From Eowyn at:
Help me out here:
If I do something that is perfectly legal, but a policeman orders me to stop and I continue doing the thing that’s perfectly legal, did I do something illegal?
That’s exactly what happened in Dearborn, Michigan.
A Christian woman (a) was convicted for (b) not obeying a policeman’s order to (c) stop filming her fellow missionaries proselytizing to Muslims, but (d) the policeman admits that her filming is not a crime.
In other words, she is convicted of a non-crime! Which doesn’t make sense, not to mention is against the U.S. Constitution, which sure suggests that the “crime” of which the woman is convicted is really (c)– that she filmed Muslims being proselytized by Christian missionaries — doesn’t it?
~Eowyn
Standing barely 5 feet tall, 18-year old Negeen Mayel, whose parents escaped from Afghanistan after the Russian invasion, could not escape the clutches of the Dearborn, Michigan Police Department. Her crime: she was a Christian publicly filming her fellow Christian missionaries discussing the Gospel with Muslims at last year’s annual Dearborn Arab Festival, and she didn’t turn off her camera quick enough after a police officer ordered her to do so.
Negeen Mayel was convicted in the Dearborn District Court of failure to obey a police officer’s order. Astonishingly, at the trial, the officer admitted that the filming by Mayel was in fact not a crime.
Last week, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) filed its opening brief with the Wayne County Circuit Court, seeking to overturn her conviction. Mayel was one of four Christian missionaries originally arrested for preaching the Gospel at the 2010 Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan.
All four Christians were charged with Breach of the Peace for discussing their faith with Muslims at the Festival. All four were acquitted by a jury. However, Negeen Mayel was also charged with “failure to obey” for not turning off her video camera when told to do so by a Dearborn police officer. The officer then forcefully grabbed Negeen’s arm and camera, placed her in handcuffs, and had her locked-up in the city jail.
Dearborn is considered home to the largest Muslim population in America. As a result, many City officials, including the Mayor, engage in official action solely to please this significant voting bloc. In this case, police effectively replaced our constitutional guarantees of Free Speech with Sharia law, which forbids Christians to proselytize Muslims.
The Law Center’s brief argues that the conviction must be overturned because the arresting police officer lacked any information that Mayel was involved in criminal activity when she was seized by the officer, in violation of the Constitution. According to the brief filed with the Circuit Court, the police officer’s order “to shut off her camera and remain with him for questioning directly violated constitutional rights. Consequently, [she] cannot be criminally charged nor convicted for disobeying an unconstitutional—and thus unlawful—police order.”
Read the Law Center’s brief here.
Robert Muise, TMLC’s Senior Trial Counsel who is handling the matter, stated, “The arresting officer’s actions and the actions of the Dearborn police department are textbook examples of civil rights violations of the highest order. Consequently, when a conviction is based on the actions of a police officer that violate fundamental constitutional rights, as in this case, that conviction must be reversed, lest our constitutional freedoms be rendered meaningless platitudes subject to the will of police officials.”
[emphasis on Sharia law and editorial brackets in above story, ours]
[Doug's note: The police officer involved in this incident, Corporal Brian Kapanowski (the officer who manhandled Negeen and charged her with two crimes for assuming that she had Constitutional rights), as well as the judge, Dearborn Judge Mark W. Somers, both need to (A) lose their j0bs and careers in government (B) compensate the victim of their persecution for her legal expenses and loss of time, and (C) serve prison time for this treasonous assault on America. That's why, at theReaganWing.com, we name names in reports of atrocities against Liberty whenever possible.]
Thomas More Law Center’s overview and links to legal action:
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19&_function=detail&sbtblct_uid1=887
As I recall, it was a conservative and mainly christian movement that spent much of the 80s and 90s clamoring for more police power – especially in the 80s and 90s during the reign of the baggy-pants black kids and thugs, and for the last 10 years over another kind of brown person who talked funny. (Most of this filming issue started with the warrunterruh).
Now, welcome to the party. As one who has been drummed off “conservative” forums and called all sorts of names while trying to warn conservatives and christians about this sort of thing, all I can say is “This is what you want? This is what you get”. Heck the song comes to mind… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq2s4WFThSM
In the current structure, a cop can order you to stand on your head and arrest you if you don’t even try, no cause or reason to stand on your head, don’t matter.
Now, if we tried a petition to make it so that no crime means no order, who would resist us most?
