Posts by rustywalker42

Jerry Robinson56 said:That isn't the Law to respect Anton, rustywalker42 😁... it lays out everything explicitly within its pages and reaches back into the last century ... let the forum users play a little game... I’m essentially calling them fools and simpletons here (that’s a value judgment, not a fact), as they criticize a Headquarters that is performing excellently and exclusively in the interest of American residents.
As if he didn't commit enough blunders during his time as Prime Minister, the "top law student"... if you can even believe it.

Why don't you enlighten us with this imaginary law you're talking about?

Gerald Kern77 said:It doesn't need to be explicit—this provision covers it.

"In the event of special circumstances involving an unforeseen and uncontrollable event that threatens the lives and health of citizens, high-value property, significantly damages the environment, disrupts economic activity, or causes substantial economic loss, the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America issues decisions and instructions to be implemented by local and regional Civil Protection Headquarters."

Furthermore, the Infectious Disease Protection Act includes measures such as:

"Prohibiting the movement of persons, or restricting movement within infected or directly threatened areas."

That could apply to any area—there isn't a single county left without COVID.

No, it doesn't cover it. That decision says absolutely nothing about banning citizens from moving around.

Gerald Kern77 said:That isn't quite right—it actually gave the Headquarters the power to issue mandates; which explains why they rushed that whole process through Congress.

Anyway, here is the excerpt from the Official Gazette:

"Pursuant to Article 22.a of the Civil Protection System Act (Official Gazette No. 82/15, 118/18, and 31/20), the Civil Protection Headquarters of the Republic of America, on March 23, 2020, hereby issues

DECISION

REGARDING THE PROHIBITION OF LEAVING ONE'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND PERMANENT DOMICILE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

Gerald Kern77 said:It isn't me making the claim—it's the Supreme Court distancing itself from a single member's opinion
via a press release

Congress moved with intentional speed—debate in the morning, immediate vote, Milanovic signing it instantly, and then straight to the Official Gazette—to grant expanded powers to the National Headquarters, including this one. We can argue about it all we want, but even the Supreme Court has sided with them.

Just look at who actually made that call. Congress didn't give the Headquarters any authority at all.

The Supreme Court will decide post festum. Classic. We'll see once the constitutional lawsuits start flying.

Gerald Kern77 said:I assume you're a lawyer?

The Supreme Court ruled in their favor—I suppose they didn't spot those loopholes you're so fond of.

I'll keep my own opinion on whether these decisions are actually good—they've certainly made my private life a mess—but the Headquarters has the authority to make them. Of course, if Congress declares a state of emergency under Article 17 of the Constitution, then any decisions limiting civil liberties require a two-thirds majority.

Man, how easily people just hand over their freedom. 🙏

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

Nicholas King was referring to this message:

wiredbison272 said:They shot down my request too, and they didn't even bother giving me a reason why. Honestly, whatever, if I need to head out, I'm going. They haven't caught me yet, and I'm really hoping they don't, but if they do decide to pull me over, they can try and hit me with a fine for all it matters to me.

Now tell us, oh brilliant legal expert, what kind of fine does someone get if they ignore the "order" regarding movement restrictions when they AREN'T in self-isolation?

You pay taxes based on where you work.

No, that's not true, but I'll wait until you dig yourself even deeper into the mud, and then I'll tear your arguments apart, just like usual. ☕

Don't you have an example that proves otherwise?

A few more.

That’s because you think you actually understand the law just because you claimed to have "read a lot about it." Newsflash: you haven't.

Oh, I see. You think you "know," but you clearly "know" better. Your supposed "expertise" is pretty obvious from how you respond to every single comment. Honestly, you're a total joke. You don't even understand basic laws.

So, you’re telling me you need gas for a car you don't even use? I mean, like you said yourself, you can't exactly get anywhere without it. So why? Why the hell is that necessary?
If you’re actually using moronic excuses like that to try and get a permit, then honestly? I’m not even surprised when they blow you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

I just want you to be in that exact situation. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.

No.I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. What was that?Not him. Just one. Not plural—singular.
It’s called the Communicable Disease Act. This version has been sitting on the books for ages, and if you actually bother to look at Article 47 under Security Measures, it spells out exactly how much power the Secretary can wield. It's all right there in black and white.
I’ve already explained this a thousand times to these self-proclaimed "legal experts" who clearly learned everything they know from Google. But sure, every time some amateur like you pops up, you all start rehashing the exact same nonsense. Why do we keep running in circles?

If you actually studied law at one of our universities, then I’m suggesting they should just take your degree away.

A sad pokaži odluku ministra. I onda reci — what does that article even have to do with what’s actually happening on the ground?

Gerald Kern77 said:Here you go, the legal amendments.

The legal foundation itself is airtight—the real question is whether the decision and its execution should have been more logical, perhaps accounting for a broader range of real-world scenarios.

You think the legal basis is unquestionable? Fine. Tell me—where in that specific decision does it explicitly state that citizens' freedom of movement is prohibited?

Jerry Robinson56 said:Even if a critical "mass" were to assemble... regarding the law, though I have already made my points quite clearly...

The legal framework has existed for a long time, specifically designed for unforeseen circumstances or those relatively unlikely events.

The fundamental logic is to prevent the expansion of infection—because without a host, viruses simply die out.
It is entirely logical to restrict movement, given that tracking a massive number of individuals becomes impossible, and once those numbers reach a certain threshold, things spiral. In my view, while tracking might be technically possible, there is no reason to overcomplicate a simple solution.

The Infectious Disease Protection Act doesn't ban the freedom of movement for citizens at a national level.

Nicholas King said:When—or if—that judge's ruling on the fine actually shows up at your front door, what then? What's the plan? Are you just going to stop breathing? Start kicking your feet in protest? Close your eyes and pray you don't exist? Or maybe just complain about it all the way to the top of the food chain?

I am genuinely curious, though—what do these "I-don't-care-about-rules!!!!1!" heroes actually intend to do when their little displays of bravado are finally put to the test?

Proving your innocence through the legal system.

driftingfox6 said:Then you have some individual or even the government just cutting you off from your partner indefinitely. And then they act surprised when young people don't want to start families here, especially when so many people lack any sense of financial security. You never know when you might find yourself unemployed.

I’m currently stuck away from my own home—just a ten-minute drive away—because this law won't let me pass through.

Which law?

hollowmason64 said:Nah, it’s not really about fear. I wouldn't call myself a fearful person by nature—though, obviously, I’m definitely not indifferent to what's going on.
It all comes down to how much harder everything has become lately. Honestly, just trying to live and work under these conditions is exhausting. I find myself constantly wishing this whole thing would just wrap up already. Your entire existence starts feeling like a repetitive cycle of washing and disinfecting yourself and everything you touch, which is just draining when you're actually trying to get things done. You end up spending half your energy just managing that, or just standing around outside the store waiting for a break, or trying to make sense of your day off. It’s a lot.
If we actually want this whole thing to wrap up sooner, there's one simple thing a certain number of people could do: just stay home. That’s it. No need to head out to the front lines, no need to pick up a rifle, and definitely no need to go out there risking your neck. Honestly, nothing dramatic is required—just staying put at home would make all the difference.
Look, I get it. In actual war zones, when things are falling apart and people are under fire, split-second decisions happen—people shoot because they have to survive. But if someone starts opening fire just because they want to go for a stroll, hang out with their buddies at a pub, or grab some food? Honestly, that’s a different story. As far as I'm concerned, you're either completely mentally unstable or just a spoiled brat.
I really need to be home right now... honestly, life just keeps throwing these little dramas my way.

That’s pretty much how it goes. Everyone who managed to "scrape by" or pull some fast one just points the finger at someone else when things inevitably blow up in their faces. It’s the same old story. It reminds me of that department head back in the day—she was constantly cutting corners with housing paperwork and address filings, playing fast and loose with the rules, but the second she got caught in the mess, she acted like it was everyone else's fault but hers. People just love to dodge accountability.
That's just the mindset for you.

Look, there isn’t an actual ban on anything here, but there is a legal definition for what constitutes a marriage. Under the law, marriage is— community.
Strictly speaking, if you have two people living at two different addresses, they aren't considered a household or a single unit.
Actually, if you look at how most people see it, once partners stop living under the same roof for more than a year, that’s usually the line where the relationship is considered over. It's like the community itself has effectively dissolved at that point.

Honestly, my favorite type of people are the ones who try to dodge that 18% withholding tax—believe me, I’d love to skip it too, but duty calls—and then they just stay registered somewhere else entirely and wonder, "Wait, is this going to be an issue?"
I mean, what on earth possessed you to move your registration out of Washington, D.C. if you actually live and work right here?

That’s just not true. There have to be specific grounds for ending a marriage; the court isn't just going to decide that on its own whim. There has to be a legitimate legal interest for the people involved in the proceedings.

So, what, you actually think there’s some kind of marriage inspector out there checking up on all that?

My favorite people are the ones who refuse to pay that 18% withholding tax—honestly, I feel the same way, but hey, duty calls. Now you've all left yourselves logged in somewhere, who knows where... is this going to be an issue?
I mean, why on earth did you even drag yourself all the way out of Washington, D.C., if you’re just going to live and work here anyway?

That’s not entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (registered residence), but you still have to pay taxes based on where you are officially domiciled.

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

Got a specific example for that claim?

John Doe:

All I see online is people whining about how "unbearable" this is because they want to see their partner, go for a walk, hit up a lake house, or visit family for Easter... Just pure entitlement and acting spoiled—thinking everything should happen exactly when and how they want it.

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is this much against the Constitution.

Susan Barrett2 said:Fine, sarcasm accepted.
Look, I get that it doesn't matter much to some random third party, but for those of us actually putting in the work and trying to build something real? Yeah, it matters.

Turn on your DMs.

Maybe this doesn't hit home for us directly, but since our leaders basically just copy-paste whatever they see happening overseas, take a look at this:

The Australian Prime Minister claims they’re keeping everything locked down until at least October—unless they stumble upon a cure first.

Prime Minister @ScottMorrisonMP
says Australia's #coronavirus bans, restrictions and shutdowns are here to stay until at least October or until we have a vaccine.

https://mobile.twitter.com/sunriseon...08469891895302

And get this—Bill Gates was already talking about this exact scenario years ago. Check it out. He mentions lockdowns that could drag on for years. If he’s lying, then I’m lying too:

Bill Gates linked to an article that supports 3-month quarantines, *repeated* vaccinations, social distancing for *years*, and the elimination of American values. Surprise : The author Has Had exclusive access to Bill since 2017. This is starting to stink!

View on twitter

hollowmason64 said:Nah, they actually solved that by putting way more cops on the road. Now, even if you’re cruising at 40 or 45, you have to drop down to 30 just because some idiot is doing 75, otherwise you'll end up getting pulled over too.

I was thinking more about people who actually live in the same community.
As for how long this lasts... personally, I wouldn't expect anything to wrap up before late May.

Fair enough, but what do you think would be a better solution?

And what if they just limited things at the county level instead?

Think about it. You end up needing X number of checkpoints for every single municipality—if it’s a major city, you're easily looking at 10. For the smaller towns, you still need at least 2.

Now multiply all that by every municipality in one state and tell me: wouldn't it have been way easier just to lock down the whole state if that was even the goal?

Gerald Thompson62 said:Why are you all just rolling over for this...? Back when my grandparents were around, everyone was absolutely disgusted by this kind of thing—yet here you are, their grandkids, following orders without question, just worrying about whether the system will grant you a permit

I’d be a hell of a lot happier if we took every single one of these posts, bundled them into an email, and blasted the government with a mountain of complaints backed by the constitution on violation of rights...

There is no state of emergency here, and there is no suspension of our rights. If they want an emergency, fine—declare it and define the rules PRECISELY, instead of this vague "this and that" approach. I’ve already got my lawsuit ready, and believe me, I am not backing down (I’ve actually won a case once before on a very similar issue).

Here’s a perfect example. A friend of mine has to travel three zones just to get to work, then he has to go to a fourth zone because that’s where his doctor is located, and then he has to head all the way to the other side of town—another two zones away—just to take care of his pets.
And guess what? He didn't get his permit to check on the animals. Now they’re going to starve, or if he doesn't get permission, they might end up dead... all because looking after dogs isn't considered a "priority." We reported it to the animal welfare group, too, but they aren't taking any responsibility either.

Write to the government.... stop stripping away our constitutional rights...
And for those of you thinking we actually need this because of some state of emergency (which hasn't been declared, by the way)...
-Just look at how many people die on the roads every year—by that logic, we should just abolish the entire auto industry and ban cars altogether.
-Look at how many people die from the flu every single year—meaning, we should just ban everything every year.
-Think about the future when stuff like this becomes more common. What exactly are you leaving behind for your kids? A legacy of mindless obedience because you didn't have the guts to defend your own rights?
-Anyone who was supposed to be in isolation should have been sent to hotels (which won't even be open this summer anyway), camps, or dorms to keep them away from homes and healthy people. But hey, it’s much easier to threaten the livelihoods of millions of people just to satisfy a few idiots...

I'm in. Count me in. 👍

hollowmason64 said:Of course. 👍

He gets it, just like you do and just like the rest of us. It’s just that some people find it more convenient to play dumb—kind of like how you're acting right now.
If the private sector and those capitalists—as you like to call them—stopped paying their taxes into the federal treasury, the government wouldn't have a damn clue what to do with itself. Honestly, they’d probably be lucky if they even managed to collect the small membership fees that people pay to William Ribic.

And why is the minimum wage for workers set at $3,250? It’s because those are people working in the private sector. If we were talking about those leeches living off the government teat, there's no way they'd ever see anything like that happen by accident.
It’s not really the capitalists you should be pointing fingers at. In my book, the real issue lies with people like William Ribic and those other union leaders. They seem more interested in protecting the folks wearing government badges than anything else. It feels like their priority is always to look out for the bureaucrats first, while leaving the actual workers in the private sector to fight over whatever scraps are left behind.

First, you spend that whole previous post acting like you're some kind of genius, condescendingly explaining to another member how they just "don't get" where the union and Ribic actually get their money. You were so sure of yourself, insisting they aren't funded by the taxpayers. But then, the moment someone presents proof that Ribic and those other agitators are indeed drawing from the public treasury—either directly or through those indirect loopholes—you suddenly play dumb. It’s funny how quickly you pivot to that tired old excuse: "Well, everyone else is doing it too."
Man, I tell you... 🤣

And yeah, speaking of the church and people pushing Love Immersion—they’re basically two sides of the same coin when it comes to being pushy. If anyone actually wants to get involved with that stuff, they should just pay for it out of their own pocket.

Look, truth hurts, so I wasn't exactly expecting a deep dive or anything from you anyway. 👍

George Murphy12 said:From the video, looks like the e-pass is totally fine.
Plus, if you don't have that but you use mobile banking, you can just use the token.

People without any of that can just go through email.
And if they can't even do that, they'll have to go in person, but then they'll be stuck printing out those passes.

Expect things to be slow at first... everything's gonna bottleneck once every business and local municipality starts rolling this out...

But once people get the hang of it, it'll settle down...

And that’s honestly the saddest part of this whole mess.

