Re: [tips_and_tricks] Swan update
- Laurie Gardner wrote:
> Most interesting point was that paying bail gives them jurisdiction....Thanks - I need all the love I can get!
> I LOVE YOU!
People pay bail for convenience and expedience (they think).
That, and money - they don't want to miss working for FRNs.
So instead of doing the right thing, they do the easy thing.
If someone REALLY believed that a court had no jurisdiction
(they'd have to know HOW a court gets jurisdiction, wouldn't
they?) would they agree to the amount of bail set at their
bail setting hearing? What?! There WAS no bail setting
hearing? And WHOSE fault is THAT? And how can you have a
realistic bail setting before probable cause has been
determined? This can all be ignored in the rush to get out
on bail and grant jurisdiction.
Or, you can be "difficult" and refuse to waive any right for
any cause or reason.
Each to his own.
- Are you aware that "PA" is not the state called
Pennsylvania? PA is an imaginary federal zone, or don't you
I don't know the procedures for Pennsylvania. Do you know
the names of the people who arrested and tossed you? Were
they lawfully qualified to do so? How many rights did you
waive between the time you were arrested and the time you
were released (assuming you're not writing from jail right
now)? Do you realize that to fail to object timely can be
interpreted as a waiver of a right? And why do you say,
"we"? I'm sure you cannot know what happens in every case
in Pennsylvania. Maybe you were speaking of just you and
your friends...maybe you were arrested on probable cause for
some crime that could be described differently than
"remaining silent" (which is not a crime). If you were
arrested for breathing air, where would you go from there?
I would probably demand a probable cause hearing (to get
even more names) and a bail setting hearing, so I could turn
down bail. What did you actually do? I would demand a
proper arraignment, which I have not seen done in California
in over 20 years.
keystone law wrote:
> ok now here in PA we remain silent. We are arrested and tossed. Our
> rights are violated. Now what. Where does one go from there.
> keystone law wrote:
> > No but if you have cases that I need not say anything it would be
> "The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a
> long and expansive historical development, is the essential
> mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the
> individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to
> speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a
> period of custodial interrogation [384 U.S. 437] as well as
> in the courts or during the course of other official
> investigations." Pp. 458-465.
> Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436