• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

police informing employer...legal?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

D

delo9999

Guest
What is the name of your state? NJ
i was stopped by the local police, questioned about dumping trash illegally, then let go by the police with no further contact. Now i find the police called my employer to check if i work there,and explained the stop to him. i work in a school, and this could effect my employment (tenure). Do the police have the right to inform my employer of the details of a stop that resulted in no charges whatsoever?
 


D

delo9999

Guest
ok, ok, i get the idea
it just didn't seem right to me, since they had dropped the charge, and are not pursuing it any further. i think they just called my boss to get me into trouble with work.
 

Bravo8

Member
I'm sure that's exactly what they did....not having anything else to do and all. :rolleyes:

I routinely call a person's employer after having contact with them in an attempt to "get them in trouble".

Sometimes I call their mommy and daddy too......
 
C

ChoixDuJour

Guest
I just had to comment on this one...

delo9999, here's the deal.

Don't expect to get any real answers from the long time local residents of this forum, especially from the ones with 20,000+ posts to their name. They seem to be immune to giving direct intelligent answers to anyone's questions. I know... I've been badgered by them already and as I have noticed I'm not the only one who's noticed that. The best answer you've gotten so far is from "snostar" who said that "it's called investigating", the rest are typical answers you will get in almost any thread from the long time residents in this forum. It seems as though the way the long time residents in this forum answer questions leads me to believe that they either feel that they are Jay Leno wanna beees and attempt to be comedians... or what I feel is that they somehow fell from the top of a "Stupid Tree" and hit their heads on every branch on the way down. Just take their answers in stride since the only answers they give are usually insults, put downs and name calling. Watch what they do to me after this post, that will only prove my point. Typical attorney types.

Here's what I understand. I can't tell you what to do since I am not an attorney (Thank God!). I'm only a legal researcher and I can only tell you what I would do in a situation like yours. The member "snostar" was the closest. What the officers did to you is what is typically known as "poaching". I have cousins who are in the police force in different states. As I was told, they do that when they either don't have jurisdiction in the matter and/or they want to intimidate someone to instill fear. It is not either legal or illegal. However, it is a violation of privacy pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and a violation of our rights pursuant to the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.


If it were me and there were no ill effect with the employer, I'd just drop it and move on. However, if it caused any ill effect with the employer I would definitely file a complaint with the commanding officer of the police officer who caused the problem. I would also look into filing a civil lawsuit against the officer for being the cause of violating my rights to provide for my family causing me to lose my job pursuant to the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Most of the lower courts wouldn't even give you the time of day regarding your claim since these courts are no longer subject to the Constitution anymore, they are only based in commerce. That's why all the states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code as their main law. Even though I don't like what they stand for, the ACLU would love a case like this one should there be a loss of a job for the financial provider of a family due to the personal pursuits of the public officials who caused the problem.

Just my thoughts. I'm sure more than anyone else on this forum would offer.

ChoixDuJour<><
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

There she is, Miss Religion herself, ChowderheadDuJour!

("There, you see, I told you one of them 20,000 plus "residents" would say something.")

You're just a "researcher"? No, you're just an idiot.

IAAL
 

jjtricket

Junior Member
ChoixDuJour, you are correct. There are a few people that have nothing better to do than to bash any poster.
 
C

ChoixDuJour

Guest
Is there a pest exterminator in the house?

Thank you " jjtricket" for acknowledging the most obvious about those who have such a boring life that they spend such valuable time making fun of others. What a waste. I appreciate your brave jesture to vocalize your thoughts about the lowlife residing in this forum. In the following "Parking Ticket" section below someone else complained about the same thing...

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?threadid=176128

I just wondered whether any lowlife would be drawn out by the bait I tainted within my original post herein. And yes... it did attract at least one of the RATS from his smelly hole... what a pest! "I Am Always Liable" is one of those lowlife pests that badgerred me in another thread when I asked a serious question for the first time in this forum. None of them ever helped me and I had to do my own research, and discovered what I need to know anyway. At the court session, the protem and the prosecutor looked like a couple of babbling idiots.

And "I Am Always Liable" still assumes and presumes (as all attorney types do) that I am a female even though I have never revealed whether I am or not. Typical... typical. And he had the nerve to call me an "idiot"...

