General Information

While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:
[QUOTE=Wallie]
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer [b]will not[/b] go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their [i][b]FIRST[/i][/b] loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the [i][b]LAST[/i][/b] thing they are loyal to.

For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.
[/QUOTE]
Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
[url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424[/url]

It is incorrect that because a lawyer is an officer of the court that they are not supposed to do anything that displeases the court. Lawyers are officers of the court and are bound by the rules of the court, which are procedural in nature, and by the law. They are not supposed to do anything to violate those rules or the law, but if you ever watch a trial in person you will see that attorneys frequently do things that displease the court. They have a cannon of ethics and certain legal obligations to a client that they must follow or face malpractice suits and/or disciplinary action from the bar. As an officer of the court, they cannot condone or participate in a defense they know violates laws, court rules, or that constitutes knowledge of perjury by the defendant. It is possible that an attorney may not go out of his or her way to make sure your rights were not violated during an encounter with LE but if you are the one making the assertion that your rights were violated then the burden of proof falls upon you to prove they were violated.

Attorneys have a number of legal and ethical obligations to their clients. That obligation may be fiduciary, may be an obilgation of confidentiality, and/or one of an aggressive defense. An aggressive defense does not include perjury or other illegal actions to beat a charge. If an attorney determines that a client might perjure himself or otherwise violate the law or court rules, then the attorney has an obligation to advise the client against it. If the client will not cooperte then most attorneys would refuse to take the case or withdraw as the representative.

Like anyone else you do business with - doctors, auto mechanics, contractors - or lawyers, if you have bad vibes or are dissatisfied you need to look for someone else to do business with.


[QUOTE=Orlando J]While reading the reports that triggered this great discussion I read this:

Originally Posted by Wallie
Finally, a quick word about Lawyers. Unless your Lawyer specializes in Civil Rights Law, a Lawyer will not go out of their way to make sure your Rights were not violated during an encounter with LE. Here's the reason: a Lawyer is an Officer of the Court. As such, they are not supposed to do anything which displeases the Court. Their FIRST loyalty is to the Court regardless of what they tell you. You are the LAST thing they are loyal to.

For best results, seek out an independent Civil Rights Group. NOT the ACLU, they don't care about most of the small stuff, they aim too high to be of help. There is a large, and growing, group of independent Civil Rights Libertarians who are more than happy to help. Do an Web Search for some of the topics discussed here, and you will find some info.


Can someone elaborate and explain?
The original report:
[url]http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/showpost.php?p=491637&postcount=424[/url][/QUOTE]

I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.

Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.

Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.

This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.

Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!

BBB

[QUOTE=Bad Bad Boy]I realize that lawyers are suppose to follow a code of ethics and rules of the court, but few do. Defense lawyers are the biggest bunch of sleaze that you will find any where.

THIS SEEMS TO CONTRADICT YOUR NEXT SENTENCE. IF SO MANY LAWYERS HAVE WOUND UP IN JAIL, DISBARRED OR PENALIZED IN SOME MANNER, DOES THIS NOT INDICATE THAT THE SYSTEM OF ETHICS AND RULES WORKS? ON THE OTHER HAND, IF ONLY A FEW HONOR THE CODE OF ETHICS AND COURT RULES OF PROCEDURE, THEN WHY ARE THE MAJORITY OF LAWYERS NOT IN JAIL, DISABARRED OR OTHERWISE PENALIZED?

Why do you think so many lawyers have ended up in jail, disbarred, or penalized in some manner. The only difference between defense lawyers and the criminals they protect is that the lawyers don't wear a mask and use a gun.

YOU COULD ALSO SAY THAT ABOUT DOCTORS, MECHANICS AND MANY OTHER PROFESSIONS. IF YOU ARE NOT PARTICULAR ABOUT THE LEVEL OF DEFENSE YOU RECEIVE YOU CAN ALWAYS SEEK OUT A SOLE PRACTITIONER WHO HAS NO PARA-LEGALS OR OTHER PARA-PROFESSIONALS AND WORKS FROM A SMALL OFFICE. THEY WON'T HAVE THE OVERHEAD AND THE PER HOUR CHARGE WILL BE LESS. HOWEVER, THAT LAWYER'S EXPERIENCE MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS SOMEONE WHO CHARGES THE LOCAL MARKET RATE FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND HIS ATTENTION TO YOUR CASE MAY BE DISTRACTED BY DEMANDS FROM OTHER CASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU JUST MIGHT GET A HELL OF A LOT MORE PASSION ABOUT YOUR CASE FROM HIM THAN YOU MIGHT GET FROM A LARGER LAW FIRM.

Instead, these lawyers will run the meter on you and file frivolous motions, continuous discovery requests, request senseless hearings, and anything else they can concoct to part you with your money.

WHETHER OR NOT A MOTION IS FRIVOLOUS IS IN THE EYE OF THE DEFENDANT. IF IT IS KEEPING THE DEFENDANT OUT OF JAIL OR PERMITTING THE DEFENDANT TIME TO GATHER MONEY TO PAY A FINE (AND DEFENDANTS KNOW BETTER THAN ANYONE IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OF CHARGES OR NOT) THEN THE MOTIONS MAY NOT BE AS FRIVOLOUS AS SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT MIGHT THINK. AS FOR DISCOVERY, I SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T WANT MY LAWYER GOING INTO COURT IF HE FEELS FULL DISCOVERY HAS NOT BEEN MET. AND IF IT HASN'T, THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE PROSECUTOR, NOT THE DEFENSE LAWYER. AS FOR SENSLESS HEARINGS, HOW ABOUT THE HEARINGS IN WHICH CERTAIN EVIDENCE DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR CASE GETS QUASHED OR THE PROSECUTION IS OTHERWISE HAMSTRUNG A LITTLE MORE? WOULD A DEFENDANT THINK THAT WAS A SENSELESS HEARING?

This is particularly true with divorce attorneys. The first document you have to produce is a list of all your financial assets. Your lawyer will use this to determine what you can afford in legal fees and will litigate accordingly.

THAT'S LIKE SAYING AN ACCOUNTANT CHARGES BY THE AMOUNT OF THE REFUND YOU ARE GOING TO RECEIVE. WHAT IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO RECEIVE A REFUND, SHOULD YOU NOT BE CHARGED FOR THE WORK THAT PERSON DOES? LIKE ACCOUNTANTS, ATTORNEYS HAVE A MINIMUM FEE AND IF HE HAPPENS TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE YOUR CASE QUICKLY THEN HE MAKES OUT. HOWEVER, THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOU WILL INDEED BE CHARGED BY THE HOUR FOR THE WORK. AS FOR THE FINANCIAL ASSETS, THE ATTORNEY FOR BOTH SIDES IN A DIVORCE CASE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE BOTH PARTIES COMPLETE ONE. THE JUDGE REQUIRES IT. NOT TO PROVIDE IT WOULD PUT THAT ATTORNEY IN A POTENTIAL POSITION TO BE DISCIPLINED BY THE COURT. IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE BEEN OVERCHARGED COMPARED TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHERE YOU LIVE WHO HAVE BEEN DIVORCED AND THEIR CASES TOOK THE SIMILAR TIME AND ATTENTION AS YOURS, THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION OR WRITE TO YOUR STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL. OF COURSE YOU CAN INSIST THAT HE NOT DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN GO TO COURT FOR YOU BUT HE WILL PROBABLY NOT CONTINUE TO REPRESENT YOU.

Unfortunately, we have no viable alternative but to use lawyers since we are not familiar with the law and its procedural aspects. The bottom line is that lawyers will walk away as rich men with your money regardless if you win or lose your case. You are fucked!

SOME ARE INDEED RICH AND SOME ARE NOT. IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CHARGE, IT'S NOT LIKE A RETAIL OPERATION WHERE YOU MAKE THE INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND THEN JUST REPLENISH YOUR INVENTORY AS YOU SELL IT. LIKE ANY BUSINESS, THOUGH, ATTORNEYS HAVE OVERHEAD THAT INCLUDES RENT OR OFFICE MORTGAGE, ELECTRICITY, WATER AND SEWER, PROPERTY TAXES, PAYROLL TAXES, PAYROLL AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE LEGAL RESOURCES THEY NEED. LAW BOOKS ARE PUBLISHED JUST ABOUT EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND TO NOT BUY THEM EVERY YEAR WOULD BE POTENTIAL MALPRACTICE IF HE FAILED BECASUE HE DIDN'T HAVE UPDATED RESOURCES. HE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO RESOURCES LIKE WESTLAW OR OTHER SOURCES AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PRACTICE, THAT CAN AMOUNT TO SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ITSELF. I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE WHAT AN ATTORNEY CHARGES ME BUT I'M REALISTIC ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND RESEARCH THEY HAVE TO CONDUCT, THE COST OF MANAGING A BUSINESS, AND THE ALTERNATIVE OUTCOME I MIGHT FACE THAT IN THE LONG RUN WOULD COST ME A GREAT DEAL MORE MONEY. IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL LAWYER, THE END RESULT COULD BE THE LOSS OF YOUR FREEDOM IF YOU DON'T USE ONE OR IF YOU HAMSTRING HIM IN DOING HIS JOB.

Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/QUOTE]

Warshak v. USA

Update On 6/18/07: [b]Sixth Circuit issues opinion upholding district court's injunction against secret warrantless seizures of email[/b]

In Warshak v. USA, EFF is fighting to make sure that your email is as safe against government intrusion as your phone calls, postal mail, or the private papers you keep in your home.

This case was brought by Steven Warshak to stop the government's repeated secret searches and seizures of his stored email using the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA). In a landmark ruling, the district court held that the SCA violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing secret, warrantless searches and seizures of email stored with a third party.

The government, which has routinely used the SCA over the past 20 years to secretly obtain stored email without a warrant, appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court is now primed to be the first circuit court ever to decide whether email users have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their stored email.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, EFF and a coalition of civil liberties groups argue in support of the district court's ruling. Email users clearly expect that their inboxes are private, but the government argues the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect emails at all when they are stored with an ISP or a webmail provider like Hotmail or Gmail. EFF disagrees and argues that the Fourth Amendment applies online just as strongly as it does offline.
Legal Documents

* Circuit Decision Upholding District Court's Injunction [PDF, 3.5M] June 18, 2007
* District Court Order Enjoining Government from Secretly Seizing Email Without a Warrant July 21, 2006
* Government's Opening Brief to Sixth Circuit October 11, 2006
* Warshak's Brief to Sixth Circuit November 13, 2006
* Law Professors' Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 85K] November 21, 2006
* EFF, ACLU and CDT Amicus Brief to Sixth Circuit [PDF, 95K] Nov 22, 2006
* Government's Reply Brief to Sixth Circuit December 13, 2006

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Interesting article today on action at the Supreme Court concerning 4th amendment and traveling in cars. See [url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url]

Now before the sea lawyers all chime in with recommendations to get into spitting matches with the police by insisting on leaving the area, note the language used in the decision. Justice Souter, writing for the unanimous court said, "...any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. A traffic stop necessarily curtails the
travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply. Here's the language from the amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/QUOTE]
The USSC made [i]exactly[/i] the right decision.
[QUOTE=The Aforementioned Article][size=-2][url]http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/jun/19/na-supreme-court-rules-4th-amendment-covers-auto-p/?news-nationworld[/url][/size]

...Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. [b]The state has since conceded there was no basis to stop the car.[/b][/QUOTE]
I added the emphasis to the above quote from the article.

Detention [b]must[/b] be based on specific, articulable facts, and rational inferences. "Unaparticularized suspicion" and "inarticulate hunches" are not enough. A valid "investigative stop" [b]must[/b] be based on "reasonable articulable suspicion" (RAS). [size=-2]{ US v Briggman, 931 F2d 705 (1991) }; {US v Strickland, 902 F2d 937 (1990) }; { US v Strahan, 984 F2d 155 (1993) }[/size]

Pretextual traffic stops are a violation of the 4th Ammendment [size=-2]{ US v Eldridge, 984 F2d 943 (1993) }[/size]
[QUOTE=Irish Male2]Nevertheless, the decision points out that if there is no justifiable basis to stop a car, 4th amendment rights might very well apply...[/QUOTE]
Not "might apply". It [i]does[/i] apply. That's exactly the point Justice Souter made.

Wallie

And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.

[QUOTE=Irish Male2]And who makes the decision, Wallie, whether the stop is justifiable or not? Certainly not your or I for some other person. So, does that person make the decision that the stop was not for a justifiable reason? Does the officer make that decision if it was justifiable? One thing we know for sure, the court will certainly make that decision if it becomes necessary. If the court makes the final decision the person better be sure the minute the cop's lights go on that they have the money to take the case not just to court but on through the appellate process. The point you are missing is that immediately going toe to toe with an officer in a traffic stop is not necessarily prudent unless you know exactly why you were stopped, and no one is a mind reader. It's good to have information, which is why I made my post, but carrying it to the extreme, and some will just by reading it here, can get people in to trouble.[/QUOTE]
I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.

