no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Legalese

A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost

October 10th, 2009

Justin Holmes gets “pulled over” for the non-crime of rollerblading, and rightly refuses to identify himself to law enforcement.  When asked why he’s being detained, the officer cites some local ordinance that prohibits rollerblading, which ordinance probably does not exist.

No matter, Justin’s exercise of certain rights guaranteed by the first, fourth, and fifth amendments to the U.S. constitution (and probably most State and Local legislation, too) are construed as “disrespectful”, so you see where this is probably going.  Fortunately, Justin stood his ground and shot this awesome footage to Vimeo.

(It’s a long video, Don’t show ID in New York State! so I’ve summarized some important exchanges below.)

The female officer (second on-scene) pulls out all the stops, with the “You could be a pedophile” line.

Female LEO: The reason why we ask you… thing is, why we ask that, is part of our job is to fight criminals. And we don’t know if you are, just by looking at you… When we encounter people, we gotta make sure they’re not wanted… So we run their name, it’s that simple…This particular situation is just to make sure that you’re not someone wanted, some pedophile that’s wanted, OK, that you’re not a fugitive of justice. [Justin has refused to present identification] We have to take your word for it?

Justin: Take my word for it, that’s right. In a free society, that’s right.

Eventually, I guess, they decide that there are no dangerous rollerblading pedophiles named Justin Holmes in the New York area, but he’s not going to get off that easy.  At one point, the male officer tells Justin to take off his skates and walk home without his shoes on. He asks whether he can skate on the sidewalk, and is told that he cannot. The male officer repeats, that “there is an ordinance.” Remember this lie.

Justin: I do need to know the number of the ordinance.

Male LEO: I’m not going to bother with that because I’m not going to charge you with it.

This is also very interesting, telling, actually, because SOP dictate that “disrespectful” folks like Justin are subject to additional charges like “resisting arrest” or “obstruction”.

The encounter culminates in an attempt to “run him out of town.” At this point, the officer has already informed Justin that rollerblading is illegal in the Village. He’s even said that it’s illegal to do it on the sidewalk (highly suspect). Justin says that he’s prepared to walk, to which the officer says he wants him out of town, the quickest, safest way possible—the clear implication being that Justin should skate his way out of town.

Male LEO: I don’t want you in this village. So I’m gonna be the nice guy and make it so you can get out of this village in the easiest safest and quick way, you tell me what that is…

Justin: I would like to simply skate on the sidewalk but it’s not clear to me if that’s legal.

Male LEO: Then do it and get out of here.

Justin: Is that legal?

Male LEO: I didn’t say it. Do it and get out of here. ‘Cause I really don’t want you in this village.

Justin is understandably confused, and again inquires about the legality of such behavior. The officer refuses to positively respond to Justin’s reasonably inquiries.

At 26:12 the female LEO says that it is indeed legal, very legal.

If rollerblading in the street really is illegal in Port Dick, then these officers collectively wasted about an hour and twenty minutes arguing with  someone who in their opinion was “ignorant” and “disrespectful” during a justifiable detention, and they’re simply going to let him skate his way out of town?

I’m sorry, but this doesn’t pass the smell test: If you’re going to let the guy walk under these circumstances, then why detain him in the first place?  You wouldn’t, unless you were just flexing your badge; being an asshole just because you can be an asshole and nobody will do anything about it.

The only logical conclusion is that Justin didn’t do anything against the law, and the officers knew it.

Some people say, “Well Justin should’ve just shown his ID to the cops, this could’ve all been over in a few seconds if he had just complied.” But it could’ve all been over, in fact the entire encounter need never have occurred, had the officer simply stopped him briefly and said, “Hey kid, it’s not safe and/or illegal to skate in the street, stay on the sidewalk and have a safe trip home.”

Taxation is Theft: Elaine Brown Sentenced to Life in Prison

October 5th, 2009

In slave states like America, production is a crime which must be remedied by onerous taxation.  Defiance is met with extortion and violence.  Case-in-point: for the “crime” of not paying taxes Elaine Brown has been handed a sentence that amounts to “life in prison,” according to this post on Infowars.com.

No matter how you slice it, in point of fact, Ed and Elaine Brown are guilty of either earning income (i.e., selling goods and.or services to people who voluntarily buy said goods and/or services) or owning/operating a corporation which does same. In reality, there are many millions of people who “don’t pay taxes” or don’t pay “their fair share”. These free-riders are variously: government employees, state-sponsored corporations (i.e., most if not all corporations), welfare victims, etc., all of whom produce nothing of any value, and therefore pay no net taxes.

The Browns, in literal point of fact, are guilty of producing. That is all.

Ed and Elaine Brown responded to the charges brought against them with “tax protester statutory arguments,” arguing in-short that the “government had not presented any law requiring them to pay income taxes.” There are a lot of statutory arguments, most of which fall under the IRS umbrella of “frivolous” defenses, which as far as I can tell means;

Many people find these defenses compelling, and we (the IRS) are sick of trying to respond to each of these defenses, therefore we label the lot of them ‘frivolous’ and deny defendants from appealing to basic human decency henceforth.

If the Brown’s statutory defense really were a sufficient defense, the government would simply draft and approve a law which required people to pay taxes on their individual wage-incomes. The flaw in the Brown’s argument is that they concede that “if there were a law” they would abide it. .

In the comments on Infowars, there are a lot of commenters saying that a tax on income is legal, as long as it’s not a tax on wages. The repeat the lie that a tax on corporate income is perfectly legit. Pore through 600 stupid comments debating the “legality” of robbery, if you want to get dizzy, for example:

Some people just don’t know the law…There is tax. Only on Corporate/Business Income. Tax on personal labor wages IS ILLEGAL

To the rest of You: Give it up, brush up on your pocket Constitution.

You, sir, are exactly wrong.

For the record, it doesn’t matter whether a tax on wages is “legal” because as a rule, the various taxes on wage-income are handled as though they are legal and case law has been adjudicated in such a manner as to render impotent the “statutory” defenses like those raised by the Browns. So it doesn’t matter if they’re “legal” or not, the law has proven powerless to uphold itself.

The only appropriate tax rate is zero, and the only real argument is not whether income taxes are “legal” but rather, whether they are proper.

No man in his individual capacity would be justified in extracting “taxes” from any other man. And what would not be tolerated of any man ought not be tolerated of any men.

I submit, therefore, that taxes are not proper, and that taxation really is theft, the substantive difference (as the saying goes) is that the thief doesn’t pretend to have your best interests in mind when he robs you.

Nothing Unlawful About Executing the Innocent

August 26th, 2009

Except for regular updates at Radley’s place, I’ve heard little about the plight of Troy Davis.

In case you don’t know: Troy Davis has been fighting for his life (on death row) for decades. He was tried and convicted by a “jury of his peers”, and previous attempts to overturn the ruling have failed. Last week, SCOTUS recently asked a Georgia federal court to consider the new evidence and determine whether it establishes Davis’ innocence. [wiki]

What makes Davis’ story particularly compelling (aside from the alleged prosecutorial misconduct, witness tampering, police obstruction, etc.*) is that the dissenting Supreme Court Justices (Scalia and Thomas) argued, “Even if the district court were to find Davis to be innocent, there would still be nothing unlawful about executing him.”

You’d think that if there were a shred of human decency left in this world, people would be all over this story.

On this note, Mark Cuban inquires, “Is there a right of the innocent not to be executed?” The answer to that question is so painfully obvious that even a child could grasp it…

Cuban says “maybe it’s time for a constitutional amendment.”

I come back to a single issue. Its not illegal to execute an innocent person. Maybe its time for a constitutional amendment? (sic)

I’m sorry, Mark. No amendment, constitutional or otherwise, no piece of paper is going to protect you as long as rat-bastards like these are on the bench. And as long as there is a monopoly to exploit, rat-bastards like these will be the ones doing all the exploiting.

Let me condense this for you, and the rest of the reading public.

First, Scalia and Thomas dissent, essentially arguing that “We don’t give a god damn whether Troy Davis is innocent. We don’t give a god damn whether Troy Davis can present evidence that would (under any other circumstances) exonerate him.” In other words, as long as “procedure” is followed to the letter**, Scalia and Thomas are content to give zero consideration to the morality of the criminal acts they would sanction.

I’m sorry, but “I was just following orders/procedures/rules” is not a fucking excuse. Especially when you’re the one who validates, approves, or otherwise seals those orders under color of law.

And then, in a vulgar display of obstinance which would make my 3-year old nephew’s head-banging temper-tantrums look tame in comparison, “Even if he does present evidence which would in all other circumstances prove his innocence†, we don’t give a god damn if he is hanged by the neck until dead. In legalese, there would be nothing unlawful about executing him.”

Ask yourself, “What sort of man would willfully disregard all relevant facts, and condone the pre-meditated murder of an innocent man.”

A fucking sociopath, that’s who. Or, more precisely, two fucking sociopaths. The callous disregard for either justice or human life, exercised by both Justices Thomas and Scalia, is indicative of their moral bankruptcy, and it is a stain on the fabric of all humanity.

This system does not need to be reformed, it needs to be eradicated.


* All of which are, sadly, par for the course in the American criminal justice system.
** It should be noted: if the evidence is in-fact exculpatory, and corroborates the claims of tampering, etc., that procedure was thrown out the window in favor of a kangaroo court.
† A burden one is not ordinarily obligated to carry.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics