Solved

Facebook or Twitter to resist false premise law enforcement

Posted on 2014-03-02
14
22 Views
Last Modified: 2014-04-18
Dear EE;

     In the S.F. Bay Area our principle transit system is the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).

     I have discovered that the system has no lawful basis for imposing fares or for citing for fare evasion. In other words people can ride free.
                     
     To teach the facts I have distributed to parked commuter’s cars business cards inviting people to contact me by email. When they do respond I email send them attached documents such as the one attached here.

     I am getting less than 1% response to my cards and no one to date has stood up to the BART. I worry that people fear I may be distributing maleware. Would a Facebook or Twitter presence mitigate such fears?

      Rather than direct prospects to contact me at my home email I would direct them to Facebook or Twitter.

      My next question would be a request to be walked through the procedures for setting up with Facebook or Twitter.

Thank you,
Julian Swig
00-TO-CITING-OFFICER-BART.doc
0
Comment
Question by:JulianSwig
  • 6
  • 2
  • 2
  • +2
14 Comments
 
LVL 44

Assisted Solution

by:Darr247
Darr247 earned 13 total points
Comment Utility
It's pretty simple to make a twitter account...  just go to
https://twitter.com/
enter a user name (where it says "Full Name")
enter an email address
enter a password
and click the Sign up for Twitter button.

On the next screen, it will tell you if your name is available or not... if not, you'll have a chance to choose another. Or, you can pick another even if the first one you picked was available. When everything is how you want it, click the Create my account button.
Then click the verification link in the email they send to the address you entered.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 25 total points
Comment Utility
I don't quite see where there can be any misunderstanding. Section 640 of the California Penal Code (apparently most recently modified by California Assembly Bill No. 2247) states in (a)(1)
...Any of the acts described in
paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, of subdivision (c), upon a first or
second violation, is an infraction punishable by a fine not to
exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and by community service for
a total time not to exceed 48 hours over a period not to exceed 30
days
, during a time other than during the violator's hours of school
attendance or employment.
...and subdivision (c)(1) includes
Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system. For
purposes of this section, fare evasion includes entering an enclosed
area of a public transit facility beyond posted signs prohibiting
entrance without obtaining valid fare, in addition to entering a
transit vehicle without valid fare.
Since a fine is clearly established and defined, I fail to see what can be complained about.

Perhaps it is simply that you have seen no 'signs' informing you of the prohibited areas. If no signs exist, then I can understand that part as far as "fare evasion" goes. However, since (c)(1) concludes with "...in addition to entering a transit vehicle without valid fare", it becomes unclear. Are you complaining about simply entering the premises? Or is it about riding BART?

If it's simply about entering the premises, can you describe the specific circumstances more completely? There are numerous elements other than simply (c)(1) that might apply. (Of course, because those other elements seem to bring higher penalties, it might be better to let things stay under ''Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system.")

More detail would be useful in figuring how to work better against whatever the problem actually is.

Tom
0
 
LVL 44

Expert Comment

by:Darr247
Comment Utility
Buy a Google shirt, act like you belong there and ride the google buses free... they pay BART a dollar each stop, so you should be all good.
0
 

Author Comment

by:JulianSwig
Comment Utility
Tom;

The fine is for "dollars", i.e. real money, not Federal Reserve notes. Dollars are not available at this point in history.
CaPenC 640(c)(1) is a description, not a prohibition. A description cannot be violated.
"Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system" is not a sentence. No verb.
000-INTRODUCTION-640-FREE.docx
00-FRN-is-not-MONEY-640--1-.doc
0
 

Author Comment

by:JulianSwig
Comment Utility
Darr247
        What are the Google buses? And how do they relate to BART? I live in the East Bay not Silicone Valley.
0
 

Assisted Solution

by:JulianSwig
JulianSwig earned 0 total points
Comment Utility
Dear tliotta

The fine is for "dollars", i.e. real money, not Federal Reserve notes. Dollars are not available at this point in history.

CaPenC 640(c)(1) is a description, not a prohibition. A description cannot be violated.
"Evasion of the payment of a fare of the system" is not a sentence. No verb.

