police station. Call "Crimestoppers". You have no anonymity when you show up in person. That is silly.

Now, i am interested where in our constitution a citizen is granted a right to anonymity? I am no law student...but that is not one that I am aware of. While you are looking for it, please revisit the section dealing with the 5th amendment. You are misguided in your interpretation of when it is used, how it is used, and why it is used.

reply to post by Aakron

what state did this happen in so i can right to the governor and congress rep of the state let them no what is going on

Originally posted by nenothtu
Under the 5th amendment of the constitution, and the Miranda ruling, you DO have the right to say nothing at all. That would include your name.

This would have to be a "contempt of court" ruling, for the judge to give an open-ended sentence. That begs the question of : is it really wrong to be in contempt of a court, when the court itself is so contemptible?

nenothtu out

I don't think you get the point. Lex Rex. It's latin and means the law is king.


They throw reporters in jail for not revealing their source. That's important.
This guy's case is hopeless. You will never win a contest of wills when the court is asking something reasonable.

Don't hold it personally against the judge. He is upholding the law, he represents the state. This guy thinks he found some loophole, but he'll come around.

Do people really think that's how the justice system should operate ?

Get arrested for an offense, and play games, obstructing the due course of justice, by refusing to state your name in open court ? That should be a valid tactic ? The govt is supposed to give up and say ok, you win, we won't prosecute you, go home and forget about it ?

He's got to state his name in court to be a legal proceeding. If they went ahead anyways, it's grounds for an appeal if he's convicted. If he wants to be an anarchist and completely disregard the system, that's fine. But it's stupid to fight crap like this. This guy sitting in jail isn't Rosa Parks.

I see no injustice here. Just a fool's wounded pride.

I would tell the judge/cop: "You can get my name from my Lawyer."

Read through two pages no one had said this yet so hopefully i'm not repeating something someone says later.

He was arrested for the camera thing, fine. By refusing to give his name he is in contempt. When you are held in contempt, there is no "Going before a judge a day or at most a week later."

The only way to get out is to stop eing in contempt. Just cause they know his name doesn't mean he is not in contempt. Do I agree with it? No, but that's how it is. If he stops being in contempt he gets to go home.

Originally posted by alphabetaone

2. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.

Source from ACLU

Now, while I think it's a BS scenario, if he is in a state where it is in fact illegal, then the Judge is doing more than flexing his muscles, but also abiding by the law, even if the judge doesn't agree with it, he has to uphold it.
[edit on 8-5-2009 by alphabetaone]

True. Although you should also understand that being arrested, and getting charged with a crime, are two completely different things. Under federal law, you can only be held under arrest for 72 hours max. The judge is NOT abiding by any laws in that specific matter, and is in fact breaking them unless he is service a sentence. And he is not.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by Schaden

 

You have the *right* to do anything you please, right or wrong, legal or illegal, as long as it does not harm another person. You do not *have* to give your name to cops, regardless of the law or the consequences.

If you go the police station to file a complaint, they ask for your name, you refuse, and they jail you, you have to right to anonyminity, regardless of the "Law."

5th amendment.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by Liquesence]

***sigh*** 5th amendment??? How are you incriminating yourself by providing your identity?

If you want anonymity, don't go to the police station. Call "Crimestoppers". You have no anonymity when you show up in person. That is silly.

Now, i am interested where in our constitution a citizen is granted a right to anonymity? I am no law student...but that is not one that I am aware of. While you are looking for it, please revisit the section dealing with the 5th amendment. You are misguided in your interpretation of when it is used, how it is used, and why it is used.

You are incriminating yourself by identifying yourself, plain and simple.

See also:

Point is, regardless of the law stop/identify, why should one *have* to identify oneself to TPTB? One shouldn't. It's just another way for for them to exert control. IF chewing gum was illegal, as harmless as it is, they would still fine you for doing it "because it is illegal" regardless of the absurdity or the harmlessness of it (unless new research proves gum as dangerous, but that's another thing).

While anonymity is perhaps not specified in the Constitution, i still have the *right,* legal or illegal, to not say anything. I can not be forced to speak. I can be coerced, threatened, etc, but i can not be forced.

I just do not think it is right to have to give your name (or do other stupid things) or else face legal consequences. Such as smoking. You get pulled over and a cop asks you to put out your cigarette. You refuse, the cop can arrest you for failing to follow his order (or something to that effect) when the smoking has nothing to do with anything, it's just the cop/TPTB wanting to control/maintain control, no matter the degree of absurdity and the legal justification for maintaining said control.

One should not (and don't) have to say one darned word to TPTB--or anyone-- in any way shape or form.

They can hold you as a "John Doe" if fingerprints fail to turn up the identity, and by giving your name you therefore incriminate yourself by providing who you are (even in this case they knew who he was).

Point: Legal or illegal, it is not right to be punished for failing to identify oneself. This is, to me, not about the Law, but about ethics. Unfortunately, the law is not always ethical.

Just my opinion, legally justified or not.

*shrug*

"I prefer not to."

I can't think of any reason why a person would withold their name other than THEY ARE TRYING TO AVOID PROSECUTION.