Who Will Run for President in 2020?

[Finshaggy]

International Treaties they are Violating in this case:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (194.
Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.




International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.
Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.




Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, G.A. res. 36/55, 36 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 171, U.N. Doc. A/36/684 (1981).
Article 1

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2

1. No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.

2. For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression "intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief" means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.

Article 3

Discrimination between human being on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enunciated in detail in the International Covenants on Human Rights, and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations between nations.

Article 4

1. All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.

2. All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.

Article 5

1. The parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up.

2. Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle.

3. The child shall be protected from any form of discrimination on the ground of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood, respect for freedom of religion or belief of others, and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the service of his fellow men.

4. In the case of a child who is not under the care either of his parents or of legal guardians, due account shall be taken of their expressed wishes or of any other proof of their wishes in the matter of religion or belief, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle. 5. Practices of a religion or belief in which a child is brought up must not be injurious to his physical or mental health or to his full development, taking into account article 1, paragraph 3, of the present Declaration.

Article 6

In accordance with article I of the present Declaration, and subject to the provisions of article 1, paragraph 3, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief shall include, inter alia, the following freedoms:

(a) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes;

(b) To establish and maintain appropriate charitable or humanitarian institutions;

(c) To make, acquire and use to an adequate extent the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a religion or belief;

(d) To write, issue and disseminate relevant publications in these areas;

(e) To teach a religion or belief in places suitable for these purposes;

(f) To solicit and receive voluntary financial and other contributions from individuals and institutions;

(g) To train, appoint, elect or designate by succession appropriate leaders called for by the requirements and standards of any religion or belief;

(h) To observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies in accordance with the precepts of one's religion or belief;

(i) To establish and maintain communications with individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels.

Article 7

The rights and freedoms set forth in the present Declaration shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that everyone shall be able to avail himself of such rights and freedoms in practice.

Article 8

Nothing in the present Declaration shall be construed as restricting or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights.




Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (1986)
Mandate
The Special Rapporteur has been mandated through Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 (see full text in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and Russian):

- to promote the adoption of measures at the national, regional and international levels to ensure the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief;

- to identify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief and present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles;

- to continue her/his efforts to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and to recommend remedial measures as appropriate;

 

[Finshaggy]

Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, Article 18 (Forty-eighth session, 1993). Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 35 (1994).

1. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18.1 is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thought on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others. The Committee draws the attention of States parties to the fact that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4.2 of the Covenant.

2. Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms "belief" and "religion" are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.

3. Article 18 distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. It does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one's choice. These freedoms are protected unconditionally, as is the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference in article 19.1. In accordance with articles 18.2 and 17, no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief.

4. The freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised "either individually or in community with others and in public or private". The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts. The concept of worship extends to ritual and ceremonial acts giving direct expression to belief, as well as various practices integral to such acts, including the building of places of worship, the use of ritual formulae and objects, the display of symbols, and the observance of holidays and days of rest. The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations, the wearing of distinctive clothing or headcoverings, participation in rituals associated with certain stages of life, and the use of a particular language customarily spoken by a group. In addition, the practice and teaching of religion or belief includes acts integral to the conduct by religious groups of their basic affairs, such as the freedom to choose their religious leaders, priests and teachers, the freedom to establish seminaries or religious schools and the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications.

5. The Committee observes that the freedom to "have or to adopt" a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief. Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as, for example, those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with article 18.2. The same protection is enjoyed by holders of all beliefs of a non-religious nature.

...

 

[Finshaggy]

6. The Committee is of the view that article 18.4 permits public school instruction in subjects such as the general history of religions and ethics if it is given in a neutral and objective way. The liberty of parents or legal guardians to ensure that their children receive a religious and moral education in conformity with their own convictions, set forth in article 18.4, is related to the guarantees of the freedom to teach a religion or belief stated in article 18.1. The Committee notes that public education that includes instruction in a particular religion or belief is inconsistent with article 18.4 unless provision is made for non-discriminatory exemptions or alternatives that would accommodate the wishes of parents and guardians.

7. In accordance with article 20, no manifestation of religion or belief may amount to propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. As stated by the Committee in its General Comment 11 [19], States parties are under the obligation to enact laws to prohibit such acts.

8. Article 18.3 permits restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief only if limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The freedom from coercion to have or to adopt a religion or belief and the liberty of parents and guardians to ensure religious and moral education cannot be restricted. In interpreting the scope of permissible limitation clauses, States parties should proceed from the need to protect the rights guaranteed under the Covenant, including the right to equality and non-discrimination on all grounds specified in articles 2, 3 and 26. Limitations imposed must be established by law and must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the rights guaranteed in article 18. The Committee observes that paragraph 3 of article 18 is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified there, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant, such as national security. Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner. The Committee observes that the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations on the freedom to manifest a religion or belief for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition. Persons already subject to certain legitimate constraints, such as prisoners, continue to enjoy their rights to manifest their religion or belief to the fullest extent compatible with the specific nature of the constraint. States parties' reports should provide information on the full scope and effects of limitations under article 18.3, both as a matter of law and of their application in specific circumstances.

9. The fact that a religion is recognized as a state religion or that it is established as official or traditional or that its followers comprise the majority of the population, shall not result in any impairment of the enjoyment of any of the rights under the Covenant, including articles 18 and 27, nor in any discrimination against adherents to other religions or non-believers. In particular, certain measures discriminating against the latter, such as measures restricting eligibility for government service to members of the predominant religion or giving economic privileges to them or imposing special restrictions on the practice of other faiths, are not in accordance with the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief and the guarantee of equal protection under article 26. The measures contemplated by article 20, paragraph 2 of the Covenant constitute important safeguards against infringement of the rights of religious minorities and of other religious groups to exercise the rights guaranteed by articles 18 and 27, and against acts of violence or persecution directed towards those groups. The Committee wishes to be informed of measures taken by States parties concerned to protect the practices of all religions or beliefs from infringement and to protect their followers from discrimination. Similarly, information as to respect for the rights of religious minorities under article 27 is necessary for the Committee to assess the extent to which the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief has been implemented by States parties. States parties concerned should also include in their reports information relating to practices considered by their laws and jurisprudence to be punishable as blasphemous.

10. If a set of beliefs is treated as official ideology in constitutions, statutes, proclamations of ruling parties, etc., or in actual practice, this shall not result in any impairment of the freedoms under article 18 or any other rights recognized under the Covenant nor in any discrimination against persons who do not accept the official ideology or who oppose it.

11. Many individuals have claimed the right to refuse to perform military service (conscientious objection) on the basis that such right derives from their freedoms under article 18. In response to such claims, a growing number of States have in their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the performance of military service and replaced it with alternative national service. The Covenant does not explicitly refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's religion or belief. When this right is recognized by law or practice, there shall be no differentiation among conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination against conscientious objectors because they have failed to perform military service. The Committee invites States parties to report on the conditions under which persons can be exempted from military service on the basis of their rights under article 18 and on the nature and length of alternative national service.

 

[Finshaggy]

Focus Fin. We don't do that here in politics. All the threads here are tightly focused laser beams.





Lol

This is still on topic.

If we had a Hindu President (like Tulsi Gabbard) this would all already be recognized and I wouldn't have to fight my local Government over this.

 

[Finshaggy]

The City is going to lose this case SOOO bad though. They don't even know what they have gotten themselves into.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

The City is going to lose this case SOOO bad though. They don't even know what they have gotten themselves into.

No, you don't know what you have gotten into. We built this city!

 

[Rob Roy]

And since they illegally searched my car, here is Jones V US
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/10-1259/

I also have emails from a Narcotics Conspiracy Sergeant, proving that everything they did was proven to be pointless in the end, because nothing they took from me was illegal.

So they may think they are in the right, and that they can't be sued. But they violated a Religion, and whether they understand that or not is not important, but by the end of this they will understand a little better.

The problem with proving the government is inconsistent, foul and offensive is, they have a gun and aren't ashamed to use it.

 

[Finshaggy]

I have a Conference call with the Court and the PDs Lawyers today. Lol.
I'll let you guys know how it goes, we are just discussing what is going to be going on, but I am pretty sure they think they have no burden. I am going to right away shift the burden to them, by proving that they violated my Religion. Which they still don't realize they have done.

They think this is an illegal search and seizure case, but that ignores about 75% of my claims.

 

[Finshaggy]

Trial is set for September 5th of next year.
They have until May to submit a claim that I have no claims under the law (which I do, so it will be denied, as it was the first time).

This is going to be great, I am so ready for this.

 

[Rob Roy]

I have a Conference call with the Court and the PDs Lawyers today. Lol.
I'll let you guys know how it goes, we are just discussing what is going to be going on, but I am pretty sure they think they have no burden. I am going to right away shift the burden to them, by proving that they violated my Religion. Which they still don't realize they have done.

They think this is an illegal search and seizure case, but that ignores about 75% of my claims.

Often courts have rules that must be followed, for instance a time frame to submit a witness list to the other party etc. Often Police prosecutors are ignorant of those rules and don't comply with them. If you aren't already, you might want to become familiar with them and raise a due process argument if the rules are allowed to be ignored by the "state" (the plaintiffs) .

 

[zeddd]

Scrolly fuk my finger aches

 

[Finshaggy]

Often courts have rules that must be followed, for instance a time frame to submit a witness list to the other party etc. Often Police prosecutors are ignorant of those rules and don't comply with them. If you aren't already, you might want to become familiar with them and raise a due process argument if the rules are allowed to be ignored by the "state" (the plaintiffs) .

