Hillary Demonstrator gets jail time

©Finger Lakes Times 2002 ^ | December 08, 2002 | By: MATT REYNOLDS, Times Staff Writer

[poet]

Oh, I forgot to mention that in view of your correcting me, I feel so much "safer and secure" and I might add more "cuddly safe" in the arms of an all powerful government
knowing that we have a "conservative" President in charge.

Like when Mom or Dad spanked me, I know it was for my own good. Remind me to thank our "conservative" President for spanking our freedoms and liberties with his restrictive laws and, of course, for "NEW" spending of OUR tax dollars to the tune of $782,000,000,000. We are so blessed and I feel so quilty not trusting a man that has failed to honor his oath to uphold the the Constitution of the United States. How selfish of me. Tears of guilt are flowing from my eyes as I type this.

FReegards

[nicmarlo]

Then, could not they use this against the Tombstone Militia, who have organized as a method to keep out illegal aliens because our government has turned a blind eye to the invasion?

[dirtboy]

Murtari better be careful, messing with the Hildebeast.

I don't think this has anything to do with Hillary. Trespass is trespass, whether you are protesting or not.

[dirtboy]

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

The key words here are "intimidate" and "coerce" - I doubt peaceful protest would qualify. However, I doubt the authors of RICO ever imagined it would be used against anti-abortion protestors...

[poet]

It's only a matter of time.

[dirtboy]

Then, could not they use this against the Tombstone Militia, who have organized as a method to keep out illegal aliens because our government has turned a blind eye to the invasion?

I think such an approach would fail on Equal Protection arguments. If the general public has the right to open carry long arms on public land (such as for hunting or target practice), then the feds cannot stop the militia on grounds like this guy was stopped on, namely trespass. Although I don't always agree with the concept of requireing a permit to protest, especially in a federal building, at least the law is applied evenly and to everyone, and does not fail an equal-protection argument.

[poet]

I disagree relative to the "key word". It is INTENDED because someone has to determine the "INTENT" of the demonstrators and/or speaker(s). BTW, there have been quite a few "peaceful" demonstrations that have turned violent because of an "infiltrator". The government goons are not above doing just that or have you forgotten Ruby Ridge, Waco or the obscene kidnapping of Elian under the guise of law?

Also, keep in mind that our "conservative", "constitutional protecting" President and congress saw fit NOT to place an expiration date on this section as they did with the other sections of the law. That fact alone should make it suspect!

FReegards

[dirtboy]

I disagree relative to the "key word". It is INTENDED because someone has to determine the "INTENT" of the demonstrators and/or speaker(s).

You have that concept in law already, such as "terroristic threats" - it can be abused, but is not in and of itself extra-constitutinal.

BTW, there have been quite a few "peaceful" demonstrations that have turned violent because of an "infiltrator".

Yep, but a lot of demonstrations have turned violent without outside help. I do think the "infiltrator" storyline is often used as an excuse for violence by left-wing groups.

The government goons are not above doing just that or have you forgotten Ruby Ridge, Waco or the obscene kidnapping of Elian under the guise of law?

I agree the government can overstep its bounds. But that becomes a circular argument here - if the fedgov is going to disregard the law, then it really doesn't matter what the law says.

[poet]

Let's take an overview of recent laws, shall we?: Seemingly un-related events come into focus when we do an ocerview:

The CFR law. Assaults free speech 30 days prior to the end of primary and 60 days prior to the end of general elections.

The mis-named p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law

The "homeland (hate that word) "security" law which is filled with special interests perks which have no business being in a law regarding "security". It's a joke.

You do know that the Admin is joining in a lawsuit in the Supreme Court relative to a "confession" of a man that was being interrogated after being shot in the face and leg?
This has to do with the Miranda rights of having an attorney present.

After that, they'll go after Article 3 of the Constitution which is the Posse Comitatus law.

You ain't seen nothing yet. And the beat goes on.

FReegards

[nicmarlo]

(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State

Reading this (and I'm no lawyer, either), but on its face, it seems to me a "reasonably prudent person" (legalese for the general public) would understand this to mean that a militia, for example, by carrying firearms and patrolling is involved in acts [that could prove to be] dangerous to human life, and if a state has a law against "taking the law into your own hands," one could stretch it to include the militia patrolling the border. They may also say "trespass" is involved.....but as I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I could see them saying something like this in a charge brought against the militia. As far as the man in the instant thread, he has trespassed, clearly, to do "business" for reasons other than what are this particular building of tenants' intent.

[Station 51]

Sounds like Mr. Murtari violated the Homeland Security Act and actully spoke out for something that he believed. Bye Bye First Admendment!

[dirtboy]

The CFR law. Assaults free speech 30 days prior to the end of primary and 60 days prior to the end of general elections.

Soon to be viewed by SCOTUS as a clay target is by someone shooting skeet.

The mis-named p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law

Agree that one is a mess - but I would imagine we'll see some of that revoked over the next two years.

The "homeland (hate that word) "security" law which is filled with special interests perks which have no business being in a law regarding "security". It's a joke.

Actually, I've read it, it has some of that, but most of it is inane bureaucratic language, and I have seen very little in that bill that could be construed as repressive against rights, and some things that are positives (such as a prohibition against TIPS)

You do know that the Admin is joining in a lawsuit in the Supreme Court relative to a "confession" of a man that was being interrogated after being shot in the face and leg? This has to do with the Miranda rights of having an attorney present.

I have heard of the case, I have not read up on it enough to pass an informed judgement.

After that, they'll go after Article 3 of the Constitution which is the Posse Comitatus law.

Sorry, but P.C. is NOT part of the Consitution, it was a law passed after the Reconstruction. And, in the Homeland Security Act, there was a Sense of Congress resolution that Posse Comitatus should remain in its current form - not legally binding, but a good indication that Congress will resist any changes to P.C.

[nicmarlo]

p.s.: don't confuse my "clearly" trespassing comment to be construed as my opinion that this man did anything "illegal." I am merely stating that his case appears to be easier to prove that he "violated" a trespass law in that he had no permit. And do not construe that to mean I believe that that is okay, either. We have freedom of speech, and I don't remember reading in the Constitution that we need "another permit" to be able to do so.

[dirtboy]

Sounds like Mr. Murtari violated the Homeland Security Act and actully spoke out for something that he believed.

No, he violated federal laws against trespass and getting a permit to demonstrate. The D.C. Chapter gets a permit for all their demonstrations. I personally have some doubts about the legality of such permits, especially for small or one-person demonstrations, but the law for such has been in place for some time.

BTW, have you even read the Homeland Security Act? I doubt you have, because there are NO such provisions in that act like you have claimed here.

[dirtboy]

We have freedom of speech, and I don't remember reading in the Constitution that we need "another permit" to be able to do so.

I tend to agree here. I can see a permit being required for large demonstrations, so the police and authorities can be notified and make any needed requirements for security and crowd control. I think it should be unnecessary for demonstrations of ten people or less. I think a generic trespass law is more in order here.

[poet]

A "sense of Congress"is just that which carries no legal weight. If the Prez honored his oath, the CFR wouldn't even be before the Supremes. Have you read all 476 pages of the homelamd security act? I went to the gov website trying to obtain a copy and received the message that it is not yet ready to print.

You are willing to give people who passed a restrictive law two years to rescind it? How trusting of you. Isn't that like hiring the fox to guard the hen house? Remember, it was a republican congress that passed it along with dems who didn't even read it because it was not printed for them to read. You trust people like them? I don't.

Gotta leave for work. have an excellent day.


FReegards

[dirtboy]

A "sense of Congress"is just that which carries no legal weight.

I realize that - however, the fact that it was passed is an indication that Congress would NOT go along with efforts to revise P.C.

You are willing to give people who passed a restrictive law two years to rescind it?

I intend to start studying the Patriot Bill once I have finished my analysis of the Homeland Security Act, indentify the most odious sections, and then lobby my Congressman and Senators to revise or revoke those sections. For all the uninformed scorn heaped upon HSA, mostly by people who apparently never read it, IMO it represents a turning point for the post 9/11 governmental excesses - it banned TIPS, for example, made a point of not legislating a national ID card, and had a few other positives as well. It was nothing like the Patriot Act. I think there will be an effort next year to both revise the Patriot Act and either kill or alter TIA.

[nicmarlo]

I agree with all your points.

[dirtboy]

Have you read all 476 pages of the homelamd security act? I went to the gov website trying to obtain a copy and received the message that it is not yet ready to print.

I have read the entire bill, most of it twice. Try THOMAS - look up H.R. 5710. BTW, I am going to post an intermediate analysis of parts of that bill that I consider significant sometime this week, and will invite others to offer up other sections or comments on the posted sections.

[billbears]

I feel so much "safer and secure" and I might add more "cuddly safe" in the arms of an all powerful government knowing that we have a "conservative" President in charge.

See? I told you that you'd feel better. Now go shop and spend, subject. The Empire will take care of all your needs