See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: The Missing 13th Amendment
Source:
Gospel Plow
URL Source: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html
Published: Feb 23, 2007
Author: David Dodge/Alfred Adask
Post Date: 2007-02-23 11:44:51 by intotheabyss
Keywords: None
Views: 1667
Comments: 152
This article first appeared in the August, 1991 issue of the Antishyster. Reprinted by permission of Alfred Norman Adask, creator and proprietor of the AntiShyster News Magazine. For further information see http://www.antishyster.com or write to adask@gte.net. "TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR" In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous. The story of this "missing" Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment's meaning and consequent current relevance. MEANING of the 13th Amendment The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today. HISTORICAL CONTEXT To understand the meaning of this "missing" 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context -- the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of "Democracy" as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat,1 every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies. Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn't destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception -- it was, perhaps, the first "cold war". Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy's counter- revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks. DON'T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System) The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England: "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again... Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit." The last great abuse of our banking system caused the depression of the 1930's. Today's abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you're not being robbed? Guess who's going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L's, taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions. When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client's gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue "extra" notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the "extra" notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a "run on the bank". If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometimes hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers "sweetheart" loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and our federal government's unbridled growth.) PAPER MONEY If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It's often suggested that our Constitution's prohibition against a paper economy -- "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts" -- was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a "paper" economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the expense of the productive. "Paper money," said Pelatiah Webster, "polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people." CONSPIRACIES A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States: According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin's grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would our Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn't make sense, especially in light of Senate's secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume our Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That's subversion. The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 - -- 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn't exist. However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, our government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that European banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank's charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That's destruction. There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy's efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called "2 VA LAW" in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, "This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail. There is no public record that this book exists." That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), "the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un- catalogued rare manuscripts." There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment. TITLES OF NOBILITY In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America. Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as "legitimate businessmen". As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them "titles of nobility". Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers). INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA. Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government. HONOR The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant. According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot. By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens. If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors).2 WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored) If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated. Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people! Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world. Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the "title of nobility" Amendment; that ratification required the support of thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the "title of nobility" Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified. Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn's research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close we came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state's vote. The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state's support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it. PARADISE LOST, RATIFICATION FOUND In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a "title of Nobility" (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn't passed, this was the first time a "title of nobility" amendment was proposed. Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529- 530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification: "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment in 1810, there were seventeen states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification: Ratification of Original 13th Amendment Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810 Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811 Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811 Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811 Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811 New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811 Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811 Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811 Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811 North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811 Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812 New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812 Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed "title of nobility" amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war. Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature's position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified). On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams' letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial. However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-film): "Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..." This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day -- the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re- publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819. The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.) In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments. Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did. Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something. You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we've discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don't know their amendments from their... ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our forefathers never meant to "outlaw" public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to "look the other way." Maybe. But before you do, there's an awful lot of evidence to be explained. THE AMENDMENT DISAPPEARS In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes: "In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76." In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73(or 74). It's not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia's ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making is appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it's not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed -- the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence. However, because the notes' authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia's ratification. This opinion -- assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment -- has persisted. However, despite Clayton's opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860) (end of report) Gospel Plow's Notes (GP note) The founders also found democracy a threat, as it amounts to nothing more, or less, than mob rule. The united States of America were established as independent republics. This is why the constitution in Article IV reads: Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislatures cannot be convened), against domestic violence. In a democracy, the people or their representatives may pass any law whatsoever that they deem necessary; thus inevitably the minority will be oppressed by the majority. In a republic, all law is subject to a higher standard, which Blackstone's Law Commentaries identifies as "God's Law", and any law that stands in conflict with this higher Law is null and void. A republic preserves the biblical concept that the government is a "minister" of God, upholding His righteous command to punish the evildoer and encourage good works. A democracy makes the majority "god", capable of determining good and evil by popular opinion. (GP note) The above interpretation may be correct. Gospel Plow, however, regards the "Order of Cincinnati" created after the war by officers of the Continental Army in order to bestow upon themselves hereditary titles of nobility to be the abomination that inspired the original 13th Amendment. See Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution (Boston: 1805; reprint, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), 615-22. Perhaps, as is usually the case, there were a number of factors that inspired the original 13th Amendment... and an array of forces opposing it's recognition as the law of the land.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: intotheabyss (#0)
I call bullshit. Some of the guys who wrote the constitution were lawyers. They wouldn't have written themselves out of the gummint they were creating. And I didn't join some secret British cabal and kiss the ass of the queen when I was admitted to the bar. I passed a test and took an oath in front of a judge that had nothing to do with the queen and everything to do with the laws of the State of Texas, and later, of the US.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers." -- Shakespeare, Dick the butcher in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 4.
It happened, I'm sorry you can't believe it. People have looked at text books that were used in the navy and army written shortly after its passage and there it is in the section spelling out the constitution. Do some research and I think you will find me correct.
Have any of you guys checked this out?
I've attended events where Al was one of the guest speakers a couple of times.
Did you find his information accurate?
take your best shot, cowboy.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
The article takes an amendment (that may or may not have been ratified, and I don't care, really) that bans the acceptance of foreign titles and such (without mentioning attorneys at all) and extends that to the licensure of attorneys. That's the bullshit part.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That's the bullshit part. You may have a point.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
i think there are some things to add: ESQ means nothing - i can write my own name freely terminating it with ESQ. it is simply a notation that denotes a level of respect. on the other hand: the guys who wrote the constitution weren't the people that drafted or ratified the 13th amendment. as an aside: 1. why does the Supreme Court have "justices", and not "judges"? 2. what is the difference is between "State of Texas" and "Texas state"? 3. when you say "US", is that singular or plural? 4. where do BARs derive any authority to do anything? 5. are the BARs 501.3(c) corporations? :)
No, the bullshit part is that in all of these nutty "missing Amendments" and "The Queen controls the Bar", "Admiralty Law and the fringed flag" theories, they never include a digital picture of these alleged primary documents on their webpage. It's 2007 and even the telephones have digital cameras, yet they can never come up with picture proof. It's always: "We went down to the government archives office and looked, we swear it. Trust us." I can see the doofuses falling for this shit in 1988, but not in this day and age.
Hell, 11 branch dividians are in jail even though the jury did not find them guilty. The judge took it upon himself to send them to jail. In today's world our legal system is completely screwed up
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
It's kind of fun to read it, I suppose, and think of the "world that might have been", but really would we have wound up with anything different? I don't think so.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That's why our military had this amendment in it's text books shortly after it's passage. I guess our military hierarchy was nutty also. Pull you head out.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
And I'm sure you have digital facsimiles of the pages of these textbooks to back your claim up.
yes - i agree - i have been a victim of *severe* "judicial" corruption lasting almost a decade. i have seen it all ...
I personally don't have any "digital facsimiles". Your right, it must not exist. Your powers of logic are impeccable and it is pointless for me to argue with you any further.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Yeah, silly me asking for evidence. I should just take some anonymous dickhead's claim on the internet as gospel and never show skepticism no matter how outlandish the claims. Kind of like you did.
It's 2007 and even the telephones have digital cameras, yet they can never come up with picture proof. It's always: "We went down to the government archives office and looked, we swear it. Trust us." I can see the doofuses falling for this shit in 1988, but not in this day and age. Then you have to contend with either the uninformed, the moronic or the flat out shills posting the above BS.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
It's obvious I hit a cord. Sorry ;)
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Yeah,mmmmm, uh-huh. Well, when you come across anything resembling evidence, you just give me a ping there Chuckles. I'll be on pins and needles in anticipation. Otherwise just STFU.
It's going to be hard to lead you by the hand to a war college to view their early textbooks from here so I guess you are on your own.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
No, the bullshit part is that in all of these nutty "missing Amendments" and "The Queen controls the Bar", "Admiralty Law and the fringed flag" theories, they never include a digital picture of these alleged primary documents on their webpage. the fringed flag stuff is in the US Code. i think it's a matter of finding out yourself - i mean to say, politely, that these are things that people don't want to research for you. i will show you why ... lets take on the Admiralty Law issue for example: Admiralty Rules are all in Title 28 now. i have all the original admiralty rules and the books on where they all are now. they are horrendously large in volume. to start with read Southworth Machinery Co. Inc v. F/V Corey Pride, et al 1993 AMC 2261 wherein they say UCC is a source of Admiralty Law and UCC is considered a source for Federal Admiralty Law. that will get you going. now pull the commentaries on American Law by James Kent Vol 1 Fourth Ed. this explains the admiralty jurisdiction in the federal courts. pull the Tulane Law Review Vol 55 1980 1981 titled Admiralty Procedure for Maritime Action in Rem found Unconstitutional. after reading these, go to The United States Code Annotated Title 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 77 to end. in there is Index to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1st Vol of this title starting on page 109. there you have three columns: Former Admiralty Rules|Federal Rules of Civil Proc.|Fed. Rules of Appl. Proc. Admiralty rule 1 to 60|present rules as they are...|Appl. rules then pull US CODE ANNOTATED Title 28 1989 Cumulative Annual Pocket Part that has amendments through January 1, 1989. for close of notes see page 111. ok, now we get to the meat of in depth. go pull IRC regs 301.7401-1 authorization. yes, it is under admiralty under the commercial nature of Maritime. revenue is straight admiralty. this will be supported by pulling 3 How. iii Index of Principal Matters page 807. that leads you to 10 How. v. Rules of Court, two pages, then 13 How. vi in the Index starts with abatement pages 695, 696. then 17 How. vi under abatement Account Admiralty, one page, then 21 How 10 Admiralty Rule, then 1 Black 6 General Rules, two pages, 6 & 7, then 7 Wall general Rule December 1868, then 13 Wall xii supplementary Rules of Practice of admiralty at xii, xiii & xiv, then 103 U.S. xiii Rules of Practice in Admiralty, 112 U.S. 743 Appendix Amendment to Rules. Supreme Court of The United States 1882 Rules in Admiralty, then 130 U.S. 705 Appendix another amendment, then 160 U.S. 693 1895 Amendment, then 210 U.S. 544 is the real deal Index to Admiralty Rules. this gives every Admiralty Rule made. on page 544 it states Rules of Practice for the Courts of the United States in Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, on the Instance side of the Court, in Pursuance of the Act of the 23d of August, 1842, Chapter 188, 5 stat 516. this ends on page 711. now pull 281 U.S. 773 the Amended Rules becoming effective October 1, 1930. then more amendments in 286 U.S. 572 May 1932, then 307 U.S. 653 More Amendments to page 659 effective May 22, 1939, then 316 U.S. 716 Amendments May 4, 1942. now I am skipping some more amending and going to 308 U.S. 1019 Appendix Containing Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts--Rules of Practice in Admiralty and Maritime Cases and General Orders in Bankruptcy and the Official Forms Prescribed by the Supreme Court of The United States Effective July 19, 1961. this ends at page 1041. now all this will conclusively prove that the Civil Rules Title 28 have always been Admiralty Rules. more proof? now pull Federal Rules Decisions Vol 34 Opinions, Decisions and Rulings involving the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. starting on page 331 going to page 370. now on page 369 and 370 they show the disposition of Admiralty Rules into Title 28. here are some of the Rules that are Admiralty. i give you only some of the Admiralty Rule then the Title 28 Rule Admiralty Rule Title 28 Rule 7 54d 8 Supplemental rule E6 20 69-71 21 8 & Supp. R. C2 23 15 27 12 & 56 28 55 & 60 29 12 f 26 et sec 35 11 & 12f 44 83 441/2 16 46 43 and 28 usc 753 48 7a,8d, and 12a & b 56 14 58 56 59 57 starting to get the picture? now go to the FRD and pull Vol 39 which is dated 1966 when they really dumped it in your lap. on the Amendment page it states Transmitted to Congress Feb, 28, 1966. Effective date of Amendments: July 1, 1966; see Orders pages 183, 203, 18 USCA 3771, and 28 USCA 2072 2073. For preliminary Draft of Proposed Rules see 34 FRD 325. now I am only a quarter through what you all need to know. but this will prove beyond any doubt that we have all been under Admiralty Rules from the start. why? because we are still under the International Rule of the Crown and have always been. need I say more? go read the Cory Pride case about UCC and Admiralty law which is the International law merchant. if that isn't bad, read 98 FRD 374. anyone now want to challenge that all the above is made up and admiralty isn't working on you today as we speak?
But you've seen the pages right? I mean surely you saw them with your own eyes? And you forgot to take a photocopy? I mean it's a simple slip of the mind when you come across something of that magnitude of earth shattering historical significance. Easy to do, I know. I hate when that happens; you know like when you come across something really cool on a trip and your camera is in the trunk. Damn. And it certainly wouldn't be worth you going back now to get that evidence, This is small potatoes. A discovery like this would only get a write up in every historical publication in the United States, and you got bigger things going on in your life now. I completely understand.
People need to realize this is exactly why judges are doing the nutty things we hear about. Under Constitutional law they would be limited but under Admiralty law they can bend you over pretty good.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
So all of that long post says what about the fringe flag being in a courtroom makes it under Admiralty law? Oh that's right, nothing. LOL.
i told you - go look at the US Code for fringed flag stuff. now go read all the references i gave you and don't waste my time. i have better things to do than answer your questions while you are too lazy to read the references - too bad - it is that tough, and if you can't handle it, don't ask. the answers you seek are in following and reading all the references i gave you. that really pisses me off.
No, you made a claim now back it up. That's how it works. I'm not going off on a wild goose chase through thousands of pages of US Code, just to find out you're full of shit.
moron. i have taken the time to search all the statutes on the fact that 28 USC is in fact where all the Admiralty Rules lie, not just the Supplemental Rules as 99 percent of people think. Title 28 *is* the statute for admiralty. read the intro chapters in the very beginning of Title 28. here are the Admiralty Rules and the Title 28 Rule where they now lie. APPENDIX III TABLE SHOWING DISPOSITION OF ADMIRALTY RULES Admiralty rule 1 .............As to commencement of action see FRCP 3; as to service of process see FRCP 4(c). 2 .............As to summons, see FRCP 4; as to arrest of the person, see Note Supplemental Rule A; as to attachment and garnishment, see Supplemental Rule B(1). 3 .............See Note to Supplemental Rule A. 4 .............See Note to Supplemental Rule A. As to summary procedure against surety, see FRCP 65.1 (Proposed ). 5 .............See Supplemental Rule E(5). As to summary pro- cedure against surety, see FRCP 65.1 (Proposed 6 .............See Supplemental Rule E(5). 7 ............ See FRCP 54(d). 8 .............See Supplemental Rule E(6) 9 .............See Supplemental Rule C(5). 10 ............See Supplemental Rules C(3), C(4), E(4) 11 ............See Supplemental Rule E(9). 12 ............See Supplemental Rules E(5), E(9) 13 14 15 16 ............See Supplemental Rule C(1). 17 18 19 ............See Supplemental Rule 1). 20 ............See FRCP 69-71 21 ............See FRCP 8; Supplemental Rule C(2) 22 ............See FRCP 8; Supplemental Rules B(1) C(2), F(2) 23 ............See FRCP 15 24 ............See Supplemental Rules E(2), F(1) 25 ............See Supplemental Rule C(6) 26 ............See FRCP 7-12 27 ........... See FRCP 12, 55 28 ............See FRCP 55, 60. 29 ............See FRCP 12(f), 26 et seq. 30 ............See FRCP 26, 33, 37; 4 Moore's Federal Practice 1282, 2337 30A ...........See FRCP 26 30B ...........See FRCP 27 30C ...........See FRCP 28 34 F.R.D.--24 pg. 369 pg. 370 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Admiralty rule 30D ..........See FRCP 29 30E ..........See FRCP 30 30F ..........See FRCP 31 3OG ..........See FRCP 32 31 ...........See FRCP 33 32 ...........See FRCP 34 32A ..........See FRCP 35 32B ..........See FRCP 36 32C ..........See FRCP 37 32D...........See FRCP 45 33 ...........See FRCP 33 and 30 (b) 34 ...........See FRCP 24(a) 35 ...........See FRCP 11 and 12(f) 36 ...........See Supplemental Rules B (3) (a), E (4) 37 ...........See Supplemental Rule C (3) 38 ...........See FRCP 41(b) 39 ...........See FRCP 55(c), 60(b) 40 ...........See Supplemental Rule E(9) 41 ...........Superseded; covered by 28 U.S.C. 2041, 2042 42 ...........See FRCP 24 43 ...........See FRCP 53 431/2.........See FRCP 53 44 ...........See FRCP 83 441/2.........See FRCP 16 45 ...........Omitted because the practice of taking further proof on appeal is virtually obsolete, and also because regulation of the practice on appeal seems beyond the scope of rule making power conferred by 28 U.S.C. 2073 46 ...........See FRCP 43 ans 28 U.S.C. 753 461/2 ........See FRCP 52 46A...........See FRCP 43(b) 46B.......... See FRCP 43(c) 47 ...........See FRCP 54(d) 48 ...........See FRCP 7(a), 8(d),and 12(a) (b) 49 ...........See FRCP 75, 76 50 ...........See Supplemental Rule E(7) 51 ...........See Supplemental Rules F(1), F(2), F(3), F(4) 52 ...........See Supplemental Rules F(5), F(6), F(7), F(8) 53 ...........See Supplemental Rules F(2), F(5) 54 ...........See Supplemental Rule F(9) 55 ...........Omitted as obsolete. A temporary provision designed to give the benefit of limitation to owners in cases pending on appeal when the limitation Rules were promulgated 56 ...........See FRCP 14 57 ...........See Supplemental Rule E(5). 58 ...........See FRCP 56 59 .......... See FRCP 57
So, you got nothing just like your buddy up the thread. Typical 'patriot' shortwaver bullshit, then get pissy when you get called on it. Whatever. Have a nice life in 'patriot land'.
Does this mean that Rudy can't run?
Let's see - did Article one of the Constitution make this moot, or what? Thus the 13th Amendment was that slavery stuff, right? I'm confused. So, if the original 13th Amendment was trashed, why is it important? What Am I missing, here?
So, you got nothing just like your buddy up the thread. Typical 'patriot' shortwaver bullshit, then get pissy when you get called on it. Whatever. Have a nice life in 'patriot land'. This, I think.
And one name read and no one really cared
http://www.google.com/search?q="gold+fringe"+us+code&num=100&lr=lang_en you can read about flags at the link above, i am not very interested in it, but you will find everything you need to know. here is a good link that is fairly complete in the history of the flag in law and in practice: http://www.outlawslegal.com/organic/flag.htm i slightly apologize for being short tempered. i have been up all night dealing with a frozen water pipe. on the other hand, you are lazy and ignorant and don't really deserve an answer to your questions, you are just being a pest.
When my bro was in the army a 2nd louie jammed him up for not saluting the flag, and he corrected the officer. He was required to salute the colors, and according to his handbook (which the officer made him retrieve) the colors are defined as the flag trimmed in gold fringe. (the flag being raised had none) The officer admitted error and was shocked to learn that as a matter of law they are not required to salute any ol' flag raising or lowering while in uniform.
the major point of all the admiralty stuff i posted is that we never won the revolutionary war - everything is a lie - there's really nothing in "standard history texts" that is honest. he who controls the past controls the present, and he who controls the present controls the future. we are no different than Canada or Australia or New Zealand or any other territory of the Crown. and so, yes, BAR members are in service to the Crown - but i am not going to prove every detail - it took me a long time to relate and format what i already have. and there is plenty enough to go on to understand this. what usually happens at the end of a war? how is a war officially ended? you have terms of surrender - that never happened at the end of the Revolution. the US didn't win the war. and if you think about it, it's kind of silly to assume the US beat the greatest military power on earth at the time with 10,000 rag-tag soldiers.
Tell that to the Iraqis. We won the Revolutionary war. We just lost it again in 1865.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
2. what is the difference is between "State of Texas" and "Texas state"? 3. when you say "US", is that singular or plural? 4. where do BARs derive any authority to do anything? 5. are the BARs 501.3(c) corporations? :) do i get any answers for all my work? :) ???
ok - show me the terms of surrender - and i will gladly agree. i have shown you above, if you care to check all the references (i can't read for you), that we are still under the Crown.
Nor even any of them. we are no different than Canada or Australia or New Zealand Ok, who's the Governor General of the United States?
another interesting 'major' item in the study of law is the fact that we do not have any "judicial" Article III courts (actually, i think there are 2 - the court of international trade, and the DC district court), but for all intensive purposes, we have NO JUDICIAL SYSTEM - all federal courts are Article IV territorial/legislative/administrative courts. interesting, ha?
Ok, who's the Governor General of the United States? we are no different in essence, of course details are different.
What Am I missing, here? There are several sticky points that support the position that "attorney at law" is in fact a title of nobility. For instance, a lawyer can belong to all three branches of govt and belong to two simultaneously. (They're not required to resign from the bar when holding legislative or executive positions) and you or I would not be considered for a supreme court seat even though there is no constitutional requirement that one be a lawyer, so we can serve in only two branches of govt. Would it be safe to assume that all (state and federal) reps, senators and chief executives want to remain in good standing in case they lose their seats? Is this not also the reason why no matter how many little old ladies are swindled by crooked lawyers each year, each case is an "isolated incident" and no federal legislation is needed? Is it just coincidence that lawyers police themselves, discipline each other on the quiet and abide by "ethics codes" that are broad enough to justify unbelievable swindles? And, why are lawyers forbidden to form partnerships and split fees with non-lawyers? Suppose I'm a well connected corporate type and I can bring in business, or I'm a savvy private investigator and I want to form a partnership with a lawyer. Why is he/she not permitted to do so? Would you believe them if they said "We want to maintain the high ethical standards of our profession" or, would you believe me if I say "They want to protect the license to steal, to control each other and to run a closed shop so no non lawyer can ever knowingly testify as to the inner workings of the racket."? When I was a young musician I played the annual lawyers and judges gentlemen's Christmas stag party in Norfolk, VA. I was in the banquet hall with the same hardshell Babtist hanging judges who threw people in jail for closing a hotel room door if there was a woman in the room, and they filled up with Southern, Christian zeal as they hurled lightning bolts and jail sentences at the moral "terpitooders" before them. I was 19 yrs old and silly me I thought we were the entertainment, with guitar, bass, drums and piano, and a soft trumpet playing "Meditation" and "The Shadow Of Your Smile". Then all of a sudden two old, toothless "jaybird nekkid" wimmen walked out and lay on the carpet in the middle of the room and for the next 30 minutes they "went 69" as I struggled to remember the chords of the songs I knew only minutes before! When they were done they stood up and curtsied, wiping froth from their mouths and the lawyers and judges clapped politely, never breaking off from the chats in which they were engaged. The only thing I could conclude was, since there was little possibility that these women aroused anyone, their purpose was to demonstrate that these men are above the law, that they are rank hypocrites behind closed doors and the public is damn naive about the true nature of the justice system and those who profit from the systematic and perpetual disposition of legal disputes. If I could prove what I saw that night could any judge in attendance ever compel me to address him as "Your Honor" again? Think of this: If I'm a partner in a firm with a lawyer he could be contractually bound to act in my best interests, and he couldn't use his oath to put the bar and other lawyers interests ahead of mine, his equal partner's. And that is why no one but a lawyer is "equal" to a lawyer, (and no non-lawyer-partners are invited to attend the annual lezzy munch outs because that too could be used to leverage fair treatment from lawyers and judges) and that is a fine definition of "American title of nobility".
3. when you say "US", is that singular or plural? 4. where do BARs derive any authority to do anything? 5. are the BARs 501.3(c) corporations? Nope. Don't have the answers and don't care to find them out. I take the world as it is for a starting point.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
They didn't have to surrender, silly. We didn't try to conquer them, just get rid of them. And we did.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
wow! that's a fascinating story!!! hahah!!!
getting rid of them doesn't change the lawful status of the relationship. just because you kick your wife out the door, doesn't mean she isn't your wife anymore.
it seemed to be, altho i've learned it doesn't matter. truth and justice and common law have no place in their courts. best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
Getting rid of them, establishing a separate government, enacting new constitutions, redirecting the taxes and disregarding Britain's laws forever changes the relationship.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
i was only asking questions that pertain to "how is the world as it is?" i am only asking questions about the "starting point". i am not asking how things were, or will be, i am asking how they are now, at the starting point.
Oh Hell, I remember that party. You guys couldn't put three notes together correctly. Leveller and Aristeides and the whole State Bar were there. Too bad you guys weren't better musicians, or we'd have invited you to the ceremonial baby sacrifice or the orgy...
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Well, lawyers are cheep bastards and they got what they paid for....
common law has a place where no statute exists to cover an aspect of the common law. all complaints are based on the common law that aren't violations of statutes.
I know. I knew we shouldn't have let Levinstein hire the hookers. I think he pocketed half the damn money we gave him.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
unless you are a plaintiff - they never lose too bad - and unless you can capitalize off the fact that they cannot state the truth about many things.
I think I schmell an anti schzemite! ;)
it's worth mentioning that there are many successful people that have refined various techniques - you have Luis Ewing and Richard McDonald that do the "state Citizen" techniques, you have Jack and Margy Flynn that do a unique Constitution-only technique, and the Jurisdictionary stuff is a good things for everyday ordinary complaints - so long as you know the Rules of Court, the Rules of Evidence, etc. and then there's another guy that's very successful that employs a technique of suing any official/judge that violates their duties or other laws. you can be successful if you have a plan - it's near impossible though if you end up dumped into a lawsuit totally ignorant. and these days, you really need a Lexis or Westlaw account so you can access case law readily. Findlaw and stuff like that doesn't really cut it in serious situations.
all of the Crowns territories have those elements. Canada/NZ/Australia/etc all have their own government, constitutions, taxes, etc. we do not disregard Britains laws - we are under them right now - and always have been, eg, Admiralty Law/Courts.
Here's the deal, guys. There is no occult secret society of lawyers out there setting themselves up as some kind of "elite" that is above the law. I'm a lawyer and I came out of a single momma home that was leftover from a military dad taking off. I'd be a navy noncom right now if I hadn't gotten a scholarship that paid my way through undergrad. I borrowed money to get through law school. I focused like a bullet on criminal law, and I now practice criminal defense. I save as many poor slobs like myself from the hangman as I can. But get this: This is important. I am just the fuck like you. I kiss my kids at night and pray that I can give them a better world. Is the just a system fucked up? Oh absolutely and to Christ is it ever fucked up. But newsflash, pallies. The lawyers didn't fuck it up. The legislators fucked it up because the people told them they "didn't like plea bargaining" and they "wanted truth in sentencing" and they "didn't want people getting a slap on the wrist" and they "didn't want criminals roaming the streets". So we've got more people in prison than any other country in the world. That's both per capita and as a raw number. Our federal courts are kangaroo courts where you basically double your time if you gamble on your so-called "right" to trial and lose. Kids barely out of high school are catching 20 fucking years for selling coke and trying to survive on our streets. And this is what MOST people vote for MOST of the time. So don't bitch about the police state you wanted or try to blame it on the fucking lawyers. Our destiny to become a fascist, totalitarian state was sealed when people started caring more about who won the Stupidbowl and can I get a new car this year than we care about "abstract" concepts like "habeas corpus". Because the Cheneys and the Bushs and the Stalins and the Hitlers are always waiting in the wings for just such a moment of inattention. And now they are in charge. So stand up and do something or STFU and quit trying to transfer blame away from yourself.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
so far, so good bump to the plan.
What was anti-schzemitic about that? Are you assuming that my good pal Moishe Levinstein is jewish? That's profiling.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Uh huh. You are confusing jurisdiction with derivation. When I lose I appeal to the fifth circus in NO, and when I lose that I file cert to the USSCT in DeeCee. I don't appeal to no court in Admiralty or in the UK. Are our laws derived from the common law of England? Absolutely (excepting Louisiana). That doesn't mean the crown has any say in what we do or how we do it. And more and more states are going to the statute system anyway, so the use of common law complaints is on the wane anyway.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
excellent informational rant - well said.
Always great to have a pro bono attorney on board the 4. Cheers.
Cheers. I'm not pro bono (at least not on purpose, although it happens quite a lot). I've been doing this for 15 years. It's a living finally.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
That's profiling. Right, I forgot that some lawyers change their names for purely professional reasons!
I remember those roundtable discussions on PBS and one time it had Scalia, "Flea" Bailey, Justice Kennedy and others, when a question was asked of Bailey: Suppose your client is on trial for dealing drugs and he walks in and pays you with a suitcase filled with cash. Do you ask where that money came from?" "Oh no, I NEVER ask my clients where the money comes from!" he said, to a room full of loud guffaws. I think you'll concede that some lawyers are more than just innocent bystanders, but are in fact enablers and beneficiaries of the systemic corruption, right? If the now deceased Sherman Skolnick was accurate about 1/4 of the things he wrote about Cook County and the federal bankruptcy court there, then those judges' hands are very bloody. This certainly doesn't mean that there aren't some (arguably) honest (or less dishonest) lawyers trying to do good things. But your clean hands aren't big enough to hide the whole "justice industry's" crimes behind them. And, if prosecutors, lawyers, defense attorneys and legislative assistants (who refused to draft signing statements that were blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the legislative intent) were incorruptible wouldn't America be a much better place than now, no matter how much politicians wanted to undermine it?
Do all lawyers have the same attitude to the Constitution?
i don't hate all lawyers, and i have enjoyed the little debates with you very much - and i value you and everything you say - i am only hear to learn and share other things i have learned. i appreciate your story, and i sympathize with the situation - and i admire what you do - and i know it is hard. i don't transfer any blame from myself - i have no ego - i only want to learn - i am happy if i am wrong, and learn new things in the process. let's not be personal - to me it's just a big puzzle. i am sorry if anything i said was taken as an afront. i certainly don't mean to say anything along that kind of line. i agree with the things you say in that story. i hope you know that - we are all in the same boat. i never meant everything i said to be applicable to the practice of law in practical ways, sometimes i try to learn things just so i understand the roots and context of current situations. i have a high regard for what you have done and what you do. i can enjoy reasonable sparring of logic and knowledge. i have enjoyed everyone and everything i have seen at this website (save one :). i am an ally, not an enemy - you are truly unique in your knowledge being an attorney - i think it is highly commendable and respectable. i never knew an attorney that knew what you know - and i have known dozens over the years - knowing what i know about you now has really been a positive experience for me, and i truly wish you the best in all you do. i am damn glad there's people like you in the legal system - i think your clients are damn fortunate to have someone like you - damn lucky.
i've really enjoyed your comments, y'all.
I guess the issue isn't the morality, versus the accountability - if ever caught.
Thank you, chris.
That is exactly what I learned when attempting to beef a lawyer to the bar here in DE. Although he had breached the ABA code of ethics, that is not binding but is only advisory and his infraction (threatening criminal charges to gain advantage in a civil matter) is not a violation of Delaware's code of professional ethics for lawyers! He received a copy of my complaint and it is in his file, but, basically he got a wink from his buddies and a warning to smarten up because the public is getting smarter. There is no downside for him because the public will never see his jacket, and I doubt that a phone book-size file would keep him from a federal judgeship if he knows a president and has a favor coming. There was a time when the appearance of impropriety (for ministers and some politicians at least) was as damaging as proven guilt. But, under lawyers' ethics rules they're either guilty of poor judgment or perhaps a mental breakdown due to stress and substance abuse-a sickness, really, not a crime, or, they're as pure as new driven snow! Any unproven allegations and many proven ones are filed under lock and key and we never see that information. Remember the lawyer who sneaked a gun into her client who wanted to break out of the prison in Atlanta several years ago? Well, the poor kid was sick and after a reasonable period in some cushy rehab she was allowed to resume her practice. Lawyers have lapses in judgment, but you and I are criminals! Title of nobility, you say? Naw, it couldn't be that.
a monkey whore?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
The above passage reveals the futility of the ridiculous enterprise represented by this article. The author mistakenly seeks the origin of immunities in "honors" such as honorary titles like "Esquire." In fact, the immunities, absolute and qualified, enjoyed by Federal and State officials lie in the idea of Sovereign Immunity, another bad British idea mistakenly applied here in America. (That is another story) Sovereign Immunity has nothing to do with whether the officials in question are lawyers or not. In short, even if lawyers were prohibited from holding office, the politicians would be free to oppress us as they do.
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the "title of nobility" Amendment) seems obscure, unimportant. The references to "nobility", "honour", "emperor", "king", and "prince" lead us to dismiss this amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. But in our modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored. Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, "titles of nobility" were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787); Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional "title of nobility" amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in "titles of nobility" and "honors" that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited "titles of nobility" several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though "titles of nobility" were already prohibited by the Constitution), it's obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today. . . . . . Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as "Squires" and to those who bore the knight's shields as "Esquires". As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was "Esquire" (used, even today, by some lawyers). INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no "title of nobility" or "honor". There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's "counsel of choice" was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank "Esquire" -- a "title of nobility". "Esquire" was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of "Esquire" lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an "Esquire" behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA. Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a "title of nobility" amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government. This part of the article is intriguing, but where is the historical data to connect the IBA with American lawyers? The author makes no attempt to show that American lawyers in the early part of the nineteenth century sought recognition from the IBA.
Your right, it must not exist. Your powers of logic are impeccable and it is pointless for me to argue with you any further. ...From the State of Maine Constitution Printed in 1825....... here: http://www.uhuh.com/consti tution/1825const.htm and here: The Original 13th Article of Amendment http://www.apfn.org/APFN/13th.htm See also http://barefootsworld.net : "....The original records of the real Thirteenth Amendment were thought to be destroyed at the time of the burning of the capitol during the War of 1812, but have since been found in the archives of the British Museum library in London and in the archives of several of the States and territories. The fact of its existence had been lost to memory until researchers accidentally discovered in the public library at Belfast, Maine a copy of the 1825 Maine Constitution and that of the United States which included this amendment. Subsequent research shows that it was in the records of the ratifying states, and subsequently admitted states and territories until 1876. The last to drop it from record was the Territory of Wyoming after 1876. The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment and the current 13th Amendment, on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition. Ref. colo68-1.jpg, colo68-2.jpg, colo68-3.jpg, colo68-4.jpg, and colo68-5.jpg. The 1876 Laws of Wyoming similarly show the "missing" Thirteenth Amendment, the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), and the current 15th Amendment on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th and the current 15th Amendment is listed as the 15th, the current 14th amendment being omitted in the 1876 Wyoming edition. Graphics of these may be viewed by clicking on these links, wyo76-1.jpg, wyo76-2.jpg, wyo76-3.jpg...." link: The Real Thirteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - Titles of Nobility and Honour http://www.barefootsworld.net /real13th.html good idea to make copies for posterity
Thus the 13th Amendment was that slavery stuff, right? I'm confused. So, if the original 13th Amendment was trashed, why is it important? What Am I missing, here? "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." What do we call Congressmen: Honorable. What do we call judges: Your Honor. What do we call the President: The Honorable George W. Bush. Page Three. May. Page 4. 5,2005. The Honorable George W. ... The Honorable George W. Bush. Page Seven. May. Page 8. 5,2005 ... www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf ".... HONOR The missing Amendment is referred to as the "title of nobility" Amendment, but the second prohibition against "honour" (honor), may be more significant. According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster's Dictionary, the archaic definition of "honor" (as used when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified) meant anyone "obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another". A contemporary example of an "honor" granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot. By prohibiting "honors", the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the Thirteenth Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an "honor") over other citizens. See Titles of Nobility - DEFINITIONS If this interpretation is correct, "honor" would be the key concept in the Thirteenth Amendment. Why? Because, while "titles of nobility" may no longer apply in today's political system, the concept of "honor" remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific "immunity" from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an "honor", and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the "immunities" from lawsuits that our judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the "special interest" legislation our government passes: "special interests" are simply euphemisms for "special privileges" (honors). WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored) If the missing Thirteenth Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this Thirteenth Amendment were restored, our entire government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term "honor" were applied today, our government's ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated. Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be ... almost like ... a government ... of the people ... by the people ... for the people! Imagine: a government ... whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It's unheard of ... it's never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world......"
Well first of all these aren't links to the claimed military textbooks, but they were intriguing nonetheless. At first I thought you were on to something, but one of the pages you directed me to contained this table and all was revealed. It's pretty obvious why your alleged "missing 13th Amendment" can't be found in the United States Constitution today. I'm sure our resident "Esquires" will be able to point it out to you readily. Hint: your source is being a bit dishonest when he doesn't include the ratification date for Louisiana. To make this conspiracy theory plausible, at least the following several things are needed: A. Data from the period between 1820 and 1860, demonstrating that the number of lawyers using the term "esq." declined among oficeholders; B. Data from the period preceding the proposal of the amendment, showing that American lawyers in the early part of the nineteenth century sought recognition from the IBA; and C. An explanation as to how and why the removal of lawyers from public office would prevent the government from exploiting the people. In fact, 90 percent or more of the Federal budget is grounded in the deliberate misconstruction of the Commerce Clause that occurred in the 30's and 40's. That would be a more fruitful area in which to expend all of this energy.
Good work, AND ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!!! People today complain of our "justice system", and what they fail to realize is that we don't have a "justice system" - we have an adversarial system!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Would it be any easier if it a lot of it were read to you??? If you've got a few hours to devote simply to time spent listening then go this site, and scroll down to July 23rd 2006. A law school teacher will spell it out to you directly from the Codes.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Where in the US constitution are American judges empowered to summarily punish contempt of court? The denial of a trial by jury, the right to face one's accuser, the right to be judged by impartial peers and the right of appeal, habeas corpus, right to be admitted to bail, file appeals and motions for sentence reduction, etc., are all denied to those who offend the sensibilities of the titled class. The fact that it was part of Anglo-American jurisprudence prior to the Revolution is not enough justification to automatically suspend the bill of rights simply because lawyers say that judges are omnipotent in the people's courtrooms. American judges were as British as royal governors (Like Lord Baltimore) before American independence. Just as there were no more officially recognized lords after the war, there should not have been any of the king's judges or magistrates handing out the king's summary law and order. (And, His Excellency Gen. Washington was never again addressed as such. No one would have begrudged him the office of king-for-life, but Washington would have no part of it) I've put this question to lawyers many times and always I get the same half assed, convoluted explanations from fawning, ass kisser-lawyer-court employee types. They are taught to worship the black robed tyrants and they believe that we must, too. They'd have us believe that if not for the power to "punish contempt in the judge's presence", keeping order would be impossible. But, that doesn't explain the punishing of people who refuse to be silent when trying to educate jurors about the law in income tax prosecutions. If a judge says "You cannot tell the jury about old supreme court decisions or show them the code. I will give them the law!" and the civil or criminal contempt citation is used to silence someone defending against a corrupt tyrant who is lackeying for the criminal banking conspiracy, no justice is possible with such a blatantly unconstitutional exercise of power at the judges' disposal. And, what about "contempt" for offenses allegedly committed outside the courtroom? Or, contempt for trying to explain the FIJA to a jury? Or for trying to admit books that a defendant relied upon in good faith before dropping out of the tax system that contain info that "may confuse the jury"? No, jurors may decide who lives or dies, but, they may not decide if a citizen's understanding of the constitution as applied to the evil tax is valid. They can listen to a year's worth of scientific evidence, but they may not see a paragraph written by a congressman or judge when the tax was being debated on the house floor. Now, why is that? If the information is invalid the govt has the burden to counter it. But, in tax cases the judge suddenly stops being impartial and joins the prosecution team, and this would not be possible if not for the decidedly British privilege of nobility that is the contempt citation. And, by the way, how long may a judge jail someone for criminal contempt? Is there any constitutional justification for a crime with no affixed penalty? Why is it that for every other criminal offense A) the law must be passed, and B) a penalty must be affixed for it to be legally enforceable, except for one? If it's not in the constitution the document that explicitly empowers govt, then where did such power come from? Now some may point out that if a hearing for contempt is requested the judge will usually grant it. But, what is the point if the hearing officer is the same judge who is trying to jail the defendant? This is one of those issues where we're so programmed to accept this power that it will take some effort for most to think outside the box. Well, they definitely should. Suppose you're facing federal felony time and you have the choice to spend a year in jail for contempt and never grant the court jurisdiction, or spend a year and come out a convicted felon. How many brave souls would have the courage to sit in jail never knowing if or when the judge would lose his or her nerve and release him (because he or she can be sued for jailing someone without jurisdiction) before the god damned evil tax is buried once and for all? Sure, the courts would railroad a few patriots into mental health facilities like Ezra Pound, but if a few stout-hearted Americans are willing to go the distance we could beat the bastards. And, instead of sending money to Save A Patriot for legal fees (and pay for lawyers who lose the cases anyway, but the convictions are all nice and legal-like because they were represented by lawyers!) I'd rather donate to support families of those who are rotting away while we're raising bloody Hell to tell the world about the tyranny! And to the lawyers who are supposedly "the good guys" at SPF I say, "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!" Feed patriots' families and starve all lawyers, who never do anything to endanger the tax anyway. I'm telling you, we could end criminal "1040 tax" prosecutions once and for all this way, and 50% of America's lawyers (who adore the goddam IRS because of the fear the agency generates) will have to find honest work elsewhere, and the other 50% (who don't have to compete with the half that are tax rats) will have to get by on less work, share with and compete against their fellow bar buddies, or learn a productive trade. End the tax, end the summary contempt citation and "kill" half the lawyers! So tell me, where's the downside?
