Slashdot Mirror

Depends on where you live and what laws you're subject to. In some states speeding is considered a civil infraction.

In Georgia, it is indeed a misdemeanor (see O.C.G.A. SS. 40-6-1 (a)).

Considering the average speeding ticket is about $100-200...

Notwithstanding the "maximum fine" verbiage in the law I linked, by the time the court finishes tacking on the assorted fees, driver's safety class tuition, and possibly fees for probation (if you hadn't already completed that safety class before coming to court, you will be on probation until you take it), the average speeding ticket in GA (or at least, metro Atlanta) is more like $300-$500 (plus another $200 if you were doing more than 85 on a highway, or 75 on a two-lane road).

Part of the reason for that is that speeding less than about 10 MPH or so over the limit isn't really prosecuted at all. Many interstates in GA have a speed limit of 70 MPH and traffic speed regularly averages 10 MPH over that, which means going 5 MPH above the flow of traffic might result in a police officer completely ignoring you... or giving you a $500+ "super speeder" ticket. There isn't really any middle ground.

In Georgia, even "speeding by itself" is a misdemeanor -- see O.C.G.A. SS. 40-6-1 (a)

O.C.G.A. SS. 40-6-1 (a) It is unlawful and, unless otherwise declared in this chapter with respect to particular offenses, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in this chapter.

This is dead wrong. The new employer can get sued for tortious interference.

Don't read or trust Wired, it's a magazine designed to make you feel outraged, not inform you. They don't care if the details are right.

In this case, they had wire taps conversations and evidence linking him to the problem. You can read the appellate court decision to get a better view of the situation. If he had actually stopped helping those guys when he saw the money (which he knew was illegal), he wouldn't be in jail right now.

In other words, if you're going to do something on the edge of legality, make sure you follow the letter of the law exactly. Because it's in the details where you'll get caught up and prosecuted.

Just reading through the EFF page on this and it sounds like they got a patent on setting a header to track... Wow. That just sounds, ... , I don't know, but :(

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that "due process of law" means shit like civil procedure being evenly applied and such and that you have no right to see the inside of a court room for anything other than imposing criminal judgements.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/36-procedural-due-process-civil.html

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

If SCOTUS can claim that growing a garden for personal use is Interstate Commerce, then so to is an automobile company in one state selling cars in another.

Windows is the same, no OEM ever needed to ship Windows systems with IE as the default browser.

Are you insane?

The whole point of the United States v. Microsoft Corporation case was that Microsoft had claimed Windows and IE were now the same product, and were inextricably linked together! Here, read page 64...

http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

1, to the GP: RAINN says that 1 in 6 women has been the victim of rape. That's different from "will be over the course of their life". That rate is guaranteed to be higher. 1 in 6 in the "have been" category would imply that 2/3rds of the average surveyed woman's rape risk is behind them to reach the 1 in 4 figure, which is not at all an unreasonable assumption.

2. When you want to cite data, don't cite secondary sources. They tell you the name of the Bureau of Justice study, so let's actually read it. We immediately notice first off that annualized rate of rape for non-college students is 8 per 1000, not 6 per 1000, so they chose the lower figure. Being in college actually *reduces* a woman's rate of being raped. But let's just go with the lower figure. A rate of 6 per thousand over... oh, let's just say 50 years... is 1-(1-0.006)^50=26%. Now, we chose the lesser percentage (6 per 1000 instead of 8 per 1000), and the average woman lives a lot longer than 50 years, but we're again assuming a higher rate of rape in the younger years counters this. In no way does the cited data argue against the fact that one in four women will be raped over the course of their lifetime.

3. I don't know what "Ali's study" is or who Ali is, but it's irrelevant given the above. However, I will point out (and shouldn't have to) that it *is* illegal to have sex with someone who is visibly intoxicated to the point that they cannot make a reasonable decision. I'm not going to dig up the laws on all 50 states for you, but just to pick the largest state, here's California's statute. If the person is slurring their speech and can hardly walk, they're not cogent enough to consent to anything. You can't give *any* legal consent in such a situation. You can't sign over your house, you can't transfer ownership of your car, etc. And that's a damned good thing.

Note that this only applies to cases where the person has drank so much that they are visibly impaired to the point that they can no longer make reasonable judgements. As always with such cases, the courts apply a "reasonable person" standard - they're impaired suchly if a "reasonable person" objectively looking at the situation would judge their decision-making abilities as being that impaired. Being "a little tipsy" or "buzzed" does not meet this standard.

How is this not considered a trust, cartel or collusion? I mean, there was specifically a "United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co" Supreme Court case.

Particularly for those that keep insisting the FAA regulates model aircraft already and have done so "forever" http://dronelawjournal.com/ And for those who insist the FAA regulates the air around your head and regulates houses (and maybe fences and trees and perhaps can tell you that your grass needs to be trimmed) here is the US Supreme Court ruling that says otherwise: http://supreme.justia.com/case... That was a decision that did two things, confirmed that you don't own the airspace up to the heavens above your property but also made it clear that you had exclusive control of the airspace below what was defined as the navigable airspace. While the FAA might want to pretend they can regulate your toy hovercraft that flies 1/16th off the surface, they would lose in court. http://www.mainstreettoys.com/...

Yes, the cop can arrest you for anything he wants. That doesn't make it a lawful arrest.

The cop can ask you to leave but that doesn't make it a lawful order.

Sitting in a legally parked car would make it very difficult, under otherwise normal circumstances, for a police officer to issue a lawful order to leave.

See: Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham. This was a 1965 case that found, generally, that a police officer's order to "move on" had to be related to another function and made legal as it related to that other function; i.e., the officer is directing traffic and you're interfering with that traffic or, as an example, you are blocking pedestrian traffic on a sidewalk.

Otherwise, as the Supreme Court said, "...the literal terms of this ordinance are so broad as to evoke constitutional doubts of the utmost gravity." When addressing an ordinance that stated that it is "unlawful for any person to stand or loiter upon any street or sidewalk...after having been requested by any police officer to move on," the Supreme Court said, "The constitutional vice of so broad a provision needs no demonstration. It 'does not provide for government by clearly defined laws, but rather for government by the moment-to-moment opinions of a policeman on his beat."

Voluntarily giving personal rights over to police powers aids the continual erosion of those rights.

I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:

Smith v. Maryland - 442 U.S. 735 (1979) AND here's the wiki

It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.

Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.

Slashdot mucked up the formatting. (Of course, I should have seen this in the preview.)

Just replace "I 3" with "I <3" above.

Also, here's his new trademark: http://trademarks.justia.com/854/81/i-3-85481027.html

I was also surprised by that, but looks like it's mechanically computed based on T-bill rates. The full opinion is here (pdf).

The opinion cites (on p. 47) 28 U.S. 1961, which says:

interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment

And the 1-year T-bill rate is indeed somewhere around that.

Yes it has been tested in many state courts. In a handful of cases it ends up going to the state supreme court, like this one, where they basically get irritated that lower court judges don't understand federal preemption.

Do you ever intend to return to Belize to face the charges leveled against you? Or do you enjoy being a fugitive from justice?

John has not accepted the current lawsuit pending from the daughter of Greg Faull. http://dockets.justia.com/dock... He ran off and started hiding in Colorado before it could be served. Before he could be served in Colorado he went on the run again. I don't think he has the balls to return to Belize.

Apple is pretty much the only company out there where the client isn't the product these days.

Oh really?

Christensen et al v. Apple Inc.

“As a condition of using their credit cards, plaintiffs were required by Apple to enter personal identification information associated with the credit card, including their full and complete zip codes. Apple would not allow plaintiff to complete their purchases without supplying such information.”

Apple acknowledges openly on their website that they reserve the right to “make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers.”

“First, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because they have received unwanted marketing materials from Apple as a result of having provided their zip codes when using credit cards at Apple. Second, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured by Apple's sale of Plaintiffs' and the Class' PII to third-parties, which was collected by Apple in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chapter. 93 105(c)"

http://dockets.justia.com/dock...

