More madness from the alphabet goons. by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

More madness from the alphabet goons.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Thursday, October 15, 2009 09:34
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1118
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 11:51 PM

FBI delves into DMV photos in search for fugitives
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iCDKSGZjGw3GMFUml4LQ
LlWzNOuQD9B9O5B80

For my part, if I ever learn that was done here - someone at the Secretary of State office (what we in MI use for DMV) is going to be hit with criminal charges the instant I find out who LET them do it.

Long past time we not only went after these domestic terrorists called the FBI, but also that we treated their enablers like the criminal conspirators that they are.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:54 AM

BYTEMITE

But innocent until proven guilty is SOOO inefficient. Easier to assume everyone is guilty, or are going to be, and make sure law enforcement has programs so they don't have to think or question a positive identification. Then everyone can be an equal opportunity offender, and prosecution lawyers can make that much more money.

This was just the next step after they made every citizen get the damn licenses for identification. I don't even DRIVE, but apparently I "need" one. Pretty much saw through that bullshit when I turned 16.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:03 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

John D MacDonald, in one of his Travis McGee novels, and Robert Heinlein, in Friday, The Number of the Beast, and a couple of others, make good points on how to get a way with things in a society where the government is always watching. Among their advice: Never be a tall daisy. Don't stand out. Cultivate an image of dumb but honest. Annoy the government with inconsequential issues, until they see you and think, "Oh, God, here he comes again- just get rid of him." Always spend within the limits of your recordable income-- never buy anything flashy or over-expensive. Deal in cash, or barter, or favors or other non-tracables whenever possible, but be sure you have enough recordable to cover anything you do. Over pay bills with transposed numbers, so they have to notice you by paying you a refund- builds you a reputation as an honest screw-up-- pretty soon they'll want to not notice you...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:43 AM

HERO

None of you have stated why you think this is wrong, illegal, unconstitutional or some combination of all three.

For me, it may or may not be wrong. If the govt changes the rules to allow it, then its not illegal. Constitutionality is a big question.

Does a person's right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches extend to this area? Maybe.

Course...nobody says you have to have a license (unless you want to drive, which is not a right).

I could go either way on this issue. I'm undecided.

In any event, the remedy is the same for all other illegal searches. The information can't be used...if its the basis for arrest, then the person gets released. So this could be a good way for the FBI to screw up a case against someone who committed some crime but eluded arrest.

I'd be careful if and how I used this...I'd also get a warrant, just to be safe.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:21 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Does a person's right to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches extend to this area? Maybe.

I think we're arguing that the protection from unreasonable searches extends to this area, yes. Even if you are never aware of it, is it within the spirit of the law to have your physical appearance and identification information compared to criminals? Isn't there an inherent suggestion there that you are a suspect, always, no matter what the case is or the charges?

Quote:
Course...nobody says you have to have a license (unless you want to drive, which is not a right).

Or you want to open a bank account, or if you're going through a checkpoint requiring ID, or if a cop asks you for ID, even if you're not driving... A driver's license has become a catch-all, particularly in states that restrict driver's licenses to natural citizens.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Does a person's right to privacy ..."

Sadly, there IS no right to privacy. It is only implied, and even then not very strongly. Any such interpretation is considered 'legislating from the bench'.

On top of that, according to the 'strict constitutionalists' (backed by republicans) you are protected ONLY from misdeeds by the Federal government, and not by any other branch of government or private or corporate entity.

Maybe we need another constitutional amendment, one specifically enshrining an individuals 'right to privacy'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:20 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Maybe we need another constitutional amendment, one specifically enshrining an individuals 'right to privacy'."

Ok, now I know things are getting weird. Rue and I are in complete agreement on this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:51 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Hero, to be specific, violation of basic fourth amendment provisions, lack of a specific warrant which by the very nature of it's application would be too broad in scope to legally serve, and, oh so very specifically...

Violation of the 1974 Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Public Law No. 93-579, (Dec. 31, 1974).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Act_of_1974

Violation of the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 Pub. L. No. 100-503, 102 Stat. 2507, codified at, 5 USC §552a note.)
(Amendment to 1974 Privacy Act)
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Computer_Matching_and_Privacy_Protection_A
ct_of_1988

And the collusion of DMV personnel makes it also a Criminal Conspiracy and specific violation of
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights

This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

As they have injured the basic right of due process of all individuals searched who were not specifically named on the warrant.

Mind you, I am not a lawyer - my lawyer, a man so evil you'd swear I summoned him from a pentacle drawn in the blood of the innocent on the library floor, would have a field day with this, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:57 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Every time someone gets in a legal argument with Hero, I think about this guy

oh Danny Boy

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:34 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Every time someone gets in a legal argument with Hero, I think about this guy
...oh Danny Boy

I love that show. That and Law and Order are what motivated me to go to lawschool.

Since graduation...I've tried to live up to the Boston Legal standards...I've even been known to say "Denny Craine" after a successful hearing.

But Atticus Finch, Judge Harry, and Jack McCoy are my fictional legal role models. My real ones include John Adams (also the fictional one from the HBO series), Learned Hand and Justices O'Conner, Marshall, and Jackson.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE