Were my rights violated?

[tranquility]

I'm not saying it exempts anybody from being charged with extortion. What I am saying is it exempts the laws created as being considered to be extortion. If not, a law demanding I pay property taxes or risk losing my property would be extortion. A law threatening to put me in jail if I did not pay the IRS their taste would be extortion.

The U.S. Constitution deals with property taxes? Aren't they state taxes?

Besides, it is not the law that is extortion, but the person who sends the notice that could be considered extortion. It's not the purported debt, but the action taken to collect it.

Youse guys see here. I think youse needs to pays me fo' living on yo' property. If youse don't....

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3177592]The U.S. Constitution deals with property taxes? Aren't they state taxes?

The Constitution deals with all laws. If the Constitution does not allow it, it is unenforceable.

Besides, it is not the law that is extortion, but the person who sends the notice that could be considered extortion. It's not the purported debt, but the action taken to collect it.

correct and if somebody, other than the government, threatened to take my house if I did not pony up some cash, it would be extortion. Only because the laws are allowed under the Constitution are they not extortion when enforced by the powers that be.

Youse guys see here. I think youse needs to pays me fo' living on yo' property. If youse don't....

exactly but I think that specific request would be only in Joisy or maybe New Yawk. In my area, we have no accent.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Now that the facts are in and the discussion has ebbed a bit...

OP, you really need to file a complaint with your states Attorney Generals Office regarding the facts of this. They investigate governmental corruption in the state.

 

[LdiJ]

Now that the facts are in and the discussion has ebbed a bit...

OP, you really need to file a complaint with your states Attorney Generals Office regarding the facts of this. They investigate governmental corruption in the state.

Or even start with bringing the facts to whichever city agency supervises the OPC...The Mayor, the town council, some other elected offical...etc. Even though you may not have a specific cause of action, I suspect that whoever that particular person works for won't be very happy about the situation.

 

[Handydog]

Now that the facts are in and the discussion has ebbed a bit...

OP, you really need to file a complaint with your states Attorney Generals Office regarding the facts of this. They investigate governmental corruption in the state.

Thanks OHRoadwarrior - I have filed a complaint with the county Inspector General ( OIG ) Maryland is peculiar in that you must file for a statement of charges with the Commissioner after informing law enforcement, and realizing that they won't investigate. Maryland is rated 42, for corruption out of 50. They are notorius for not going after public officials. Anyway, I told the OIG that I will give them two weeks to get back to me. If I feel that they are insulating the offender in any way, I will proceed with an attempt to charge through the Commissioner. Then if need be I will contact the States Attorney - thanks!

 

[tranquility]

The Constitution deals with all laws. If the Constitution does not allow it, it is unenforceable.

The Constitution limits the federal government. Some parts are "incorporated" to the states. (This is still the big question on the 2nd amendment although with Heller, it is more clear.) Things NOT in the Constitution ARE allowed to the states. (See 10th Amendment.) Everything not specifically prohibited is allowed. Your statement, while partially correct in logic, is the reverse of the whole point of the limiting document and is an interesting way to phrase it--Comrade.

correct and if somebody, other than the government, threatened to take my house if I did not pony up some cash, it would be extortion. Only because the laws are allowed under the Constitution are they not extortion when enforced by the powers that be.

No, that's not the reason. The extortion laws are "allowed" by the Constitution. Heck, they're right there. I quoted a couple. This is not some big Constitutional issue, but simple language. Remember, under your "allowed" theory of the Constitution if it's there--it was allowed.

 

[tranquility]

Come on people, there is unlikely to be anything resembling criminality here. Everything had to do with the same facts and issues and no government official is trying to cheat anyone. Has anyone heard of a DA or city attorney telling a person he won't prosecute if restitution is made within a certain time frame?

Bet me this goes no where.

 

[Handydog]

Or even start with bringing the facts to whichever city agency supervises the OPC...The Mayor, the town council, some other elected offical...etc. Even though you may not have a specific cause of action, I suspect that whoever that particular person works for won't be very happy about the situation.

Thanks LdiJ - the county Office of Inspector General has oversight of the OCP. I don't know if they will push for prosecution or not. I am cynical; he maybe getting early retirement ( golden parachute ) and heading for Belize

I spoke to a civil rights attorney who said he thought I had a good case for malicious prosecution, but I later read that a constitutional rights violation may be a better tort to bring. I was wondering if the fact that the government tried to get money out of me that they were not entitled to violates due process. I got one nay - I wish someone else would speak to this. Thank you!

 

[justalayman]

Thanks LdiJ - the county Office of Inspector General has oversight of the OCP. I don't know if they will push for prosecution or not. I am cynical; he maybe getting early retirement ( golden parachute ) and heading for Belize

I spoke to a civil rights attorney who said he thought I had a good case for malicious prosecution, but I later read that a constitutional rights violation may be a better tort to bring. I was wondering if the fact that the government tried to get money out of me that they were not entitled to violates due process. I got one nay - I wish someone else would speak to this. Thank you!

I doubt you have a valid case for malicious prosecution either. It was valid charge. Additionally, if it wasn't, it should have been dismissed on preliminary review. If there was no basis for the charges, then you would be looking at malicious prosecution. It is never malicious for charges to be prosecuted if they are valid charges, even if there is an underlying malice in deciding whether to prosecute or not.


In the end, even if this would be a rights violations, you were not damaged. That will generally result in a finding of yes, they did it but you don't get anything more than nominal damages (the old $1 in damages).

 

[Handydog]

Come on people, there is unlikely to be anything resembling criminality here. Everything had to do with the same facts and issues and no government official is trying to cheat anyone. Has anyone heard of a DA or city attorney telling a person he won't prosecute if restitution is made within a certain time frame?

Bet me this goes no where.

You cannot threaten someone with an unconnected criminal charge to coerse civil adjustment. Damage alledged to be done by power washing wherein no license was required is seperate from soliciting to paint without a license which alledgedly occured days later. Common sinse should tell you that this is not the way of the criminal courts. I have the right to dispute a claim - to be subjected to an unrelated prosecution soley to exact colateral adjustment is criminal. I could have despensed of the criminal proceedings by paying the demand at any time - even at my trial! If this was lawful than the money demand should have been a part of the charging document, and an issue at trial. They did not say to the judge - Your Honor Handydog was given the oppertunity to pay his way out of this charge. My charge was not about property damage overtly, but inscrutable to the courts even though that is what it was all about - extortion!

 

[justalayman]

tranquility;3177636]The Constitution limits the federal government.

it also limits the states. If it didn't do so, the SCOTUS would have no reason to hear any case based on state laws as there would be no such thing as a Constitutional issue regarding a state law.



Some parts are "incorporated" to the states. (This is still the big question on the 2nd amendment although with Heller, it is more clear.) Things NOT in the Constitution ARE allowed to the states. (See 10th Amendment.) Everything not specifically prohibited is allowed. Your statement, while partially correct in logic, is the reverse of the whole point of the limiting document and is an interesting way to phrase it--Comrade.

No, that's not the reason. The extortion laws are "allowed" by the Constitution. Heck, they're right there. I quoted a couple. This is not some big Constitutional issue, but simple language. Remember, under your "allowed" theory of the Constitution if it's there--it was allowed.

I seem to not be able to express myself in such a manner as to convey my point. It isn't a matter of allowing extortion laws. It is a matter of the laws not being considered extortion because the governments, both state and federal, are allowed to enact laws that allow actions that if exercised by any entity other than the government would be considered extortion.


and the Constitution does allow either specifically or by specifying what the laws are not allowed to limit. The prior being when it lists a right of the government to act and the latter by speaking to the rights of the citizens.

That made me ponder something:


is it possible for something for the Constitution to have an unConstitutional clause within itself? What if a specifically allowed action of the government actually is in contrast to the rights enumerated or referred to in other sections of the Constitution? Does that mean, in reality, the government actually does have unlimited power over the citizens and can deny the citizens their rights simply by saying it can?

 

[Handydog]

I doubt you have a valid case for malicious prosecution either. It was valid charge. Additionally, if it wasn't, it should have been dismissed on preliminary review. If there was no basis for the charges, then you would be looking at malicious prosecution. It is never malicious for charges to be prosecuted if they are valid charges, even if there is an underlying malice in deciding whether to prosecute or not.


In the end, even if this would be a rights violations, you were not damaged. That will generally result in a finding of yes, they did it but you don't get anything more than nominal damages (the old $1 in damages).

I don't think I have a good case for malicious prosecution either. I think they had every right to prosecute. I do think I have a rock solid case for abuse of process though, and my attorney's fees, and potential punitive damages can always be awarded for corrective incentive. They should have sued me in small claims court, and prosecuted me. There is no preliminary review- as the OCP is a prosecutorial arm!
I was financially damaged, and had a black cloud hanging over my head for months - who knows what that cost?

 

[Zigner]

I do think I have a rock solid case for abuse of process though...

Were you found factually innocent?

 

[tranquility]

You cannot threaten someone with an unconnected criminal charge to coerse civil adjustment. Damage alledged to be done by power washing wherein no license was required is seperate from soliciting to paint without a license which alledgedly occured days later. Common sinse should tell you that this is not the way of the criminal courts. I have the right to dispute a claim - to be subjected to an unrelated prosecution soley to exact colateral adjustment is criminal. I could have despensed of the criminal proceedings by paying the demand at any time - even at my trial! If this was lawful than the money demand should have been a part of the charging document, and an issue at trial. They did not say to the judge - Your Honor Handydog was given the oppertunity to pay his way out of this charge. My charge was not about property damage overtly, but inscrutable to the courts even though that is what it was all about - extortion!

It was a directly connected criminal charge. Because of your acts directly related to the services a person complained about to the government, the government found out additional facts that gave them probable cause to believe you violated the statutes requiring licensing. While you want to keep them separate, the reason you made the offer to contract was because she felt you harmed her and you wanted to have that problem go away.

 

[tranquility]

it also limits the states. If it didn't do so, the SCOTUS would have no reason to hear any case based on state laws as there would be no such thing as a Constitutional issue regarding a state law.

It limits the states do to the theory of incorporation. For a quick summary, see http://www.basicsproject.org/constitutional_literacy/government/incorporation.htm

is it possible for something for the Constitution to have an unConstitutional clause within itself? What if a specifically allowed action of the government actually is in contrast to the rights enumerated or referred to in other sections of the Constitution? Does that mean, in reality, the government actually does have unlimited power over the citizens and can deny the citizens their rights simply by saying it can?

No. That's why the Supremes twist logic to make, excuse me, interpret what is into what is not. (Or vice versa.) They make it all legal like.