Lauren kidnapped roadside by thugs Oct. 2nd

[Pat K]

The Denunciation—A rebel is not only misunderstood, but is usually excoriated and condemned by those who see the rebel as a threat to themselves or their way of life, and worse, even by those whose values the rebel is most consistently upholding. I know individuals who have rebelled, who are living free, and have seen them condemned most vehemently by Objectivists. They are accused of everything from, "running away from government," (of which they no doubt would have accused those who first came to America), to "defying the rule of law," (of which they no doubt would have accused the patriot participants in the Boston Tea Party.)"

Reginald Firehammer

[Russell Kanning]

I agree with most everything in the E of H Going to Jail book except the serving gleefully while in jail part.

me too
I didn't want to make the jail worse ... (last time the other guys were throwing food in the max monkey house section of the jail) ... but I was not going to help them run their jail.

[Jim Johnson]

I sent this to the Judge, it should be on her desk this morning.  Of course she will have to read it and then give a carp and then do some thing about it.   


To:   Martha A. Crocker, Judge                                                         October 24th, 2007

Milford Dist. Court
180 Elm Street
PO Box 943
Milford, NH 03055

Respectfully;

I am Lauren Canario's husband.
This is a writ of habeas corpus.
Lauren Ann Canario has been held in the custody of the State of New Hampshire without a trial for 21 days, as of the 24th of October, 2007. She was arrested after allegedly committing minor and non-violent offenses. Even if all charges against her are substantiated, they are not likely to justify 21 days of cruel imprisonment.

Therefore, under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Amendment V of The United States Bill of Rights, Amendment VI of The United States Bill of Rights and The Magna Carta of 1215.  I demand, as a Citizen of the United States, the immediate release of the prisoner Lauren Canario or provide her with an immediate trial in which her crime is articulated, a victim be named and evidence of her culpability be presented before a group of her peers.

Sincerely,


James L Johnson

[Russell Kanning]

interesting

it is amazing how long they want to keep a person when they haven't even convicted her ... of small crimes against the state

[Jim Johnson]

I sent this one to Gov. Lynch.  When I sent one to Gov. Rell one of her staff actually replied saying'...the Govonor was very concerned...that's not our department...good luck with that'.   


To:   Governor John Lynch                                                               October 24th, 2007

Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301

Respectfully;

I am Lauren Canario's husband.
This is a writ of habeas corpus.
Lauren Ann Canario has been held in the custody of the State of New Hampshire without a trial for 21 days, as of the 24th of October, 2007. She was arrested after allegedly committing minor and non-violent offenses. Even if all charges against her are substantiated, they are not likely to justify 21 days of cruel imprisonment.

Therefore, under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Amendment V of The United States Bill of Rights, Amendment VI of The United States Bill of Rights and The Magna Carta of 1215.  I demand, as a Citizen of the United States, the immediate release of the prisoner Lauren Canario.  The courts of New Hampshire can not provide her with an immediate trial in which her crime is articulated, a victim be named and evidence of her culpability be presented before a group of her peers.  It is your duty, as head of the Executive branch of the government of New Hampshire, to up hold the Constitution of The United States as well as to respect the foundation upon which this Government was laid.

Sincerely,


James L Johnson

[Russell Kanning]

so ... veggie oil? on a rag ... on a stick or pitchfork?

[J’raxis 270145]

Are people just going to arrive at the jail as they wander into the area, or should we perhaps meet somewhere else closeby (Murphy's naturally comes to mind) and all walk over together? It would be a lot more dramatic to have everyone arrive at the protest en masse, I think.

[Raineyrocks]

Are people just going to arrive at the jail as they wander into the area, or should we perhaps meet somewhere else closeby (Murphy's naturally comes to mind) and all walk over together? It would be a lot more dramatic to have everyone arrive at the protest en masse, I think.

Me too, that's a great idea!  Is Murphy's close to the jail?

[Kat Kanning]

I like that idea J'.  Murphy's is within walking distance.  Sounds like a good place to meet.

[J’raxis 270145]

Are people just going to arrive at the jail as they wander into the area, or should we perhaps meet somewhere else closeby (Murphy's naturally comes to mind) and all walk over together? It would be a lot more dramatic to have everyone arrive at the protest en masse, I think.

Me too, that's a great idea!  Is Murphy's close to the jail?

It's very close.

[Raineyrocks]

I like that idea J'.  Murphy's is within walking distance.  Sounds like a good place to meet.

What time should we meet at Murphy's?  I really hope we can make this one, do we have to wear V masks?

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I get off normaly at 5pm but I can get off earlier and make it up another day. I've got a V mask I would be proud to wear and join in.

[Kat Kanning]

Cool 

[armlaw]

To:   Governor John Lynch                                                               October 24th, 2007

Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301

Respectfully;

I am Lauren Canario's husband.
This is a writ of habeas corpus.
Lauren Ann Canario has been held in the custody of the State of New Hampshire without a trial for 21 days, as of the 24th of October, 2007. She was arrested after allegedly committing minor and non-violent offenses. Even if all charges against her are substantiated, they are not likely to justify 21 days of cruel imprisonment.