You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.

However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.

Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.

Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.

A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.

The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.

[size=-2][i]I can already see the flames headed my way from this....[/size][/i]

Wallie

All excellent points, Wallie, and very germaine to the subject. I think we think the same, just in a little different way. People absolutely should know their rights and if appropriate, stand up for them. Having said that, however, in some instances it can be a very expensive fight to do so. I agree that far too many people don't know their rights, don't understand their rights, or feel that because they think they have the right to do something then they must have the right to do that something.


[QUOTE=Wallie]I guess I misunderstood your point. I agree with the point about who makes the decision whether it was a justifiable stop or not. Obviously, the court would have to make that decision, and I have never advocated going toe to toe with LE.

You do have the right to know why you were stopped, and to ask. They have to have some sort of reason.

However, my point was simply that the 4th Amendment does apply to stops where there is no RAS.

Also, I have said before that I am not encouraging anyone to do anything, and that I am simply pointing out Rights which we have, that are often abused/ignored. I have also said that I don't recommend doing some things that are our Right. I stand by those statements.

Although we may, and often do, have Rights that are ignored/abused, the process of defending those Rights can be expensive, time consuming, and could result in a night in jail. Although you can win a court case in alot of circumstances, you have to be willing to deal with the drama that comes with defending your Rights. You have to know what you are doing, and be able/willing to deal with some shit to stand on principle, and defend a Right.

A cop doesn't know the Law as it relates to Court findings, etc. They are simply told (in a manner of speaking) "here is what you can arrest people for, go to it." The are generally unaware that they may be violating some of a person's Rights, they are simply doing what they think is their job, so they arrest someone, take them to jail, show up for court, and are surprised when the case is dismissed. Often though, they will get a quick conviction on the local level, only to have it overturned by a higher Court.

The point I have tried to make here, and I have been doing my level best to provide the info about the cases to support my statements, is simply that we have more Constitutional protections that many people realize, and that more people should take the time to try and learn what they are.

[size=-2][i]I can already see the flames headed my way from this....[/size][/i]

Wallie[/QUOTE]

There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.

So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.

[QUOTE=Hizark21]There was a recent report that someone was arrested for criminal intent to solicit. The case was dropped, but I am not sure when this occurred. About 3 or 4 weeks ago a cop stopped me and implied that he could arrest me for picking up a SW.

So I have decided to get a copy of the Costa Mesa "criminal intent to solicit" case that was overturned in the CA appeals court. I am going to carry this with me and hopefully this will stop the cops if they try to pursue this.[/QUOTE]
Hizark, can you convert it to PDF, and post it here for us to check out too? Or, is there an online version we can check out? (Or, just list that case name, and court ref, and I can find a copy, although a PDF would be great.)

Wallie

Wallie, you are going to love this one. A Louisiana attorney was acquitted on charges of failing to file income tax returns. [url]http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321[/url]

While it was a federal court making the decision, I wouldn't hang my hat on it just yet. It's possible that the IRS will want to get it into the Supreme Court. If it does go to the Supreme Court and gets overturned, everyone who used this case as support for not filing income tax returns will probably pay some stiff penalities.

This video was made in Canada. More recently, these systems have begun to see use in the United States to quickly pick out vehicles without insurance, unregistered, reported stolen, involved in crimes, etc… that have been entered into a database.

Combined with the ever growing camera surveillance program, it would appear that Big Brother is trying to make our sport harder to play than it already is.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENGY1CD9y_4]Link[/url]


Benchseats Rock

I know it's been said here before and possibly in different ways, but the best thing one can do if they are stopped in their car is this. Respectfully and without anger or confrontation simpley say when stopped, "Am I under arrest? If I am I would like an attorney before answering questions. If I am not under arrest, please allow me to leave." There is no law prohibiting you from saying that over and over and over again every time another question is asked. The reason you say it respectfully and without anger and confrontation is because police officers are trained in the art of questioning you, cajoling you, and instigating you to get frustrated, angry, or confrontational, thereby blurting out something you should not say.