tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post372959518351502701..comments2024-03-08T07:09:46.527-07:00Comments on Pro Libertate: The Matthew Townsend Case: Official Retaliation, Not "Witness Intimidation" William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-48131720456390180562015-04-22T12:54:18.358-06:002015-04-22T12:54:18.358-06:00If Townsend is going to be "Ada County Cop Wa...If Townsend is going to be "Ada County Cop Watch" and supervising the traffic stops and other arrests that police make he should probably think twice before he puts on a grim reaper costume and protests on the sidewalk in front of someones business. That is making himself vulnerable to the same cops he is policing. I don't disagree with what townsend was doing or the point he was trying to make in his original "grim reaper protest" but this is talking about taxes and the federal government which we all know is not going to go away, but if they see him out there dressed up protesting like this after he videos them all the time... Of course they are going to go after him for whatever reason.. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-7518974858801078262015-04-01T05:40:40.936-06:002015-04-01T05:40:40.936-06:00Good point and work Will.
Idaho law makes it so, ...Good point and work Will. <br />Idaho law makes it so, by not providing information under the state's freedom of information law, a misdemeanor criminal crime. Which brings up, Absolute Immunity. Can refusing to providing public owned information by legal request not be a criminal act because of Absolute Immunity? So it stands to reason, that refusing to provide information under Idaho's laws, would bypass criminal laws because of Absolute Immunity. Which begs the question, would bribing a cop, government attorney or a judge and they some how get caught taking such bribes, not be a criminal act due to Absolute Immunity? If acts of violence against the innocent citizen are covered by Absolute Immunity. It stands to reason that refusing to provide information under law that may or could likely show criminal conduct by police officers and that refusal being criminal. Not really being criminal because of Absolute Immunity. Than bribery would likely be covered by Absolute Immunity. If this sounds far fetched, its only because no case in point has happened that we know of, as of yet. All being said, no cop, government attorney or judge can be a criminal or be above the law because of Absolute Immunity. WOW!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-27569777870324478552015-03-31T06:43:30.149-06:002015-03-31T06:43:30.149-06:00Damaged citizens by government employees is nothin...<i>Damaged citizens by government employees is nothing new and the people in government could care less about damaged lives. They are simply collateral damage for a larger cause. The ends justify the means, Townsend is nothing but a stat.</i><br /><br />You're entirely, and tragically, correct in your description of the system. There is some value, however, in briefing the case for the record -- if only on the off chance that by doing research is made available that may help Townsend's defense attorney. <br /><br />About a year and a half ago this space presented a similar treatment of the abuse of the Madrigal family by the Idaho Falls Police Department (http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2013/09/you-know-how-to-leave-scenes-from.html). Victor and Delosanto Madrigal eventually won their criminal case by presenting a defense that closely tracked the arguments presented in that story (see http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2014/03/chief-mark-mcbride-crime-lord-of-idaho.html) and they are now seeking redress through a lawsuit they will eventually win.<br /><br />Although Townsend is speaking with attorneys from at least two national legal advocacy groups, at present he is represented by a capable but overworked court-appointed public defender who doesn't have time to research the case in depth. Hopefully the essay above will be useful to him.<br />William N. Grigghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-63206289301039501532015-03-31T06:23:32.723-06:002015-03-31T06:23:32.723-06:00Chief Lavey had to demand feloney charges because ...Chief Lavey had to demand feloney charges because he must back his troops. His troops are trained to go out there and make arrest, issue tickets and so on. This ensures the foundation and growth of the Merdian PD. The very first contact with Townsend had nothing to do with anything remotely associated with anything criminal in conduct. It looks to have been about engineering some kind of crime directly related to the first contact, where no crime existed before that first contact. The first contact was, in a free country illegal. However, the cop was doing as he was trained, making a stat. The weight of the system will rally behind the cop. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-51432361729907365972015-03-31T06:00:28.871-06:002015-03-31T06:00:28.871-06:00Maybe Townsend can beat the charges, but he can...Maybe Townsend can beat the charges, but he can't beat the ride through the criminal justice system. <br />Will you're missing the larger point here, please let me explain. Take a guy who is moving along with traffic, one car out of fifty all going along on the freeway at the same speed. The cop picks the yellow car. The drivers pleads he was driving safely at the speed of traffic. The cop could care less because its about the revenue and he's got his revenue victim. The ticket is issued, end of story. This case against Townsend is one that puts government employees to work. It gives "crime stats" of crime. Just like the driver of the yellow car, providing something to enrich the government system. These states are used to grow government, bring in new government employees to deal with this crime that the crime stats note. This moves many of the government employees up in rank because they will be the ones supervising the new government employees. This enriches their retirement which is based on current wages. If the government is sued over a false arrest, so what, the taxpayers will have to pay more. The people in the system, the government employees take care of their own and none of them will face a trial or at the most will suffer a very few days without pay. <br />This matter has nothing to do with justice or the law. Its about a new felony stat and is providing in basket work for government employees. Idaho is not a state with a government but a government with a state. <br />Will everything you say is one hundred percent correct and spot on. But the larger point is, the system is completely geared to serve the government employees and this matter only serves to prove that point once again. Many lives have been seriously damaged by government employees violating the laws. But those actions ensure government growth in any number of different ways. Damaged citizens by government employees is nothing new and the people in government could care less about damaged lives. They are simply collateral damage for a larger cause. The ends justify the means, Townsend is nothing but a stat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com