|
|
90 Year Old Man Arrested For Feeding The Homeless
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 10:47:36
Laws that are unjust should be challenged in court. Not ignored.
Because everyone's idea of what is just and what is unjust are completely different. You can't challenge a law in court unless you have standing. You don't have standing unless you can show it affects you, causes you harm.
By breaking the law and being charged with a crime he now has standing to challenge the law. I'm not sure that he has standing now either.
He knowingly broke the law almost immediately after it was passed, an argument could be made that his standing against the law was revoked because of his disregard of it.
Either way, he could have brought this to court without breaking the law, even if he was speaking on behalf of the homeless (who do have standing and cannot afford legal representation) instead of flaunting it.
Edit: Correction of a word, thanks again Chanti.
He has standing because he didn't suddenly go out and feed homeless people because they made it illegal, he has been doing it as a charitable organization for years. It's an act of civil disobedience refusing to stop due to his religious conviction. Well, on that basis maybe.
I was referring to Kara's assertion that he had standing solely because he was arrested for feeding the homeless after the law was passed, which I countered what any good lawyer would counter with.
There were ways to fight this without breaking the law, that's my ultimate point. Because he broke the law, he may not have a chance to fight it anymore.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 10:51:22
Anyone who is directly affected by a law can challenge the validity of the law. Whether they have standing is determined by a judge. That's actually the basis for several of the challenges to ACA.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 10:57:16
Anyone who is directly affected by a law can challenge the validity of the law. Whether they have standing is determined by a judge. That's actually the basis for several of the challenges to ACA. Right, but you lose some (if not all) of that standing if you directly challenge the law by not only ignore it, but deliberately break the law, like that old guy did.
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-11-10 11:02:46
Laws that are unjust should be challenged in court. Not ignored.
Because everyone's idea of what is just and what is unjust are completely different. You can't challenge a law in court unless you have standing. You don't have standing unless you can show it affects you, causes you harm.
By breaking the law and being charged with a crime he now has standing to challenge the law. I'm not sure that he has standing now either.
He knowingly broke the law almost immediately after it was passed, an argument could be made that his standing against the law was revoked because of his disregard of it.
Either way, he could have brought this to court without breaking the law, even if he was speaking on behalf of the homeless (who do have standing and cannot afford legal representation) instead of flaunting it.
Edit: Correction of a word, thanks again Chanti. That does not change the validity of a persons standing. Doing something that you know is illegal does not change your right to question the validity/constitutionality of a law or change your standing in a court of law.
Roe vs. Wade
Rosa parks vs. Alabama
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 11:09:08
Laws that are unjust should be challenged in court. Not ignored.
Because everyone's idea of what is just and what is unjust are completely different. You can't challenge a law in court unless you have standing. You don't have standing unless you can show it affects you, causes you harm.
By breaking the law and being charged with a crime he now has standing to challenge the law. I'm not sure that he has standing now either.
He knowingly broke the law almost immediately after it was passed, an argument could be made that his standing against the law was revoked because of his disregard of it.
Either way, he could have brought this to court without breaking the law, even if he was speaking on behalf of the homeless (who do have standing and cannot afford legal representation) instead of flaunting it.
Edit: Correction of a word, thanks again Chanti. That does not change the validity of a persons standing. Doing something that you know is illegal does not change your right to question the validity/constitutionality of a law or change your standing in a court of law.
Roe vs. Wade
Rosa parks vs. Alabama Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-11-10 11:09:12
Anyone who is directly affected by a law can challenge the validity of the law. Whether they have standing is determined by a judge. That's actually the basis for several of the challenges to ACA. Anyone can file a lawsuit. But many, many lawsuits are dismissed for lack of standing.
All of these must be satisfied to have standing in the US
Quote: Standing requirements
There are three standing requirements:
Injury-in-fact: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.[35]
Many ACA lawsuits were dismissed.
http://www.justice.gov/healthcare
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-11-10 11:09:59
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law.
By Nazrious 2014-11-10 11:13:59
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law.
Going to have trouble, because it does not...
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 11:15:49
Anyone who is directly affected by a law can challenge the validity of the law. Whether they have standing is determined by a judge. That's actually the basis for several of the challenges to ACA. Anyone can file a lawsuit. But many, many lawsuits are dismissed for lack of standing.
All of these must be satisfied to have standing in the US
I guess I could have been more specific.
 Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2014-11-10 11:20:29
I could feed a bum right now. getting hungry.
[+]
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 11:22:43
I could feed a bum right now. getting hungry.
Context matters.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 11:34:30
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 11:45:35
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know.
You realize a lawyer files a lawsuit "on behalf" of their client, right? No difference.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 11:48:16
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know.
You realize a lawyer files a lawsuit "on behalf" of their client, right? No difference. You realize that they were not clients, right?
Oh wait, of course you don't.
To you, I could file a case on your behalf and you think you filed it (or had a lawyer file it for you) yourself.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-11-10 11:50:49
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know. Seriously?
They were filed on behalf of their lawyers. Which is the same as filing themselves.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It is required that all adults know the law. Unrealistic, but it is assumed everyone has access to city, county, state, and federal legal references.
So, whether you knew or didn't know about the law doesn't matter.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 11:53:10
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know.
You realize a lawyer files a lawsuit "on behalf" of their client, right? No difference. You realize that they were not clients, right?
Oh wait, of course you don't.
To you, I could file a case on your behalf and you think you filed it (or had a lawyer file it for you) yourself.
Uh, no, not really. Only certain parties are allowed to file suits "on behalf" of others if the named party doesn't specifically retain them.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 11:55:19
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It is required that all adults know the law. Unrealistic, but it is assumed everyone has access to city, county, state, and federal legal references. Who doesn't have access to any of those legal references?
Better way to say it is who would actually do the legwork anyway?
Besides, good luck trying to explain how you didn't know about a hotly contested and publicly addressed law.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-11-10 11:57:16
Am I in an alternate universe where Kingnobody is defending a law and by proxy the accursed gummint? Cause I'd like to find myself in this universe. I'm probably a skinhead or something.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2014-11-10 11:58:06
You realize that they were not clients, right?
Oh wait, of course you don't.
To you, I could file a case on your behalf and you think you filed it (or had a lawyer file it for you) yourself. Um, they were both clients.
Quote: Jane Roe, [n4] a single woman who was residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted this federal action in March 1970 against the District Attorney of the county. Quote: After Mrs. Parks was convicted under city law, her lawyer filed a notice of appeal. While her appeal was tied up in the state court of appeals, a panel of three judges in the U.S. District Court for the region ruled in another case that racial segregation of public buses was unconstitutional.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 11:58:32
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. It is required that all adults know the law. Unrealistic, but it is assumed everyone has access to city, county, state, and federal legal references. Who doesn't have access to any of those legal references?
Better way to say it is who would actually do the legwork anyway?
Besides, good luck trying to explain how you didn't know about a hotly contested and publicly addressed law.
Why does this keep going over your head? Whether he knew about the law prior to committing the crime is irrelevant in terms of prosecution or standing.
By Nazrious 2014-11-10 12:13:10
Doesn't change the validity, but may affect his standing.
Keep noticing that I'm using the word "may"? It all depends on the lawyers/prosecution involved in this case. Please quote any case where knowingly breaking a law affects your ability to challenge a law. Don't have to.
Both cases you mentioned were filed on behalf of the people who committed the alleged crimes (at the time).
Neither of the two who committed the alleged crimes filed the suits themselves, they had representatives filing on their behalf.
There is a difference there, you know.
You realize a lawyer files a lawsuit "on behalf" of their client, right? No difference. You realize that they were not clients, right?
Oh wait, of course you don't.
To you, I could file a case on your behalf and you think you filed it (or had a lawyer file it for you) yourself.
