Arrested on a bike? Let us know!

[TIME'S UP! (via Jym Dyer)]

=v= TIME'S UP! is interested in getting together folks who were
arrested at Critical Mass or the Bike Blocs, plus anyone who was
arrested while on a bike: food distributors, legal observers,
medics, or just anyone caught in the excess of police activity
over the last few days. (We've heard rumors of people being
not cited but ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)

=v= We do not expect or want you to give us incriminating info
that's best discussed only with your lawyer. We have pulled
together a form to help us keep track of people, so you can
download the PDF here:

http://www.times-up.org/bnc/bike_legal_intake.pdf

or stop by 49 East Houston to fill it out. We will have more
information here on the TIME'S UP! website soon:

http://www.times-up.org/

<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

>> (We've heard rumors of people being not cited but
>> ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> Perfectly legal.

=v= Not according to the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment. Police can certainly make arrests, but
they must do so to everyone, including those on foot and
in driving cars. Not just bicyclists who look like they
might be protesters.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

>> (We've heard rumors of people being not cited but
>> ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> Perfectly legal.

=v= Not according to the equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment. Police can certainly make arrests, but
they must do so to everyone, including those on foot and
in driving cars. Not just bicyclists who look like they
might be protesters.
<_Jym_>

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>On 01 Sep 2004 08:40:03 -0700, "TIME'S UP!" (via Jym Dyer)
> claims:
>
>>(We've heard rumors of people being
>>not cited but ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
>
> Perfectly legal.

If you have ID and no outstanding warrants, you should not be arrested.
---------------
Alex

[Alex Rodriguez]

In article >,
says...

>On 01 Sep 2004 08:40:03 -0700, "TIME'S UP!" (via Jym Dyer)
> claims:
>
>>(We've heard rumors of people being
>>not cited but ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
>
> Perfectly legal.

If you have ID and no outstanding warrants, you should not be arrested.
---------------
Alex

[Acamy Sfewy]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:21:56 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
> claims:
>
> >In article >,

> >says...
> >
> >>On 01 Sep 2004 08:40:03 -0700, "TIME'S UP!" (via Jym Dyer)
> > claims:
> >>
> >>>(We've heard rumors of people being
> >>>not cited but ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> >>
> >> Perfectly legal.
> >
> >If you have ID and no outstanding warrants, you should not be arrested.
>
> In a traffic stop with no huge protest going on, you are
> correct. In the mass arrest situations facing the NYPD the last few
> days, nope. Plasticuffs.

They took the risk, and the leaders wanted the get arrested, that is why
they are asking for dirt now, to make political poop out of it. Keep them in
Jail, and give them a big fine too.

[Acamy Sfewy]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:21:56 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
> claims:
>
> >In article >,

> >says...
> >
> >>On 01 Sep 2004 08:40:03 -0700, "TIME'S UP!" (via Jym Dyer)
> > claims:
> >>
> >>>(We've heard rumors of people being
> >>>not cited but ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> >>
> >> Perfectly legal.
> >
> >If you have ID and no outstanding warrants, you should not be arrested.
>
> In a traffic stop with no huge protest going on, you are
> correct. In the mass arrest situations facing the NYPD the last few
> days, nope. Plasticuffs.

They took the risk, and the leaders wanted the get arrested, that is why
they are asking for dirt now, to make political poop out of it. Keep them in
Jail, and give them a big fine too.

[Acamy Sfewy]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Sep 2004 11:20:17 -0700, Jym Dyer > claims:
>
> >>> (We've heard rumors of people being not cited but
> >>> ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> >> Perfectly legal.
> >
> >=v= Not according to the equal protection clause of the
> >14th Amendment. Police can certainly make arrests, but
> >they must do so to everyone, including those on foot and
> >in driving cars. Not just bicyclists who look like they
> >might be protesters.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> We were talking about the mass arrests of protesting cyclists.
> I doubt that any of them got uniform traffic tickets at the scene, so
> they got their "equal protection". The tactic used is to take everyone
> into custody and sort it out when things calm down and police are
> available in enough numbers to process the arrests.
> Remember that a UTT is always only a summons or an invitation
> to court, and is in lieu of arrest. If the officer has information
> leading him or her to believe the violator will not show up in court,
> he has to make an arrest. No ID, for example, which is common in
> protest arrests.
>
>

They took the risk, and the leaders wanted the get arrested, that is why
they are asking for dirt now, to make political poop out of it. Keep them in
Jail, and give them a big fine too.

[Acamy Sfewy]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
> On 02 Sep 2004 11:20:17 -0700, Jym Dyer > claims:
>
> >>> (We've heard rumors of people being not cited but
> >>> ARRESTED for rolling through red lights.)
> >> Perfectly legal.
> >
> >=v= Not according to the equal protection clause of the
> >14th Amendment. Police can certainly make arrests, but
> >they must do so to everyone, including those on foot and
> >in driving cars. Not just bicyclists who look like they
> >might be protesters.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> We were talking about the mass arrests of protesting cyclists.
> I doubt that any of them got uniform traffic tickets at the scene, so
> they got their "equal protection". The tactic used is to take everyone
> into custody and sort it out when things calm down and police are
> available in enough numbers to process the arrests.
> Remember that a UTT is always only a summons or an invitation
> to court, and is in lieu of arrest. If the officer has information
> leading him or her to believe the violator will not show up in court,
> he has to make an arrest. No ID, for example, which is common in
> protest arrests.
>
>

They took the risk, and the leaders wanted the get arrested, that is why
they are asking for dirt now, to make political poop out of it. Keep them in
Jail, and give them a big fine too.

[ben]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in
>:

>On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:21:56 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
>claims:
>
>>If you have ID and no outstanding warrants, you should not be arrested.
>
> In a traffic stop with no huge protest going on, you are
>correct. In the mass arrest situations facing the NYPD the last few
>days,

You make it sound as if they had no control over the number of arrests, as
if they were innocent victims of some preordained arrest schedule, almost as
if they *were ordered* to make each and every arrest!

> nope. Plasticuffs.
> Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
>
>Ken (NY)
>
>"I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our
>troops dispersed through the world only at
>the directive of the United Nations."

That's right: international actions require international diplomacy. We
have to treat our allies with respect.

> -Senator John F. Kerry, Harvard Crimson 1970
>
>email:
>http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
>spammers can send mail to
>

[Jym Dyer]

> = Ken [NY)

> They were all released by Friday. Of course they are going to
> get ACLU lawyers to sue the city. Which is fine, since the RNC
> is over now.

=v= Toxic conditions for both peaceful protesters and innocent
bystanders are fine? Indiscriminate attacks on people for
legally and peacefully exercising their civil rights are fine?

=v= Your comments are unAmerican. Perhaps you would be happier
living in a police state.
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> You make it sound as if they had no control over the number of
> arrests, as if they were innocent victims of some preordained
> arrest schedule, almost as if they *were ordered* to make each
> and every arrest!

=v= "I was only following orders" was soundly judged as no
defense back in 1945. Has this judgement been suspended for
the New World Order? "Ken [NY)" seems to be celebrating that.

=v= Just so we're clear about what the NYPD did:

o Sent unmarked "scooter goons" into peaceful, law-abiding
crowds. The _New_York_Times_ printed the police's claim
that they "nudged" protesters, but they have been videotaped
hitting and kicking people.

o Blocked off areas and indiscriminately arrested everyone
on a block or street. Typical tactic: surrounding them
so that nobody could disperse, then giving an order to
disperse, then arresting them all.

o At bicycle events, arresting everyone in the area, including
food delivery people and those walking on the sidewalk.
Using boltcutters and other tools to steal every bicycle
locked up in the area.

o In addition to the indiscriminate mass arrests, targeted
legal observers and medics for a block around and arresting
them as well.

<_Jym_>

[Steven Bornfeld]

Jym Dyer wrote:
>>You make it sound as if they had no control over the number of
>>arrests, as if they were innocent victims of some preordained
>>arrest schedule, almost as if they *were ordered* to make each
>>and every arrest!
>
>
> =v= "I was only following orders" was soundly judged as no
> defense back in 1945. Has this judgement been suspended for
> the New World Order? "Ken [NY)" seems to be celebrating that.

Comparing getting arrested for disorderly conduct to mass murder is a
little bit over the top, Jym, and frankly an insult to those of us who
lost much of our families in the Holocaust.
You demonstrated, knew (or should have known) that tensions were at a
high level, invited arrest, then compare the police to the Gestapo.
Get your legal help, and grow up!

Steve Bornfeld (BTW, no supporter of the RNC)

[Jym Dyer]

> Comparing getting arrested for disorderly conduct to mass
> murder is a little bit over the top, Jym, and frankly an
> insult to those of us who lost much of our families in the
> Holocaust.

=v= I made no such comparison, and frankly your non sequitur
of a reply is needlessly inflammatory.

=v= The Nuremberg Trials set a legal standard that rippled
throughout the civilized world and have been applicable and
applied from the upper levels of the military to the lowest
levels of law enforcement. The standard has quite rightly
been applied to uniformed perpetrators for abuses of human
and civil rights which have (quite obviously) not approached
the realm of those of the Holocaust.

=v= None of this is exactly obscure news. Anyone familiar with
civil rights history or who's even just taken an undergraduate
course in ethics should be familiar with it.

=v= That standard is one of the things we won in WWII. I'm
not willing to give it up.

> You demonstrated, knew (or should have known) that tensions
> were at a high level, invited arrest, then compare the police
> to the Gestapo. Get your legal help, and grow up!

=v= Again, I made no such comparison. But here we see what
you're really up to: just pulling in inflammatory remarks to
spew pejoratives (and heading straight into Godwin territory).
What's more, your "invited arrest" misrepresentation concocts
a scenario that leads one to wonder whether you actually read
read the message that you're putatively responding to.
<_Jym_>

[Steven Bornfeld]

Jym Dyer wrote:
>>Comparing getting arrested for disorderly conduct to mass
>>murder is a little bit over the top, Jym, and frankly an
>>insult to those of us who lost much of our families in the
>>Holocaust.
>
>
> =v= I made no such comparison, and frankly your non sequitur
> of a reply is needlessly inflammatory.

Sure. Explain your use of the term "New World Order".

[Mitch Haley]

"Ken [NY)" wrote:

> The "peaceful law-abiding crowd" was there without a
> permit, unlike others that were not bothered.

You think they need your (or anybody else's)
permission to simply be on the public ways?

Nazi is too good a word for you then.

Mitch.

[Jym Dyer]

"Ken [NY)" purports:

> Hours before, many of the same people were throwing garbage
> at cops and Republicans, starting fires that injured people,
> and many were protesting by lying down in the filthy gutter,
> hoping to be arrested.

=v= What evidence do you have that these were "the same people"
or that fires (plural) injured people? None of the people I'm
talking about here did any of that (as you must surely know,
unless you are incapable of reading for comprehension); they
were riding bikes, kissing, or simply walking on sidewalks not
protesting at all.

=v= I know of one fire, conditions confusing, resulting in one
PROVEN FRAUDULENT claim of injury by an NYPD officer. Shameful.

> ... maybe they shouldn't have been breaking the law. Like
> the mayor said, "it isn't Club Med."

=v= Again: read for comprehension. Many arrested WERE NOT
BREAKING THE LAW. Does "breaking" have too many syllables
for you or something? Tell me, do you really think it's
appropriate to do a mass sweep of sidewalks of people who
may not even be protesting, and stuff them into a pen on
oil, diesel soot, asbestos and PCBs? If so, what in God's
name is wrong with you?

=v= Crack dealers and violent offenders (or whom the police
themselves referred to, revealingly, as "real prisoners")
were treated better.

=v= Bloomberg's "Club Med" remark will come back to haunt
him. He's either clueless or lying, and neither is good.
<_Jym_>

[Pupea]

"Ken [NY)" > wrote in message
...
> On 11 Sep 2004 09:21:37 -0700, Jym Dyer > claims:
>
> >"Ken [NY)" purports:
> >
> >> Hours before, many of the same people were throwing garbage
> >> at cops and Republicans, starting fires that injured people,
> >> and many were protesting by lying down in the filthy gutter,
> >> hoping to be arrested.
> >
> >=v= What evidence do you have that these were "the same people"
> >or that fires (plural) injured people? None of the people I'm
> >talking about here did any of that (as you must surely know,
> >unless you are incapable of reading for comprehension); they
> >were riding bikes, kissing, or simply walking on sidewalks not
> >protesting at all.
>
> No protesting, eh?
>
> Bike protests. Join us in the streets of Manhattan to
> celebrate a different vision of our city and public space.
>
> When: Sunday, August 29th, 11:00am
> Where: Union Square Park South
> (14th St near Broadway)
>
> A bike action in solidarity with UFPJ march:
> http://www.unitedforpeace.org/
> Meet earlier to discuss plans for our first Bike Bloc.
>
> Sure sounded like a protest to me! Unless you have a
> convenient different meaning to "Bike protests".
>
>

"Jym" organizes and starts ****, but will NEVER take responcability for any
of it.
The bicycles I saw did block an ambulance for about 15 min, and the police
were completly right in arresting them.
"Jym" will always deny, like he does with the death of that girl in 97 who
was riding with CM.

