Topic: News: Brazil-Jailed Bulgarian Champ Lost in Translation

[Andy Dick]

I don't think he will get out, someone will screw up or someone will find a way to keep him in.

My experiences here, with 2 people I know.  Now both were in fact guilty but both were basically as the result of stupidity.  1 was selling candy claiming it was for a charity but keeping the money, got her for fraud.  The other DUI got in a car accident.

1.  Person 1 went to jail, served thier time, caused not problems, got out on house arrest with the bracelet.  Served time like they should with anklet.  Day comes to get the bracelet off.  Oops, someone made a mistake you need to go back to prison longer.  Keep in mind while in prison here in Wis (don't know about elsewhere) you are required to pay the prison fees to be in prison.

2.  Person 2 went to jail, in the sentencing judge wrote person was to get off on house arrest because thier wife was disabled.  Prison says no they are staying in prison (apparently the prison warden overrides the judge).  They request to be moved to prison closer to home to get work release to go to work and care for spouse then stay in prison all other time.  Warden says no must stay in prison 1.5 hours from home and work but can have work release.  Person pays time gets out on parole.  Goes through all the bs, there is a lot with a DUI, pays the prison fees, pays to have the "mandatory counseling" (which they have to pay for and is incredibly high priced and out of control like $250 an hour session, also a state employee) even though they admitted themselves voluntarily during court hearings and trial and all through prison, but it wasn't good enough.  Played by all the rules has to blow in a thing 2 times a day and wear a anklet.  Pays the mandatory time that they cannot drive.  Looks into getting an occupational license to get to work.  Cannot for another year because someone screwed up and put 2 DUIs on the same day in the DMV record and there is no way to get it off.  Which is physically impossible because after the first he went to jail.  Through government screw ups there in nothing he can do to get his license for another year.  He cannot get a license but he has recourse to sue the state, like that will go anywere. Clarify: apparently the state did something illegal on how they set the law on getting a license after a DUI.  I am not 100% on all the facts but basically the state is getting fined everyday because nothing is getting done to fix it.  I could probably get the exact details on it all but I will have to talk to my friend.  It becomes a lot of lawyer speak since that is who he is hearing all this stuff from.

Now like I said both were guilty, and both deserved thier sentence.  But after thier debt to society was paid it doesnt end there just keeps being more tacked on, both got screwed by buerocracy.  And the funny thing, in both these cases they end up paying the state more in "fees," and get more tacked on by following the rules.

I this case I do agree with Chris stuff is screwed up.  While those that cheat the system get off those that play by the rules just get screwed.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

If there is no victim, there is no crime. If the government initiated violence against someone who has done no damage to any individual than the government is criminal, for instance pointing a gun at someone to demand their money (taxes).

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Brazil-Jailed Bulgarian Champ Begs for Christmas House Arrest

[John Way]

how the pros did it

http://www.smh.com.au/national/tongan-speaker-helped-drug-team-say-police-20111216-1oyrg.html

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Man will get high as long as man exists. The drug war is a war against mankind and it will never do anything but evil.

[Walter Bailey]

If there is no victim, there is no crime. If the government initiated violence against someone who has done no damage to any individual than the government is criminal, for instance pointing a gun at someone to demand their money (taxes).

So, what about drinking and driving? The majority of the time, the driver will get home safe, and there will be no victim. However, when the drunk driver does screw up, it will most likely mean injuring or killing an innocent third party.

So, does drinking and driving only become a crime when an innocent is hurt? It's easy to say, with something like drugs, that you're a big boy and if you OD or something like that, you have to live with the consequences of your decisions. But what happens when your decisions put somebody else at risk? When does it become a crime?

Just an honest question.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Its a long recognized principle of common law that if there is no victim, there is no crime. This came about because people realized without such protection the king could make anything illegal and then oppress you, as government does. In the injustice system, they call this standing. But, corrupt governments now only enforce standing requirements against citizens, never for them against state tyranny despite the requirements still being written in the law. Driving drunk is not a crime. If you hurt someone or their property while driving drunk, "reckless disregard for human life" would be an aggravating factor. The same is true of eating while driving, or texting while driving, or changing the music while driving. None of these things are criminal. It is the state that is criminal for oppressing the entire society. Furthermore, taxation is theft. Government is nothing but a protection racket, legalized crime. If an individual doesn't have the right to point guns at people to take their money, then they don't have the right to delegate such power.

A couple out of millions of examples:

“The plaintiff must show that he himself is injured by the challenged action of the defendant.  The injury may be indirect, see United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 688, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 2416, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973), but the complaint must indicate that the injury is indeed fairly traceable to the defendant’s acts or omissions.  Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1925-1926, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976); O’Shea v. Littelton, 414 U.S. 488, 498, 94 S.Ct. 669, 677, 38 L.Ed2d 674 (1974); Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1148, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).”  Vil. of Arlington Hts. v. Metro Housing Dev., 429 U.S. 252, 262.

“Component parts of every crime are the occurrence of a specific kind of injury or loss, somebody’s criminality as source of the loss, and the accused’s identity as the doer of the crime; the first two elements are what constitutes the concept of “corpus delecti.”  U.S. v. Shunk, 881 F.2d 917, 919 C.A. 10 (Utah).

[Andy Dick]

Question: are you sayind driving while drunk is legal...or should be legal unless someone is hurt?

So for your logic getting an any sort of car wreck is a crime, since someone's property is damaged? 

I see too much room for perversion of justice in our system and your system.

Examples, there is a car wreck.  Person A caused person B to hit them.  Person A is at fault but lies and persuades the courts that person B is at fault, justice is perverted in both systems.

Same deal with injury.  Person A caused person B to hit them.  Person A gets a chiropractor to claim they have "soft tissue injuries," but in all actuality they are playing the system to get thier settlement check.  Person B appears to be at fault and at crime.  It is laughable how easy it is to play the court systems in this manner.  Short research into soft tissue injuries is a joke (they can not necessarily manifest immediately, but there is no time frame to how long they manifest, a chriopractor who gets paid the more he sees you for adjustments can claim you are injured, preexisting injury that is not claimed, to name a few).

I bring this up because in my previous example with the person I knew who went to prison, the car he hit, hit another car and the two ladies in the second car claimed "soft tissue injuries" which caused him to go to prison and they both collected a hefty settlement from the insurance company.  This is despite the fact they claimed they were not injured and were fine then immediately got themselves a lawyer when they found out this person was a medical professional.