Therefore, under Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Amendment V of The United States Bill of Rights, Amendment VI of The United States Bill of Rights and The Magna Carta of 1215.  I demand, as a Citizen of the United States, the immediate release of the prisoner Lauren Canario.  The courts of New Hampshire can not provide her with an immediate trial in which her crime is articulated, a victim be named and evidence of her culpability be presented before a group of her peers.  It is your duty, as head of the Executive branch of the government of New Hampshire, to up hold the Constitution of The United States as well as to respect the foundation upon which this Government was laid.

Sincerely,


James L Johnson

Here is a recent case that may have some applications that can be explored for value.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

BRENDLIN v .CALIFORNIA

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

No.06 –8120.Argued April 23,2007 —Decided June 18,2007

After officers stopped a car to check its registration without reason to

believe it was being operated unlawfully,one of them recognized peti-

tioner Brendlin,a passenger in the car.Upon verifying that Brendlin

was a parole violator,the officers formally arrested him and searched

him,the driver,and the car,finding,among other things,metham-

phetamine paraphernalia.Charged with possession and manufac-

ture of that substance,Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence ob-

tained in searching his person and the car,arguing that the officers

lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the traffic

stop,which was an unconstitutional seizure of his person.The trial

court denied the motion,but the California Court of Appeal reversed,

holding that Brendlin was seized by the traffic stop,which was

unlawful.Reversing,the State Supreme Court held that suppression

was unwarranted because a passenger is not seized as a constitu-

tional matter absent additional circumstances that would indicate to

a reasonable person that he was the subject of the officer 's investiga-

tion or show of authority.

Held: When police make a traffic stop,a passenger in the car,like the

driver,is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may chal-

lenge the stop 's constitutionality.Pp.4 –13.

(a)A person is seized and thus entitled to challenge the govern-

ment 's action when officers,by physical force or a show of authority,

terminate or restrain the person ' s freedom of movement through

means intentionally applied.Florida v.Bostick ,501 U.S.429,434;

Brower v.County of Inyo ,489 U.S.593,597.There is no seizure

without that person 's actual submission.See,e.g.,California v.Ho-

dari D.,499 U.S.621,626,n.2.When police actions do not show an

unambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual ' s submission

takes the form of passive acquiescence,the test for telling when a

2 BRENDLIN v.CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

seizure occurs is whether,in light of all the surrounding circum-

stances,a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to

leave.E.g.,United States v.Mendenhall ,446 U.S.544,554 (princi-

pal opinion).But when a person "has no desire to leave " for reasons

unrelated to the police presence,the "coercive effect of the encounter "

can be measured better by asking whether "a reasonable person

would feel free to decline the officers ' requests or otherwise terminate

the encounter."Bostick ,supra ,at 435 –436.Pp.4 –6.

(b)Brendlin was seized because no reasonable person in his posi-

tion when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to

"terminate the encounter "between the police and himself.Bostick ,

supra ,at 436.Any reasonable passenger would have understood the

officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was

free to depart without police permission.A traffic stop necessarily

curtails a passenger ' s travel just as much as it halts the driver,di-

verting both from the stream of traffic to the side of the road,and the

police activity that normally amounts to intrusion on "privacy and

personal security " does not normally (and did not here)distinguish

between passenger and driver.United States v.Martinez-Fuerte ,428

U.S.543,554.An officer who orders a particular car to pull over acts

with an implicit claim of right based on fault of some sort,and a sen-

sible person would not expect the officer to allow people to come and

go freely from the physical focal point of an investigation into faulty

behavior or wrongdoing.If the likely wrongdoing is not the driving,

the passenger will reasonably feel subject to suspicion owing to close

association;but even when the wrongdoing is only bad driving,the

passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny,and his attempt

to leave would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the

officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place.It

is also reasonable for passengers to expect that an officer at the scene

of a crime,arrest,or investigation will not let people move around in

ways that could jeopardize his safety.See,e.g.,Maryland v.Wilson ,

519 U.S.408,414 –415.The Court 's conclusion comports with the

views of all nine Federal Courts of Appeals,and nearly every state

court,to have ruled on the question.Pp.6 –9.

(c)The State Supreme Court 's contrary conclusion reflects three

premises with which this Court respectfully disagrees.First,the

view that the police only intended to investigate the car 's driver and

did not direct a show of authority toward Brendlin impermissibly

shifts the issue from the intent of the police as objectively manifested

to the motive of the police for taking the intentional action to stop the

car.Applying the objective Mendenhall test resolves any ambiguity

by showing that a reasonable passenger would understand that he

was subject to the police display of authority. Second, the state

3 Cite as:551 U.S.____(2007)

Syllabus

court 's assumption that Brendlin,as the passenger,had no ability to

submit to the police show of authority because only the driver was in

control of the moving car is unavailing.Brendlin had no effective

way to signal submission while the car was moving,but once it came

to a stop he could,and apparently did,submit by staying inside.

Third, there is no basis for the state court ' s fear that adopting the

rule this Court applies would encompass even those motorists whose

movement has been impeded due to the traffic stop of another car.

An occupant of a car who knows he is stuck in traffic because another

car has been pulled over by police would not perceive the show of au-

thority as directed at him or his car.Pp.9 –13.

(d)The state courts are left to consider in the first instance

whether suppression turns on any other issue.P.13.

38 Cal.4th 1107,136 P.3d 845,vacated and remanded.

SOUTER,J.,delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

[mvpel]

Radar guns have judicial notice as a source of probable cause, and have for years.