Sure. And if the world were flat, it'd have an edge.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Indeed. Couple that with a detailed investigation of the post 1865 reconstruction and you've got a pretty strong basis of where our police state originated.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Okay, lawyers are people and people are dishonest, individually and as members of institutions like the bar and everyone knows it. Then, why does the bar insist on policing its own? I mean, as a criminal defense attorney don't you feel a little bit sheepish when the ACLU piously pouts that no police department can police it's own agency as you (you're a card carrying ACLU member, aren't you?) agitate for civilian review boards, excessive force lawsuits, consent decrees and such? Is there any evidence that lawyers police themselves any better than cops? Isn't this as hypocritical as the feds taking over a municipal police department like Cleveland or New Orleans because of too many complaints by minorities? Is the federal govt's record on treatment of citizens in general (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Gordon Kahl)) and minorities in particular (the FBI's COINTELPRO, spying on Black Panthers, Hollywood commies and kweeahs, unions, Catholic peaceniks, etc.,) what you'd consider exempliary? Why is it that the self policing state bars' right to discipline their own is never questioned and, to point out that lawyers and judges suffer from human frailty (and perhaps they are failing at policing themselves) in mixed company it's considered extremely rude? I mean, when someone says that lawyers and judges are crooked as hell do you give them a smarmy answer like "Sure. And if the world were flat, it'd have an edge."? Of course not. You may offend a bigshot judge within earshot if you respond with anything other than a gasp at the suggestion that those judges are crooks, right? Do you believe that Alcee Hastings is the only federal judge to accept small brown paper bags from grateful associates and defendants? Why is there no sting op where drug defendants are given full immunity for entrapping the crooked judges who hear their cases? The FBI will set up congressmen (ABSCAM) but they can't seem to nail any US attorneys or federal judges. Of course the attorney general would have to approve the sting and then make an effort to keep it secret. And, we both know that this is impossible, isn't it? No lawyer will set up his own, will he? Sure, cops have internal affairs divisions and lawyers/judges fully expect them to bust their own, but why don't lawyers and judges lead by example? I asked a lawyer this recently and he said "All in all the system works very well." Unfortunately, he couldn't give any examples because disciplinary actions against lawyers are mostly confidential! HAH!
There are two (maybe three) potential penalties involved when an attorney screws over a client or does something unethical. First of all, if they've done something really, really egregious, they can be arrested and charged with fraud, malfeasance or some kind of criminal act. The bar has nothing to do with that. Secondly, the client, if he/she has suffered damage, can sue the attorney. The bar has nothing to do with that. In the third case, the Supreme Court of whatever state we're in or a federal judge in federal court can "discipline" the lawyer. That third case is the only time where lawyers "police each other", and the penalties range from a private reprimand to permanent suspension from the practice of law. Doctors police each other in the same way. So do civil engineers. So do professional accountants. You imply that by policing themselves, lawyers are not answerable for their crimes or malpractice to anyone except lawyers. That is incorrect and invalid. The policing that lawyers do to themselves is IN ADDITION to the policing that the public does to them in the form of regular criminal sanctions, civil liability and additional fiduciary regulations. If you want examples of attorneys policing each other, you can pick up any state's bar journal. The serious disciplining is done in public, by name, and can include payment of damages (that no jury has found). Because of this, lawyers are subject to damages and discipline above that faced by non-lawyers.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Here are some examples culled from a bar journal I happen to have handy: 1. 12/15/2005: Texas Supreme Court accepts the resignation in lieu of discipline from the Bar of Cheryl Gillum of Houston. 2. 1/20/2006: TSct suspends license of Bartholomew C. Okonkwo. 3. 1/20/2006: Wade Vincent Shang is disbarred after a criminal conviction for tax evasion. 4. 11/17/2005: Walter Bryan disbarred for neglect of cases, failure to keep clients informed as to case status, and various other forms of neglect 5. 10/21/2--5: Claudia Valles disbarred and ordered to pay about 2 grand for failing to help a client on an immigration matter after accepting a fee. 6. 11/4/05 Garry Washington disbarred and ordered to pay around $7,500 for failure to adequately research legal issues in a criminal case. 7. 10/5/05: Everett McClain got a 1 year suspension from the practice of law and a $2000 fine for continuing to represent a client during a previous temporary suspension. 8. 10/18/2005 Bill Lance Fitzgerald got a 3 year suspension of his license and a $2000 fine for neglecting a PI case. Other folks disciplined with a suspension or fine according to the March issue: Thomas Ford, David Lashford, John Herrick, Howard Rubinstein, Rodney Phelps. Public Reprimands: James Steven Hershberger, Victor Bonner, Terry Marsaw. Well, that's some kind of annual report, you say. Not so. February 2006 has 3 disbarments, 14 suspensions, and 15 public reprimands. December 2005 has 4 disbarments, 1 resignation in lieu of discipline, 10 suspensions and 6 public reprimands. Understand that all of these disciplinary proceedings are IN ADDITION to whatever a criminal court or civil jury may do to an attorney.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
The denial of a trial by jury, the right to face one's accuser, the right to be judged by impartial peers and the right of appeal, habeas corpus, right to be admitted to bail, file appeals and motions for sentence reduction, etc., are all denied to those who offend the sensibilities of the titled class. The fact that it was part of Anglo-American jurisprudence prior to the Revolution is not enough justification to automatically suspend the bill of rights simply because lawyers say that judges are omnipotent in the people's courtrooms. American judges were as British as royal governors (Like Lord Baltimore) before American independence. Just as there were no more officially recognized lords after the war, there should not have been any of the king's judges or magistrates handing out the king's summary law and order. (And, His Excellency Gen. Washington was never again addressed as such. No one would have begrudged him the office of king-for-life, but Washington would have no part of it) I've put this question to lawyers many times and always I get the same half assed, convoluted explanations from fawning, ass kisser-lawyer-court employee types. They are taught to worship the black robed tyrants and they believe that we must, too. These are all good questions, and they deserve answers. I will attempt an answer tomorrow, after I have attended to some business. And now, if you will excuse me, The Queen is expecting me at one of our secret IBA meetings.
Good news: I just got back from one of our secret IBA meetings, and The Queen has authorized me to release to you the following passage from a Supreme Court opinion regarding the history of the power of contempt: "Freedom of expression can hardly carry implications that nullify the guarantees of impartial trials. And since courts are the ultimate resorts for vindicating the Bill of Rights, a state may surely authorize appropriate historic means to assure that the process for such vindication be not wrenched from its rational tracks into the more primitive melee of passion and pressure. The need is great that courts be criticized but just as great that they be allowed to do their duty. The 'liberty' secured by the Fourteenth Amendment summarizes the experience of history. And the power exerted by the courts of California is deeply rooted in the system of administering justice evolved by liberty- loving English speaking peoples. From the earliest days of the English courts, they have encountered obstructions to doing that for which they exist, namely, to administer justice impartially and solely with reference to what comes before them. These interferences were of diverse kinds. But they were all covered by the infelicitous phrase 'contempt of court', and the means for dealing with them is historically known as the power of courts to punish for contempt. As is true of many aspects of our legal institutions, the settled doctrines concerning the mode of procedure for exercising the power of contempt became established on dubious historical authority. Exact legal scholarship has controverted much pertaining to the origin of summary proceedings for contempt. See Sir John Fox, The History of Contempt of Court, passim. But there is no doubt that since the early eighteenth century, the power to punish for contempt for intrusions into the living process of adjudication has been an unquestioned characteristic of English courts and of the courts of this country. The judicatures of the English-speaking world, including the courts of the United States and of the forty-eight states, have from time to time recognized and exercised the power now challenged. (For partial lists of cases, see Nelles and King, Contempt by Publication in the United States, 28 Col.L.Rev. 401, 525, 554; Sullivan, Contempts by Publication, p. 185 et seq.) A declaratory formulation of the common law was written into the Judiciary Act of 1789 ( 17, 1 Stat. 73, 83) by Oliver Ellsworth, one of the framers of the Constitution, later to become Chief Justice; the power was early recognized as incidental to the very existence of courts in a succession of opinions in this Court (United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38); it was expounded and supported by the great Commentaries that so largely influenced the shaping of our law in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, those of Blackstone, Kent and Story; its historic continuity withstood attack against state action under the Due Process Clause, now again invoked, Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U.S. 31 , 10 S.Ct. 424; and see Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505; Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289 , 9 S.Ct. 77; Ex parte Savin, Petitioner, 131 U.S. 267, 9 S.Ct. 699.*fn22 As in the exercise of all power, it was abused. Some English judges extended their authority for checking interferences with judicial business actually in hand, to 'lay by the heel' those responsible for 'scandalizing the court', that is, bringing it into general disrepute. Such foolishness has long since been disavowed in England and has never found lodgment here. But even the technical power of punishing interference with the court's business is susceptible of abuse. As early as 1809, Pennsylvania restricted the power to inflict summary punishment for contempts to a closely defined class of misconduct, and provided the ordinary criminal procedure for other forms of interferences with a pending cause. 1808-09 Pa.Acts, c. 78, p. 146.*fn23 The flagrant case of Judge Peck*fn24 led Congress to pass the Act of March 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487, 28 U.S.C. 385, 28 U. S.C.A. 385, the scope of which we recently considered. Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33 , 61 S.Ct. 810. A number of states copied the federal statute. It would be pedantic to trace the course of legislation and of adjudication on this subject in our half-hundred jurisdictions. Suffice it to say that the hitherto unchallenged power of American states to clothe their courts with authority to punish for contempt was thus summarized only recently by Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in the leading case vindicating the liberty of the press against state action: 'There is also the conceded authority of courts to punish for contempt when publications directly tend to prevent the proper discharge of judicial functions.' Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 715, 51 S.Ct. 625, 630." Bridges v. State of California, 314 U.S. 252 (U.S. 12/08/1941) You might find this site interesting, as it contains a list of every contempt provision in the US code:
Saturday's IBA meeting has been postponed. The Queen won't be in town for a week. Talking about our secret society out in the open, like this, may not be wise, but your mail box was full. Hope HOUNDDAWG doesn't see this.
So one half of the tag team tries to convince us that bad lawyers are held to answer to little people (a recent phenom, because until 15 yrs ago it was all but impossible to find a lawyer to sue another-remember WHY CAN I SUE MY DOCTOR BUT NOT MY LAWYER? but as we continue to "grind out lawyers like link sausage" they are now cannibalizing their own as do rats in too small an area) and the other half defends contempt citations as "tradition passed down from merry old England and all the lawyer/judges agree with it-hurray!" totally ignoring the judicial abuse, even after I stated the best evidence why they should not have such power-they use it to protect the greatest criminal syndicate on the planet, the federal reserve. And, we have 5/8ths of the world's lawyers and one was disbarred? It must have been awful for him! Why doesn't our country jail crooked lawyers and judges proportionate to the jailing of the rest of the population? Could it be that the system isn't interested in policing its self? Instead we see criminal acts that would end any other career resulting only in suspensions for lawyers. And, while the police are ripping the interior out of Chuey's "CHEBY" looking for seeds and roaches Mr. Big is flying overhead in a Leer jet paying off lawyers and judges with suitcases filled with freshly laundered and sweet smelling cash! (thanks to the federal reserve banks which launder drug money-and how many American banks have been closed for this crime? They must have some great lawyers and sympathetic judges, huh?) And, what about the fact that judges have never heard of the federal reserve, and at least one judge has ruled that Art. 1 sec 10, (gold and silver coin) is "superfluous" in defense of fiat currency? As the desperation to protect the income tax grows judges won't even allow citizens to challenge this criminal syndicate or even defend themselves by educating juries about it, and judges will jail whoever whenever to protect it. And all of you lawyers slither quietly away from the courthouse every time it happens, because you too are handmaidens to the conspirators. So, these are the choices. Smarmy replies or legal misdirection/gibberish, and both delivered with obnoxious superiority. Keep writing, fellas. I'm sure you'll be heaved up on our shoulders and carried in a parade once you fully explain how noble you really are.
Thank you. Is there a listing for such for your state? Its absence is conspicuous, don't you think?
gee, I know lots of lawyers (mostly real estate attorneys) and I don't think they're part of a weird society at all - they're just people earning a living, some more ethically than others, as in all professions. I think they would be surprised at the idea that they owe allegiance to the crown, any crown. they went to school, took a test, and have a job. sometimes we can be too paranoid. speaking of which, my concerns would run more towards the self-proclaimed monarchy taking hold in this country, and not by a lawyer.
The supreme court handed the presidency to Bush in a 5-4 split-right along party lines with a decision so shady that they ordered that the decision not be used as a precedent in any other case! Your worst fears have already been realized, and the "self-proclaimed monarch" was elevated by a bunch of political hack lawyer/judges!
The codes and case materials for each state are on Findlaw.
Lawyers . . . who sue lawyers . . . . (Sorry, Barbara) can be found in the yellow pages, where they have been taking out full page ads for at least twenty- five years. Google legal malpractice and take your pick.
When you visit a foreign city, which monuments do you see? The ones which have survived. Were they the best, or the fittest monuments? Sometimes. Usually, though, they are the ones in favor at the time the city stopped growing in that area. These days, a legal education is a tour of surviving legal monuments. The winners always write the histories, and those histories shape the minds and views of those who follow. In law school, legal monuments are studied for their precedential value. The student is taught to think within the framework of the established signposts. In constitutional law, this results in the compounding of errors over time. It wasn't always this way. A little over a century ago, there was a clear demarcation between Constitutional law and the common law. The common law was judge-made law, and involved creative processes of accretion and interpolation. Constitutional law, on the other hand, was understood to have no meaning apart from the original significance of the terms of the constitution itself. Growth in constitutional law was to occur only by amendment. Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Cardozo changed all of that. They began the application of the techniques of the common law to Constitutional law, which now began to grow and change, just like the common law, and gave birth to the Living Constitution. This had more to do with Progressive politics than anything else. It had nothing to do with the IBA or secret allegiances to The Queen. This state of affairs need not be permanent. Justice Thomas has been fairly consistent in advocating a return to originalist jurisprudence. Scalia is much more inconsistent, but pays the idea lip service. Scholars are beginning to call for a revolution. "Restoring the Lost Constitution," by Randy Barnett, is the best so far. Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute, and Judge Andrew Napolitano ("Constitution In Exile") have also weighed in. Now, please excuse me, for I must meet The Queen, at another secret meeting of the IBA.
Obnoxious superiority? You said you couldn't find any instances of lawyer discipline. I demonstrated that they are published every month in the bar journals, which are public documents anyone can read. I squarely answered your claim and you give me this kind of bullshit? You are unbelievable. My reply was squarely on point and civil. You have no basis on which to call this obnoxious superiority aside from the fact that you don't like lawyers. Frankly, you haven't done your research. You haven't looked at any of the thousands of open source documents freely available to anyone to see that lawyers discipline lawyers, lawyers get sued by other lawyers and lawyers prosecute each other for crimes. You have no basis for some kind of secret cabal of lawyers other than some flaky website that spews nothing but baseless theory. Then you have the gall to call me obnoxiously superior for demonstrating in open forum the specious nature of your claims? Here's a clue, buddy. The LAWYERS started and supported the French revolution. Look it up. Many of the founders of the constitution were lawyers. I get that you don't like lawyers. Find a rational basis for your dislike other than acheivement envy, and you may be able to make a point.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
While that's true, I think you meant to say that about the American Revolution. And that, of course, is also true.
Katrina was America's Chernobyl.
You said you couldn't find any instances of lawyer discipline. I demonstrated that they are published every month in the bar journals, which are public documents anyone can read. I squarely answered your claim and you give me this kind of bullshit? You are unbelievable. My reply was squarely on point and civil. You have no basis on which to call this obnoxious superiority aside from the fact that you don't like lawyers. Frankly, you haven't done your research. You haven't looked at any of the thousands of open source documents freely available to anyone to see that lawyers discipline lawyers, lawyers get sued by other lawyers and lawyers prosecute each other for crimes. You have no basis for some kind of secret cabal of lawyers other than some flaky website that spews nothing but baseless theory. Then you have the gall to call me obnoxiously superior for demonstrating in open forum the specious nature of your claims? Here's a clue, buddy. The LAWYERS started and supported the French revolution. Look it up. Many of the founders of the constitution were lawyers. I get that you don't like lawyers. Find a rational basis for your dislike other than acheivement envy, and you may be able to make a point. One of the alphas in your profession, Robert Klein seems to agree with me. "Instead of saying, 'Have you ever had a problem with a lawyer?' I say, 'Can we all agree everybody hates lawyers?' Everybody thinks that's hysterical. Then I ask if any of them has ever met a lawyer they like. You ought to see the body language. Nobody wants to be the first one to say yes." http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/reprints/curtis1.htm In order to defend lawyers in malpractice suits he first concedes that which twists you into knots-everybody hates lawyers. And, I'm the guy people come to when they think a lawyer is trying to screw them. And, you know what? They're usually right. "acheivement (sic) envy" indeed. And, a law degree was Thomas Jefferson's least impressive accomplishment. It's an insult to compare today's parasitical hacks to this and other great Virginians. They were statesmen then. There is no such critter now. Where are the courageous rebels who want to teach us how to live without lawyers today? You know, ways to avoid probate and nasty asset consuming divorces? Oh sure, the medical profession is self policing but there are many MD heretics who will warn us about the dangers of the system. Where are the heretic lawyers? If you wanted respect you could have chosen a productive field of endeavor. And, unless you are successful like your crony in San Fran who tried to pass a law to criminalize the telling of lawyer jokes, you'll just have to accept the fact that Americans are wisely and correctly leery of you and your ilk, and I intend to do all I can to make certain that this continues.
No, I meant the French Revolution. That was back when lawyers were second class citizens in France, behind the nobility.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Uh huh. Call me when you get arrested.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Attorneys, like any other "profession," or non-profession, or semi-profession, has its good guys and its douche-bags.
I apologize to you and other lawyers here for my rudeness. If you love our country and want to save it then the last thing I should do is alienate you from the struggle. And, as Mr. lodwick pointed out there are good and bad among us all.