At least you know where you stand with companies that are honest about their advertising practices.

What of the fact that Internet Explorer was "built into" the Windows Operating System?

IE was built "into" Windows to pull a fast one on the court, in US v. Microsoft (253 F.3d 34).

They knew they were going to lose the case and be forced to offer other browsers in lieu of/in addition to IE, so in order to keep their browser exclusivity, they (quite unnecessarily) integrated a significant chunk of of its code into system DLLs.

Problem solved:

MS: Yer honor, if we remove IE, then Windows itself won't work, because id10t.dll, pebkac.dll and diaf.dll all use IE code and are essential to Windows operation!! Also, IE is required for Windows to be used in a business environment because of the Maximum Throughput Serial Pipeline Bus.

Court: (scratching head) Well, um (cough), it certainly looks that way. Prosecutor?

Prosecutor: (blank stare) Oh, uh... the ... government withdraws

Court: Case dismissed. Please tell Bill Gates that we're sorry we bothered him and please don't blow up our phones and drain our bank accounts with his bleep-bloop codes.

Nice try:

ORDER granting 829 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC, Google Inc. The verdict rendered in this matter is VACATED and all claims for relief asserted by Bedrock against Google are DISMISSED with prejudice.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/6:2009cv00269/116887/830/

Bedrock also lost to Yahoo and Amazon, over the same patent and they have thrown in the towel.

Generally it is the rider. I have seen drunk riders pulled over in New Mexico, where horses are used when a driver has their license taken away for DUI. Seriously, I have seen this twice in Taos.

Then I guess they get charged with RUI.

There is no such provision in New Mexico law.
http://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter66/article8/section66-8-102

Unless the horse was pulling a wagon, it is not a vehicle.
You might be charged with drunk and disorderly citations, but you will not be charged with RUI.
Its equally possible you just made this up.

Also in the U.S. after auto-darwinating, the copper thief's family sues the city, building owner and local electric company, resulting in draconian new laws which have devastated home prices in the area.News 9

I couldn't find "Zoe vs. Williams" in the 1982 registry. "Zobel vs..." is something about Alaska mineral resource dividends.

Were you thinking of a different case?

Common sense, first of all. Does it harm someone or something? Could it easily harm someone or something if misused? Does it interrupt any other government function? Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?

When the answer to any of those questions is "yes", it warrants further investigation. Go to a library. Ask the librarian for help. They actually do far more than just point out books. Often, they can help you with understanding the law in question (though note that they are not authoritative sources of legal advice... those are lawyers).

Don't just assume that laws are complicated. Here's a few examples of laws chosen nearly at random. They're all pretty simple to read, though a few of them require skipping over large definition sections or clarifying clauses. In fact, consider this a challenge: Find me an American law that can't be understood with high-school reading skills.

My state has no such limitation, and explicitly authorizes an audible signal as an indication of passing.

If you are in NJ, the law not only authorizes, it actually requires you to use the horn when passing another vehicle. But that law is obsolete.

The non-obsolete law to which I am referring when I say that it's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger is the following:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

My state has no such limitation, and explicitly authorizes an audible signal as an indication of passing.

If you are in NJ, the law not only authorizes, it actually requires you to use the horn when passing another vehicle. But that law is obsolete.

The non-obsolete law to which I am referring when I say that it's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger is the following:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

To save people the trouble of finding these:
http://patents.justia.com/inventor/richard-prescott-skillen

Try going gray in your early 20s. It's almost as bad. I bought my first box of dye before I was old enough to legally buy vodka or beer.

I wish to god someone would make a dye for men that doesn't suck. Men DO have different coloring needs for women. Our hair is shorter and sparser, so skin stains show up easily, and the gray roots show up within a day. An ideal dye for men would be one that gets applied in two parts:

Part 1: a mordant like isatin + p-aminophenol that forms a robust, deep color within the hair follicle, but doesn't stain skin, doesn't build up, and seems to react directly with the sulfur in the hair to form the color. It's an amazing chemical, but unfortunately, it's a one-trick pony, and the color it forms directly is pretty nasty. Hence, the need for Part 2.

