Seattle Attorney doesn't like the way laws punish people

[amlevin]

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/03/fox_news_thinks_seattles_race.php

Seems like the Seattle city Attorney will no longer prosecute Driving with Suspended License (1st degree) anymore. Seems like over 44% of those offenders come from only one race so the "Law" is unfair in his opinion.

Another interesting item, "Holmes' policy of asking for 364-day sentences for gross misdemeanor offenses that before had called for 365-day sentences." He does this because if an Illegal Immigrant is locked up for 365 days the Fed's automatically process a deportation order. He wouldn't want that to happen, after all, Seattle is a Sanctuary City.

Take heart all you that went to college and obtained degrees. You know, the days of working at crappy jobs, eating cold pizza, living in an apartment that would be condemned if the building inspector ever came by. Seattle has decided that the jobs that the requirement for a college degree is a racist requirement.

All I can say is thank god for 405. That way I don't ever have to enter the Seattle City limits. That reduces my chances of spending any money there to ZERO.

 

[Metalhead47]

:banghead:

So when is that earthquake due that's s'posed to make Seattle slide into the bay along with the PRK?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Since I believe driving is a right, I have no problem with them not prosecuting, Driving with a suspended license.

That law makes no sense to me to begin with. I understand the competency part wanting to ensure people know how to operate a vehicle and obey traffic regulations. But to be used as a tool by the state to restrict your travel makes no sense to me.

 

[amlevin]

Since I believe driving is a right, I have no problem with them not prosecuting, Driving with a suspended license.

That law makes no sense to me to begin with. I understand the competency part wanting to ensure people know how to operate a vehicle and obey traffic regulations. But to be used as a tool by the state to restrict your travel makes no sense to me.

Courts have for years found that it is a privilege, not a right. Since alternate means of travel, including the primary one of walking, exist, nobody is deprived of their right to travel.

What I found MOST interesting about the City attorney's decisions was the 364 day sentence requests. Just short enough to prevent deportation of the illegal immigrants. Seattle will protect those illegals from deportation at any cost.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Courts have for years found that it is a privilege, not a right. Since alternate means of travel, including the primary one of walking, exist, nobody is deprived of their right to travel.

What I found MOST interesting about the City attorney's decisions was the 364 day sentence requests. Just short enough to prevent deportation of the illegal immigrants. Seattle will protect those illegals from deportation at any cost.

Still show where it is a and why it is a "privilege" and not just the rationalization to be used as a tool by the state? Defend why anybody would want to defend someones right to travel? Cite where it is limited to "walking". tell me how I can, living several miles out of town "walk" to work, take my tools with me, buy several bags of groceries or do many other things by walking?

And folks wonder why other folks like me feel many aspects of the government and their laws have simply become a joke.

I stand by my positions that although I might agree to license in a competency sense, I don't agree with the state simply using it as a tool to their advantage to deny your ability to work, provide for yourself, and force you into doing things their way. Oh and by the way it is not a civil offense like most traffic offenses the state considers this offense to be "criminal". I lost a job precisely because of this, I wasn't able to cash a check because of this and ended up stranded out of town because of this.

As long as nobody is hurting me, I don't give a rats ass that Seattle has stopped prosecuting for this ridiculous "offense", I actually applaud this and if I ever end up on a jury because of this issue I would refuse to convict. We shouldn't spend our money prosecuting victim-less crimes.

 

[marshaul]

Since I believe driving is a right, I have no problem with them not prosecuting, Driving with a suspended license.

That law makes no sense to me to begin with. I understand the competency part wanting to ensure people know how to operate a vehicle and obey traffic regulations. But to be used as a tool by the state to restrict your travel makes no sense to me.

+1

Driving is clearly and unambiguously a first-amendment-protected right.

I can prove it, too.

The first amendment protects the right to assemble, and has also been found to protect the right to travel for assembly.

Which means that the only argument for driving remaining a privilege is that one may walk or ride a horse to a demonstration, right?

Well, too bad, SCOTUS, you've defeated your own sophistry:

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

Well, guess what, statists?

It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to require the licensure of the right to travel for assembly by motor vehicle so long as the right to travel to assembly by other means (e.g. horse-drawn carriage) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the car to be the quintessential means of transport. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a car to a horse-drawn carriage: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it does not create a health nuisance by defecating all over city streets; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to control a horse; it can get one to a impromptu demonstration on the other side of the state in a matter of hours. Whatever the reason, car are the most popular means of transport chosen by Americans for assembly to exercise the right of protest, and licensure of their use is invalid.



Actually, I'm stretching it, but the only way to avoid the contradiction will be to not require un-permitted carry in some form. If we win and get the supreme court to agree that a "right" requires at least one way to exercise it without a license, then my argument stands 100%.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Statist rationalization is why our servants the government somehow now have garnered the authority to restrict the freedoms of their masters, when it is not infringing or hurting anyone else.

Here's some extra food for thought for anyone curious about this subject.

"Personal liberty consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

1 Blackstone's Commentary134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary , 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion to go where and when one pleases only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

[emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

From an Illinois state court decision

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Another point the courts including the supreme court here in Washington have ruled that conducting business or making a living of the highways and streets can be licensed, but that it is a very different thing than the right of personal travel.

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus."

State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864. (Justice Tolman)

 

[amlevin]

But where are the decisions that uphold one's right to operate a motor vehicle without a license???? These decisions merely affirm ones right to use the roads.

Another twist, what about tolls? If attempting to use a road for which a toll is collected, isn't that an infringement on your right?

BTW, have you used any of those decisions when arguing your case(s) past or present? How did they work for you?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

But where are the decisions that uphold one's right to operate a motor vehicle without a license???? These decisions merely affirm ones right to use the roads.

Another twist, what about tolls? If attempting to use a road for which a toll is collected, isn't that an infringement on your right?

BTW, have you used any of those decisions when arguing your case(s) past or present? How did they work for you?

The state of Illinois did say that, I think there are no other decisions simply because no one has been able to afford to take it all the way. But there are no decisions saying it isn't a right. Only that conducting business can be licensed. We also have to remember judges, prosecutors and police are all dependent upon it being a privilege granted by the State.

Toll is an interesting twist and one I was thinking about but have no answer for, maybe public tolls would actually be unconstitutional too. I haven't studied it since I have never encountered one. I believe that if roads were privately owned than they are perfectly fine.

No I haven't because I have not been able to afford a lawyer, I do know my last case should have been tossed. But I am financially over a barrel (it's the main reason my license is yanked otherwise I wouldn't be in court) and have to weigh the cost of an attorney or the plea which lowers it from criminal to traffic, and a drastically reduced fine I can pay off at $25 a month. (Another reason I am at the courthouse at least once a month). The current one the judge even found no PC, but I still have to go to court...:banghead:.

And for those reading this and who don't know me I am not purposely pushing this issue with my state, I have tried to comply with the licensing requirements several times over the last few years. It gets yanked due to other extenuating circumstances and I am not afforded due process. I usually find out my license is suspended at the time the officer is giving me the criminal ticket of driving with a suspended license. 3 of the tickets have been when I wasn't even driving.

First time while I was drinking a coffee outside Starbucks. The deputies Bundy and Stroebel were very aggressive and demanded ID without telling me PC or RAS why. And then they lied about it on their reports. And even though I emphatically stated I am not being uncooperative but want to protect my 4th and 5th amendment rights, they called me "uncooperative" in their report. Oh and I was open carrying, this is what I originally thought they were approaching me about. (by the way it was this arrest that lead me to have to walk, when I was then later held at gun point and illegally detained by Officer Slydisko and than illegal detained by several other BPD for OC)

Another time was over a phone call the officer saw me (again outside Starbucks while he was walking in, ran me because of my gun and called me, got irritated because I asked him if that was enough PC to run my license so he sent me a ticket. This officer (Bass) then lied on his report and lied to records on why he was requesting a copy of my license.

The last time was because I refused to tell a deputy "what happened" when he called me about my car in a ditch (crappy weather) and then when I got to the scene to help the tow truck driver, he threatened me with arrest if I didn't tell him what he wanted to know. I refused. The tow truck driver cabled the car, and chained it to wench it out asked me to get in put it in reverse and direct the wheels out so he can get it out. The deputy than gave me the criminal ticket for doing that. I haven't seen the report on this yet but what do you wanna bet it has at the very least misleading information in it.

