Speaking on the issue of the court rendering a decision relative to the 'refusal to give ID':
Shoonra
Just speculating here for a minute. Seeing from the case site you provided, it is not beyond comprehending that the courts can issue a ruling declaring virtually anything to be a violation of some sort. Now suppose that the courts wanted to prosecute someone on the grounds of 'perjury' for stating "I don't know what my name is." What do you suppose the cops would do in that case? Yes! The police would probably haul him in anyway, so that they could run a background screening on his finger prints and mugshot.
Now take the speculation a little further. Suppose the man had a virtually clean record, never been fingerprinted, never had a mug shot taken, had perfect teeth (indicating no dental records), had never been admitted to a hospital after his presumed birth. In other words, they had no record on file in regard to this man. Would they hold him indefinitely because he did not know what his name was? There are far too many 'John Does' on the books already, so they could not with clean hands, assign to him the name of 'John Doe'.
The point is this. I was not in a state of mind, that would allow me to verify that my name is this, that or the other. All I have is 'hear-say' information. Hear-say, to my understanding is generally not acceptable as evidence in a court of Law. If I were to testify, under oath (under penalty of perjury), that a particular name was 'my name', I would be giving false testimony (as I have no firsthand, actual, personal knowledge of the FACT), and as such, could be prosecuted for perjury.
How can one get around the possible perjury charge, or better yet, the moral factor of knowing that you are telling a lie by declaring that your name is “James” when in fact, you do not know the name that your King has assigned to you? Telling a lie, according to the scripture, is equated with the liar being the son of the Satan/Lucifer/Devil (the father of all lies, and liars).See John 8:44. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it”.
Revelation 3 declares (in part) “5. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Did your ‘mother’ and or ‘father’ or both, make inquiry to God as to what should your name be? Did God give them a response? Do you know this to be a FACT? Were you there to witness this great event? Do you have that ‘first hand knowledge’ that is required by law? If you say that you do possess such knowledge and you, in FACT, do not possess such ‘first hand knowledge’ you are deemed to be a ‘liar’; a son of the father of lies. Leviticus 5: 4. “Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.”
When Jesus was asked in Matthew 27: 11; “And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.”, He did not respond by correcting them or by attempting to give any other ‘name/title’. The book of John gives a much clearer and detailed description of what transpired at the kangaroo court that Jesus appeared before.
Now tell me Shoonra, with Jesus being my King, the one to whom I owe allegiance, can I justify saying something to another man that would constitute a lie?
Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
The Hiibel v. Nevada decision, June 21, 2004, 542 US 177, upheld a Nevada law authorizing police to require a person (a suspect or potential witness) to give his name, or be arrested for refusing to do. And this law was merely confined to the person speaking his name, not even requiring him to present a DL or other documentation of his identity, nor providing an address or further details. Hiibel was arrested for refusal to tell his name to the police - who were investigating a reported violent fight between him and his girlfriend in public - and the Supreme Court held that, yes, the cops were entitled to handcuff him and haul him off.
The Supreme Court went to some pains to emphasize that Hiibel was being arrested just for refusal to speak his name, and not for refusal to provide his DL or his address or any other information. This emphasis was probably made to call attention to the fact that Hiibel was arrested for refusing to provide even the simplest and most effortless cooperation. The court did not suggest, by emphasizing this point, that Hiibel could not also have been arrested, if the police encounter had progressed, for refusing to comply with a state law requiring motorists to present their DL; those laws are still on the books and have been plenty upheld.
|