Well... let's find out the real meaning of the word "idiot" from Merriam Webster Dictionary.


Main Entry: id·i·ot
Pronunciation: 'i-dE-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiOtEs one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own --

more at SUICIDE
Date: 14th century
1 : a person affected with idiocy; especially: a feebleminded person having a mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial care
2 : a foolish or stupid person
- idiot adjective

From the looks of the meaning above, it means... "ignorant person"... "a person affected with idiocy; especially: a feebleminded person having mental age not exceeding three years and requiring complete custodial care"... "a foolish or stupid person".

Well... after reading the comments from "I Am Always Liable", the statements he made reflect the meaning of the word "idiot". And talking about falling for the top of a "Stupid Tree" hitting every branch on his way down, there it is "a foolish or stupid person." He seems to display that trait very well in all of the posts I have seen so far. So maybe "I Am Always Liable" is really in disguise "I Am Always Idiot" or maybe he is "I Am Always Stupid"! He's finally come out of the closet. I suppose it had to happen sometime.

I am finished with commenting on derrogatory comments such as that of a lowlife like "I Am Always Stupid". I don't care to lower my integrity to such a scumbag snake level. Should I participate in any of the threads within this forum, I invite "I Am Always Stupid"and any other lowlife like him to please stay out. Mary Martin, the forum complaint department for this forum, seems to think that his comments are harmless. I feel that it degrades the integrity of the purpose of this forum. However, I really feel that his brain is harmless and he needs to get it replaced before it becomes dangerous to him.

With kind regards and intelligence "I Am Always Stupid" probably would not understand...

ChoixDuJour<><
 

snostar

Senior Member
Re: I just had to comment on this one...

ChoixDuJour said:
However, it is a violation of privacy pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and a violation of our rights pursuant to the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

I would also look into filing a civil lawsuit against the officer for being the cause of violating my rights to provide for my family causing me to lose my job pursuant to the 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Based on the delo's post I don't see how any of this applies, please clarify.
 
C

ChoixDuJour

Guest
Reply to "snostar"

With such a corrupt government that presupposes that we are subject to their every whim, laws and policies were also put in place that apply to them. Most of the work I do applies to income tax. However, the basics apply to all government agencies. I am an alternative legal researcher and I learned a while back to step outside the box to look at these public policies, laws, statutes, codes, ordinances or whatever and view them from a different perspective than what I was told. Most people cannot see the forest because there are too many trees in the way. I decided one day to cut the trees down and discovered just what I had always known all along that the trees and the forest were the same. It was just being used by a corrupt government to blind me from what was true... that I am not subject to them... they are subject to me and are my employees. Then I watched the movie... The Matrix (45 times so far)... and realized that these courts and agencies are nothing more than a facade to cover up the truth that they are not the ones in control... I am the one in control as long as I know how to do it. I learned it the hard way going through the court system, but have always come out victorious.

If you can see past the forest to see the trees, you will see what I am talking about.


Bill of Rights
Amendment I
to petition the government for a redress of grievances

We have a right to protect what we have should anyone within or anything about a government agency attempts to violate us according to the 1st Amendment.

Amendment IV
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Should anyone within a public office cause me to lose my job and thereby lose my paycheck and possibly other things I need the funds from that paycheck for to make payment to maintain, there goes my "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". It would have been caused by some rogue police officer out to get me for some stupid personal reason. I have a right to remedy. That's why the ACLU exists (even though I don't care for their basis for existence).

However, unless someone is willing to pursue such a deep remedy, it would not be worth it since the courts no longer exist for the purpose of law under the Constitution of the United States of America... that is unless you are willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court where the Constitution is the only issue at hand. The courts only exist for the purpose of commerce (money, banks) and all crimes are commercial crimes pursuant to 27CFR in conjunction with the Uniform Commercial Code and now related state commercial codes.

Unless there is a high powered organization behind the petitioner like the ACLU or something like that, it's not worth it. Complaints to the commanding officer of the violating police officer would suffice. However, should the police officer be corrupt (i.e. LAPD Rampart Division... rotten cops), retaliation could ensue.