Cant speak for Cali... damn hippies, but I'm sure in the real world that would be the practice of law. Practice of law with out a lic. Will land you in jail faster then feeding homeless.
Example: As an attorney I can file lawsuits on behalf of a client, but I will still need their permission. Even suspect criminals can go pro se, with out representation.
By Jetackuu 2014-11-10 12:14:42
Laws that are unjust shouldn't be followed. Laws that are unjust should be challenged in court. Not ignored.
Because everyone's idea of what is just and what is unjust are completely different.
You have a certain "condition" that I'm not allowed to say because mods here told me not to say. Because of your "condition," a specific law prevents you from acting on your "condition." You think that the law that prevents you from acting on your "condition" is unjust, so by your reasoning, you should ignore it and expect to get away with it. The laws are there to prevent people with your "condition" from acting on it and causing irreparable harm to people.
It would be better for you (and anyone else) to challenge the laws in court.
That's like going 100 mph in a school zone, and then *** about getting a huge speeding ticket.
Feeding the homeless. Clearly as dangerous as going 100mph in a school zone.. Not all laws are created to prevent harm from happening. You cannot challenge a law in court until you break it however, at least that's how it's usually challenged. covered
As for the other bit: you're wrong, and it's easy to know as to why. Also: it's not a condition.
By Vudoku 2014-11-10 12:42:01
I mostly just wonder what the world would be like if Ihina's comments actually made sense half of the time. False equivalency?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 13:02:20
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »what is going on in this thread lol jeeze I was corrected in an assumption I made with a website that I (use to trust now) trusted with information.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 13:05:29
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »what is going on in this thread lol jeeze I was corrected in an assumption I made with a website that I (use to trust now) trusted with information.
What website would that be?
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 13:06:49
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »what is going on in this thread lol jeeze I was corrected in an assumption I made with a website that I (use to trust now) trusted with information.
What website would that be? RIA.
It's a subscription-only informational website.
I have already made a informational check request and linked Kara's two links. Hopefully I'll get an answer sometime today or Wednesday.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 13:10:07
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »what is going on in this thread lol jeeze I was corrected in an assumption I made with a website that I (use to trust now) trusted with information.
What website would that be? RIA.
It's a subscription-only informational website.
I have already made a informational check request and linked Kara's two links. Hopefully I'll get an answer sometime today or Wednesday.
RIA as in "registered financial adviser"? Like, the investment and tax website? No offense, but if your bar for credibility is that they know a lot about an unrelated subject, that's on you.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-10 13:16:12
Bismarck.Josiahkf said: »what is going on in this thread lol jeeze I was corrected in an assumption I made with a website that I (use to trust now) trusted with information.
What website would that be? RIA.
It's a subscription-only informational website.
I have already made a informational check request and linked Kara's two links. Hopefully I'll get an answer sometime today or Wednesday.
RIA as in "registered financial adviser"? Like, the investment and tax website? No offense, but if your bar for credibility is that they know a lot about an unrelated subject, that's on you. It's a tax/legal website. Lawyers and Accountants use this to read the original cases, along with any appeals and Supreme Court rulings.
The layouts of this website shows who the defendant(s)/prosecution(ers) are, who their representation is, and the findings/rulings of the cases. In this instance, instead of showing that these were direct representation of these people, it showed "on behalf of" which signifies that somebody else is challenging the law on their behalf (and they are not associated with it except to use their case as evidence, among other things).
The two cases were shown in error, I brought it to their attention and they will tell me if the error is correct or tell me their reasoning in that specific wording.
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-10 13:21:09
Again, "on behalf" doesn't mean without consent or legal authority to do so. If you are named as the plaintiff, you have to have given consent to an authorized legal representative. The only exceptions being when suits are filed by presiding authorities.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
kinda surprised i didn't see a thread on this already.
You can find videos of this from most any media outlet or many independent sources with a quick search. Theirs a ton of them
They face up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine.
YouTube Video Placeholder
YouTube Video Placeholder
|
|
