Feds Say Man Deserved Arrest Because Jacket Said ‘Occupy Everything’

[green73]

http://crumbsville.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/occupy-jacket-2-300x200.jpg

A Florida man deserved to be arrested inside the Supreme Court building last year for wearing a jacket painted with “Occupy Everything,” and is lucky he was only apprehended on unlawful entry charges, the Department of Justice says.

The President Barack Obama administration made that assertion in a legal filing in response to a lawsuit brought by Fitzgerald Scott, who is seeking $1 million in damages for his January 2012 arrest inside the Supreme Court building. He also wants his arrest record expunged.

What’s more, the authorities said the former Marine’s claim that he was protected by the First Amendment bolsters the government’s position (.pdf) because the Supreme Court building’s public interior is a First Amendment-free zone.

Fitzgerald was not disturbing anybody, but was repeatedly told by court staff to leave the building or remove the coat. Outside the building, about a dozen “Occupy” protesters were arrested.

Inside, Fitzgerald was handcuffed and arrested for unlawful entry as he was viewing an exhibit on slavery.

cont
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/man-deserved-arrest/

Mod: video of arrest here, h/t UWDude


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

[AGRP]

Is this North Korea?

[A Son of Liberty]

Is this North Korea?

I'm STUNNED he wasn't executed on-sight.

[sailingaway]

What’s more, the authorities said the former Marine’s claim that he was protected by the First Amendment bolsters the government’s position (.pdf) because the Supreme Court building’s public interior is a First Amendment-free zone.

wow

[bolil]

Its cool, he was just sequestered in a cage. No biggy. There is one other variable that may have contributed to his arrest.

[sailingaway]

You can retweet it here: https://twitter.com/usernamenuse/status/307919455898439680

[AGRP]

wow

Sounds like some creative protests could be made there. It would be funny if a group stood outstide and with signs that said it was a constitution free zone. No right to speech, your life, your property, etc...

[sailingaway]

Sounds like some creative protests could be made there. It would be funny if a group stood outstide and with signs that said it was a constitution free zone. No right to speech, your life, your property, etc...

There is a difference between blocking court hallways with picketers and making your political views known on your jacket while inside a public building.

[AGRP]

There is a difference between blocking court hallways with picketers and making your political views known on your jacket while inside a public building.

Where does it say that in the post?

[sailingaway]

Where does it say that in the post?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just venting, using your picketers as an example. The 'no free speech zone' TO THE EXTENT IT HAS ANY VALIDITY speaks of protests that would disrupt or endanger lawful process, not to this.

[UWDude]

I am sure all of you have seen the video of the arrest, but it is one of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

[AGRP]

I am sure none of you have seen the video of the arrest, but it is one of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

That should be put in the original post. Mod edit?

[UWDude]

Oops, I meant to say "all of you" have seen it, not "none of you"

[sailingaway]

That should be put in the original post. Mod edit?

done

[Anti Federalist]

Just one building?

Pikers.

http://frtv.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/ConstitutionFree.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Congressman King disapproves of this thread.

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/12/73/127326c5eaf51cf6c25bc7a516ec2f53.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

stoopid dupe posts

[DamianTV]

Feds say one thing but mean another.

Feds meant that Man Deserves Arrest for the crime of being a Mundane.

[green73]

I am sure all of you have seen the video of the arrest, but it is one of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkA-rffPVaw

Was about to do, but I see it's been done. Thanks!

[oyarde]

Exhibit on slavery in the hall ? Is that where they post all the decisions made against the people ? Myself, I would never enter that building , gives me the" willies" just thinking about it. I take it , in the slavery display they have Wickard V. Filburn, 1942 ,among others ?

[unknown]

wow

Super wow.

[otherone]

I'm not sure this qualifies as Irony. Tragedy maybe. Given the scotus' history of rubber-stamping whatever the executive wants, this comes as no surprise. Maybe a fourth branch of government is needed, ya' know, one that actually represents the, um....people? Nah....just get rid of the other three.

[pcosmar]

http://www.theprintsale.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/You-Are-Here-v21.jpg


What’s more, the authorities said the former Marine’s claim that he was protected by the First Amendment bolsters the government’s position (.pdf) because the Supreme Court building’s public interior is a First Amendment-free zone.


wow

:(
any questions?

[DGambler]

Didn't we, the people, pay for this building? I understand the need for security but it does not sound like this man was causing a ruckus.


Just another damnation of public property in my opinion. If we privatized justice, then this property would be private and different rules would apply.

[pcosmar]

If we privatized justice, then this property would be private and different rules would apply.

Yup, Corporate Tyranny. Much better. :rolleyes:

How about we just put the dogs on a short leash. Limit government to the point that it is as harmless as possible..
Disarm (physically and virtually) the Government and it's minions.

People were able to make roads across the world.. Governments only responsibility is to guarantee equal use of them.

[osan]

Just another damnation of public property in my opinion. If we privatized justice, then this property would be private and different rules would apply.