No, call me. I charge less. ;)
If you love our country and want to save it then the last thing I should do is alienate you from the struggle. Accepted. Peace.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Oh sure, up front retainer is smaller, but then you pad your hours. You get what you pay for.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
How, and why, did the old saw come about that if a lawyer represents himself, he is said to have a fool for a client? Plumbers repair their own plumbing, painters routinely paint their own homes, and on and on...why are lawyers so incompetent, or whatever, that they don't represent themselves? I've always wondered about this anomaly.
Because representing someone in a case in court requires that the attorney take a dispassionate, objective view of the case, from as close to the viewpoint of the decision maker (judge or jury) as possible. A participant in the action will naturally have a biased view of the facts, and can rarely see the other side's viewpoint clearly, nor the biases to be encountered in the jury or judge. For an example, very early in my career I had a complaint lodged against me with the bar by a former client. I was furious. I had not only gotten him a fantastic plea bargain, I had also kept his wife from picking up a case. Because I only saw my side of the issue, I couldn't be objective. I took the case to a lawyer who specialized in ethics complaints. When he looked at the case, he minded me to the fact that the Bar doesn't like criminal defense attorneys generally, nor private "shoestring" practitioners particularly, and that they would be very much inclined to find against me based on that. So my lawyer contacted the complainant to see how we could work things out. If I had called him, there would have most likely been an ugly exchange because I felt his complaint was both spurious and ingrateful. The attorney soothed things over with the former client and he withdrew the complaint. This is just one example. In Federal Court here I once saw an elected District Attorney who had been charged with some kind of participation in a drug conspiracy. He decided to represent himself at his initial appearance. I felt so sorry for him, watching him flounder around, that I wrote him this note: "With all due respect, you don't know what you are doing. Get a federal defense attorney fast. You are wrecking your own defense." His fatal flaw? He couldn't be objective about his own case.
How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died?
Thanks - this makes good sense.
Original 13th Amendment
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
Knighthood "You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
FWIW, here's a snapshot of the revised VA code of 1819. The original 13th is down at the bottom...
"pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma"
Thanks,I've seen the pictures of the erroneous publishings in the links of others also up the thread. If you look at the chart in post #79, you'll see why it was never ratified. And that chart comes from someone who claims it was ratified. I guess he doesn't look very closely at his own material. Link to original page of the table: I'm missing something here, doesn't it have the 3/4 regardless? What's the Louisiana date significance? Granted, I can definitely see this from the standpoint of it being a mental circle jerk because whether or not it was/is true, it's irrelevant unless a quite significant portion of the population gets off their ass and does something about the current situation. I.e., it could be totally 100% true and if 90% of the population is "Oh, really? Ho Hum, [YAWN]", then it's essentially meaningless.
"pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma"
No, everytime it got close Congress added more states, requiring more states for ratification. The constitution says an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, not just 3/4 of the states existing when the amendment is introduced. By the time Virginia ratified, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois were added as states. The creator of that table is adamant that the Amendment has been ratified yet he doesn't put down the date of Lousiana's ratification vote or Indiana's, or any other state after Virginia for that matter. It's pretty obvious why he doesn't, he knows that at no point was it ever ratified by 3/4 of the existing states. As of today, I think the Amendment is still 5 votes short.
If that!
Are you really that stupid that you can't make the connection that when a group of people who defend people based on law get to make the laws. Can we say severe "conflict of interest", boys and girls?
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
As the desperation to protect the income tax grows judges won't even allow citizens to challenge this criminal syndicate or even defend themselves by educating juries about it, and judges will jail whoever whenever to protect it. And all of you lawyers slither quietly away from the courthouse every time it happens, because you too are handmaidens to the conspirators. Well said!
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
I've never made that claim.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Boy, you must really worship money to feel that people are envious because they disagree with you. For money is just about the only thing that your field of work seems to garner.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Money has nothing to do with it. Like anybody in business, I started broke and am now not broke. I am not, by any stretch, rich. Becoming a lawyer is an acheivement. Whether you like it or not, it ain't easy, and the three years I spent in law school were just about the worst three years of my life. Nevertheless, I survived it, made the grade, passed the bar exam and became a licensed attorney. That is a difficult acheivement. I myself have acheivement envy, because I envy doctors, whose training is even more rigorous and difficult; I also envy aeronautical engineers, not because it's hard to become one, but because I admire math despite not having a gift for it, and I think analytic geometry and calculus are amazing tools with an innate beauty. I envy people who can master these arts. OTOH, I have neither use for nor envy of rich people. I find them to be generally quite pathetic and insecure. So far I've not heard one criticism of lawyers that doesn't amount to one form of acheivement envy or another; or an overgeneralization, or a meaningless Shakespeare quote. "the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." Is a classic statement of envy.
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
read bluedog's #59 on this thread. i don't think money worship applies in his case. the reality is defense attorneys, like bluedog, are needed.
That's what I have been told. Once we walk into their courts we are on the private property of a corporation outside the sovereign citizens jurisdiction and subject to their laws and not the constitution, but they have pretended to be constitutional to avoid waking up the masses.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Nonsense.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
Also, just like being 13 miles off the US shore (outside the sovereignty of the US) you are under maritime law, hence the yellow fringe on the flag and the judge's expanded powers to basically do as he pleases. Oh yea, tyranny has been here for quite a while. It just hasn't raised it's ugly head fully yet due to us being armed and the threat of revolution. But that fear is abating with the big brother grid (patriot acts, cameras on every corner, rfid tech. and on and on) they have been furiously installing.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
I must applaud you,very articulate argument.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Can we say severe "conflict of interest", boys and girls? Stupid I may be, but at least I know how to punctuate questions. A conflict of interest arises whenever someone must serve two masters whose interests are, or appear to be, in conflict. You are, I suppose, arguing that a legislator with a criminal practice has an incentive to create more criminal laws and penalties, somewhat like the character in The Fountainhead who confessed that the gummint doesn't want people to follow the laws, but to break them. The federal criminal laws (and the oppressive Federal budgets) have arisen as a result of the deliberate disregard of the Tenth Amendment and the fraudulent misconstruction of the commerce clause, all by the Supreme Court. Would you have lawyers prohibited from holding positions as justices of the Supreme Court?
That’s what bothers me, your tendency to use absolute statements. I would think "the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." derives from the suffering people have endured due to many of the laws and expenses ensued by your profession not only making the laws but also defending the laws. I for one am not a hater of all lawyers there some that are truly good people. Hell my best friend from high school became a corporate bankruptcy lawyer.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
Okay, Mr. Happy. Let's get rid of all the lawyers. No judges, no prosecutors, no defense attorneys, no document drafters, no ambulance chasers, no insurance defense suits, no congressional staffers drafting laws. Then what do you get? You get government "by the people" unrestrained by those superfluous "laws" and "lawyers". So gigantus corporation decides to buy the lot next to your house, strip mine it, and dump a million gallons of toxic waste there. You sue them. You don't have a lawyer, but you can figure out that it's most likely some kind of crime to dump a bunch of toxic waste next door, right? You want a jury of your peers to decide the case. Gigantus corporation's defense is that they own the lot next door, and if you don't like the smell, tough shit. You can move your happy ass. At jury selection, Gigantus has paid off the whole panel and the judge, who is just a normal guy who "judges" on the weekends, and who can sure use that extra fifty thou they stuck in his pocket. He also doesn't see anything wrong with the reasoning advanced by Gigantus, that if you can mow your lawn, you ought to be able to strip mine it and dump toxic sludge there. Gigantus doesn't actually have a lawyer (you've killed them all) but a sharp looking fellow in a really nice suit shows up as their "spokesman". You don't have a spokesman, you haven't got money to bribe anyone, so you lose. You appeal. The appellate court is located in the State capital, and, coincidentally, so is the corporate hq of Gigantus. There aren't any lawyers on the appellate court, just people who have the luxury of extra time on their hands to serve; ie- rich people. You lose again. Now you got a nice lot you can't get rid of, nobody will buy it unless you get rid of the smell, which you can't because the source of the smell won't move, your kids have cancer, your wife is infertile, and you've noticed strange lumps on your thyroids. Good thing you got rid of the lawyers, though.
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
My area of training is mathematics and logic. Sorry your logic lacks enough to degrade into questioning ones spelling or grammar.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, Bush is President
"The first thing we do. let's kill all the lawyers." - Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Part II. How many times have you heard that infamous quotation? How does it feel to know that people view your chosen profession as a pestilence? The common usage of that quote rankles me and, as a lawyer-mediator, I feel that I am in a position to comment from a different place of understanding. But first, let's get that Shakespeare quotation back into its original context. The character Dick the Butcher was an insurgent and his point was that if you want to accomplish the takeover of a society, "first kill all the lawyers." Gives quite a different blush to the meaning, doesn't it, if The Bard was viewing lawyers as guardians of law and order, and even liberty, itself? Admittedly, there are many lawyers out there doing work that does not truly promote justice, and doing so in the name of the law, carrying out their assigned roles. BUT THE LAWYERS AND THE LAW ARE NOT THE PRIMARY PROBLEM. Our culture is one of fearing and avoiding conflict. We, as a society, want to hire the Lone Ranger to shoot a silver bullet and wipe out the conflict by wiping out the adversary. Too often, we would rather call the police to do something about our troublesome neighbor than walk across the street and talk with him about our problem with his barking dog, loud party, car that's blocking our driveway... And if we are contemplating divorce, whose idea was it that we need to hire the meanest shark in the ocean to deal with the person we once loved with all our heart? Until we, as a society, realize that difficulties between two people are best resolved by direct communication between the people involved, the lawyers will continue to say, "You just let me take care of that." We, as a society, will continue to hire the lawyers to "fix it for us" and we will continue to come away from the adversarial process (more often than not) with both sides feeling dissatisfied with the results. Likewise, we will continue to blame the lawyers for not fixing our problem, because we still don't understand that the resolution of most conflicts between people is a matter of relationship, and matters of relationship cannot be delegated to professional surrogates. As lawyers, how do we help our clients and society see things differently? The answer is, as some say, simple but not easy. What if we lawyers started talking with our clients about honoring conflict as a unique opportunity for personal growth and for creating more peace in the world, rather than seeing conflict as something to be avoided? Lawyers could explain that conflict is a natural part of life. Two plants compete for a few square inches of soil. We both want to sit in this chair. Two friends have very different political views. Two parents love each other - and they don't see eye-to-eye about money management or what's best for their children. Lawyers could explain that there is nothing wrong with conflict. What's important is how we deal with it. We can have the same old arguments again and again, with no resolution in sight and feel the pain as the distance grows between us. We can avoid the conflict, creating distance, separation, and no solution. Or we can honor conflict and learn how to resolve it skillfully, creating a renewed sense of connection between committed partners - or between parents who are going their separate ways, but will always be related as parents. Lawyers could introduce "radical notions" like going across the street and talking with the neighbor about the barking dog before calling the police. Could it be that LAWYERS, instead of being seen as the problem, could be the SOLUTION? Here's a mediator's take on the "kill all the lawyers" quote. It looks to me like Henry the Butcher, who was contemplating a takeover of the government, thought killing the lawyers would be a good first step. So it was not, as I supposed, a statement of envy (although I would posit that in its most common out of context usage it is); but neither is it a statement to the effect that "lawyers have inflicted suffering" and Shakespeare didn't like them...