 

[BigDave]

Whew SVG your closet is just full of bones and cobwebs !

Maybe a healthy try and understanding in, it does matter what we do and there is limitations along with the universe does not revolve around anyone of us.

 

[BigDave]

Typical Liberal BS out of Seattle, the laws are there by a legal process and there are legal processes to remove such, not just on a whim of a PA, it is not his job to pick and choose what laws he will only prosecute.

There is a reason while people loose the right to drive and rightfully so.
This is usually occurs when drivers who have proven to violate laws with no regard to them.

 

[marshaul]

...people loose the right to drive and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to free speech and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to assemble and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to bear arms and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure and rightfully so...

 

[BigDave]

...people lose the right to free speech and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to assemble and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to bear arms and rightfully so...

...people lose the right to be free from unwarranted search and seizure and rightfully so...

I knew someone would take and twist and turn what I said and take it to extremes, we are talking about driving.
Or does this driving issue hit a nerve with you as well?

 

[marshaul]

I knew someone would take and twist and turn what I said and take it to extremes, we are talking about driving.
Or does this driving issue hit a nerve with you as well?

I have a license and a "safe driver" discount on my insurance, if that's what you're insinuating.

And anyway, I didn't twist anything you said. I merely extended it by analogy.

I think the word you meant was "privilege", not "right".

 

[BigDave]

I have a license and a "safe driver" discount on my insurance, if that's what you're insinuating.

And anyway, I didn't twist anything you said. I merely extended it by analogy.

I think the word you meant was "privilege", not "right".

Extending what someone says is basically twisting what ones says, did I say it, NO!

True driving is considered a privilege not a right, mistyped.

 

[marshaul]

Extending what someone says is basically twisting what ones says, did I say it, NO!

True driving is considered a privilege not a right, mistyped.

I really wasn't twisting your language. I just extended it by analogy to show the error in mistyping "right" instead of "privilege".

I wasn't suggesting that you think driving is akin to those other things. Clearly you do not, and that much was obvious to begin with.

However, I believe I have already proved that driving is a right, no matter how the supreme court might twist their logic and distort their own precedent in order to declare it otherwise.

The only thing I cannot "prove" is whether such a right allows licensure for its exercise or not. While I of course maintain that no licensure of "right" is permissible, this question is about to be re-settled by the SCOTUS in the context of 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Notice Marshaul how none of the statist will ever prove or support why it isn't a right? Just that it isn't in their opinion. And then they retort to Brady campaign like tactics of attack when shown that it really isn't.

BigDave is famous for turning to personal attacks.

P.S. Most people with 1/2 a brain could tell you weren't twisting anybody's words just pointing out the fallacy in his reasoning.

 

[BigDave]

Notice Marshaul how none of the statist will ever prove or support why it isn't a right? Just that it isn't in their opinion. And then they retort to Brady campaign like tactics of attack when shown that it really isn't.

BigDave is famous for turning to personal attacks.

Not an attack SVG, just stating the obvious.

There are those that always have smoke around them. It is well known that where there is smoke their is fire, just as if there is always a conflict going on then we look at the players to see who the common denominator is!

Someone always having conflicts with law enforcement and/or the courts do not represent the vast majority of the law abiding citizen that are exercising their rights to carry for self defense.

When it comes to the laws be it driving or other issues there are way to address it legally, if one feels so strongly about it then contact your legislatures and see if you can get the process moving ahead.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Rightly or wrongly, you get caught driving when the state says you should not be driving expect the state to be a wee bit nasty. I applaud those LOEs that give you a ticket only with a bit of advice of not doing it again AFTER you get home until you get your driving privileges reinstated.

This is where reality and the law collide.

It is what it is....elect folks that think our way and we win.

Well it won't be by electing republican statists that's for sure and my state is democratic so that doesn't work....hmmmmm....

In every instance I have had the ticket I had no idea I was suspended, believe me it sucks getting a criminal ticket when you thought you had lived by all the rules.

I also don't believe rights are dependent on who is elected they are there or they are not, our government is created to protect not create or dismiss rights.