Attorneys have been trained, brainwashed to look at situations only one way as taught by the law schools. The word "attorney" evolves from the word "attorn" which means (from Mirriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary):

Main Entry: at·torn
Pronunciation: &-'t&rn
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English attournen, from Middle French atorner, from Old French, from a- (from Latin ad-) + torner to turn
Date: 15th century
: to agree to be tenant to a new owner or landlord of the same property
- at·torn·ment /-m&nt/ noun

The 15th century definition states that we become chattel property of the court once we submit to the court and the attorney becomes landlord of the chattel property... their client. I do not care to be anyone's property. Slavery no longer exists unless volunteered into. There is only one who owns me… my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In order for any of this to be clear and understood, it must be viewed from outside the box. So if you are willing to step outside the box, you may see it from my vantage point. It's taken me several years and lots of personal court experience to understand the corrupt nature of the courts and their jesters (aka attorneys). It doesn't happen overnight. Watch the movie The Matrix several times... you'll eventually get it. It is the BEST movie ever made (since The Wizard of Oz) to explain to us how corrupt or system of govermment functions in this great country of ours.

The right to remedy still exists, but it's a matter of choice. And thank you again "snostar" for being brave enough to recognize the others within this forum who attempt to dampen the spirit of those posters who enjoy intelligent conversation regarding the subject matter and would like to continue to do so.

Got to get back to my work now.

ChoixDuJour<><
 
R

Ramoth

Guest
"Then I watched the movie... The Matrix (45 times so far)... "

Choice of the Day, you should have taken the blue pill.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
Interesting that you have the time to post such a lengthly diatribe but have never replied with the results of your original thread.

A police officer investigating a crime has the right to question anyone who may have information relating to said crime. The original poster gave little information but the officer may have merely been verifying that the suspect was actually at work when the crime occurred.

There is nothing in the post to indicate anything else.

"I don't care to lower my integrity to such a scumbag snake level."

You just did.
 
C

ChoixDuJour

Guest
To Iwpat

First I do agree with you that the police officers do have the right to question situations and investigate, but not to the detriment of anyone. At that point it is up to the one damaged to proceed or concede. I was only reporting what I heard from my cousins who are police officers and offering suggestions that may or may not be acted upon. And you are absolutely right that there is nothing else in the post to indicate anything else.

As for my reply regarding the other thread. As you stated in a post you started that eventually was eliminated before I could reply, that original thread was closed by Mary Martin. I emailed her and requested that she reopen it, but she emailed back and stated that she wouldn't. She felt that it was veering far from the subject matter of the thread and was going nowhere. Obviously, this is not the thread to post results from some other thread.

Contrary to your statement as far as lowering my integrity to a scumbag snake level... I have not. That is unless you feel that replying to your post here and the post of jjtricket is referring to you guys as scumbag snakes. I don't feel that either of you are in that catagory since you are intelligently posting and participating in intelligent exchange. Now... if I were to reply to Ramoth, that would be a different story and I would be lowering my integrity to a scumbag snake level regarding that post. However, I'm not going to do that anymore. I'm from the bayou and in the bayou when you ignor snakes they just eventually crawl away on their slimy bellies. It is known as tact and diplomacy and when utilized correctly is very powerful.

Thank you for your constructive comments.

ChoixDuJour<><
 

harbor14

Member
(Bill of Rights
Amendment I
to petition the government for a redress of grievances

We have a right to protect what we have should anyone within or anything about a government agency attempts to violate us according to the 1st Amendment.

Amendment IV
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Should anyone within a public office cause me to lose my job and thereby lose my paycheck and possibly other things I need the funds from that paycheck for to make payment to maintain, there goes my "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". It would have been caused by some rogue police officer out to get me for some stupid personal reason. I have a right to remedy. That's why the ACLU exists (even though I don't care for their basis for existence).

However, unless someone is willing to pursue such a deep remedy, it would not be worth it since the courts no longer exist for the purpose of law under the Constitution of the United States of America... that is unless you are willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court where the Constitution is the only issue at hand. The courts only exist for the purpose of commerce (money, banks) and all crimes are commercial crimes pursuant to 27CFR in conjunction with the Uniform Commercial Code and now related state commercial codes.)

There is no violation of constiutional rights in this case. The right to redress of grievences has not been violated.

There is no violation of due process of law. The state did not seize life, property or liberty.

The rest of it is just laughable. So murder, rape, arson, robbery, assault are all commerical crimes???????

Ok.........all of it is laughable.

A little knowldege is a dangerous thing.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top