On Jan 11, 2004, at 11:33 PM, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 02:07, Tim May wrote:
Read up on the Lawson case in San Diego.
Tim is referring to Edward Lawson, arrested repeatedly and convicted once in the late 1970s for walking around without ID. The appeal made it to the Supreme Court, as Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352 (1983). Lawson's conviction was overturned on grounds that the "identify yourself" law was too vague. Not surprisingly, Justice "Actual Innocence" Rehnquist felt that the law was good and Lawson's conviction was righteous.
The opinion, with some introductory material, can be found at http://usff.com/hldl/courtcases/kolendervlawson.html
A web page discussing this case in relation to a national ID card is http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/page5.htm
And vast amounts of misinformation are constantly being spread by the popular press, and in popular television shows, and in movies. One of the most popular t.v. shows, the oxymoronically named "Law and Order," almost weekly shows someone being told that if he doesn't help the police his restaurant will be shut down for a week while city health inspectors use a microscope on it. Another meme that is false is spread by "NYPD Blue," "Law and Order," and the Fox show that used to be on: "Cops" (not sure if it still is). Namely, that Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination only apply after an actual arrest ("You haven't been arrested yet, so let's not hear about how you can remain silent."), or after an attorney has arrived ("He lawyered up.") The right not to be compelled to provide potentially incriminating evidence is a broad one, deeply enmeshed in our Bill of Rights. Even someone suspected of a crime, even a very serious crime, is under no compulsion to "talk to the police," whether or not he has a lawyer present. There are regrettable exceptions, such as in our "pre-constitutional" (my view of it) grand jury system, where people can be told to tell all they know. Sometimes they get various types of immunity, often the claim is that their grand jury testimony will not be used to convict them (if they not ostensibly the principals in the crime!), and so on. But the fact is that grand jury testimony is often compelled self-incrimination. (And one of the ways the Feds have been getting people they can't get in other, more direct, ways is to interview parties in a case and then find some subtle contradiction. Then the charge is "lying to a federal employee" (or somesuch...maybe the language is "lying in an official investigation," to distinguish it from lying to your neighbor the GS-12 midlevel employee at NASA). What I've done in several cases where I was stopped by cops is to SAY NOTHING. In the Stanford case, I told them I would not be giving them either my name or telling them what my business was that day at Stanford: it was not their business and I saw no reason to satisfy their curiosity. In a couple of cases in Santa Cruz, cops have asked me my name and asked why i was in a particular area. I told them I would be answering no questions. In none of these cases was I arrested, booked, or charged. I would, and have, answer questions if I knew there was no conceivable way I could become a "person of interest" in a case. I have answered police questions in some crimes I have had knowledge of (and wished to see the guilty parties dealt with...I would not lightly aid in a drug case, though. And if one is committing no crime, answering a nosy cop's questions is neither required by my reading of the Constitution nor is healthy. (In the Stanford case, had I given them my name and/or ID, my name would have appeared in a report about "threats to the President, and our resolution of the case"--the SS version of quotas for traffic tickets. (When one cop blurted out to me that he had seen me planting a bomb near the route Clinton would pass by, I _was_ tempted to say "I demand a lawyer!," just so they'd arrest me, etc. But I didn't, which is probably good, as I might have spent a few nights in jail...and felt the requirement to stalk the arresting officers and use a sniper rifle on one or more of them.) We are certainly entering a police state era. Interesting that so many Jews are so strongly behind the fascist measures...Jews like Swinestein, Boxer, Lieberman, and hundreds of others. But, as in the ZOG state, the true heirs of the Third Reich are today's Jews...it would make a good "Outer Limits" episode, except the modern OL was thoroughly leftist, anti-gun, pro-ZOG, and had several episodes involving SS camp guards reincarnated as camp residents, and variations. So having the SS reincarnated in the ZOG state would not have fit their Zionist biases. What the Jews think of Goyim is covered in the quotes from the Talmud, below. --Tim May #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal." #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed." #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals." #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean." #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."