Part 2: a dye with zero affinity for keratin (unfortunately, both hair AND skin are chemically similar) that quickly bonds to the mordant formed by part 1.

Clairol tripped over the formula for part 1 about 20 years ago, but didn't do jack shit with it because they couldn't figure out how to turn it into a general-purpose dye suitable for women. Other companies (mostly Japanese and German) have been working on Part 2 for years, but they're still hung up on "it doesn't really do anything of value for women that existing products don't do."

I think guys would KILL for a dye that works dependably, without stains, buildup, or visible roots, and can be used daily (if necessary) to eliminate new white roots as they grow in, even if it meant spending an hour. The problem with current dye products isn't the time they take... it's the fact that they stain skin like a mofo, and do a shit job of covering new white growth on hair that's been previously-dyed.

Please, someone read this and make it happen. I've personally played with the formula in part 1. It works, it's just not suitable as a final color and needs some as-yet undiscovered part 2 dye to nudge it in the right direction for cool dark blond to medium brown. Even if we had to apply part 1 before bed, and part 2 in the morning, it would be a huge improvement over what we have now.

Reference: http://patents.justia.com/patent/4921503

Curiosity overcame me. Apparently Georgia is one such state. Pedestrians in crosswalks have the right of way, even at lights.

Curiosity overcame me. Apparently Georgia is one such state. Pedestrians in crosswalks have the right of way, even at lights.

A private corporation is included under the designation of "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, section I.

- Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181 (1888).

Cue the AC's pedantic rebuttal that 'person' isn't the same as 'people' in 3, 2, 1...

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347. Pp. 442 U. S. 739-741.

With regard to privacy expectations, they found:

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does, in fact, record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone, rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435. Pp. 442 U. S. 741-746.

One significant difference these days is that most cell phone carriers have explicit, contractual privacy policies, which do provide a reasonable expectation of privacy (the ruling does address assumptions of privacy, but not explicit promises). And, different from that ruling, the caller does not voluntarily expose location information to the phone company. If one chooses not to have CID (or has no choice), they are not voluntarily exposing calling party information.

This has already been settled in court. If you can't prove that you were harmed by a secret program, you don't have standing to sue. (Regardless of the fact that you can never prove that you were harmed because, you know, it's a secret)

Technically true but there is ample Supreme Court precedent from the civil rights days that says, more or less, the fact that the government knows who you associate with harms you. I refer to you NAACP v.Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) which made it clear that people had the right to associate anonymously which was echoed a few years later in NAACP v. Alabama ex. rel. Flowers, 377 U.S. 288 (1964). I believe you will agree that the NSA collecting this information the way it does makes anonymous telephonic association for legal purposes impossible.

The reason given in the US Constitution is, "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

IOW, "to promote progress" is the reason given. Not to "increase the availability of a work." You can argue that the latter implies the former, if you wish, but in the US Supreme Court, you will lose that argument. It's been definitively established that the right to first publication trumps the right of the public to the availability of a work. (e.g. Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises - 471 U.S. 539 (1985)). I'm not saying I support that position, but that is the law of the land.

Maintaining a nuclear arsenal is really pricy. They're full of dangerous things.

Which is why it makes sense to leave them where they are. Decommissioning is even more pricey.

And dealing with the decay that you let build up because you were too lazy to maintain them is more costly still. No, 'let them sit' is a stupid fucking idea. Far more cost effective and safe to reprocess them into reactor fuel.

The U.S. does *not* do reprocessing. It has not done reprocessing since 1977, in order to avoid creating additional weapons grade material, which might fall into terrorist hands and/or lead to nuclear proliferation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/us.html

They require LOTS of upkeep. You have to guard them. (They have the power to destroy the world after all) The infrastructure to maintain your active arsenal is massive and costs piles of money, which seems silly for something you hope to never use.

Most of the cost is military. Personally, I think guarding holes in the desert is a much finer jobs program than bombing people in the Middle East. Safer for the people who get the make-work jobs, too.

You should probably try becoming part of this century before telling us about nuclear stockpiles. We don't have nukes sitting in holes in the desert anymore,

Wrong. We have 450 land-based Minuteman III ICBMs with MIRV'ed warheads, meaning approximately 1440 warheads which are currently land based. Try doing a simple google search before you spout incorrect information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Land-based_ICBMs

which is why we don't need as many. We just launch them from subs that no one knows where they are so they can't be taken out.

Again, incorrect. Submarines are detectable, even at maximum depth, using space-based side looking synthetic aperture radar (SAR):

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE13Ad01.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/detection.pdf

Everyone who we care about knowing knows about our subs, just as we know about theirs.

[...]

I would suggest you take a basic economics and a history course, then learn WHY TARP actually happened rather than what your friends told you. You first need to understand that the magical failed banks failed because laws were changed that suddenly ... on PAPER ... made them insolvable. They were never actually doing bad, they just suddenly became illegal to operate.

TARP was needed due to de-regulation, after which banks jumped into the market for creation of derivatives, and created a bunch of worthless derivatives and sold them for real money. These were primarily collateralized debt obligations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Purpose

The ability to create CDOs prior to the repeal of Glass–Steagall was based primarily on a decision by the 2nd Circuit Court:

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/885/1034/144081/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Securitization.2C_CDOs.2C_and_.E2.80.9Csubprime.E2.80.9D_credit

[...Pu-239 uses...]

Or the operate on other things, which even

The problem with the "resisting arrest" is that he is ALLOWED that by law if the LEOs aren't operating in a legal manner- even to the point of using deadly force if needed. See the Supreme Court decision on John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900) for more details there.

Sorry, not in Texas.

Texas Penal Code 38.03 (Resisting Arrest) - (b) "It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful."

Texas Penal Code 9.31 (Self-Defense) - (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful...

As a civilized society we don't allow people like you to decide on the street that an arrest is illegal because you "think so" and take the life of another human being to avoid being arrested and brought before a magistrate.

Instead, you don't get to resist unless the officer is using excessive force before you offer resistance. If the arrest is illegal, you will be released, the officer admonished or even charged criminally, and you will be entitled to collect damages in a civil tort.

Wasn't that nice? No one dies and everything works out?

Oh, and the police can disarm you if they are detaining you. I know you don't want to hear that, but an officer who wouldn't should be fired. I'm not going to go into the nuisances of detainment vs arrest here, but I would judge a guy walking down the street with an Assault rife as "reasonable suspicion" enough to temporary detain (not arrest).

The problem with the "resisting arrest" is that he is ALLOWED that by law if the LEOs aren't operating in a legal manner- even to the point of using deadly force if needed. See the Supreme Court decision on John Bad Elk v. United States - 177 U.S. 529 (1900) for more details there.

The LEOs violated 18 USC 242 and should be decorating a jail cell awaiting trial for the FELONIES they commited, caught on video. Since we're talking a deprivation of rights involving firearms if it were enforced, they'd be facing up to 10 years in a Fed Pen.

Those MSB regulations are only legal because of Shapiro v US http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/335/1/case.html
The DISSENT is articulate, cogent, and well documented. The MAJORITY opinion is verbal diarrhea, and all Americans now suffer Federal overreach.

camperdave is not being nasty. He is merely reporting the conclusions of the Supreme Court way back in 1974.

Besides, this whole thing is quite surprising, because it's been known for some time that the Treasury maintains what they call the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" which is a database of not only SARs, but all financial transactions drawn from the card networks, SWIFT and other payment processors. Most likely this is just the unclassified world trying to catch up with the classified world. If you thought the USA wasn't rummaging through your bank records already, think again.

The Supreme Court said:

A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law. For the infraction of its provisions, a remedy must be sought by the injured party through reclamations upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by Congress as legislation upon any other subject. If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing -- that is, require no legislation to make them operative -- to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. Congress may modify such provisions so far as they bind the United States, or supersede them altogether. By the Constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other, provided always the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. The courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining nation has just cause of complaint or our country was justified in its legislation are not matters for judicial cognizance.

Whitney v. Robertson, 124 US 190, 194 (1888).

It's nothing to do with conservative or liberal courts; the Supremacy Clause is very clearly written, and the last in time rule is well established.

And a grant of immunity from prosecution for conspiracy would eliminate that privilege, no?

No. Any person may take the fifth at any time in any place if they fear their answers may implicate them in any crime at all. The Court has emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

one twin, regardless of actual guilt, can be compelled to testify about the other twin.

you're still wrong

You only have the right to remain silent regarding your own crimes.

To the contrary, the Court has emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent persons who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

From The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1:

(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.

(2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.

And no, embassies does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.

And no, Indian Reservations does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.

I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.

I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.

Its not worth it!

(a)(1) External boundary. The term external boundary, as used in section 287(a)(3) of the Act, means the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law. (2) Reasonable distance. The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent for CBP, or the special agent in charge for ICE, or, so far as the power to board and search aircraft is concerned any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

No, international airports does not count as an external boundary.

And no, embassies does not count as an external boundary because contrary to common misconception embassies are not foreign soil.

And no, Indian Reservations does not count as an external boundary because they are not external.

I am correcting all these misconceptions because there is no need to twist the truth when it's on our side. There's no need to make up imaginary international boundaries within our country in order to inflate the numbers; even if only 1% of the population is living in the constitution-free zone that would be far too high. The truth is on our side and we just need to present it as it is; sugarcoating it or even tempering with it simply undermine our own argument and our own credibility.

I brought up the constitution-free zone map in an argument once and my opponent immediately pointed out that the international borders cut across the middle the of great lakes. In a single stroke both ACLU and myself lost our credibility in that argument.

They don't seem to give a crap when local jurisdictions subvert immigration law in the other direction.

The enforcement of immigration rules is the exclusive domain of the federal government since 92 U.S. 275 (1875)

The powers which the [California] commissioner is authorized to exercise under this statute are such as to bring the United States into conflict with foreign nations, and they can only belong to the federal government.

It should be noted that before 1900, there were many states where non-citizens could legally vote.

I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.

In the mean time, the (current) No 1 definition of a "militia" is:

a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.

And I'd wager that most gun owners aren't enrolled for military service either; and no, registering for the Selective Service (the draft) doesn't count.

That's the ORGANIZED (not "Regulated") Militia. The other citizens (originally as defined as the caucasian males between 18 and 45) is referred to as the UNORGANIZED Militia. There was even a relatively recent (1990) SCOTUS case regarding this, when the Governor of Minnesota at the time, Rudy Perpich, bitched about his State's National Guard members being summarily called up for active Military Duty by the Federal Government during the Falklands' War without his permission, and without a national emergency, etc. Read the case; it has a long explanation of the history of the term "Militia", and the definition of the "Organized" versus "Unorganized" Militiae.

This should be paid for by the individuals, not out of RCMP funds - several thousand $ is a lot to individual members of the RCMP, but not to the RCMP as an organisation.

Which is why you don't sue police forces/political jurisdictions for just a few k$. M$ suits are necessary to make them change their behavior. It's not solely the individual officer's responsible for this, it's also those who hired them, trained them, and developed the standards for the department.

Personally, I think we need to recognize the princple that the SCOTUS (yes, I know this case is Canadian) laid out in the Bad Elk decision -- unlawful arrest is assault, and you have the right to resist assault by any means necessary

Not Canada, but:

By the express terms of the statute, a person has no right to resist arrest by flight or any other means, even if the arrest constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the constitution. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a) provides: "It is not a defense to a prosecution [for resisting arrest] that the law enforcement officer was acting unlawfully in making the arrest, provided he was acting under color of his official authority and provided the law enforcement officer announces his intention to arrest prior to the resistance." That provision codified this State's then-existing common law, which required that a person submit to an arrest, even if illegal.

You are not allowed to defend yourself.. That's the law.. I guess we're supposed to suck it up, as the saying goes..