Do yourself a favor and read this:

I’m just dying to know which genius decided on a 14-day limit. And honestly, I can't believe we're actually sitting here debating movement passes. 😵

We didn't even deal with this stuff during the war.

Seriously, why wasn't anyone stopping me from heading to school when things were under general threat?

hollowmason64 said:You're right, that's on me. I slipped up by getting the residency details wrong. The whole conversation really kicked off because of that one girl who hadn't updated her address in five years—she was just waiting until after the wedding to make it official.

Did I say that was a ruling from the Supreme Court? No, I didn't. But I’ve been digging through all the info on this, reading up on everything related to the situation, and honestly, from what I can see, there just isn't any legal basis whatsoever for what's happening right now.

You're claiming that restricting movement is unconstitutional, and you're leaning on Judge Abramović's opinion to back it up. Honestly, that doesn't really prove your point.
It’s just like when you claim you’ve read "everything on the subject." You really haven't. If you had actually sat down and looked through the Communicable Disease Act—which I’m pretty certain you didn't even know existed, much like most people out there—you would have realized that restricting movement is one of the security measures explicitly permitted under the law.
Look, just because a few of you have actually picked up the Constitution and skimmed through a couple of articles doesn't mean that movement restrictions during an epidemic are unconstitutional.

That’s a pretty solid point. You’re living in Washington, D.C., and honestly, you probably don't have a clue what life is actually like for people out in those small towns somewhere in the Midwest—places you couldn't even find on a map if you tried.

So, maybe it's time to bring things back down to earth for a second.

Everything has its pros and cons. Somewhere far away, there wasn't an earthquake either. So, what now?

I heard that some days, people traveling from Canada were actually sending guys back who had already started their trek toward Germany.

They actually started tidying all that up last year—basically sorting out who lives where and making sure everyone is registered for their health insurance correctly.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is hitting you hard. Honestly, don't even bother, you'll just embarrass yourself again, just like you did with your residency status.

Of course I've read it. Of course I know. Here's a general take on the coronavirus: a few days ago, I was saying exactly what that judge said.

If you had actually read the Communicable Disease Act—which I'm pretty sure you didn't even know existed, much like most people—you'd realize that the security measures allowed by law include restricting movement.

Well, you're being incredibly arrogant by guessing, so let me disappoint you: I know that law inside and out.

So, just because a handful of you know the Constitution exists and have skimmed three articles, it doesn't mean movement restrictions during an epidemic are unconstitutional.

🙏

The arrogance is unreal. You don't know a single thing about me, so keep your comments to yourself.

I know the Constitution and the laws better than you do—that's a guarantee—because I've seen the mountain of nonsense you've posted on this forum. I just never felt like getting into pointless debates because people like you aren't worth the effort.

Everything has its pros and cons. There wasn't an earthquake way out there. So what?

And what about the earthquake? Are you suddenly handicapped now? All I feel sorry for is that little girl who died. As for the rest of you using an earthquake as an excuse for everything, I won't even dignify it with a comment. You're just that loud minority with that typical NYC attitude. Luckily, there aren't many of you.

Watch what you say online. Here’s how things turned out for the guy who started that Facebook group:

A 32-year-old man has been criminally charged with inciting the spread and transmission of a communicable disease, according to the Istria County Sheriff's Office. Authorities suspect he spent the last three days moderating posts in a group specifically designed to encourage citizens to defy public health orders.

Brian Torres2 said:Got mine. 🎉

I listed stuff like apartment inspections, checking utility lines, notifying the landlord, bringing my own tools, and all that good stuff. It's all legit, obviously.

Small town, just outside Washington, D.C. The permit works for the whole D.C. area. Got it approved within 48 hours.

Honestly, this is pathetic—grown adults actually getting excited over permits.

Are we living in a concentration camp or something?

Joshua Gray75 said:To all of you stuck with these ridiculous local travel restrictions—I’ve already pointed out we have over 400 municipalities to deal with, so come on now...—have any of you actually tried filing a formal complaint somewhere else, or are you just here to vent on a message board?
For instance—maybe reach out to the press?
Or perhaps contact an opposition party?
A single person complaining won't change a thing... what we really need is some kind of "critical mass" to make an impact...

(And please, don't tell me there's no point—it's only been eight days since these measures were implemented... it's far too early to claim "nothing can be done"... if that's truly your outlook, then honestly, stop complaining here altogether...)

Look, I'm not against the measures themselves. I'm not inherently opposed to movement restrictions.
It's just that I am strictly against the sheer stupidity they've devolved into!!
You aren't allowed to drive from one tiny suburb into the next town over—even though that suburb might only be a couple of square miles—yet you're perfectly fine traveling from one end of Washington, D.C. to the other... hmm...

Wait, you seriously think the opposition doesn't realize what a total mess this is?

If I actually have to go running to the news or the opposition because they aren't aware of the situation, then I have nothing left to talk to them about.

It's pretty simple.

Joshua Gray75 said:I could try to get you back in. Or rather, they won't let you through.
And then you'll just have to try again later... or maybe in a few days... it's basically like playing the lottery...☕

Joshua Gray75 said:Heard that. ☕
Maybe tomorrow he’ll claim the whole thing was just an April Fool’s prank...

(And if it wasn't—will they actually penalize whoever spread the misinformation? I highly doubt it...☕)

Even Capak mentioned that we might start thinking about "easing restrictions"—very broadly speaking... provided the infection numbers drop for five consecutive days.

Now, here's the thing.
Either that's also an April Fool's joke—or he already knows those numbers aren't going down anytime soon, especially if they plan on ramping up testing every single day.

More testing inevitably leads to more confirmed cases. It’s as simple as that...
But it serves its purpose—throwing out a little "carrot" to keep the public occupied and distracted from the fact that "maybe around mid-April" is still a pipe dream.

So they don't have to let them go? Fine. Then this happens:

So, I was just looking through the legal fine print on how they handle pretrial detention and freedom of movement here in the States. It’s a mess. Seriously. Ever wonder why some people get to walk free while others sit in a cell before they've even had their day in court? It feels like a total coin toss sometimes. Does anyone actually understand the criteria they use to decide if someone is a "flight risk" versus just being someone who can't afford bail? It’s wild. The whole system seems designed to keep you guessing. One minute you're arguing your case, the next you're staring at a jail cell because some judge decided you might be too much trouble. Makes you think, doesn't it? Is there any actual consistency, or is it all just based on how much influence you have? Just my two cents.

Henry Evans3 said:Isn't it basically just flagging yourself so that if you get caught a second time, you're straight to the inspector or something like that?

There’s no such thing as "whatever."

No. They can't just write you a ticket because they don't have the authority to stop you from leaving town.

Carl Morris34 said:What is even the point of these permits if we’re now hearing that the police aren't actually handing out citations, but are instead just giving warnings to those traveling to other cities without them?
Who exactly is being foolish here, and what was the logic behind even implementing such a system in the first place?

That is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time!

There’s zero legal basis, so they can't actually do anything to you.

So, Božinović just announced at the press conference—6,700 people supposedly "violated" the stay-at-home order. Apparently, they haven't issued fines to anyone except those who broke self-isolation.

Basically, just more proof that they have zero legal basis for this ban. 🙂

Kenneth Jones70 said:So, are those e-Passports finally kicking in tomorrow?

What happens to the people who just got theirs approved yesterday or today—you know, the ones scheduled for this weekend or sometime next week?

Who on earth knows? 🙂 I just got mine approved yesterday, and now I’m sitting here wondering if it's even valid anymore.

I'm definitely not calling Civil Protection. Not a chance.

coastaltiger72 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around why so many construction workers from Germany and Ireland decided to pack up and trek all the way over here to America and Canada. You have to wonder—what was the logic there? Why didn't they just stay put in the countries they were actually supposed to be working in?

