Dada in Federal Court 7/17 .... leads to 4 days in jail

[Russell Kanning]

the 1st amendment is based on common rights

federal buildings are collective property.

The ignore button may have resulted in some missing this gem.

you didn't pre-cast your intent to "turn over the desks") 

Get a lawyer![/list]

Ah ... nothing I like better than a Bill Grennon quote.

desk overturning is underrated.

all we need is a few more lawyers and the revolution is complete.

[Russell Kanning]

any other thoughts pro or con regarding whether I should appeal?

appealing requires using the evil government system

[Russell Kanning]

I shook hands with him and told him it was good to meet him but asked him if he felt comfortable about prosecuting me.

He asked me if I wanted to proceed and said if I did there would be a bench trial and they had witnesses.

Perfect
ewww scary ... witnesses

[Spencer]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

41 CFR 102-74.415 provides:

? 102–74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?

All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from—

***

(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102–71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.

"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 as:

Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.

The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!

Check it out here:

Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]

Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.

So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit?  I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."

This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.

I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.

[KBCraig]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

all we need is a few more lawyers and the revolution is complete.

Some lawyers come in handy. 

[Dreepa]

I'm wondering what size Allen wrench Chris caries and for what

Small... I had it in my messenger bag that I wear when I ride my bike.  It was a quick trip from LA to SF... and 45 minutes and 2 supervisors and I still couldn't keep my allen wrench.

[John]

the concord demonstration generated maybe 25 honks from cars at the modestly traveled intersection over an hour or so.  We didn't get any opposition that I know of

I got about 6 honks at the corner of Pleasant and (I think it is N & S Sring Streets.  Oh and no opposition. 

[John]

We didn't demonstrate in front of the courthouse itself but in front of a different part of the federal compound where there's more traffic

I demonstated (carrying one flagpole with our state flag on top and the Gadsen below) mostly in front of the FEDcourt/compound walking on the north side (where I might be more visible from windows of the FEDcourt and Fedcompound) of Pleasant St.  I also walked S Spring St. on the west side (same reason) of the street, and on the east side (same reason) of South St.  This way I was in view from every side of the of the builings for at least some of the time.   
I also made several stops at the corner where the traffic is heaviest.

[John]

I suggested to him that they should shut down the unneeded courts of course.

I think WE all enjoyed that.  And THEY all seemed stunned - wich, in turn, some of US also enjoyed.

[AmerTownCrier]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]

Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.

So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit?  I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."

This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.

I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.

He's got a point Dave. Reserved means NOTHING has been written up at this point. You know the details of the case better then anyone else...but it is something to consider. You can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist.

[KBCraig]

Unfortunately, relying on U.S. Code alone isn't enough. You also have to refer to the Code of Federal Regulations. Despite the fact that agencies aren't supposed to exceed the USC with their "rule making", they all do. And the courts are loathe to overturn CFR "rules" when the procedures for proposals and public commenting have been followed.

"Legislation by bureaucracy" is very real. And the courts recognize CFR "rules" as being the same as law. The National Forest cases being heard the same day as Dave's case, were all violations of CFR, not USC. I'll bet a 12 pack of Newcastle on it.



Kevin

[FrankChodorov]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]

Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.

So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit?  I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."

This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.

I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.

He's got a point Dave. Reserved means NOTHING has been written up at this point. You know the details of the case better then anyone else...but it is something to consider. You can't be charged with a crime that doesn't exist.

we've already gone thru all this in another post when Russell was arrested...

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4584.msg81702#msg81702

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=401&YEAR=2000&TYPE=TEXT

excerpt:
TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

          CHAPTER 101--FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

PART 101-20--MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--Table of Contents

Subpart 101-20.4--Occasional Use of Public Buildings

Sec. 101-20.401  Applications for permits.

    (a) Any person or organization desiring to use a public area shall
file an application for permit with the GSA Buildings Manager. Such
application shall be made on a form provided by GSA and shall be
submitted in the manner specified by GSA.
    (b) The following information is required:
    (1) Full names, mailing addresses, and telephone numbers of the
applicant, the organization sponoring the proposed activity, and the
individual(s) responsible for supervising the activity;
    (2) Documentation showing that the applicant has authority to
represent the sponsoring organization;
    (3) A description of the proposed activity, including the dates and
times during which it is to be conducted and the number of persons to be
involved.    (c) If the proposed activity constitutes a use of a public area for
soliciting funds, the applicant shall also submit a signed statement
that:
    (1) The applicant is a representative of and will be soliciting
funds for the sole benefit of, a religion or religious group; or
    (2) The applicant's organization has received an official ruling of
tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service under 26 U.S.C. 501;
or, alternatively, that an application for such a ruling is still in
process.

[FrankChodorov]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

41 CFR 102-74.415 provides:

? 102?74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?

All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from?

***

(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102?71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.

"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 as:

Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.

The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!

Check it out here:

Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]

Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.

So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit?  I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."

This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.

I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.

your looking at the wrong section of the law...

it is  41 CFR 101-20.309 NOT CFR 102-74.415

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=41&PART=101-20&SECTION=309&YEAR=2001&TYPE=TEXT

[Dave Ridley]

If anyone would like to get me the contact information and what not that I need to file an appeal that would be appreciated.  I could use some help guiding me through the process and/or filing paperwork.   

[FrankChodorov]

Alright, call me mildly obsessed with Dada's ordeal, but I think that I may have found something interesting about this charge (distributing handbills).

41 CFR 102-74.415 provides:

? 102?74.415 What is the policy for
posting and distributing materials?

All persons entering in or on Federal
property are prohibited from?

***

(c) Distributing materials, such as
pamphlets, handbills or flyers, unless
conducted as part of authorized Government
activities. This prohibition
does not apply to public areas of the
property as defined in ? 102?71.20 of this
chapter. However, any person or organization
proposing to distribute materials
in a public area under this section
must first obtain a permit from the
building manager as specified in subpart
D of this part. Any such person or
organization must distribute materials
only in accordance with the provisions
of subpart D of this part. Failure to
comply with those provisions is a violation
of these regulations.

"Public areas" is defined at 41 CFR 102-71.20 as:

Public area means any area of a building under the control and
custody of GSA that is ordinarily open to members of the public,
including lobbies, courtyards, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and other
such areas not assigned to a lessee or occupant agency.

The problem is: SUBPART D (providing for obtaining a permit to distribute handbills in public areas) DOES NOT EXIST!

Check it out here:

Subtitle D--Other Provisions Relating to Property Management [Reserved]

Emphasis in the above quotes is mine.

So, how could Dada have applied for a permit when there is no procedure to apply for such a permit?  I believe that the proper allegation against Dada was failing to get a permit under Subtitle D, which, according to the regulations under which he was cited, "Failure to comply with those provisions [Subtitle D] is a violation of these regulations."

This is the equivalent of creating a law that requires every dog owner to obtain a license for any dogs owned, then not providing a mechanism by which to obtain such a license.

I believe, Dada, that you should consider filing a Motion for New Trial (pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 33) -- but you must do so within seven (7) days of the verdict of guilty.

Spencer,

Dada was not in a public area - HE WAS IN THE ACTUAL IRS OFFICES...