Drudge-lite. Next.

rwhamann: This story has the unmistable ring of "something's been left out fo the story."

If true, this is like political nitroglycerin. Somebody needs to step in and deal with it.

However, I think something's been omitted from the story.


Exactly.

Agreed, rwhamann & Deeznutz.

This is ridiculous. Who greenlighted this crap?

The best article I could find is this one. The rest just point to World Can't Wait, which doesn't strike me as terribly trustworthy or impartial.

However, if you can't trust Greg Szymanski's Arctic Beacon, who can you trust?

The only thing lacking from that report is the first line saying "The following is mostly made up BS, and a highly slanted {damn near horizontal} reporting of the facts we think make our point"

And during a last minute May 9 hearing, Judge McGinty said Fischer's opposition to the Bush administration makes her "delusional."

Since when does opposing a crappy president make one delusional?

nunia: Since when does opposing a crappy president make one delusional?

I think it dates from the 90s, when anyone who suggested the POTUS maybe shouldn't break the law was labeled as a crackpot.

Sloth_DC: I think it dates from the 90s, when anyone who suggested the POTUS maybe shouldn't break the law was labeled as a crackpot.

Yeah, it sounds like that "all authority comes from God" dogma.

If you question your gubment, you're going to Hell.

Cleveland Women Put In Gulag

How many women?

nunia: Yeah, it sounds like that "all authority comes from God" dogma.

Well, I figure this is the natural result when people say, "Ah, who cares if the President commits perjury?" Now, it's become, "Ah, who cares if the President ignore the Bill of Rights and federal security laws?"

I live in Cleveland, and remember this.

The cops were heavy downtown in preperation for Bush's visit. This wasn't the only incident that day, only the most heavily reported.

I don't know why the cops here are so heavily pro bush, but they are. They were rousting anyone who even looked like they might think for themselves...

Or, the truth may be closer to her statement (but she doesn't like Bush, so it's all probably a dirty lie):

According to her statements, Fisher was hanging posters announcing the World Can't Wait Cleveland action during the State of the Union, when a passing officer told her it was a $100 fine if she didn't take it down.

Fisher turned and walked toward the poster, in compliance with the officer's warning. But instead of allowing her to take it down or just issuing a citation, Downey and Frinzl were on top of her "grinding his knee into [Fisher's] back and [her] face into the sidewalk."

Fisher said she told the officers she could not breathe. That didn't matter. Two more officers showed up, and they dragged her to a bench, shackled her legs, and handcuffed her tight enough to cause serious bruising.

Fisher objected to her arrest, telling the officers that "as citizens we have the responsibility to stop the crimes of the Bush regime."

According to her statements, this inflamed the officers. One told her, "I am sick of this anti-Bush shiat," and they threatened to kill her. "You are definitely going to the psych ward," said another. And that's where she ended up, incommunicado, even to her Power of Attorney for health
care. University Hospitals personnel were forbidden by the police to allow visitors or for Fisher to make a phone call.

Fisher appeared before Judge Kathleen Sutula
http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/common/Judges/sutulak.htm , a Republican known throughout legal circles for her partisanship and contempt for defendants. She was flanked by her attorneys, Daniel Shields and Terry Gilbert.

A copy of the indictment was not given to Fisher or her counsel until that morning. Ohio law requires that service be made at least 24 hours prior
to the arraignment.

Shields waived the 24 hour notice and entered a plea of "not guilty" on behalf of his client.

Prior to Sutula's entrance into the courtroom, Gilbert had an altercation with Assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor Deborah Naiman, who is not assigned to Fisher's case.

In an obvious attempt to show power, and a signal that the case is a priority, Naiman badgered Gilbert across the courtroom.

"What city was this?" Naiman, out of her seat, walking toward Gilbert shouted, "You know and everyone knows it's against the law to hang posters
there. And it's Cleveland Heights. Not exactly known as a hotbed of Bush support."

"And that's not what you do to police," Naiman continued. "You don't attack police when they are trying to arrest you."

Remaining seated, Gilbert maintained his client's innocence and suggested that the facts will come out in court.

But Naiman's enthusiasm for the hard line against Fisher is also suggested by case timelines.

The grand jury indicted Fisher February 6, eight days after the arrest.

Felony indictments of this type in Cuyahoga County generally take at least two months.

Sutula set Fisher's bond at $2,500. Fisher was then taken into custody and held until her bond was processed.

The case is part of a larger growing problem.

Wearing a black t-shirt with mug shots of Bush, Cheney, and other cabinet members, saying "Wanted for war crimes," Fisher and half a dozen sign
bearing World Can't Wait members held a press conference prior to the arraignment.

Fisher made it clear that she's not afraid to go to jail, and that her case is part of a bigger problem - the fascism creeping across the United States. At every opportunity, she pointed to the need to drive out the
Bush regime.

Fisher said she's being prosecuted in order to intimidate others who stand up to the growing police state.

"I'm not a wildcat," said Fisher, "and I'm not crazy." Both are references to statements put out by Cleveland Heights police. Fisher kept the t-shirt on in court to the amusement of sheriff deputies.

"Judge Satula's not gonna like seeing that," they joked. Vigorous defense promised

"The case should be tried in the courts," said Gilbert following the proceeding.

Gilbert said the city has not yet turned over any of the evidence they claim to have against Fisher, including witness and police statements.

Public Information requests were also made on the city by World Can't Wait on February 6. To date, they have not responded to those, either.
Gilbert said he expects the evidence to show that the police overreacted in a matter that has serious First Amendment and political implications.

"It's the climate we're living in," said Gilbert.

jcooli09: I don't know why the cops here are so heavily pro bush, but they are.

Might have something to do with the fact that Bush has actually pushed through most of the top FOP requests, while Kerry refused to even meet with them.

Sloth_DC "Ah, who cares if the President ignore the Bill of Rights and federal security laws?"

It's one of those anything-outside-of-my-immedate-life-is-too-much-energy-to-think-about-so-I'll -let-others-do-it-for-me mindsets.

Most people prefer to follow.

Sloth_DC
Well, I figure this is the natural result when people say, "Ah, who cares if the President commits perjury?" Now, it's become, "Ah, who cares if the President ignore the Bill of Rights and federal security laws?"

Somehow I don't think that the former led to the latter. =|

I get the feeling that people never gave a shiat about either in the first place.

the link submitted obvously has no propoganda or political bent in it. I mean it should be obvious after comparing the submitted article with the article krelborne linked. I mean seriously, it is so obvious.

FTA
"He was just doing his job."

That is still not a valid defense if 'following orders' entails illegal activity.

I live here, and I haven't seen anything about this on the locals. I'll watch tonight, though. I hope this isn't true...

Look I hate the Bush Empire to, but that website has zero credibility.

If you are putting up posters where it illegal, it's ILLEGAL. WHy be surprised if the officers want you to take them down? THere job is to defend the laws of whatever municipality they are sworn to protect, not defend her political position. Odds are, the truth is somewhere in between. The article posted though... lol they probably accuse FOX news of being way right winged in one breath, while saying they are giving it to you straight in the next.

Holy Crap! I just went to the home page. It's something out of a JOhn Birch society orgy of ideas. Any story coming form this site would have quite the skeptic eye turned towards it.

Vaht a country!

Who Are The Controllers of the New World Order?

Is Is the Jesuits?
Is it the Zionists?


"Muhahaha, our secret plans remain intact!"

MasterThief: There is a city ordinance against posting signs on utility poles on public thoroughfares.

Frankly, that sounds rather unAmerican to me. Why the fark are cops wasting their time selectively enforcing bullshiat ordinances like this when crack dealers and war criminals like Dick Cheney run free?

Mmmmm gulag... I love Hungarian food!

MasterThief: Morals of the story:
1. If a cop asks for ID, show some.
2. NEVER HIT A COP.

On point 2: Duh. Obviously.
On point 1: What farking country do you live in? I live in the United States of America, and here, we don't require our citizens to carry ID on them if they don't damn well want to. I personally only present my ID if:

1) I'm driving, and it is requested of me from a law enforcement officer.
2) I'm engaging in a transaction of some kind where identity needs to be reasonably established (financial transactions, employment, obtaining personal records, etc.)

If a cop came up to me on the street and asked me for ID I'd tell him no also. Even if, actually ESPECIALLY IF, I don't believe I've done anything worthy of a cops attention. Lets leave the 'papers please' crap for the rest of the world.

I kept looking for that floor-f*cker ad on the page before I realized he only shows up on right-wing whackos' websites.

Wrong ekdikeo4, in most places you are only legally required to show your ID if you are driving. I think many places have a law saying giving your first and last name is enough if you are not driving. If you want to go for a walk or ride your bike, there is no legal requirement to carry your drivers license or anything like that on you.