Bear in mind that no law establishing a fare has ever been enacted.

"...in addition to entering a transit vehicle without valid fare",  means and also entering a BART car. In this context a citation issued on the platform before one had entered a car would not be valid. It is not enough to have merely moved beyond a sign, one must have entered a car.
00-FRN-is-not-MONEY-640--1-.doc
000-INTRODUCTION-640-FREE.docx
0
Why You Should Analyze Threat Actor TTPs

After years of analyzing threat actor behavior, it’s become clear that at any given time there are specific tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) that are particularly prevalent. By analyzing and understanding these TTPs, you can dramatically enhance your security program.

 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 25 total points
Comment Utility
The fine is for "dollars", i.e. real money, not Federal Reserve notes. Dollars are not available at this point in history.

Until and unless multiple Supreme Court decisions, going back almost a couple centuries, are overturned, that simply is not a legal fact.

See, e.g., Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421 - Supreme Court 1884, which concludes:

Congress, as the legislature of a sovereign nation, being expressly empowered by the Constitution "to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States," and "to coin money and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin;" and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of those great powers, to emit bills of credit, to charter national banks, and to provide a national currency for the whole people, in the form of coin, treasury notes, and national bank bills; and the bpower to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution; we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing upon the treasury notes of the United States the quality of being a legal tender in payment of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore, within the meaning of that instrument, "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

Such being our conclusion in matter of law, the question whether at any particular time, in war or in peace, the exigency is such, by reason of unusual and pressing demands on the resources of the government, or of the inadequacy of the supply of gold and silver coin to furnish the currency needed for the uses of the government and of the people, that it is, as matter of fact, wise and expedient to resort to this means, is a political question, to be determined by Congress when the question of exigency arises, and not a judicial question, to be afterwards passed upon by the courts. To quote once more from the judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland: "Where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated to effect any of the objects entrusted to the government, to undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial department, and to tread on legislative ground."

And, e.g., Knox v. Lee, 79 US 457 - Supreme Court 1871, which concludes:
But, without extending our remarks further, it will be seen that we hold the acts of Congress constitutional as applied to contracts made either before or after their passage. In so holding, we overrule so much of what was decided in Hepburn v. Griswold,[*] as ruled the acts unwarranted by the Constitution so far as they apply to contracts made before their enactment. That case was decided by a divided court, and by a court having a less number of judges than the law 554*554 then in existence provided this court shall have. These cases have been heard before a full court, and they have received our most careful consideration. The questions involved are constitutional questions of the most vital importance to the government and to the public at large. We have been in the habit of treating cases involving a consideration of constitutional power differently from those which concern merely private right.[*] We are not accustomed to hear them in the absence of a full court, if it can be avoided. Even in cases involving only private rights, if convinced we had made a mistake, we would hear another argument and correct our error. And it is no unprecedented thing in courts of last resort, both in this country and in England, to overrule decisions previously made. We agree this should not be done inconsiderately, but in a case of such far-reaching consequences as the present, thoroughly convinced as we are that Congress has not transgressed its powers, we regard it as our duty so to decide and to affirm both these judgments.
Various others can be reviewed.

You can claim it's "not dollars" all you want; but until the Supreme Court agrees, you're simply legally wrong. Given the extensive case law history and the requirements of the modern economic world, the chances of that happening are about as close to zero as will ever happen. The need today for an economic system such as we currently have is only more urgent than it was when the world economy began to transition.

None of that should be taken to mean that I like the way things are. It's all simply legal fact.

Tom
0
 
LVL 18

Assisted Solution

by:WaterStreet
WaterStreet earned 12 total points
Comment Utility
Nice research and comments, Tom.

I'm just "a fly on the wall."
0
 

Author Comment

by:JulianSwig
Comment Utility
Tom;

" requirements of the modern economic world,"
Businesses and individuals are free to transact in FRNs.
But they cannot be compelled to transact with government with FRNs
[My present focus is California with its CaGovC6850 relating to the "dollar"]

I see no need for the Supreme Court to agree. I would assume they already do.
Why wouldn't they?