Hmmmmm……. I can already hear cries of “you’ll tie their hands!!!!1!!” and “criminals will run the streeeeeets!!!!!1!!!!!”. The usual lines of the same song that conservatives have mindlessly danced to for how long?
By the way, there are criminals running in the streets. They have uniforms.
Looks like it is a question of the bounds between the Ruler’s Law, People’s Law, and Anarchy.
As I understand it by the Uniform Code of Military Justice you must obey every lawful order and can get into a lot of trouble if you think that you are just in not obeying an illegal order that turns out to be legal. The officer can order you and others to walk along some mine strewn path till you get blown up or get to the top. I understand that happened at D-day and I don’t know if anyone balked. In fact it is your obligation to disobey (and report?) unlawful orders but you better have your ducks all lined up in a row or else you You may find yourself in Leavenworth in the same cell with one who did obey unlawful orders.
In my humble opinion and summary: Obey legal orders but not illegal ones (IF you can prove it illegal).
How is this different from civilians obeying police officers. Unlike the military where you can get out of obeying illegal orders, you must obey everything that they say. You are worse than a buck private and about the level of a slave.
This is not the level of freedom we should expect in America under the Constitution. It is under a(n Obama?) police state.
Crap. When did the cops become our superiors in a military role?
Oh, let’s forget that we live in a militarized police state then?
But please, spare the blaming it on Obama routine. Yes this is TheReaganWing and conservative and all and Ronaldus Magnus was a Republican but the moment we forget that (D) and (R) are the same letter (B – for banksters) is the moment we repeat the same mistakes. We have Bush running on a “humble foreign policy” after 8 years of Clintons “nation building”.
Now, after that, we have 911 and the “everything’s changed since 911!!! everything’s changed since 911!!! everything’s changed since 911!!!” mealy mouth brigade. We know at best that they saw 911 coming because Clinton tried a PATRIOT act style law when the Murrah Building was bombed (also seen coming). They saw it coming and had it ready to roll. So if that’s what it takes to make the president who is supposed to be “not like the other guy” be worse, then whatever they have cooked up for the next round of “elect the Republican to save the nation -oops, now we have to be worse because we’ll all die!!!!!1! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!!! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!!! The Constitution is not a suicide pact!!! (all talk show hosts together now…)” is going to be a doozy. It might not be enough to let a couple of skyscrapers get knocked down.
It’s not an Obama police state. Obama was elected by the other half of the fooled electorate to get right of the police state. All they got was the ownership of that police state.
In Washington, the applicable RCWs (from my reading) would be 10.31.100 (Arrests without warrant) and 9A.36.070 (Coercion — if she had put away the camera as ordered). There was previously 9.33.020 (Oppression under color of office), but I’m not seeing its text; I’m guessing 9A.81.010 (Official Misconduct) is its replacement.
Well, well, well, what do you expect. We have become a nation conditioned to knee jerk reactionary legislation at the slightest instance of injustice.
Our first reaction to any outrageous act, real or not, is to cry out for a law to stop anyone from ever doing that again, as if a law ever stopped a lawbreaker from breaking the law.
We have probably more laws on the books of any nation on earth. Maybe even more than a number of nations combined.
Besides, if we didn’t have all of those handy laws, how would those cool reality police shows entertain us every night? And how would the courts and legal system make their money off of the driving public?
If laws were the answer, and we do need a few to keep some order, we would now be the safest nation on earth and we all would be living in Utopia’s garden of Eden and no one would have to work because after all, the government takes care of us, right?
Of course to live in Utopia, we would have to relinquish all powers and freedoms over to those nice state police folks, or wait, maybe we have already.
Here is a copy of one of my posters, it is words to live by, if you dare.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
As a citizen of the United Stated of America, I hereby agree to abide by any and all State or Federal laws that are Constitutional.
I further agree and affirm that I have the right and obligation as a citizen, to challenge any law that is deemed;
Unconstitutional,
Made specifically to accommodate special interest,
Would be deemed unreasonable or outdated by the common and prudent citizen.
1. Rights are not “granted” to us by the government — they are ours by our very nature, by our birthright.
2. ALL just political authority is derived from the people — and government exists solely with our consent!
3. We the people of the several states created the federal government — not the other way around!
4. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution — and nothing more.
5. The People of each State have the sole and exclusive right and power to govern themselves in all areas not delegated to their government.
6. A Government without limits IS A TYRANNY!
7. When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them.