[Jym Dyer]

"Ken [NY)" once again demonstrates his inability
to read for comprehension:

> No protesting, eh?

=v= I never said that. What I said, in small words that I
mistakenly thought you were capable of comprehending, is that
many (not all -- repeat -- not all) who were arrested were
protesting, and also that many who were protesting were not
breaking any laws.
<_Jym_>

[Yora Isecha]

"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken [NY)" once again demonstrates his inability
> to read for comprehension:
>
> > No protesting, eh?
>
> =v= I never said that. What I said, in small words that I
> mistakenly thought you were capable of comprehending, is that
> many (not all -- repeat -- not all) who were arrested were
> protesting, and also that many who were protesting were not
> breaking any laws.
> <_Jym_>
>

Well, which way are you going to have it, Jym-boy?

They WERE, or WERE NOT, breaking LAWS?

Flip' a flopie, "Jym"bie -- urges others to get in trouble, then deny
having anything to do with it.

[Mark Ingram]

Jym can't make it sound like a bad-ass full-out riot in NYC streets, with
the evil cops killing bicyclists.

"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
> > You make it sound as if they had no control over the number of
> > arrests, as if they were innocent victims of some preordained
> > arrest schedule, almost as if they *were ordered* to make each
> > and every arrest!
>
> =v= "I was only following orders" was soundly judged as no
> defense back in 1945. Has this judgement been suspended for
> the New World Order? "Ken [NY)" seems to be celebrating that.
>
> =v= Just so we're clear about what the NYPD did:
>
> o Sent unmarked "scooter goons" into peaceful, law-abiding
> crowds. The _New_York_Times_ printed the police's claim
> that they "nudged" protesters, but they have been videotaped
> hitting and kicking people.

That is a LIE, I was there, about 5 of the "protesters" intentionally
started it, I think they were from out of town, here to start trouble
intentionally.


>
> o Blocked off areas and indiscriminately arrested everyone
> on a block or street. Typical tactic: surrounding them
> so that nobody could disperse, then giving an order to
> disperse, then arresting them all.

They started doing that at the DNC first.

>
> o At bicycle events, arresting everyone in the area, including
> food delivery people and those walking on the sidewalk.
> Using boltcutters and other tools to steal every bicycle
> locked up in the area.

Overstated crap to stir people up. Nothing like that happened.

>
> o In addition to the indiscriminate mass arrests, targeted
> legal observers and medics for a block around and arresting
> them as well.

Not true, Too bad your mass event or "riot", didn't happen like you wanted
it too.

> <_Jym_>

[Yora Ishmel]

"slim" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Yora Isecha wrote:
> >
> > "Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Ken [NY)" once again demonstrates his inability
> > > to read for comprehension:
> > >
> > > > No protesting, eh?
> > >
> > > =v= I never said that. What I said, in small words that I
> > > mistakenly thought you were capable of comprehending, is that
> > > many (not all -- repeat -- not all) who were arrested were
> > > protesting, and also that many who were protesting were not
> > > breaking any laws.
> > > <_Jym_>
> > >
> >
> > Well, which way are you going to have it, Jym-boy?
> >
> > They WERE, or WERE NOT, breaking LAWS?
>
> People "break laws" everyday in NYC.
>
> You jaywalk, don't you? '-)
>


If the were protesting, they took the risk to go to jail, and be arrested
(two different things Jym ignores to inflame), they were breaking the law by
unlawful assembly.

Jaywalking, swiping something, mugging....... You pry up the law to
justify anything.

[Steven M. O'Neill]

Yora Ishmel > wrote:
>If the were protesting, they took the risk to go to jail, and be arrested
>(two different things Jym ignores to inflame), they were breaking the law by
>unlawful assembly.

What about the people who were (reportedly) arrested who weren't
protesting, but were just passing by?

