Right To A Jury Trial Is Now Merely A Guideline
Them's not really rules; there more like ...guidelines
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/28/553...-afb-anti.html Quote:
|
This follows the lead of traffic court.
Violations of the vehicle code became "infractions" rather than crimes which then led to eliminating jury trials for allegation of vehicle code violations. "Your day in court" now is limited to appearing before his honor who is now judge, inquisitor, and jury. And with the court system being dependent on traffic fines and "assessments" for revenue, just how is the judge going to rule? With a rubber stamp. Further note that appeals are only for procedural issues, not that the judge might have got it wrong and there might be relief rendered with a meaningful appeal. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile and a half. If I understand it right, the supreme court's recent decision concerning proposition 8 in part sets precedence that government officials, such as California State Attorney Kamala Harris and governor Jerry Brown, don't have to enforce laws created out of the California initiative process they don't agree with - in direct conflict with the will of the voters. Quote:
|
FLOWER v. UNITED STATES, 407 U.S. 197 (1972)
Decided June 12, 1972
Application of 18 U.S.C. 1382, proscribing the re-entry onto a military post of a person who has been removed therefrom or ordered by an officer not to re-enter, held violative of First Amendment rights as applied when petitioner, a civilian who had previously been barred from the post was arrested after re-entry while quietly distributing leaflets on a public street extensively used by civilians as well as military personnel that runs through Fort Sam Houston, an open military post. Certiorari granted; 452 F.2d 80, reversed and remanded. PER CURIAM. Petitioner John Thomas Flower, a regional "Peace Education Secretary" of the American Friends Service Committee and a civilian, was arrested by military police while quietly distributing leaflets on New Braunfels Avenue at a point within the limits of Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas. In an ensuing prosecution before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on charges of violating 18 U.S.C. 1382 ("Whoever reenters or is found [within a military post] after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof - Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both"), it was established that petitioner had previously been barred from the post by order of the deputy commander because of alleged participation in an attempt to distribute "unauthorized" leaflets. The District Court found that 1382 "is a valid law" and was validly applied. It sentenced petitioner to six months in prison. A divided [407 U.S. 197, 198] panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 452 F.2d 80 (CA5 1972). We reverse. Whatever power the authorities may have to restrict general access to a military facility, see Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961), here the fort commander chose ... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=407&invol=197 |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved