Just got a lawyer . . .
Just got a lawyer . . .
Why waste your money on a bottom feeder?Originally Posted by cyrus
Last edited by Greg Lockrey; 6-Sep-2007 at 07:03.
Greg Lockrey
Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.
Since there was no arrest, confiscation of equipment, etc... what legal action is there to take? I'm curious, not challenging your decision.
See Bruce Scheier's writings on security matters.
He's the one who coined the term "security theater" to describe most of the tactics that pass for 'security' in this post-911 era.
A classic case of prior restraint, with totally discretionary permit rules. That's the easy part. Most of the heavylifting was done by previous cases re: leaflet distribution in the stations
The hard part is getting the name off the database. Laird v Tatum haunts us still, but I think there are enough factors to distinguish it. Thats going to be the fun part. (yes I know the Wikipedia entry on Laird is erroneous - this was a standing issue not a ripeness issue - but its a good enough description of the case for this thread)
I'm working on a due process claim too. Then have to check into NJ constitutional law next.
Professional courtesy! (Joke!)Why waste your money on a bottom feeder?
No, its for free.
As a side note...I had an attorney that was approached by my advisary's attorney to handle a car transfer matter for him in another state since he couldn't do it for himself. This all occured during disposition for a civil case I had against his client. I won BTW. You bottom feeder's...
Last edited by Greg Lockrey; 8-Sep-2007 at 00:55.
Greg Lockrey
Wealth is a state of mind.
Money is just a tool.
Happiness is pedaling +25mph on a smooth road.
Professional courtesy? Wasn't that the reason why snakes don't bite lawyers?
I had a related - though more benign experience - photographing a waterworks. The fellow who came out to see what I was doing was intelligent and courteous, and quickly understood I was no threat to anyone. So, at that moment, my experience was almost pleasant, though in the back of my mind lurked the thought that any lingering suspicion would possibly get my film taken, or the cameras or ... etc....
We have become a considerably more suspicious society, and that, coupled with the fact that most people haven't the slightest idea why someone might want to make art from some industrial building or facility, makes me far slower to photograph where I want.
If one was to go through (gawd - I just counted the decades) four decades of my slides, there's a long thread of interest in signs and towers and tanks and smokestacks and billboards and factories.... Many of those things have long interested me as a kind of monumental sculpture to be used as a topic for photography and for painting. I've been interested in all this for decades before terrorism became a fact of life worldwide.
Anyone want to guess how much the last few years have slowed that shooting? I don't want to end up on some list somewhere and find travel becomes a nightmare. I wish I shared some folks optemism that all these processes are benign and well administered. Given that the way people end up on a list is a secret, and that the lists are secret, and that there's generally no way off the lists if you're not a senator, it make one darn careful.
I guess that if there's a facility that I really, really, want to photograph from a public road, I'll take the time consuming process of notifying state and local authorities etc and making sure I have the names I talked to so that whan a police car pulls up and starts saying no I can't do this or that, I have his boss's name and number and his boss's boss's name and number too, and a go ahead. But, by that time the light will have changed and...
It makes me feel creepy - knowing that now, nothing is functionally "legal" if someone in authority deems it "suspicious". Can anyone here explain why a young person with a wood 5x7 should merit the slightest attention?
It's pathetic.
C
Last edited by CG; 9-Sep-2007 at 13:58. Reason: Fixed punctuation error
This statement pretty much sums it all up, nice and neat. The natural tendency of those in power is to seek more power. The only thing that keeps them in check is educated and upright public.
On the other hand, someone once said that the purpose of terrorism is simply to terrorize. Whether it succeeds or not depends less on the terrorists then on their target audience, so to speak.
There is a certain confluence of circumstances in these two facts, which appears to be very fortunate for the current administration and very unfortunate for the rest of us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks