Lawrence v Texas- Cops cannot set up escort sting without warrant!!

[texan361]

Originally Posted by frontman667

“The Court further explained that the liberty component of the Due Process Clause protects persons from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places and also protects other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. 109 The Court affirmed that “Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”

-Pg. 986 RUTGERS LAW JOURNAL Vol. 37:971 “THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW” by Jeffrey M. Shaman

This journal article back up what I am saying. I am NOT saying that police CANNOT arrest someone in private without a warrant. If you get arrested and they don’t have a warrant, you should discuss it with your attorney to a federal civil rights lawsuit against the police and the department.

I think that police should discuss this matter of unwarranted government intrusion with the District Attorney Office before doing a escort or hobby sting. It is WRONG for police to arrest people without due process of law or misapply the law. I understand there is probable cause but arresting people without following the laws is WRONG. Probable cause is evidence that a crime may of occur. But it doesn't mean that cops can ignore the requirement of due process of law or misapplying the law.

You are wrong. Probable cause is not evidence that a crime may occur. It is evidence that suggests that a crime did occur. When someone purchases a gun then a murder may occur, but since it has not occurred there is no crime and therefore no evidence to collect. What would a warrant be for? To collect evidence of a crime in the future? Give it up. You are not an attorney and you are dangerous to those that read you.

[frontman667]

The journal article state what I am saying. The liberty under the 14th amendment is no government intrusion in private dwellings or other private places. The government can remove it with due process of law or an emergency where someone's life is in danger. That is my assessment of liberty under the 14th amendment.
The federal judges are the ultimate arbitrators of this issue. 42 USC 1983 federal lawsuit will allow an escort or client to ask the federal question do liberty extend to private dwellings of escort and client.

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” - 42 USC § 1983

[frontman667]

Have you seen on the news lately a high numbers escort or hobbyist stings (indoor not street walker)? Do you see the usual going on?

It is not that I have to be correct. The idea is to ask questions. Remedies sometimes are sneaked in court cases. You have to find it and confirm it with law journal articles.

Let me be clear. I am no way in supporting neighborhood disturbance. I believe escorts should be subject to the same ordinance concerning home business if it is conducted in a private dwelling. The city, town, or county should be allowed to limit the amount of clients an escort have in a private dwelling in a day .

This current "prostitution is illegal" crap is not helping to regulate this line of work. Since it is illegal, there are better chances of heavy traffic from hobbyists or johns from an escort business.

[frontman667]

I forgot the "ed" in occur. It should be occurred. I already expose a bunch of adults did not read and study the state law. Especially, in Louisiana. That what you get for a bunch of adults who don't read and study the state law on prostitution. Years of war on sex workers and hobbyists. This war against prostitution could of ended earlier if someone took the time to read and study. The bunch of experts sold us down the river because adults don’t read and study. If you are involved in something, you would want to learn all aspect about it. Leaving up to the expert will open the opportunity to be sold you down the river.
I never said you need to do the work of an expert. If you have the knowledge, you can request the right type of work, assess the work, and ask the right questions. You can make sure the expert deliver you quality work. What nice about is that I did the research.

The legal system expect that I study the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I refuse to be ignorant.

Originally Posted by texan361

You are wrong. Probable cause is not evidence that a crime may occur. It is evidence that suggests that a crime did occur. When someone purchases a gun then a murder may occur, but since it has not occurred there is no crime and therefore no evidence to collect. What would a warrant be for? To collect evidence of a crime in the future? Give it up. You are not an attorney and you are dangerous to those that read you.

[texan361]

I applaud your attempt of educating yourself, but for you to advance such statements as truth is irresponsible. Have you ever prosecuted a 42 USC 1983 cause of action? If you don't know what it entails then you should not suggest it as a method of redress.

You have armed yourself with a little bit of knowledge, albeit more than the average hobbier, that makes you dangerous to yourself which is ok. Don't confuse anyone else with this nonsense.

[texan361]

somebody get Shyster Jon on this

[frontman667]

That is fine. My info is not for everyone. It is for the hobbyist who want to be on a dangerous side of the law. I am not expecting you join. I don't want to get into my personal life. I have study under patriots who have done it. What the hobbyist community needs is sovereign citizens and patriot hobbyist. Who will not stop until he take down the police force with federal lawsuits and property liens. Who will haunt them with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court Cases, and the Laws of Nations. Who will not scare to bring a true bill to a Grand Jury for felony indictments.

Shyster Jon cannot do it because he is a member of the bar association; the good old boys network. He will get disbarred if he tried to venture into the dangerous side of the law. I recommend that Shyster John shy away from the dangerous side of the law.

Our founding fathers were on the dangerous side of the law. That how we got our freedom. If you want to win the freedom to hobby, you have to be on the dangerous side of the law. You have to willing to gain dangerous legal knowledge.

I recommend to learn from sovereign citizens movement to hobbyists who want to be on the dangerous side of the law. You can apply the knowledge of driver's license litigation to the hobby. No commerce.... No authority!! The government can only have power over commerce unless there is a contract or injured party. Threesome is commercial. Paying afterward is a commercial loan. Pimp involve is commercial. Two people doing it and paying before is not. All prostitution laws are written for commercial activities. If you understand that, then you can dive into the study of sovereign citizen litigation and tactics. Sovereign citizens joining the hobby community is a big plus to our community.

As long as the escort business is not bothering the community, it is none of the government's business. As long as escorts are bond to home business regulations, I am fine with it.

How am I giving disinformation when I back my research with journal articles, definition from legal dictionaries, and court cases?

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is Liberty" -Thomas Jefferson

[texan361]

You studied under patriots? You should study under law professors. They teach the law and the application of the law you are learning from your group of patriots. teaching. We probably have the same beliefs in regards to government involvement in our lives. I see the contradictions in your posts. Do we get a lawyer to ask these questions you pose or do we avoid these good ole boys?

Your analysis is twisted. You make many "close" to right statements but overall you are incorrect. The is no "close to right" in the law. Close to right means incorrect.

Explain why you think a cop can't rent a hotel room. Explain why when someone knocks on that door and asks the cop to commit a sex act for money that they can't be arrested because there is pre-signed warrant for the person's arrest. You do know that an arrest warrant has to give a description of the person to be arrested? YOU ARE DANGEROUS. You should seek professional legal advice from an attorney. Good luck.

[texan361]

"Who will not scare to bring a true bill to a Grand Jury for felony indictments"

As an example of your close statements. The Grand Jury issues a true bill or a no bill (in Texas a grand jury can pass to get more information) . The evidence is put on by a prosecutor (there are methods for citizens to present evidence but I don't want to complicate the issue any further) and if the Grand jury believes a person should be charged with a crime then they issue a true bill. You don't take a true bill to the grand jury. The grand jury issues a true bill. There is no true bill unless a grand jury creates it. Just a distinction to illustrate that while you know a little, a little is all you know. The practice of law and brain surgery are not occupations of second chance. You better know what you are doing before you take off on a legal defense. Really, talk to an attorney before you commit to the dangerous side of the law.

[texan361]

"stupid is as stupid does"......Forrest Gump

[frontman667]

I made a decision to learn from militia members, sovereign citizens, and patriots. I have studied under them. Will the attorneys going to help me to file a lawsuit to take down the police department over an escort sting? No. He or she is member of the good old boys network. The best he or she can get me is a dismissal. He or she will only take a case if I got beaten up by a cop.

As long as the government leaves me alone in private, I will leave the government alone. I want the government to bud out of people’s private life. If there is no one injured and it is in private, bud out!!

I am not unreasonable for demanding my right to noncommercial hobbying. I am not asking for the right to solicit in public or the streets.

Yes, I may be close to the law. The judges will have to give me the exact law on this issue. The judges are the ultimate arbitrators of law.

[frontman667]

You should go to attorneys to get your legal services. I don't recommend to study under patriots or sovereign if you are not deep into studying the law. For those that are deep and they can play on the dangerous side, then studying under patriots or sovereign citizens will help them to advance their legal knowledge to another level. I don't recommend anyone to go outside of their comfort zone or take on task that they are not prepare to handle.

Yes, the cops can sting without a warrant in a hotel, motel, or apartment in escort or hobbyist sting. Then it is your job or the attorney's job to go to court to ask the judge if the cop was within the law and constitutional rights granted by Lawrence v Texas to unwarranted government intrusion.

Just remember this formula. Sovereign Citizens + The Hobby + Escort Services = Dangerous Stuff !!!

Originally Posted by texan361

You studied under patriots? You should study under law professors. They teach the law and the application of the law you are learning from your group of patriots. teaching. We probably have the same beliefs in regards to government involvement in our lives. I see the contradictions in your posts. Do we get a lawyer to ask these questions you pose or do we avoid these good ole boys?

Your analysis is twisted. You make many "close" to right statements but overall you are incorrect. The is no "close to right" in the law. Close to right means incorrect.

Explain why you think a cop can't rent a hotel room. Explain why when someone knocks on that door and asks the cop to commit a sex act for money that they can't be arrested because there is pre-signed warrant for the person's arrest. You do know that an arrest warrant has to give a description of the person to be arrested? YOU ARE DANGEROUS. You should seek professional legal advice from an attorney. Good luck.

[frontman667]

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”- 10th Amendment

“ The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” – 11th Amendment

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” -14th Amendment

Since I mention 42 USC 1983, let me make it less dangerous. The State of ________________ cannot be the party in the lawsuit because they are not a “person” eligible to be sued under this statute. Also the 11th amendment of the US Constitution gives the State immunity from original action in Federal Court.

The fake porn actors who operate the color of the prostitution laws are eligible under these statutes. They are subject to the Federal Court jurisdiction. But you must be a damaged party. Just because you don’t like a statute doesn’t give you the right to sue. To have standing, you must be arrested, beaten, or injured.

You are subject to the corporate United States just as the fake porn actors and fake pimps who operate under the color of prostitution laws. “Operate” means to be in commercial activities. They made a porn video of you getting stringed in an escort appointment WITHOUT A WARRANT. If you are a sovereign citizen, you most likely are not eligible for 42 USC 1983. This is a privilege to the corporate slave.

Before the 14th amendment, a person CAN ONLY take this type of case to state court because the 10th Amendment of the constitution block any action against state actors in federal court.

The 14th amendment is an amendment that allows a person to by-pass this 10th amendment state sovereignty. The Federal government allows giving privileges or immunities to the citizens of United States. We became a corporate slave under the 14th Amendment that is subject to the United States Corporation.

The 10th amendment can be by-pass easily under the 14th amendment and civil rights law. The Federal Courts is allowed to review state and local laws to see if they are in line with the Federal Bill of Rights. They can strike down the state law by by-passing the 10th amendment by putting an injunction against the fake porn actors and the fake pimp.

Once you file the lawsuit, you must be prepared to file motions, discovery, and other legal pleading. Don’t do it until you know what you are doing. Don’t waste the court’s time. If you don’t know what you doing and you have a case, then seek an attorney.
If you get dismissed and you want a shot, you have to prepare to appeal the case to the appeals court.

If you raise a case about independent escort services, you may have a chance to appeals to the US Supreme Court.

If your case gets selected by the Supreme Court, you get to ask Justice Kennedy, Scalia, and Sotomayor what they think about independent escort services. Just remember Justice Scalia don’t like it you are eroding state sovereignty by your lawsuit. He most likely won’t concur to give you the constitutional right to independent escort services.

Your actions in federal court may help to erode state’s sovereignty. You can help the states to be one with the United States Corporation which will merge into the world government. The justices may sneak something into their opinion that gives the federal government more tyrannical power through the 14th amendment. F*** state’s sovereignty and the 10th amendment. That why you don’t have the right to escort services.

42 USC 1983 is not for every case. You have to evaluate if it is appropriate for your case by reading case law and statutes. Don’t go half cock.

Disclaimer
This is not legal advice. These are legal theories for a good laugh and entertainment.

[texan361]

Lawrence v. Texas has nothing to do with search and seizure law. The defendant chose to waive the 4th amendment argument, waiving the right to challenge the police being present in his home without a warrant. They were convicted of a statute that made oral and anal sex illegal. Their conviction was overturned because the court ruled that the law was an unreasonable governmental intrusion on a persons liberty with no rational basis for doing so. In other words if the police had a warrant that allowed them to enter the home and they found the two men engaged in anal or oral sex they would they will have to say excuse me and goodbye because the conduct of noncommercial anal and/or oral sex is not illegal. The Supreme Court found that the law is unconstitutional, not that the police officers actions violated any constitutional right of the defendant.

Do you see why the issue of a warrant is really not pertinent in Lawrence v. Texas?

[frontman667]

No use arguing about that with you. I can see it. If you didn't consent to police coming into your home, then police will need a warrant. If an escort said "No LEO" on their ad and they operate out of a home, then police will need a warrant.

If you don't want to use it in your case, that is up to you. I already have a law journal article that back what I said. I will use it in a case if it involve me. It doesn't hurt to give it a shot when there is a law journal article that back it. The worst is the judge reject the argument.

Texas Statutes is not clear if the actor pays or get pay for the act. That why I avoid seeing escorts in Texas. If there is a case of escort services in TX, I am at the mercy of the judges. I choose to not mess with Texas.

There are states that have much better Prostitution loopholes in their law or clear cut it don't apply. I rather hobby in those states. California is clear cut state in the prostitution laws. The prostitution law 647(b) only applies for lewd conduct. That mean it have to be in public or involves three or more people in private. That what I understand the law as. I already read case laws in California that back up my understanding of this law. The media can preach their legal propaganda and I don't have to buy it. Why should I buy the propaganda that all money for sex transaction is illegal in the whole US except Nevada? There are states that have case law legalizing mistress-lovers relationship (sugar daddy-sugar babies).

If you think purchasing the attorney's usual way to deal with a prostitution case is what you need, then it is your choice. That is not my choice.

Not everyone have to represent themselves. They can use the knowledge I have given them and shop around for an attorney that gives them an Abe Lincoln Special.

I believe no defendant contest or ask questions to the court involving the actor or who is getting pay. The courts are not going to give an answer when no one speaks up.

Why should loopholes be for people who have special privileges? The hobby and escort loopholes should be for everyone who is doing it in private.

Originally Posted by texan361

Lawrence v. Texas has nothing to do with search and seizure law. The defendant chose to waive the 4th amendment argument, waiving the right to challenge the police being present in his home without a warrant. They were convicted of a statute that made oral and anal sex illegal. Their conviction was overturned because the court ruled that the law was an unreasonable governmental intrusion on a persons liberty with no rational basis for doing so. In other words if the police had a warrant that allowed them to enter the home and they found the two men engaged in anal or oral sex they would they will have to say excuse me and goodbye because the conduct of noncommercial anal and/or oral sex is not illegal. The Supreme Court found that the law is unconstitutional, not that the police officers actions violated any constitutional right of the defendant.

Do you see why the issue of a warrant is really not pertinent in Lawrence v. Texas?