I am aware that a few Federal judges have accommodated the myth that the
FRN is legal tender but they have done so in DICTA not with RULINGS.

The word "dollar(s)" is present in the Constitution. Congress cannot up and say
"now dollar means the FRN" and Congress has not done so. The Supreme Court
knows this. Congress has postured at 31 USC 5103 but Congress has nowhere made the FRN legal tender.

I have engaged in a Public Records Act exchange with the Calif. Board of Equalization.
Guess what? They have no authority to receive Sales Tax in FRNs. They are presently with egg on their face where this issue is concerned. If I owned a business I would be in a position to refuse them FRNs then meet the BOE in court if they chose to take me there. Or better I could sue them for a Declaration of Rights because I would have an actual controversy.
0
 

Accepted Solution

by:
JulianSwig earned 0 total points
Comment Utility
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421

... and being clearly authorized, as incidental to the exercise of those great powers, to emit bills of credit, to charter national banks, and to provide a national currency for the whole people,  in the form of

coin, treasury notes, and national bank bills;  <none of which are FRNs>

 and the power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in payment of private debts <FRNs are not "notes of the government" they are not "notes" but are dubious paper of the private FRBanks.>

being one of the powers belonging to sovereignty in other civilized nations, and not expressly withheld from Congress by the Constitution; we are irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that  the impressing upon

the treasury notes of the United States <these are not FRNs>

 the quality of being a legal tender in payment <"payment" not "discharge"> of private debts is an appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the execution of the undoubted powers of Congress, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and therefore, within the meaning of that instrument, "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States."

<The Supreme Court discusses "power" such as "in other civilized nations" but not the "exercise" of such power.>

<The nature and quality of the notes and bills the Supreme Court was contemplating were peculiar to the time.  See "United States Note" in Wikipedia. The post 1968 FRN was undreamed of at the time.>

Julian Swig
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:WaterStreet
Comment Utility
I object in principle to the author of an "opinion zone" question highlighting his opinion as the "Accepted Solution," even at zero points.  IMO, the "Accepted Solution" should be awarded to one of those who responded with the most helpful reply to the question and/or the author's posted opinions.  

However, I see no issue with an author awarding himself "Assisted Solutions" (at zero points) as long as they don't exceed the number of solutions awarded to those who responded.

IMHO, it's not right for an author to solicit opinions of others and then highlight his own as the best -- the "Accepted Solution, unless there were no responses, or some of the participants were in agreement."

WS
0
 
LVL 69

Expert Comment

by:ScottPletcher
Comment Utility
The Federal Reserve did not exist in 1789, so it could not possibly in the Constitution.

Since Congress authorized the Federal Reserve, they ceded some authority to it.  I too think that was a terrible idea, but it's still legal.

Bill Clinton and member of congress can stay out of jail with word semantics, but average citizens can't.  If you commit perjury or ignore a fine or a court order, you will eventually be jailed.
0
 

Author Closing Comment

by:JulianSwig
Comment Utility
I appreciate the push back the experts gave. It was a good debate.
0

Featured Post

How your wiki can always stay up-to-date

Quip doubles as a “living” wiki and a project management tool that evolves with your organization. As you finish projects in Quip, the work remains, easily accessible to all team members, new and old.
- Increase transparency
- Onboard new hires faster
- Access from mobile/offline

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Title # Comments Views Activity
Is Obama protecting al-qaeda? 18 21
Mormonism and Politics 16 29
Israel taking the West Bank in 1967 5 80
Donald Trump 24 82
Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
In this seventh video of the Xpdf series, we discuss and demonstrate the PDFfonts utility, which lists all the fonts used in a PDF file. It does this via a command line interface, making it suitable for use in programs, scripts, batch files — any pl…
This video gives you a great overview about bandwidth monitoring with SNMP and WMI with our network monitoring solution PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg). If you're looking for how to monitor bandwidth using netflow or packet s…

772 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

10 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now