HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: breitbart ()
Date: September 29, 2017 10:31PM

Hillary-Clinton-SEIU-Getty-640x480.jpg

Unions threaten members to vote democrat (with possible death, certain firing). Union dues go almost exclusively to Democrats.


Democrats have MANY unexpected deaths of pivotal people in their wake. The one below is one.*


* a few others: Death of DOS/Win95 lead programmer. Death of the original google author: Altavista. SEIU. It's a long long list.

Janus v. AFSCME



In late 2015, everyone expected Abood to be overruled in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. But Justice Antonin Scalia passed away before the decision was handed down, and the case was dismissed on a 4-4 tie vote. With Justice Neil Gorsuch now sitting in the seat formerly held by Justice Scalia, everyone is betting that Abood will not survive the current challenge.

Janus v. AFSCME. The issue in that case is whether forced union dues from public-sector unions to pay for political activity (almost always supporting liberal political candidates and priorities) violate the First Amendment.

Collins v. Virginia



Officer saw a motorcycle that eluded him (only a traffic case, not a felony elusion). He entered property stealthily to get VIN then "busted" the owner.

Virginia democrats have taken the position to CONTINUE PROSECUTION despite lack of warrant (and infact: lack of proof of legal harm - traffic elusion for motorcycles is somewhat of an "old game" - one I did at age 14 simply because I could).

It's a TERRIBLE precedent Virginia is TRYING to make law. HOWEVER THE REAL STORY HERE IS the victim of illegal and unreasonable search and seizure (of property and person, without any good cause either): should be suing the police (would win only if proven a repeated action by police upon the same person, legally). THIS IS A PRECEDENT OF ALLOWING STATES OF CLAIMING LAWS MUST BE RE-LODGED WHENEVER GOVERNMENT MIGHT LOOSE A CASE, THUS DIS-CLAIMING THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE TO BE DOING THE LAW. A dangerous precedent part of "loop holes" that are often purpetrated by governors infact.

The worst thing here is the Constitution clearly claims it's already illegal. But that's how many of these governors abuse their citizens: claiming a law must first be made that is infact boldly pressed into the Constitution and well know: to get out of lawsuits or to OPPRESS.

Byrd v. United States



Whether a driver in a rental car who is not listed as an authorized driver with the rental company still has a reasonable expectation of privacy preventing warrantless searches by the government under the Fourth Amendment.

(no - not if it's reported stolen! otherwise YES, it's not the governments business, the private decision, whether to risk insurance liability of a rental or whether the rental covers extra drivers (in some cases they do if paid for))

you may prosecute people (and get warrants to seek doing so) for legal injuries: but not otherwise

Hays v. Vogt



Whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated when incriminating statements are used at an initial probable-cause court hearing, even when those statements are excluded later during the full criminal trial.

As often is: the case is much different than it sounds.

Vogt filed for employement and admitted he'd "kept a knife" technically owned by the previous employer. The new employer made a condition he return the knife before hiring. police officer.

Vogt did return the knife with apology (perhaps he'd left it at home and thought it a small thing at the time), but was charged with TWO FELONY for a single knife, and the new employer retracted the employment offer.

Vogt was ultimately charged in Kansas state court with two felony counts related to his possession of the knife.

(KANSAS LAW seems to be a tempest. They should know a felony must rise above $2,000 and that a single knife cannot be such a thing as a felony.)

Because of this there is now an un-employed police officer who is now in a position to sue for financial losses. Worse: if the court allows this then they allow politicians to CONSTRUCT SITUATIONS OF SUCH FININACIAL LOSSES, so the court must have a double edge against the prosecutors and insure every penny comes from their pockets.

Finally, taking home a government pen is illegal, amoral, and ticket-able: however at the price they cost it is not CRIME.

(now to be exact: theft impugns intent and motive which is not clear in this case. cases of borderline borrowing, in Roman Law, are not cases of theft. withstanding that: small matters are not allowed to be heard by courts and i can't imagine a knife that isn't a small matter)

the fait of one individual is not usually heard by the United States Supreme Court. this is an exception case taken optionally by the USSC (their charter is foreign / trade matters, congress matters and constitutional cases, then after: state matters as optional).

again my ruling on this: insure kansas prosecuters LOOSE MONEY out of pocket for having created a problem for their own profits.

.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: yppbn ()
Date: September 29, 2017 10:35PM

See (filing, filingS) on Justia yourself!

vogt v. city of hays: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/15-3266/15-3266-2017-01-04.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: lh7jd ()
Date: September 29, 2017 10:36PM

Janus v. AFSCME: ha dont look. it's pure politics and money. and decisions will be very hotly debated

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: um6yt ()
Date: September 29, 2017 10:39PM

Collins v. Commonwealth

http://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/2016/151277.html

(note change in case name, yuk. next note Commonwealth law means Virginia is owed to give any defendant the rights any other defendant got previous decisions - and that goes for responsibilities too, and decided interpretation of VA's constitution. NOT ALL STATES allow defendants to demand rights (or social corrections when) OTHER citizens were given rights in court that the current case was not offering)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: eduyc ()
Date: September 29, 2017 10:55PM

Byrd v. United States

hard to find because there's been so many under that name !!

PA troopers were running a customary "mandatory alcohol checkpoint" after a football game.

Here, state troopers in Pennsylvania stopped Pe- titioner Terrence Byrd for a traffic violation while he was driving a car that his girlfriend had rented for him. Without a warrant or probable cause, the troop- ers searched Byrd’s car and found contraband. Byrd moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search because it violated the Fourth Amendment,

but the district court denied the motion on the ground that Byrd, as a driver not listed on the rental agree- ment, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. The Third Circuit, while noting the circuit con- flict, affirmed on the same basis.

(the contraban was HEROINE , being a schedule 3 (worst) drug , cannot be ignored even if the rest of the case is thrown out: it's dangerous and deadly and an international objective to stop it from getting into hands)

(NOW THE DRUGGIES CAN WEIGHT IN: IS IT FAIR IF AN OFFICER HAS A GOOD NOSE?)

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/16-1509/16-1509-2017-02-10.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: tkbub ()
Date: September 29, 2017 11:12PM

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Under the Illinois Public Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315, a union representing public employees collects dues from its members, but only “fair share” fees (a proportionate share of the costs of collective bargaining and contract administration) from non-member employees on whose behalf the union also negotiates. A 2015 suit sought to preclude such fees, arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment by compelling employees who disapprove of the union to contribute money. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, noting that one of the plaintiffs has previously challenged the “fair share” provision in state court and that his claim is barred by claim preclusion. The court also noted the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, upholding, against a First Amendment challenge, a Michigan law that allowed a public employer, whose employees (public-school teachers) were represented by a union, to require those of its employees who did not join the union nevertheless to pay fees to it because they benefited from the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the employer.


here that? SEIU, FCPS, school board



no matter how complained, democrats (in dem controlled areas) will prevent union employees from filing suits (unless very lucky), they will be quashed. no matter how ruled democrats - who fly in the face of law - simply are going to continue doing what they are doing: heavy spending, illegals employed who vote democrat, taking wages from employees, the whole racket and racketeering

my opinion: you can't force people to donate to political funds or, effectively, be replaced by those who vote for "the right candidate". infact union law was never meant to be used in court when cases were not about wage abuse or personal abuse: in such cases non-union law should be used. protection of unions by weaponed court enforcement is ONLY meant to be done in cases, ie, where unions are in threat and wages are BELOW MINIMUM WAGE

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/16-3638/16-3638-2017-03-21.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: mceyv ()
Date: September 29, 2017 11:17PM

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

(more opinion: i favor the position that wherever legal abuse is NOT proven by unions, that unions should have no ability to prevent companies from hiring those who do not wish to join the union ... assuming the company wishes to do so - and in that case of being voluntary: donation to political campaign is already VOLUNTARY)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: tpphp ()
Date: September 29, 2017 11:24PM

the above unfortunately leaves this political situation to arise for CONGRESS to handle or for INJURED citizens to bring to court:

democrats take over a factory, fire citizens and issue green cards - lower wages - insure local democrats BLOOD LOYALTY

NOTE CAREFULLY the case is filed not for that, but simply for that a union member (no statement of being forced into union) wants his share of dues to go ... non-democrat politically. this case either way resolved doesn't solve ABUSE of the kind to be afraid of anyway.

hqdefault.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: What's in a name ()
Date: September 30, 2017 12:01AM

eduyc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Byrd v. United States
>
> hard to find because there's been so many under
> that name !!
>
> PA troopers were running a customary "mandatory
> alcohol checkpoint" after a football game.
>
> Here, state troopers in Pennsylvania stopped Pe-
> titioner Terrence Byrd for a traffic violation
> while he was driving a car that his girlfriend had
> rented for him. Without a warrant or probable
> cause, the troop- ers searched Byrd’s car and
> found contraband.


Terrence Byrd sounds like a negro name.

In that case, GUILTY!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: United States Supreme Court chooses 11 cases to (rule upon) this year.
Posted by: b6yvj ()
Date: September 30, 2017 06:43PM

What's in a name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eduyc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Byrd v. United States
> >
> > hard to find because there's been so many under
> > that name !!
> >
> > PA troopers were running a customary "mandatory
> > alcohol checkpoint" after a football game.
> >
> > Here, state troopers in Pennsylvania stopped
> Pe-
> > titioner Terrence Byrd for a traffic violation
> > while he was driving a car that his girlfriend
> had
> > rented for him. Without a warrant or probable
> > cause, the troop- ers searched Byrd’s car and
> > found contraband.
>
>
> Terrence Byrd sounds like a negro name.
>
> In that case, GUILTY!

well your not going to be on the jury. you've given your opinion in public already!

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  ********   **      **  ********   **     ** 
 **   **   **     **  **  **  **  **     **  ***   *** 
 **  **    **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **** **** 
 *****     **     **  **  **  **  ********   ** *** ** 
 **  **    **     **  **  **  **  **         **     ** 
 **   **   **     **  **  **  **  **         **     ** 
 **    **  ********    ***  ***   **         **     ** 
This forum powered by Phorum.