--
Steven O'Neill

[Yora Ishmel]

"Steven M. O'Neill" > wrote in message
...
> Yora Ishmel > wrote:
> >If the were protesting, they took the risk to go to jail, and be arrested
> >(two different things Jym ignores to inflame), they were breaking the law
by
> >unlawful assembly.
>
> What about the people who were (reportedly) arrested who weren't
> protesting, but were just passing by?
>
> --
> Steven O'Neill


Cops made a decision on the scene, normally I stay away or move away from
cops and arrest scenes.

So it sounds strange to me that one would walk into a bunch of Cops
arresting people, and not expect to get arrested.

They will have their day in Court to straighten it out.

[Jack Dingler]

What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
by the US Constitution.

Jack Dingler

Yora Ishmel wrote:

>
>If the were protesting, they took the risk to go to jail, and be arrested
>(two different things Jym ignores to inflame), they were breaking the law by
>unlawful assembly.
>
>Jaywalking, swiping something, mugging....... You pry up the law to
>justify anything.
>
>
>
>
>

[Yora Ishmel]

"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
...
> What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
> by the US Constitution.
>

Wrong.

Got a permit?

A Cop can bust you if you are "in the way" or "interfering" with what he is
doing,
or "unlawful assembly".

Educate yourself on the law, checkout a book at the library, or call a
police station and ask.

Or remain a "victim", or one who "speaks with shallow knowledge to convince
little kids".

[Mitch Haley]

"Steven M. O'Neill" wrote:
> What about the people who were (reportedly) arrested who weren't
> protesting, but were just passing by?

Well, that's the price they pay for living in a police state.

Mitch

[Mitch Haley]

Jack Dingler wrote:
>
> What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
> by the US Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was revoked years ago, haven't you noticed yet?

[Jack Dingler]

In related newsgroups, I've read firsthand accounts of folks being
arrested for unlawful assembly when leaving the office and walking to
their car, or waiting at bustops.

I think it's clear that unlawful assembly means whatever it needs to
mean. If you think the law is cut and dried as you think it is, then
you're a bit innocent. Education is meaningless if a politician wants to
to make a statement.

Jack Dingler

Yora Ishmel wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
>>by the US Constitution.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
>Got a permit?
>
>A Cop can bust you if you are "in the way" or "interfering" with what he is
>doing,
>or "unlawful assembly".
>
>Educate yourself on the law, checkout a book at the library, or call a
>police station and ask.
>
>Or remain a "victim", or one who "speaks with shallow knowledge to convince
>little kids".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jack Dingler]

Ray Bradbury once wrote a short story about a time when going outdoors
or taking a walk, would be a suspicious or even a criminal activity.

What foresight he had. He also described in an interview how freedom and
democracy is impossible if the population rises high enough. He used the
analogy of a bathroom in a house.

1. With one person living in the house, that person could have complete
freedom to use the bathroom.
2. With two people, the freedom to use the bathroom still existed, but
sometimes one person has to wait.
....
5 With five people, arrangements and schedules have to be made. Bathroom
maintenance time becomes an issue.
.... Add more people and you need strict rules and punishments for
bathroom protocol. Freedom to sue the bathroom at will has become
nonexistent.

As our population grows, basic freedoms, rights and democracy has to be
abandoned in favor of a strict state with strict rules and harsh
punishments. This is because resources and time become commodities that
have to be stretch to serve more and more people.

Public property like streets and sidewalks become valuable commodities
that cannot accommodate everyone, all the time. So it becomes necessary
to deny people the right to travel as they choose, when they wish to go
and where they want to go. It's only the logic of this progression. that
an increasing population will see a need to keep people off the
sidewalks as much as possible and to restrict their travel in the name
of efficiency.

The idea of rounding up people waiting to cross at lights or waiting at
bus stops in New York City, in order to fill quotas for protester
arrests, seems outrageous in the suburbs of Texas. But I can see how
such actions must evolve, in a highly populated area. With so little
space and so many people, the city will feel pressure to encourage
people to leave the sidewalks and streets as quickly as they can.

As joblessness in the US increases and with it, higher fuel prices and
shortages, more folks will be forced to ride bicycles in search of work.
Tensions must rise between those that are employed and those that
aren't, and the easiest way for a city to show they are doing something,
is just to make indiscriminate mass arrests. Things are going to get
exciting in the big cities over the next couple of decades as we cross
over the top of the Hubbert Peak. The police state will soon need to
find ways keep the unemployed off the streets.