And then you have certain individuals bringing the virus right along with them.

Yeah, I’m wondering the same thing. Personally, I’d have stayed put, just out of pure principle.

Especially when you consider how most of them were probably talking trash about America the whole time. Eh.

hollowmason64 said:Fifteen days. https://www.law.com/statutes/residency-act
Your issue is that you aren't distinguishing between residency and domicile.

If you don't know the answer, why are you weighing in? Here, take this and give it a read:

http://www.legalinfo.gov/DailyContent/Article.aspx?id=41073

Once again—that was just one judge's opinion, not the official ruling of the Supreme Court.
And once more, your problem is failing to understand the difference between a single dissenting opinion and an actual Supreme Court ruling that carries legal weight (or lack thereof).

Like I said, you probably grew up in a big city like New York. I’d love to see you living out in rural Wyoming; I bet you wouldn't be singing those same songs. No way.

You don't live in Italy either, because if you did, you certainly wouldn't be singing the same song. What kind of argument is that?

What's wrong with it? That sounds like a convenient excuse when you just want to get rid of a piece of property.😬

God, I love arrogant people like you. You were the one who brought up temporary residence, not me.

Just so we're clear, this is what you wrote, just to remind you:

hollowmason64 said:Look, the government doesn't care if you're hooking up at a different spot every single night, but if you stay at the same place for more than 15 days, you're supposed to report that change of residence.

I honestly don't know if they're overstepping; I haven't run into anyone like that personally.
And who’s saying they’re violating Constitution-guaranteed rights? One judge's opinion isn't the official stance of the Supreme Court. The Court could easily reach a conclusion that's the exact opposite of what that one judge thinks, and his view would just be recorded as a dissenting opinion.

Well, goodness gracious, apparently people aren't even allowed to leave their houses anymore. Did you miss that video from a few days ago where the mayor was yelling at some guy just for stepping out a little too far? The mayor starts ranting at him like, "Go home or I'll call a police officer!"

Even here, the cop will just turn you around and won't let you pass. It's not like they're going to beat you with a baton, for crying out loud.🙄
I’m just curious—out of everyone here debating whether this whole thing is working or not, how many of you actually hold an e-Passport and travel daily? I want to know what it’s actually like on the ground.
For instance, I’ve been commuting out of the city every single day for a week now for work. I have my e-Passport, and honestly, not once has a Police officer pulled me over on the way back, even when I was driving through in the afternoon, late at night, or early morning. Personally, I think it's all a bit sloppy.

People claiming everyone is healthy? How can you possibly know that? Do you visit them regularly or something?
Or do you really believe a major retail chain would ever go public with news like that? If one of our cashiers tested positive, there's a good chance others on the same shift did too.
That would be a PR nightmare for them. Something they'd definitely want to avoid.
Fair point, though—sometimes we really need to use our heads.

On another note, Spar was posting ads looking for new sales associates just two or three days ago. It makes me wonder why and how they need more staff when their operating hours have been slashed by a third. It’s a mystery.
Something to chew on.

So, if nearly 80 new cases a day is considered a negligible number, I guess they should just let us out to speed things up a bit, right?

You have up to three months to report a temporary residence.

And now you're accusing *me* of not knowing the difference between a domicile and a temporary residence? Shame on you.

Once again—that's just one judge's opinion, not the official ruling of the Supreme Court.
And once again, your problem is you don't understand the difference between a dissenting opinion and an actual Supreme Court ruling that carries legal weight—or lack thereof.

Did I say it was a Supreme Court ruling? No. But I read up on it, and from what I see, there is absolutely zero legal basis for what's happening here.

You don't even live in Italy, because if you did, you wouldn't be singing the same song. What kind of argument is that?

Brilliant argument. You live in a major city like Chicago and actually have no clue what life is like for people in some tiny rural township out in the middle of nowhere that you couldn't even find on a map.

So, maybe come down to earth for a second.