Your error lies in the mistaken belief that there is a fundamental difference between "public" and "private". These concepts have their value in raising distinctions between different modes of operation but these differences are NOT FUNDAMENTAL. They are superficial. This has it place, but to allow oneself to believe that a private law society would of necessity be radically different from that of one of public law is high folly.

Whether law (justice, what have you) is administered publicly or privately is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is how it is administered and to that question the issue of monopoly takes center stage. If by private law we have a system where no party holds monopolistic power, then you may have a point with which I may agree. But a monopolistic private holder of such authority is in no way different, fundamentally speaking, than the public holder.

One of the key problems we face today is the lack of credible redress. The courts pick and choose by some means beyond the average man's ability to divine which rights they will support and those they will not, as well as in what manner and to what degrees. We are a nation governed by the rule of whim rather than principle. Combine that fact with the general apathy, the level common disport of the individual, and the rank ignorance of the average Johnny and it becomes no mystery how we came to the pretty pass in which we now find ourselves. This reality renders grim our prospects for the future, but do not let that dull your resolve and enthusiasm. To hell with Them.

[Stallheim]

Your error lies in the mistaken belief that there is a fundamental difference between "public" and "private". These concepts have their value in raising distinctions between different modes of operation but these differences are NOT FUNDAMENTAL. They are superficial. This has it place, but to allow oneself to believe that a private law society would of necessity be radically different from that of one of public law is high folly.

Whether law (justice, what have you) is administered publicly or privately is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is how it is administered and to that question the issue of monopoly takes center stage. If by private law we have a system where no party holds monopolistic power, then you may have a point with which I may agree. But a monopolistic private holder of such authority is in no way different, fundamentally speaking, than the public holder.

One of the key problems we face today is the lack of credible redress. The courts pick and choose by some means beyond the average man's ability to divine which rights they will support and those they will not, as well as in what manner and to what degrees. We are a nation governed by the rule of whim rather than principle. Combine that fact with the general apathy, the level common disport of the individual, and the rank ignorance of the average Johnny and it becomes no mystery how we came to the pretty pass in which we now find ourselves. This reality renders grim our prospects for the future, but do not let that dull your resolve and enthusiasm. To hell with Them. If the system of law was truly private then monopoly wouldn't be an issue, as there would be no authority to restrict competition,all entities are under the law if they have no ability to rig the overarching game in their own favor. Walmart can't rig the game in its own favor it must seek help from... you guessed it, government. The same would be true of private law, enforcement, insurance, banking etc.

It is the public/private partnerships which are the source of the greatest evil, this is the thing people really fear when they think of privatization of government services. If these things were completely privatized then issue solved. What makes the drug war so bad? Why do all these drug lords have all the guns and money? Public private partnership, since the state does the enforcing and taxpayers incur the cost of whipping out less capable or brutal competition. Only partially privatize prisons, legal remedies, law enforcement and yeah you have organized crime of the same nature since he state rigs the entire game in favor of its favorite players. The state is the game rigger, so privatization is not the problem: privatizing profit and socializing cost is.

[Stallheim]

Yup, Corporate Tyranny. Much better. :rolleyes:

How about we just put the dogs on a short leash. Limit government to the point that it is as harmless as possible..
Disarm (physically and virtually) the Government and it's minions.

People were able to make roads across the world.. Governments only responsibility is to guarantee equal use of them.
Corporate Tyranny is only possible with a fascist structure in place: a public-private partnership. No corporate tyranny is possible in a free market nu-hampered by a centralized state. But clarity is essential when calling for privatization, it only works if the entire related infrastructure is also privatized. The strings to illegitimate power must also be severed completely for a corporation to lose its ability to participate in tyrannical behavior.

[pcosmar]

The strings to illegitimate power must also be severed completely for a corporation to lose its ability to participate in tyrannical behavior.

Without those strings.. Corporations would not and could not exist,, but that is another question.

It comes back to the individual. And the Law belongs in the hands of the people,, individually.
There is no need nor place for "private" Law enforcement. You or your company has no authority over me. Period.
and the very second it attempts to,, I am authorized to use deadly force to prevent it.

I am the Law. (as are you)

Now as a society,, some common ground and social structure is needed. Common Law.. and a Constitution.
Both of these have been ignored or stifled by those that wish to impose.

If you wish to have private security,, that is your choice and your option.
Your private "police" have no authority over me,, or anyone else.

[AFPVet]

This is called color of law.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242


Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Prosecutors later dismissed the charges... folks, this color of law bullshit is getting way out of hand. It's all about how much people are willing to take. Oh, and did you like the intimidation aspect of all of those other court police/security around him? This shit has to stop.

[anaconda]

A "First Amendment free zone? Sounds unconstitutional.

[Anti Federalist]

Would that I could assign 100 reps at a time.


Your error lies in the mistaken belief that there is a fundamental difference between "public" and "private". These concepts have their value in raising distinctions between different modes of operation but these differences are NOT FUNDAMENTAL. They are superficial. This has it place, but to allow oneself to believe that a private law society would of necessity be radically different from that of one of public law is high folly.

Whether law (justice, what have you) is administered publicly or privately is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is how it is administered and to that question the issue of monopoly takes center stage. If by private law we have a system where no party holds monopolistic power, then you may have a point with which I may agree. But a monopolistic private holder of such authority is in no way different, fundamentally speaking, than the public holder.

One of the key problems we face today is the lack of credible redress. The courts pick and choose by some means beyond the average man's ability to divine which rights they will support and those they will not, as well as in what manner and to what degrees. We are a nation governed by the rule of whim rather than principle. Combine that fact with the general apathy, the level common disport of the individual, and the rank ignorance of the average Johnny and it becomes no mystery how we came to the pretty pass in which we now find ourselves. This reality renders grim our prospects for the future, but do not let that dull your resolve and enthusiasm. To hell with Them.

[anaconda]

Time for the 11th Amendment: "No 1st Amendment free zones."

[UWDude]

Time for the 11th Amendment: "No 1st Amendment free zones."


LoL

[jmdrake]

How can that cop say with a straight face "If you don't leave or take off your jacket we will put you under arrest for unlawful entry?" He had already "entered". Stupid low level tyrant.

[green73]

Would that I could assign 100 reps at a time.

Me too.


If the system of law was truly private then monopoly wouldn't be an issue, as there would be no authority to restrict competition,all entities are under the law if they have no ability to rig the overarching game in their own favor. Walmart can't rig the game in its own favor it must seek help from... you guessed it, government. The same would be true of private law, enforcement, insurance, banking etc.

It is the public/private partnerships which are the source of the greatest evil, this is the thing people really fear when they think of privatization of government services. If these things were completely privatized then issue solved. What makes the drug war so bad? Why do all these drug lords have all the guns and money? Public private partnership, since the state does the enforcing and taxpayers incur the cost of whipping out less capable or brutal competition. Only partially privatize prisons, legal remedies, law enforcement and yeah you have organized crime of the same nature since he state rigs the entire game in favor of its favorite players. The state is the game rigger, so privatization is not the problem: privatizing profit and socializing cost is.

[Stallheim]

Without those strings.. Corporations would not and could not exist,, but that is another question.

It comes back to the individual. And the Law belongs in the hands of the people,, individually.
There is no need nor place for "private" Law enforcement. You or your company has no authority over me. Period.
and the very second it attempts to,, I am authorized to use deadly force to prevent it.

I am the Law. (as are you)

Now as a society,, some common ground and social structure is needed. Common Law.. and a Constitution.
Both of these have been ignored or stifled by those that wish to impose.

If you wish to have private security,, that is your choice and your option.
Your private "police" have no authority over me,, or anyone else.

I don't have any problem with this analysis of yours. I understand that you are skittish about private law and enforcement, but I suggest that this is due to an imagined version that is not truly private, but something still tied to statist coercion. This is also abhorrent to me. It would only work internally, and thus would require you to voluntarily participate from the outset. Everyone binds themselves voluntarily to certain organizations, or agrees to certain stipulations when interacting with other private citizens, this would be no different. You are welcome to come into my store, but now we have certain requirements, one of which is that you abide by my rules, and agree that if there is some sort of altercation on my private property that we take it to a third party arbitration judge (a private service for just such a situation.) This is private law.The state on the other hand is an external aggressor. A private defensive force tied to some sort of insurance, most likely, would be an extension of you protecting yourself, if you chose to purchase that sort of protection. It would be a simple market choice of a superior service.

[Mani]

That guy was so calm and respectful. Yet he was tossed in the slammer coz the officer got tired of warning him to take off the jacket.......words on a shirt....equals unlawful entry.....

[enjerth]

http://www.theprintsale.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/You-Are-Here-v21.jpg




:(
any questions?

Yeah. Is the building to be entirely vacant of all lettering apart from the approved words of their own choosing? Absolutely no free speech allowed? Appealing to the first amendment is automatic guilt?

[AFPVet]

That guy was so calm and respectful. Yet he was tossed in the slammer coz the officer got tired of warning him to take off the jacket.......words on a shirt....equals unlawful entry.....

Yup... in other words, they can charge you with unlawful entry for anything they see fit :mad:

This is a classic example of color of law. In a perfect world, that cop would have been arrested. You can't make up a law and then arrest someone for something else because you don't like them.

[enjerth]

Yup... in other words, they can charge you with unlawful entry for anything they see fit :mad:

This is a classic example of color of law. In a perfect world, that cop would have been arrested. You can't make up a law and then arrest someone for something else because you don't like them.

Like a child lying, you say the first stupid thing that comes to mind. Then you follow through on that stupid thing, just because you said it. Otherwise your lie would appear weak.

We can try to manipulate the data around that point later. "You can find out what you actually did wrong when we reveal that in court. Otherwise, just take my word for it and pay the fine."

"And don't do it again."