Get ready for interesting times.

And it's not about the law. It's life clashing with politics. Justice
will be the first casualty, making the law meaningless.

Jack Dingler

Mitch Haley wrote:

>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
>>by the US Constitution.
>>
>>
>
>The Bill of Rights was revoked years ago, haven't you noticed yet?
>
>

[Yora Ishmel]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven M. O'Neill" wrote:
> > What about the people who were (reportedly) arrested who weren't
> > protesting, but were just passing by?
>
> Well, that's the price they pay for living in a police state.
>

Stupid F*ck, go to Russia for a real "police state"
You have no idea

Cops made a decision on the scene, normally I stay away or move away from
cops and arrest scenes.

So it sounds strange to me that one would walk into a bunch of Cops
arresting people, and not expect to get arrested.

They will have their day in Court to straighten it out.

[Yora Ishmel]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Jack Dingler wrote:
> >
> > What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
> > by the US Constitution.
>
> The Bill of Rights was revoked years ago, haven't you noticed yet?


Stupid F*ck, you must be 12, you have that right. Get a permit.

A Cop can bust you if you are "in the way" or "interfering" with what he is
doing, or "unlawful assembly".

Educate yourself on the law, checkout a book at the library, or call a
police station and ask.

Or remain a "victim", or one who "speaks with shallow knowledge to convince
little kids".

[Mitch Haley]

Yora Fishmeal wrote:
> Stupid F*ck, you must be 12, you have that right. Get a permit.

And you're so intelligent and mature, aren't you?
Spewing childish obscenities whenever somebody voices
an opinion which disagrees with yours. Does your
mommy know you use her computer to spread naughty words?

Mitch.

[Yora Ishmel]

"Mitch Haley" > wrote in message
...
> Yora Fishmeal wrote:
> > Stupid F*ck, you must be 12, you have that right. Get a permit.
>
> And you're so intelligent and mature, aren't you?
> Spewing childish obscenities whenever somebody voices
> an opinion which disagrees with yours. Does your
> mommy know you use her computer to spread naughty words?
>
> Mitch.

Can't you come up with anything original?

I stand by my determination that you are a Stupid F*ck and 12 years old
mentally.
Take some time to think about it, and let it soak in, and realize you have
substantial problems.

Your statement "The Bill of Rights was revoked years ago, haven't you
noticed yet?" provides an in-depth view of your sick psyche, shallow
knowledge base, and lame attitude. You should move to Sudan where they do
not have a bill of rights.

Educate yourself on the law, checkout a book at the library, or call a
police station and ask. A Cop can bust you if you are "in the way" or
"interfering" with what he is doing, or "unlawful assembly". Or just stay as
one who "speaks with shallow knowledge to convince little kids".

[Mitch Haley]

"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:05:49 GMT, Jack Dingler >
> claims:
>
> >What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
> >by the US Constitution.
>
> No rights are absolute.

Then no rights are "rights", merely privileges exercised with the
government's permission. Would it be ok with you if you had to
apply for a deniable permit each weekend before being allowed
to attend church, or does that interfere with your concept of
the first amendment?

Mitch.

[Jack Dingler]

Churches have been used as places to meet and conspire to commit acts of
terrorism, many times through the centuries.

I think it's clear a person shouldn't have an automatic right to
assemble for worship, especially with all of the violence condoned by
the religious texts of the major religions of the world. Most of these
texts actually encourage genocide against people of differing faiths, or
methods of worship. Throughout the centuries, they have been used as
justification of genocide, slavery, torture, forced labor, the overthrow
of governments and wars. Clearly no one should an automatic right to
worship whichever way they choose.

Jack Dingler

Mitch Haley wrote:

>"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:05:49 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>>claims:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What laws were they breaking? I thought peaceable assembly was protected
>>>by the US Constitution.
>>>
>>>
>> No rights are absolute.
>>
>>
>
>Then no rights are "rights", merely privileges exercised with the
>government's permission. Would it be ok with you if you had to
>apply for a deniable permit each weekend before being allowed
>to attend church, or does that interfere with your concept of
>the first amendment?
>
>Mitch.
>
>

[Yora Ishmel]

At least the AWB is over, now I can order online, and take
my gun to Church, and to the next NYC Critical Mass Bike Bloc

http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58STD&storeid=1&image=sa58std.gif

Police state my ass........