4 ms·

Either the law forcing you to follow it no longer can force such a thing, or the thing it is forcing you to follow is free to examine and understand. Forced ig

Either the law forcing you to follow it no longer can force such a thing, or the thing it is forcing you to follow is free to examine and understand. Forced ignorance of the law sounds like an excuse to me. If "codes" can be held in secret by corporations until you pay them, could any law be a such? Could the rules of the road be shifted from the law books to secret laws too? Secret laws trouble me greatly. They go fundamentally against the rule of law.

rolph 8y ago
check out the patriot act, and the way laws can be written but are too secret to reveal to the public, such "dark laws" are not an issue for patriotic americans so you dont need to know anything about them. basically only terrorists need to be concerned about these secret legal devices. BULLSHIT!
gumby 8y ago
Yes you are subject to laws you cannot legally know about. Check out Gilmore v. Gonzales: the case was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court!
- rhn_mk1 8y ago
  What is the point of such unenforceable law?
  - gumby 8y ago
    The law is enforceable, so you are subject to it while you don't know that it even exists. The various no-fly and watch lists are like that too -- consider Rahinah Ibrahim who was accidentally placed on the no fly list in a Brazil-like incident. The government tried to bar her from fighting it or even explaining what happened.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Really writing or enforcing secret laws should be a capital offense with no defense allowed and proof of involvement and even absolve murder. There is no such thing as "too harsh" against such mad tyranny and usurpation.
- really_operator 8y ago
  Do you have a source for this claim? I'm only finding sources saying the case was dismissed by the supreme without comment[1], and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did rule on it (in favor of Gonzales)[2]. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Supreme-Court-rejects-ID-challenge-2658185.php https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Suprem... [2] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Man-who-wouldn-t-show-ID-at-2523430.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Man-who...
  - gumby 8y ago
    https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ What I described was the court ruling; its appeal was denied by the US Supreme Court.
    - really_operator 8y ago
      Right, but you said it "was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court", but I'm finding nothing that confirms that as true.
      - gumby 8y ago
        Check out the court's order: https://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDismissal.pdf https://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDismissal.pdf (at the time it was Gilmore v. Ashcroft). The important part is buried: "As a corollary, without having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation, if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as to the merits of plaintiff's vaguenesa srgument". I was in court for the hearing; the government declined to provide any law or regulation requiring showing of ID yet asserted that showing of ID was required; the judge said (in the section I quoted) that as she couldn't see any law she couldn't make a judgement. Most of the order is dismissal of the other claims on jurisdictional grounds and the appellate court (which by statute is primary, not appellate in this case) declined to take the case. As it is primary, this seems strange to me.

rolph 8y ago

check out the patriot act, and the way laws can be written but are too secret to reveal to the public, such "dark laws" are not an issue for patriotic americans so you dont need to know anything about them. basically only terrorists need to be concerned about these secret legal devices. BULLSHIT!

gumby 8y ago

Yes you are subject to laws you cannot legally know about. Check out Gilmore v. Gonzales: the case was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court!

rhn_mk1 8y ago
What is the point of such unenforceable law?
- gumby 8y ago
  The law is enforceable, so you are subject to it while you don't know that it even exists. The various no-fly and watch lists are like that too -- consider Rahinah Ibrahim who was accidentally placed on the no fly list in a Brazil-like incident. The government tried to bar her from fighting it or even explaining what happened.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Really writing or enforcing secret laws should be a capital offense with no defense allowed and proof of involvement and even absolve murder. There is no such thing as "too harsh" against such mad tyranny and usurpation.
really_operator 8y ago
Do you have a source for this claim? I'm only finding sources saying the case was dismissed by the supreme without comment[1], and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did rule on it (in favor of Gonzales)[2]. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Supreme-Court-rejects-ID-challenge-2658185.php https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Suprem... [2] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Man-who-wouldn-t-show-ID-at-2523430.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SAN-FRANCISCO-Man-who...
- gumby 8y ago
  https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ https://papersplease.org/gilmore/ What I described was the court ruling; its appeal was denied by the US Supreme Court.
  - really_operator 8y ago
    Right, but you said it "was dismissed as the law was classified so could not be discussed in court", but I'm finding nothing that confirms that as true.
    - gumby 8y ago
      Check out the court's order: https://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDismissal.pdf https://papersplease.org/gilmore/_dl/GilmoreDismissal.pdf (at the time it was Gilmore v. Ashcroft). The important part is buried: "As a corollary, without having been provided a copy of this unpublished statute or regulation, if it exists, the Court is unable to conduct any meaningful inquiry as to the merits of plaintiff's vaguenesa srgument". I was in court for the hearing; the government declined to provide any law or regulation requiring showing of ID yet asserted that showing of ID was required; the judge said (in the section I quoted) that as she couldn't see any law she couldn't make a judgement. Most of the order is dismissal of the other claims on jurisdictional grounds and the appellate court (which by statute is primary, not appellate in this case) declined to take the case. As it is primary, this seems strange to me.