Constitutional Attorney Refuses Body Scan at Court Appearance

#1 What do you mean? The Court upheld the First Amendment. What makes you think they would not uphold the Forth Amendment?

On an other unrelated matter, did the above paragraph have way more words that started with a capital letter than most paragraphs?

Just wear a suit of armor in through the machine. I can wear my nerd uniform through the machine. I am making a suit and tie out of chain mail. Don’t think it goes through metal.

Why is he so worried about his naked image?
It’s not like he has the look for GQ or Playgirl…

It seems that he doesn’t want either to be scanned or searched. Good luck with that.

I was impressed with the professionalism of the police officers. They didn’t treat him like an idiot or a criminal, they just performed their duty.

The real problem is, this type of machine’s a health hazard. It’s proven to damage and disrupt DNA.

I’d rather undergo the strip search, at least there are no photos, no health hazard, no biometrics being stored, etc.

Body scan to get into the court house – are you kidding me??? More people shot in shopping malls and schools and universities. No body scanning there. Tells you about priorities and the power protecting itself.
The terrorist paranoia has gone completely haywire. Welcome police state in the name of ‘security’.

Tthor…wild guess here, but the percentage of people in the courthouse who are real and dangerous criminals might be slightly higher than at the mall. ??? Plus, you have judges…we all know what happens when they’re not adequately protected, look at Colombia.

Went to the courthouse today, and they made me take off my belt, but shoes stayed on. No phones or comm devices allowed in.

#11
“But, don’t you think that allowing law abiding citizens to be armed in there wouldn’t have a chilling effect on said “somebody with a gun”?

when a defendant’s mother decided to question her son’s sentence. With a gun…. He had to terminate her appeal….

No I think if the gun toting mother was not allowed to carry a gun into that court room no one would have need be terminate.

Metal detectors should have gone up years ago. To many emotions in a court room for weapons of any kind.

Your friend can have his legally carried gun when he exits the curt room.

OT…the kid who made the ACORN videos is back in the news…..

How is it that we have a right as citizens to a fair trial but in order to participate in this we must surrender other personal rights? You can vote…but first you have to be searched by our personnel. You don’t like the imaging system oh, well we can touch you. We have to do it for everyone’s safety. Since when is any form of our government responsible for ~100%…heck ~70%…protection of our persons?

As soon as people start placing explosives inside of their body will we be required to have a scope done? X-rays? I know I may die because there still exists treats to me and you by persons who want to do us harm. I am not wanting us to place a cork on every sharp object and/or pad every hard object. Nor do I think this(security) should EVER be the argument for encroachment of our freedoms.

“Mr. Fielder, you have a choice. We can pat you down or you can go through the scanner.”

“I, I, I don’t like to be touched. It scares me.”

“You have nothing to fear Mr. Fielder…. say, that’s a nice bulge you have there…. is that a gun tucked behind your fly?”

?! Ok, I’m going to allow you to scan me just this once then. Let’s just do it. But I don’t like this one bit.

Sorry, that’s no longer an option. Now undo your belt. I’m going to disarm you.

I agree the cops in this video maintained their professionalism and aplomb. The real difficulty is that their supervisors do not appear to have instituted a reasonable alternative here. Many people do not want their naked bodies viewed nor have someone running their hands intimately over their bodies. They may be shy or have religious constraints or, like this guy, just looking to hassle some innocent cops. The point remains, there should be another alternative (i.e. wanding?) before you refuse someone passage into a public space.

The attorney should be armed..and it should be legal for him to carry concealed. He is an officer of the court, and should be trusted.

Wow.. body scanner at a courthouse. Well they gave him an option of pat-down or being scanned.. i would choose a pat down instead. If more people choose a pat down, security will get so sick of it that the scanner will be abolished. Metal detectors would solve the problem of guns and knives. If anyone managed to smuggle in a bomb of considerable size – they would still have to light it.. (electrical wiring would go off in the metal detector and x-ray scanner) and you don’t think people would react in a court room if someone starts mixing chemicals and lighting things on fire?

A lawyer? Maybe. Really he is just another LIEBERTARIAN proclaiming his love of the Constitution so he doesn’t have to obey it or the laws.

Searches at courthouses are perfectly legal. First, there is no expectation of privacy in public and second Judges have the inherent authority to control their courts. The second point not only applies to behavior, but also dress.

Although Malls may see more gun incidents, they also see tens of thousands times the number of people than does a court. A court has many very dangerous people passing through its doors.

As a lawyer, this LIEBERTARIAN should know that as an officer of the court he is bound by all the rules of the court. If he does not represent his client because he refuses to follow the rules of the court, he risks losing his license.

26,

The attorney should be armed..and it should be legal for him to carry concealed. He is an officer of the court, and should be trusted.

Bingo. A lawyer friend I know got his CCP based on that fact alone before the state enacted a CCP law.

#30, Serious,

There are so many errors in your post, let look at just a few.

