Re: unintended consequences: Davis recall leads to US internal passports
At 11:53 AM 9/10/03 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
California's law against Driving While Speaking Spanish is only about 10 years old, and was a Pete Wilson thing. It happened about when I moved here - did other states start doing similar things in the mean time? The Feds started bullying states into collecting SSNs when issuing drivers' licenses in the mid 80s, ostensibly as a way of preventing duplicate registrations, but I hadn't heard they'd been doing this.
Interesting. I didn't know the history. What is morbidly fascinating is how the driver's license is/has become the internal passport. And now, when it is being brought back to a certification that one "knows how to drive", the scum who manipulated it into an internal passport are shiiting bricks. As a Ca driver, I'm in favor of it ---we have to pay for uninsured drivers insurace or risk collisions with them. As someone who won't be going to Mexico, I don't care if they require real passports (instead of a Ca driver's license) to re-enter the country. If the US wants to get real borders, that's fine with me. If they want to deport illegals, that's fine too, so long as they don't violate civil rights doing it. (Hint: stopping people on the street because they look foreign is not acceptable. The INS was doing that in Orange or San Diego county recently. I wrote to some mexican activist reminding them that no one in this country needs to speak to pigs, if you're not driving.) \begin{rant} Illegals (and unlicensed pharmacists) also drive an anonymity industry: credit-card-like debit cards that don't require proof of income, just cash; prepaid phones that don't require a billing address, etc. I've read that to enter a Fed building you need "ID". I'm curious what happens if you haven't got it. Adrian Lamo had his card. I'm currently ignoring the conscription notices I get from the local jury droids; if I *volunteer* someday (after reviewing fija.org) I'll be sure to be without ID. Also heard on the tube that 60K fake IDs are caught at the border annually. Wonder how many aren't caught. NIB magnets are probably overkill, but it was the first and last useful swipe my license's magstrip will see...
Major Variola (ret) wrote:
I've read that to enter a Fed building you need "ID". I'm curious what happens if you haven't got it. Adrian Lamo had his card. I'm currently ignoring the conscription notices I get from the local jury droids; if I *volunteer* someday (after reviewing fija.org) I'll be sure to be without ID.
I don't remember if the Santa Clara County court asked me for ID when I was last there as a prospective juror. (And it's probably a bit too much cognitive dissidence for them if you simultaneously want a parking pass for your car and don't have your DL because you took the bus :-) But if you're ignoring jury conscription notices at times that it's not seriously interfering with your business activities, you should go check out FIJA.org. Remember that under the common law, a juror has the power and responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case, even though judges and clerks will generally tell you otherwise. This means that if somebody's on trial for prohibition violations, you can and should vote Not Guilty if you think Prohibition is a bad law. That's a large part of how the Fugitive Slave Laws got overturned, and helped with the demise of alcohol prohibition. Of course, if a court figures out that you understand this, and doesn't immediately decide that you're not their type of juror, they'll probably stick you on traffic accident cases or something where there's no moral principle of state-vs-citizen conflict, just a boring who-hit-whose-car kind of conflict.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 02:02 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
I've read that to enter a Fed building you need "ID". I'm curious what happens if you haven't got it. Adrian Lamo had his card. I'm currently ignoring the conscription notices I get from the local jury droids; if I *volunteer* someday (after reviewing fija.org) I'll be sure to be without ID.
Ironically, I was preparing myself for such an eventuality. I even Googled for reports on "jury "i.d."" and similar variants. I found no reports of legal hassles for people not having I.D. when called for for grand or petit jury duty, or for otherwise being ordered to enter a government building. I was called for jury duty--admittedly a County of California building, not a Federal Protectorate building. But I had a hunch they might ask for "proof" that I was the person called, or not let me into the court room without I.D., etc. I was mentally preparing to leave my D.L. and wallet back in my car (or even to take a bus for a few blocks, without license) and then tell the guarddroids: "No, I don't have a Driver's License...I'm not in my car right now, as you can see. My Driver's License is for when I'm _driving_." My plan was not to file a Gilmore-type lawsuit, just respond to any demands for I.D. with a shrug. And then a departure, with the names of the guarddroids noted so I could later tell the authorities that I am not required to carry I.D. except when entering the U.S., driving a vehicle, and a few other similar things. My younger brother, who has been on various juries, told me they never asked for any I.D. (He's a registered Republican and has been called several times in his adult life. I'm a registered Libertarian and have not actually been called to serve since 1973, when I was still registered Republican. I smell something fishy.) In any case, I was in the last "group" (31 of 31) which had to phone the courthouse to see if we were to be actually told to be present physically. The last couple of groups got excused. So my 30-year record of not serving on a jury has been upheld.