I have been reading everything the court sends, and you're right the Police lawyers had no idea they were supposed to submit a scheduling order. I have been using Twitter to tweet the PD though, and it has been keeping them on things.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

I have been reading everything the court sends, and you're right the Police lawyers had no idea they were supposed to submit a scheduling order. I have been using Twitter to tweet the PD though, and it has been keeping them on things.

Nice.

 

[Finshaggy]

Why did people here know things about my case though? Can the 2 people that knew things about my case explain why they knew anything about my case.

Trial set for Sept 5th btw, and they have to submit anything else they want to submit by May.

The way the judge was talking he seemed to hope they could just give me money and end this without any trial.

 

[Finshaggy]

And that's September 5th 2017

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Why did people here know things about my case though? Can the 2 people that knew things about my case explain why they knew anything about my case.

Trial set for Sept 5th btw, and they have to submit anything else they want to submit by May.

The way the judge was talking he seemed to hope they could just give me money and end this without any trial.

I don't know anything about your case. Can you explain it in detail?

 

[Rob Roy]

I have been reading everything the court sends, and you're right the Police lawyers had no idea they were supposed to submit a scheduling order. I have been using Twitter to tweet the PD though, and it has been keeping them on things.

Don't be their secretary. Let them fuck up. If you don't get a witness list on time, object to them calling ANY witnesses. If the judge allows them to break that rule, call people as witnesses that you never submitted, lots of them. If the judge disallows that, pursue a due process violation argument. Preserve as much as you can for an appeal.

 

[A.K.A. Overgrowem]

Focus Fin. We don't do that here in politics. All the threads here are tightly focused laser beams.





Lol

HARKEN! HARKEN! Unclebaldrick has lost his mind.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

HARKEN! HARKEN! Unclebaldrick has lost his mind.

 

[Finshaggy]

I don't know anything about your case. Can you explain it in detail?

In February, I had just gotten to Austin, so recently that I was still in a Hotel. I was practicing my Religion in my Hotel room (Ceremonies are not only protected by US Law, but International Treaties), and the Police came to my door. They knocked, and I was just practicing my Religion, so I figured I would answer the door and ask what they were there for. I opened the door, and they came in the Hotel room and asked me to come outside.

Earlier that day I had been at my sister's house and I had cut my hand pretty badly, so there was some blood on my car. We went outside and they asked me if my car was my car, and I said yes. Then they put me in handcuffs and started going through my pockets, I told them I did not consent to a search, then they took my car keys out of my pocket and went to the car. I said "I do not consent to a search of my car" and they said "The window was open", which is not a warrant. If your house window is open it doesn't mean the Police can just go inside.

So at this point they put me in the backseat of the Police car, and I am back there for maybe 30 minutes, then they take me out and bring me to my car so they can start asking me about stuff they pulled out. I explain that I am a Hindu Neurospiritualist and that the various plant seeds and Nootropics that were in my backpack in my car (not in plain view, but they have it all out at this point) are all Religious materials, and when I tell them that they seem to almost get excited and search even more fervently (Religious Discrimination).

So they search through more of my stuff and are asking "What's this?" "What's this?" "What's this?" and I am telling them. Then I kind of get pissed off, because I am in handcuffs, and they are going through all my shit, and I start asking things like "Why are you guys doing this?" and they can tell that I am angry and they even ask me "Why were you normal before and now you're getting angry?" and I said "Because you are taking all my stuff apart".

So then they put me back in the back of the cop car for about 30 more minutes while they do a drug test on the Nootropics, and none of it shows up as drugs. Then they take me out of the cop car and say "None of this showed up as anything on the drug test, so we have to take it all" which is the opposite of why you take things (Illegal Seizure of Religious Materials, Materials are not only protected by US Law but International Treaties). Then they take the handcuffs off, and I asked for their badge numbers, they gave me their badge numbers and a case number. Then I go back in the Hotel.

The next day I called the Police Department to ask about my stuff, and they put me through to the Detective on my case. He was very rude, and at the end of the call he said "I'm done with you" and hung up the phone. So I called to complain and over the next week they put me in contact with a Narcotics Conspiracy Sargent and I filed this lawsuit.

And for the next 6 months I had to talk on the phone and email the Narcotics Conspiracy Sargent and ask him when my things would be released, and eventually he told me just to go to the Forensics Lab to get it. I went to the Forensics Lab and they said they didn't have it and I should go to the Evidence Room across town. So I went there and they said they didn't have it. So I emailed the Narcotics Conspiracy Sargent, and he said go back to the Forensics Lab again. So I go back the next day, and they say they can't release it. Then they told me to go to the Evidence Room that coming Tuesday (like 5 days later), and I went, and they released most of my Materials but not everything (I still haven't gotten everything back, but the Sargent said the case has been dropped), and they almost didn't even want to release it, and I said "Whatever you are thinking, that's the same thing the cop was thinking when he wrongfully stole it from me". And they gave me all my stuff (After about 6 Months).