You dont have feee speech if you can be arrested for jokes. (Page 4/18)
fredtoast AUG 04, 12:09 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
"never target clean cut white people in nice cars"

There you go again... completely changing the argument... having nothing to do with the discussion. I wasn't targeted, I called them.




I am talking about the search. You clearly did not request that. And you claimed that the searched you, i.e. "targeted you" because you were a clean cut young man in a nice car.

I know al ot about the academic studies and court cases that address police profiling. And I am not aware of any that involve police targeting clean cut white kids in nice cars.
ray b AUG 04, 01:44 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:
"Immunity" is different from "privilege". "Immunity" means a person can not be prosecuted while "privilege" means a person does not have to disclose information.

"Immunity" needs to be very limited. But "privilege" needs to remain in place with a few limitations. Many very important and knowledgeable people, and especially foreign ambassadors and heads of state, would not even talk to the President if they knew everything they said would be public record.



IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS A GOOD EXCUSE IF YOU ARE A COP [ or other official ]
but never for a citizen in any way shape or form
for them IGNORANCE OF THE LAW is not ever a defense allowed

SO ONLY THE PIG GETS TO SAY

''I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS WRONG ILLEGAL ECT''

AS THERE IS NO CLEAR COURT CASE SAYING THAT IS FORBIDDEN TO ME
never mind it is against several laws

and that IS WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL

BTW IT IS AS BAD AS TELLING A JURY THEY CAN'T NULLIFY

AS I BELIEVE THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A JURY IS TO NULLIFY BAD LAWS

THERE IS NO OTHER REAL REASON FOR A JURY
randye AUG 04, 07:44 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


Here is how legal argument work. I post case law to support my claim. If you disagree then you post caselaw to prove that I am wrong.

Courts are not impressed with squealing.

So I will just wait here for you to post case law to prove that I am wrong.





OK,

fredtroll said: "....the Circuit courts in Florida (Owens v Florida, 2nd District) have continued to uphold....."


I responded by stating that you don't know a Circuit Court from a DCA and that our Florida Circuit Courts have only persuasive authority.

Accordingly, we do not generally consider that the Circuit Courts here "uphold" anything as you claimed since they do not technically create stare decisis. Florida DCAs have binding authority over our Circuit Courts, (but not over other Florida DCAs where they have only persuasive authority as well).

Proof of my contention is contained in Judge Villanti's opinion in Owens v Florida, 2nd District, the same case law that you cited, wherein:

“We are aware of the decision of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida that held that the smell of marijuana in connection with a traffic stop cannot constitute the sole basis supporting probable cause for a search. See State v. Nord, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511 (Fla. 20th Cir. Ct. Aug. 8, 2020). With all due respect to the capable and experienced circuit judge who authored that opinion, we cannot agree.”


"Squealing" is one thing, but most serious courts get a real chuckle out of it when someone's own case law cite is used against him by opposing counsel, ....just as yours has now.

.

You obviously don't do any effective appellate work or even motion practice do you?

Perhaps scratching out a meager living by just plea bargaining on behalf of low level drug offenders in hick-town Appalachia is sufficient for you.

As an aside, The Florida 2DCA is actually my home district and, coincidentally enough, I know Judge Craig Villanti quite well.

.....

I have now exhausted all of the time and patience I have for you and I shall return to sitting back, watching, and laughing at you.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-04-2023).]

fredtoast AUG 04, 09:34 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
"Squealing" is one thing, but most serious courts, being outside of Appalachia, get a real chuckle out of it when someone's own case law cite is used against him by opposing counsel, ....just as yours has now.




You don't understand how this works at all. I Quoted a DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS case. That case mentioned a decision from a LOWER COURT (20th Judicial Circuit Court) that you tried to cite to support your position.

And if you read the complete decision you will see this quote in the final conclusion "Our SUPREME COURT has observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle—like we have here—provides probable cause to search each of the vehicle's occupants." (citing State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002))


The highest court in the state ruled that smell was probable cause. The case I cited just upheld that opinion. The decision from the lower court is meaningless. You have no clue what you are talking about.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]

fredtoast AUG 04, 09:39 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:
AS I BELIEVE THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A JURY IS TO NULLIFY BAD LAWS

THERE IS NO OTHER REAL REASON FOR A JURY


The only purpose for the jury is for "findings of fact". They decide what facts are proven and what are not. Then they plug the "findings of fact" into the law to come up with a decision. They have no authority (and are not qualified) to change laws.

How could you ever know if you were following the law if a jury could just change the law.

[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-04-2023).]

randye AUG 04, 09:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


You don't understand how this works at all. I Quoted a DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS case. That case mentioned a decision from a LOWER COURT (20th Judicial Circuit Court) that you tried to cite to support your position.

And if you read the complete decision you will see this quote in the final conclusion "Our SUPREME COURT has observed that the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from a vehicle—like we have here—provides probable cause to search each of the vehicle's occupants." (citing State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 2002))


The highest court in the state ruled that smell was probable cause. The case I cited just upheld that opinion. The decision from the lower court is meaningless. You have no clue what you are talking about.





It's even funnier to watch you try to argue the wrong issue .

I really do pity your unfortunate clients, (provided you actually have any).

Perhaps a simple, little, "dirt & death" practice might suit you better.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-04-2023).]

ray b AUG 05, 10:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:

The only purpose for the jury is for "findings of fact". They decide what facts are proven and what are not. Then they plug the "findings of fact" into the law to come up with a decision. They have no authority (and are not qualified) to change laws.

How could you ever know if you were following the law if a jury could just change the law.




like most legal beagles you miss the point of the jury
THEY AIN'T THERE FOR YOUR BS
nullification should be explained as a JURY DUTY OF THE UP MOST IMPORTANCE
NEVER FORBIDDEN OR HIDDEN

the ONLY reason to make people go to jury duty
is a fuse on the system
TO MAKE SURE IT IS FAIR
to allow the citizen to monitor justice
NOT to find facts or follow the law
but to prevent kangaroo courts
stop injustice at the root source
BUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS AFRAID OF CITIZEN SUPERVISION AND FORBIDS IT

AND YES DEFENDING THE ACTION OF OFFICIALS
SHOULD EAZY OPEN AND QUICK NOT HIDDEN BEHIND ANY IMMUNITY
WITH NO LONG BS INVESTIGATIONS AND ALWAYS FORBID ANY TRIAL BY RULE
THERE IS NO REAL REASON TO MAKE ANYONE ABOVE THE LAW
williegoat AUG 05, 01:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

like most legal beagles you miss the point of the jury
THEY AIN'T THERE FOR YOUR BS


Aw, come on. You two are like peas in a pod, like brothers from another mother incubator, like furgal and sourboy.
ray b AUG 05, 01:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Aw, come on. You two are like peas in a pod, like brothers from another mother incubator, like furgal and sourboy.



TWO IMPORTANT POINTS OF LAW

and you want to BS about the people posting not the law

what is your position on immunity for the pig and other officials

and should a jury be told they can nullify the law

well son contribute ideas not BS
PhatMax AUG 05, 02:19 PM
Jury’s can absolutely nullify a law…period. Just because the system passes a law doesnt mean it’s right. Kinda like seat belt laws….don’t need one on a bus or a motorcycle. …just sayin.