What is wrong with the constitution of the United States? and what does that have to do with not obeying the constitution or the laws?

There is very little wring with the Constitution. (Please note that as it is a formal document, it is always capitalized by those who have some respect for it.)

LIEBERTARIANS though love to quote portions of the Constitution they like, such as the second amendment, but ignore other portions, such as the “commerce claus”, “takings amendment” or “income tax” amendment.

Pardon, but did he say it was illegal? (honestly i didnt hear this part, my bad if it is there)

He inferred as much. He advertised that he was a “Constitutional Lawyer”. The end of the video encourages viewers to visit his web site and learn about your constitutional right to avoid being scanned. You might not have “heard it”, but then you would have to read it.

Usually the dangerous people in a court are restrained,

Not in the presence of a jury. Friends have tried to free dangerous prisoners in the past. My own uncle was wounded in such an attempt. He was a police Sargent in charge of transporting a prisoner from court when they were attacked in 1958 (I believe). While this is a close experience, there have been many others.

The judge only controls his courtroom when in session, he/she does not write laws he/she exercises/executes them, and does not control the court building – that is government property in most cases and is enforced by either police or security that is dictated to follow protocol/law. Yes the judge may control the dress code of his/her courtroom when in session, to an acceptable level – if the judge goes too far he/she may lose his/her license.

Wrong. A Judge controls his court room, chambers, and ancillary areas. The Chief Judge has jurisdiction over the entire building. In smaller single Judge buildings, that Judge has jurisdiction over the building. Guidelines are usually laid down by the Supreme Court of the State or Appellate Courts in the Federal system. Only if the guidelines are unreasonable will a superior court overrule a lower court’s rules.

The one that really shows your ignorance is a Judge losing his “license”. Judges aren’t licensed. As far as I know, every Judge has immunity from any decision or ruling. Only criminal convictions or total disregard for the law will get a Judge removed. In most States, disbarment is the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court.

Yes, he has to abide by the reasonable “rules” of the judge for the courtroom when in session, but he does have the permission to challenge that “law” as unconstitutional if it does not abide by state law or the constitution or cannot be seen as within reason. The lawyer disagreeing with the friskin’ is being unreasonable – in my opinion.

Wrong. He may challenge any rule, law, regulation, order, etc. Until a court overturns the law etc. it is still in full force and he, as well as everyone, must follow the law. Only a Judge decides if a law is wrong.

Finally, maybe you should put your brain in gear before sitting down at your computer. I gave reasoned, knowledgeable arguments for each post. Your responses are mostly wrong and illogical.

I spell it as LIEBERTARIAN because of their lying. And yes they do, much like you’ve done.

Ok Fusion, Libertarians LIE. But your precious Lieberal party doesn’t. And what that shows me is what a partisan piece of shit you are.

We are all doomed until we destroy the bullshit two-party system.

a new meme…LIEBERALS!

#34, Mr.Fusion

- Yay! I got to you! wohoo..
- Let us take the two final paragraphs first yeah?

Finally, maybe you should put your brain in gear before sitting down at your computer. I gave reasoned, knowledgeable arguments for each post. Your responses are mostly wrong and illogical.

- You skipped half of my posts, took some out of context, disagreed to agree, and selectively chose parts that you wanted to nit-pick on. Let me do some of that to you! Since you delve into the childlike state.. I do not see any reason or knowledgeable arguments from your side – a lot of subjective opinions and memories from personal experiences.

I spell it as LIEBERTARIAN because of their lying. And yes they do, much like you’ve done.

- certainly not an argument or statement based on reason is it? a bit of a generalization. I have not lied. Let me prove it to you with facts.

There are so many errors in your post, let look at just a few.

- there were more errors in your post, as shown easily in the posts above.. and even more below. Nonetheless let us go through your nit-picks.

There is very little wring with the Constitution. (Please note that as it is a formal document, it is always capitalized by those who have some respect for it.)

- Wrong is spelt “wrong” not “wring”, but O.K. Please note that I am not American, therefore it is not my constitution and is merely a constitution (noun) of the United States of America; I don’t know whether I have to show it the same respect as you do by capitalizing it. Frankly I am indifferent and only a person like you would focus on the capitalization rather than the question.

LIEBERTARIANS though love to quote portions of the Constitution they like, such as the second amendment, but ignore other portions, such as the “commerce claus”, “takings amendment” or “income tax” amendment.

- a bit of a generalization perhaps based upon selective memory? And i would assume that an individual that have to quote the constitution due to a certain event would quote the part that is relevant to their situation. “My gun is being seized without permission to do so, oh let me quote him the income tax amendment”..

He inferred as much. He advertised that he was a “Constitutional Lawyer”. The end of the video encourages viewers to visit his web site and learn about your constitutional right to avoid being scanned. You might not have “heard it”, but then you would have to read it.

