Papers Please

[Marcus]

John Gilmore vs Gonzales

On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen, decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to another. He went to Oakland International Airport – ticket in hand – and was told he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel. He asked to see the law demanding he show his ‘papers’ and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn’t be allowed to read it.

United States vs Deborah Davis

One morning in late September 2005, Deb was riding the public bus to work. She was minding her own business, reading a book and planning for work, when a security guard got on this public bus and demanded that every passenger show their ID. Deb, having done nothing wrong, declined. The guard called in federal cops, and she was arrested and charged with federal criminal misdemeanors after refusing to show ID on demand.

Dudley Hiibel

One balmy May evening back in 2000, Dudley was standing around minding his own business when all of a sudden, a policeman pulled-up and demanded that Dudley produce his ID. Dudley, having done nothing wrong, declined. He was arrested and charged with “failure to cooperate” for refusing to show ID on demand. And it’s all on video.

Ok So Number 1 is a little iffy but number 2 is just fucking retarded. I dont know what to say about the 3rd one yet but I dont think the guy was smart to not show the cop his id.

[MikeSofaer]

I’m not sure #2 is that big a deal. The Feds don’t have to let her onto their land. If the bus driver asked her to get off so that he could continue his route, that’s probably within his rights.

[Ben_Sones]

Number one is absurd. There is no law that requires you to show papers to travel in the US. There is a law that requires you to show papers to get on an airplane. I don’t think many people have a problem with that, so it’s not surprising that the guy (falsely) frames the issue as “You have to show ID to travel.”

[MikeSofaer]

Apparently there in fact is no such written law, and the security directives from TSA are secret and you cannot read them. A literal Catch-22.

I read the Hiibel decision and I do not agree with the Court. I can only hope that it gets overturned by the Roberts Court.

[Flowers]

There is no such thing as a secret law. I wish the people had retained the right to pillory public employees and not reserved it to the States.

[MikeSofaer]

There is no such thing as a secret law. I wish the people had retained the right to pillory public employees and not reserved it to the States.

Here is a sweet quote from a DOJ motion to file their opposing brief in camera, ex parte.

A federal statute and accompanying regulations, however, prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directictive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff’s counsel

So this directive (showing ID) is only alleged to exist, and the DOJ is prevented by statute from publicly commenting on its existence. Maybe the directive contains info on secret cell phone smackdown tricks. If it exists, that is.

[Flowers]

[quote=Flowers]There is no such thing as a secret law. I wish the people had retained the right to pillory public employees and not reserved it to the States.

Here is a sweet quote from a DOJ motion to file their opposing brief in camera, ex parte.

A federal statute and accompanying regulations, however, prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directictive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff’s counsel

So this directive (showing ID) is only alleged to exist, and the DOJ is prevented by statute from publicly commenting on its existence. Maybe the directive contains info on secret cell phone smackdown tricks. If it exists, that is.[/quote]

Eight year olds try the same shit.

[Tom_McNamara]

Here is a sweet quote from a DOJ motion to file their opposing brief in camera, ex parte.

[quote=Justice]A federal statute and accompanying regulations, however, prohibit defendants from disclosing any such directictive in open court, to plaintiff, or to plaintiff’s counsel

So this directive (showing ID) is only alleged to exist, and the DOJ is prevented by statute from publicly commenting on its existence. Maybe the directive contains info on secret cell phone smackdown tricks. If it exists, that is.[/quote]

And perhaps the directive is secret because it’s a civil rights violation.

[Stroker_Ace]

Eight year olds, Dude.

[Rimbo]

Eight year olds, Dude.

Nobody fucks with the Jesus.