If he's not charging you with anything, and you arn't driving, he has no legal right to ask for ID.

I'm guessing your 30 days of jail time had to do with you driving without a license...seeing as how we both live in Michigan, and this is exactly what the cops in East Lansing told me.

Clarification: If you arn't driving, you have to be able to give your first and last name, but not an ID card.

Venge: I think many places have a law saying giving your first and last name is enough if you are not driving.


And how are you supposed to do that without ID? Your word of honor?

Wraithbane: The only thing lacking from that report is the first line saying "The following is mostly made up BS, and a highly slanted {damn near horizontal} reporting of the facts we think make our point"

Has Fox stated that publicly?

MasterThief: Morals of the story:
1. If a cop asks for ID, show some.

I wasn't aware you were required by law to carry identification, much less produce it upon request.

katemac: How many women?


Good eye. I lol'ed.

swahnhennessy: And how are you supposed to do that without ID? Your word of honor?


They have computers in their cars, they can look it up.

ekdikeo4: I'm fairly positive that Michigan passed a law several years ago stating that if an officer requests id, you are required to show it.

The above post is what I was told by an officer in the East Lansing Police Department. Just have to give your name if they ask, no ID unless you're driving.

Er...if you are consuming alcohol...might wanna be a good idea to have some ID.

Specially if you look under 27...

But that is not pertinent to this...so I shall bow out gracefully.

Judge McGinty openly claimed Fisher suffered from "mental problems"

Well, Fisher is a woman so she's inherently half-way there. Aside from that, I do appreciate Cleveland for OK'ing their city/ballpark to be the hometown baseball team for the great movie "Major League".

I believe this woman is overreacting. I dislike Bush as much as she does, but if she failed to provide ID after she was already observed committing an offense she would go to jail in most any state. Whether she resisted arrest remains to be determined, so I won't go there. With that said, if the cops did threaten her or use an unreasonable abount of force they should be punished accordingly.

Talondel: If a cop came up to me on the street and asked me for ID I'd tell him no also.

You'd be guilty of a misdemeanor in most states. "Failure to identify" is illegal in several states and is perfectly reasonable when "reasonable suspicion" has been established by a police officer. "Terry stops" are perfectly legal, and we're not talking about cops questioning someone for no reason here. As a matter of fact in a decade of practicing criminal law I have yet to hear of an incident where a police officer requested identification from a person who was not being investigated for an offense, a complainant, or somehow otherwise involved in a police matter.


Two cases to look into:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County
542 U.S. 177 (2004)

Facts of the Case:
Larry Hiibel was arrested and convicted in Nevada state court for failing to identify himself to a police officer who was investigating an assault. Nevada, and many other states, has a law that requires a person to tell an officer his name if asked. Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The state intermediate court and Supreme Court rejected his argument in affirming the conviction.

Question Presented:
Did Hiibel's arrest and conviction for not telling a police officer his name violate his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search?

Conclusion:
No. In a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion (the police officer was investigating the assault, and Hiibel was nearby) and involved only a minimally intrusive question (his name). It also did not violate the Fifth Amendment because Hiibel never argued that telling the officer his name would actually incriminate him of any crime. Justice Kennedy wrote, "While we recognize petitioner's strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature's judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him."


Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Facts of the Case:
Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Question Presented:
Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion:
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. -Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted inbelieving [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.

PottyMcNugg: I wasn't aware you were required by law to carry identification, much less produce it upon request.


You're not required to carry ID as much as you're required to identify yourself under certain circumstances.

You're right, that websit does look a little fishy.

But anyone with Google can look up 'Carol Fisher Cleveland May' and get all kinds of hits.

Like this one and this one and this one, the latter with the most "unbiased" sounding entry.

I'll say that wearing that kind of shirt to court is proof she's a protester who's not afraid to wag it in the court's face, and that may mean that she wants to go to jail due to being in contempt of court. That action very well may be an act of a "martyr", because y'know, doing that would be going to jail to make a point. But that does not mean that wearing that shirt is "proof of her delusion". I confess that I would do the very same thing if I felt like being an asshole; that doesn't make me delusional, does it?

Anyone remember the article a while back where some shrinks were trying to classify desensitization as a "disorder"?

If they can get away with that, then I wouldn't be surprised if this judge can get away with classifying this woman's actions as a martyr complex worthy of psychiatric care.