- He inferred or you assumed? A bit subjective here as well.. nothing wrong with saying he is a constitutional lawyer – as I assume all lawyers have to commit to the lawyers oath. http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/lawyersoath.cfm

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm):

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan…;”

- Therefore he is indeed a constitutional lawyer and he may even be a specialist in the constitution. I don’t know and don’t care. So he never said it was illegal.. he is only promoting knowledge of the constitution that is meant to protect the people. I don’t see how that is wrong.

Not in the presence of a jury. Friends have tried to free dangerous prisoners in the past. My own uncle was wounded in such an attempt. He was a police Sargent in charge of transporting a prisoner from court when they were attacked in 1958 (I believe). While this is a close experience, there have been many others.

- Are you sure about that… because it is wrong. Shackles or restraints are permitted both in the presence of a jury and during trials:

The right to appear before a jury free of shackles, however, is not absolute. Wilson v. McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1484-85 (9th Cir. 1985). Shackling is inherently prejudicial, but it is not per se unconstitutional. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d at 716. Under certain circumstances, “shackling . . . may be appropriate because of the public’s competing interest in courtroom security and the just administration of law.” Id. at 722 (citing Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S. at 344). Because of the potential for prejudice, however, due process requires that shackles be used only as a “last resort.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. at 344.

- It is however against the law to use shackles on juveniles..

Wrong. A Judge controls his court room, chambers, and ancillary areas. The Chief Judge has jurisdiction over the entire building. In smaller single Judge buildings, that Judge has jurisdiction over the building. Guidelines are usually laid down by the Supreme Court of the State or Appellate Courts in the Federal system. Only if the guidelines are unreasonable will a superior court overrule a lower court’s rules.

- You are actually disagreeing to agree here.. My reference was to the case in the video where there are multiple judges who share court rooms, thereby only being in “control” of the courtroom during session. I don’t know whether the judge that they called was the Chief Judge. Please also note that I said in “most cases”, and even the Chief Judge have to follow set guidelines by their state and can’t do whatever they like as I also wrote. Read this article; http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_re_us/us_execution_deadline

The one that really shows your ignorance is a Judge losing his “license”. Judges aren’t licensed. As far as I know, every Judge has immunity from any decision or ruling. Only criminal convictions or total disregard for the law will get a Judge removed. In most States, disbarment is the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court.

- This shows your ability to jump to false conclusions. If a Judge loses his job aka “license” to practice being a judge.. he may no longer practice being a judge. If you lose your job in being a grammar nazi on this website, you can always get a job as a grammar nazi on another website.. same if your in the business world – you don’t lose your right to do so, a judge does. I think we agree here that a judge does not have immunity from a decision or ruling they have to face state Commission on Judicial Conduct which can bar them from ever being a judge. The ruling of the judge however still stands until the appellate process is completed and ruling overturned. Every misconducted filed with the commission can make a Judge eligible to lose the job as a judge. And as I wrote only in cases that the Judge does something supremely idiotic.. which we don’t seem to disagree on, yet you highlighted it. If you prefer not to call it a license it is up to you – they revoke his ability of being a judge http://www.scjc.state.tx.us/faqs.asp

- Formal Proceedings against a Judge: “In certain circumstances, the Commission may vote formal proceedings. The Commission may itself hold a trial, or request the Texas Supreme Court to appoint a special master to conduct the proceeding and report findings of fact to the Commission. The Commission may request additional evidence, dismiss the case, issue a public censure, or recommend removal. Formal proceedings and related information become public when the Commission files formal charges. The Commission itself cannot remove a judge. Under the provisions of the formal proceeding process, only the Review Tribunal may order a judge removed from the bench. The Supreme Court retains appellate authority over the decision of the Review Tribunal.”

- Whatever ruling the court has made is in place and can only be overturned through the appellate process

Wrong. He may challenge any rule, law, regulation, order, etc. Until a court overturns the law etc. it is still in full force and he, as well as everyone, must follow the law. Only a Judge decides if a law is wrong.

- Firstly you have taken this out of context and completely misunderstood it. Reasonable “rules” that the judge makes as far as security and dress code for the courthouse that then become “law” for that particular courtroom/house.. that is what we are talking about not any law that the judge conjures up in his room. In your case the judge can ask you to strip naked before entering the building and you have to abide by it.. and a lawyer can indeed challenge it if it goes against state law and the constitution by filing a complaint with state Commission on Judicial Conduct. As i noted, the LAWYER was being unreasonable as he did not wish to compromise and as a result loses his credibility.

- Should we put this to rest now or should we beat back and fourth with grammar?

#38, Not Very Serious

What the hell are you babbling about? It is impossible to tell what you are complaining about. If you are quoting my posts please try using quote of some kind.

#40 – Mr. Fizzle-Out

Anything indented with “-” is my comment.. anything not is yours or from some source. If i knew how or bothered to highlight your post I would. I guess the level of intelligence required to identify your own postings is non existent.