NIB magnets are probably overkill, but it was the first and last useful swipe my license's magstrip will see...
By the way, in case others didn't hear about this, smart card readers are apparently now considered "paraphernalia." Or at least grounds for expensive lawsuits (until those filing suit are countersued successfully). It seems a couple of subscribers to a satellite t.v. service (who shall remain nameless, as it is my provider and they probably Google for mentions of their name) bought a smart card reader/writer. Big Satellite Company sent them a lawsuit, claiming they were pirating Big Satellite Co's smartcards. All without any proof, at least none unveiled so far. The two guys said they are hobbyists and have "legitimate" reasons to buy openly available smart card reader/writers. (And they really don't have to say _what_ they are doing or planning to do with the card readers. Unless the gadgets are actually declared illegal, they are legal to own. And Big Sat Co has to have actual evidence, not mere suspicion. Of course, they are free to cancel the satellite service for these two guys.) "Buy a smart card reader, go to jail." --Tim May "According to the FBI, there's a new wrinkle in prostitution: suburban teenage girls are now selling their white asses at the mall to make money to spend at the mall. ... Now, you see, the joke here, of course, is on White America, which always felt superior to blacks, and showed that with their feet, moving out of urban areas. "White flight," they called it. Whites feared blacks. They feared if they raised their kids around blacks, the blacks would turn their daughters and prostitutes. And now, through the miracle of MTV, damned if it didn't work out that way! " --Bill Maher, "Real Time with Bill Maher," HBO, 15 August 2003
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
But if you're ignoring jury conscription notices at times that it's not seriously interfering with your business activities, you should go check out FIJA.org. Remember that under the common law, a juror has the power and responsibility to judge the law as well as the facts of the case, even though judges and clerks will generally tell you otherwise.
This means that if somebody's on trial for prohibition violations, you can and should vote Not Guilty if you think Prohibition is a bad law. That's a large part of how the Fugitive Slave Laws got overturned, and helped with the demise of alcohol prohibition.
Of course, if a court figures out that you understand this, and doesn't immediately decide that you're not their type of juror, they'll probably stick you on traffic accident cases or something where there's no moral principle of state-vs-citizen conflict, just a boring who-hit-whose-car kind of conflict.
How would they even know one's views on this thing you're talking about? (I'm not sure I know the name of this thing you're talking about, especially because I decided a long time ago not to carefully investigate this thing you're talking about, and especially not to carefully remember the name of this thing you're talking about, just so that I could honestly shrug and say "No, I don't know what that thing you're talking about is about.") Also, my experience in 1973 with a jury trial (the last time I was registered Republican, the last time I served on a jury) was that the jurors were of course selected for a specific trial. I don't think your model works, where they quiz the prospective jurors and then shunt the un-PC off to traffic court. Basically, one doesn't have to answer _any_ questions until voir dire for the specific case has begun. And then it's best to just play dumb about that thing you mentioned, or find a reason to mention that thing you talked about if one's intent is to be immediately drop-kicked out of the jury pool. (Which ends one's involvement...there is no "stick you on traffic accident cases" exception.) But that thing you mentioned is curious...I seem to have forgotten about it already. --Tim May ""Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." --Patrick Henry
Don't ever respond to a jury summons by showing up or calling in. If you do then you'll forever be in the sucker-responsive data base. The warnings in summons are shinola shit, effective only on those who are indoctrinated to fear official warnings printed on paper. If you get a summons in the form of a subpoena, served by an official, and you accept it in person, that is different, that is grounds to initiate action to overthrow law and order, to sidle to the jury room and piss on the the following-are-prohibited sign, to go nuts, to be unreliable, to be not-jury worthy. The simply mailed kind of summons are ignorable. There is no benefit, anymore, to serving on a jury for it only to legitimates a bloated justice system which most often serves itself, not justice. The justice crowd is no longer answerable to the citizens it was intended, and paid handsomely, to serve. No doubt, if you have nothing better to do, then go forth and be treated as a sub-human by the jury-calling adminstrators who act especially trained to make citizens despise government, until appearing before a judge who will make citizens hate, nay, lust to guillotine, tax-suckers. Period.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, John Young wrote:
Don't ever respond to a jury summons by showing up or calling in. If you do then you'll forever be in the sucker-responsive data base.
For many years I believed that failing to accept jury duty was simply the wrong thing to do - by serving, I had hoped that I might find myself in a position where I could prevent a true miscarriage from fucking over some poor shmoe. Or, given the right case, possibly help keep an honest to god bad guy (as in rapist/murderer/<fill in your favorite violence here>) off the streets for a while. Because of this misguided belief, I responded to all of the various jury summonses that came in. But, as John noted above, the more I responded to, the more I got, until at the very end (yes, you *can* stop them from coming - read on), I was finally confronted with almost one per month (fed/state/locals all get their shots, and they can do it over and over again if you don't get selected). As infuriating as the barrage of summonses was, what really stuck in my craw was that I was simply not "juror material". Once I was asked what I did for a living, I rarely saw a second question before being stricken, and those that did arrive were invariably the "have you ever been a victim of a crime yourself?" - say yes, and you're done: go home, thanks for showing up, see you tomorrow to play this game again. By the time that I, in my amazing density, finally realized that trying to "do the right thing" was pointless, I was staring at an almost career in Jurydom! It was totally out of control, and when I dared to mention to the droids that I wanted out as I had been there just 6 weeks before, I was told that that was just tough, and please have a seat over there Juror 135... No manner of pleading or kvetching had any effect whatsoever. I even tried to complain to one of the judges, who kindly reminded me that she would be quite pleased to make my stay in her court a little longer if I didn't STFU... Finally, in desperation, I answered the next summons with a mission. When asked the standard questions as to disqualifying information, I answered that "Sure, I can serve. I finished my time, and my parole is up next month". After getting the "you've gotta be kidding" look over the glasses, I was of course asked as to the reason for my unfortunate status: Aggravated sodomy and attempted vehicular homicide, "But it really wasn't my fault - she was just *asking* for it". Sent home, never got another summons from *anyone*. If anyone tells you they don't share list information, they're lying their ass off. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Every living thing dies alone." Donnie Darko
I have a pretty good excuse (As I duck behind a flame retardant barrier.. :) ) My brother-in-law and his wife are law-enforcement officers. Seems that implies that I may have some bias against defendants. Neither the prosecution or the defense want to deal with it. Most people I know who end up on juries end up in civil cases. They never get actually get to participate in the trial, they just have to show up for selection then visit or call the court house daily and are eventually told they're are excused because the parties usually settle out-of-court and have been using the threat of going to trial as a negotiating tactic. -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.
J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, John Young wrote:
Don't ever respond to a jury summons by showing up or calling in. If you do then you'll forever be in the sucker-responsive data base.
Well, as the button says, "Any 12 people who can't get off jury duty aren't *my* peers" Aside from FIJA being an important political statement, if you're not interested in that kind of thing, bringing their literature with you to hand out to your fellow potential jurors (*before* you're hauled into the courtroom for a specific trial, so as not to be harassed for jury tampering) is generally a way to get yourself out of the process. But yes, otherwise, whatever it was that Tim forgot about, no, I don't remember that stuff, unless they ask really precise questions during voir dire. The last time I was in the potential-jurors pool, it was a case I'd have been tossed out of instantly during voir dire if they'd gotten to me (they went through about 50-60 people, and I was about #75 on the list.) The prosecutor was making sure that all of the potential jurors understood that police never lied, and that just because the accused was a 5-foot-tall 90-pound quiet-looking woman didn't mean that she couldn't have interfered with a cop during a family dispute situation, and I'd have had to answer the question about whether I'd been arrested for or convicted of a crime with something like "Well, the police agreed to drop the charges of interfering with an officer in return for me agreeing not to sue them"; the defense lawyer might not have liked me either :-)
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
J.A. Terranson -
John Young -
Major Variola (ret) -
Neil Johnson -
Tim May