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
I think that's "one's", not ones....
...do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.
How many times have you heard that infamous quotation? How does it feel to know that people view your chosen profession as a pestilence? The common usage of that quote rankles me and, as a lawyer-mediator, I feel that I am in a position to comment from a different place of understanding. But first, let's get that Shakespeare quotation back into its original context. The character Dick the Butcher was an insurgent and his point was that if you want to accomplish the takeover of a society, "first kill all the lawyers." Gives quite a different blush to the meaning, doesn't it, if The Bard was viewing lawyers as guardians of law and order, and even liberty, itself? One of my favorite judges of all time used to give the same lecture, just after swearing a jury. It certainly brightened up my day.
I forgot one item of punctuation, myself: ;)
what about it, though? The modern Leviathan of the US Gummint was ushered in by the Supreme Court, which held out against those who tried to expand the commerce clause for a century and a half. Would you disqualify lawyers from sitting on the Supreme Court? How long do you think non-lawyers would have held out?
Thank you.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
I think you'll find that the numbers of lawyers and environmental pollution have increased together, and do not inversely correlate. Lawyers profit on both sides of the pollution issue. No matter how the public fares on issues like Love Canal or SUPERFUND sites, the lawyers on both teams are paid well. In an adversarial system of justice this is as it should be, or a "loser pays" system is certainly not better. In fact the recent assertion that lawyers should refuse to defend "terrorists" and the treatment of Lynne Stewart, the activist lawyer just convicted of helping her terrorist client, "blind sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman, is disgraceful. None of us want to see us reach a point where unpopular people or causes are unable to retain competent counsel. And, corporations respond to environmental activist lawyers like Robert Kennedy, jr. and his NGO RiverKeepers, with SLAPP suits. Besides CA and MD, what other states have passed anti SLAPP laws to prevent corporations from silencing activists with financially and emotionally draining lawsuits? I'd be interested to know if there is an org, "Lawyers With A Conscience" for instance who refuse to file SLAPP suits on behalf of greedy, vindictive corporate clients? For me the issue is the goddam income tax. No LAWYER wants to win and put half of his "fellows" and most accountants, tax preparers and receipt collectors/packrats out of work, and I understand that. But, taxes are a civil matter, and I resent the fact that I can actually hire competent counsel and beat a terrorism rap, but, the conflict of interest for lawyers defending against "tax crimes" is so obvious that none inspire my confidence. Just as NRA lawyers and lobbyists don't want to settle the 2nd amendment argument once and for all, I fear there are too many lawyers who get down on their knees each night and give thanks for the god-cursed income tax. For this reason there will always be lawyers who will gladly try to defend me and win on procedural errors on the IRS/DOJ's behalf (i.e. denial of due process, malicious prosecution, etc.,) but none who want to end tax tyranny once and for all. The lawyer who succeeds in having the present enforcement of the "1040" tax against private wage earners declared unconstitutional will join the ranks of Benedict Arnold and Robert Hansen, and others whose names are forever synonymous with shame. I suppose it would be a great "achievement" for some "over achieving individual", as long as she or he never intends to practice law again! It's safe to assume that this person will never have another favorable ruling from any judge nor will any appeals tribunal be likely to check the black balling of the person who put half of the lawyers out of work and brought all into disrepute.
why do you say nonsense? i think any time an individual goes up against the almighty government (particular federal) in one of their courtrooms, he is subject to their statutes and common law and the constitution is basically null and void. bush was correct when he referred to it as just a goddamned piece of paper. how many times have you heard of judges saying "don't bring up the constitution in my courtroom?" i've heard and read about this countless times. it's my contention that if the government has a stake in the outcome at all, an individual is not going to get a fair shake. the judges (and attorneys in most cases) are there to protect the system. imo, an individual can only get a fair and impartial arbiter when it's a private case.
Most attorneys I know are there to take advantage of the system, to aid their clients. This is one advantage of the adversary system of justice.
point, but as officers of the court, isn't their allegiance first and foremost to the court rather than to their client? i'm thinking more of state and federal attorneys, not private defense attorneys, etc. excuse my lack of knowledge on terminology. i'm just a lay person. ;)
Attorneys are bound by rules of ethics to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the laws and rules of the court. Attorneys also want to successfully represent their clients, for purely selfish reasons. Thus does Adam Smith's Invisible Hand reach into the law industry. Attorneys also swear to uphold the constitutions and laws, state and federal. This obligation operates more as a restriction than as a goal for the individual practitioner, who is on a day-to-day basis not concerned with how his actions will affect "the system," but with how his clients and his bottom line will be affected. As a practical matter, since they are admitted to practice before the court, and the court has powers of disbarment and of contempt, attorneys are to some extent beholden to the court. However, the courts themselves are beholden to appellate courts, which report opinions in cases they decide. Most judges simply don't want to be embarrassed by reversal, and are anxious to climb the ladder to the appellate courts. So the treatment of lawyers and their clients by the courts is subject to public review, and this checks most trial courts from appearing arbitrary or capricious.
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!" Another successful defense! :)
Yes, that American attorneys are part of some secret department under the English monarchy: nonsense on a par with poison chemtrails. Attorneys are officers of the court in that they must respect the laws and procedures thereof but thier ultimate function therein is client advocacy. Certainly (but, then again, much depending on the facts and circumstances of each case), the odds are stacked against a litigant opposing a government entity in an American court. Duh. The US Constitution remains cited in many cases across this country. And, there are judges who have ruled against the government in many cases. The judicial branch is the least, IMHO, corrupt of the three. As bluedog inferred above, attorneys are American human beings, with families, mortgage payments, bills, illnesses, crazy family members, car trouble, kids, gardens, and all those other day to day occurances of life so forth and so on.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
If the defendant was facing death or life without parole, that may not be such a bad deal. The "try to" would need to be, however, removed from that statement.
Israel is getting US into WWIII.
Lotsa guys on death row would take that deal. Wouldn't you? The implication of your post is that a lawyer who pleads his client out hasn't done anything for his client. That is usually not the case. The plea bargain usually arises because both parties recognize the value of the case to themselves and to each other. Often the plea bargain arises because of pressure placed upon the government. In a drug case, for example, even if a defendant is caught with the drugs, if a defense attorney files a motion to suppress (exclude from evidence) the hootch (Old French legal term), and supports it with a memorandum that gives the appearance of having a good chance of success, he may scare the gummint straight to the bargain his client can live with. The bargain arises because each side faces uncertainty as to the eventual results of the motion to suppress. The defense gives up his motion, and takes a plea, in return for a favorable disposition. What could be more American? Afterwards, the State usually explains to the cop why they gave away the farm: because the Cop broke the law when he seized the evidence! The better cops learn from their mistakes, and become less likely to infringe upon your liberties in any chance future encounter with you and yours. Thus, a byproduct of this in this sleazy plea-bargaining is that our constitutional rights are protected! Of course, there are lawyers who shouldn't be trusted to defend speeding ticket cases, and who get terrible deals for their clients. But jailbirds talk, and those lawyers usually don't last long. Of course, the same sort of bargaining goes on all the time in personal injury cases, civil lawsuits, administrative law proceedings, etc. Without bargaining, every case would end in a trial, instead of the 10% and less that do now, and even more resources would be consumed by the justice system, which would instantly need ten times as many judges, clerks, courtrooms, sheriffs, bailiffs, and bribes (just kidding).
You guys are funny!
Now those birds are evil. Judgmental, unforgiving, and heartless. Not really. Sometimes the persecutor is the defendant's best friend. Once a prosecutor dropped a case of mine, when he himself discovered that the officer was lying about a certain technicality. Had the persecutor not ferreted out the problem, and done something about it, I might never have known, so carefully had the problem been concealed, and my client might still be in jail today. Prosecutors are duty-bound to do justice. This is a higher standard of conduct than that to which defense counsel are subject. While a defense attorney need not and should not reveal inculpatory material to the persecutor (unlike the European inquisitorial system, where defense attorneys are required to do so), an American prosecutor must reveal exculpatory material to the defense. Of course, less experienced prosecutors sometimes fail to recognize the exculpatory value of the material, and police sometimes withheld such information from the prosecutors, but by and large, the rule is obeyed. Do prosecutors owe their allegiance to the court? Not any more than the private bar, although they tend to work closely with the judges, as a result of repeated contact and the general tendency of humanity to suck up to authority. They owe their allegiance to their paycheck and to their boss, who is frequently an elected official whose prosecutorial philosophy often has more to do with politics than with the constitution or the laws. Nonetheless, the elected prosecutor is loathe to dispense with the laws in any way that could attract unfavorable coverage. There exist incentives enough to reign in all but the craziest of prosecutors, like the ones in Washington State, covered by Paul Craig Roberts, who went on a child abuse witch hunt to rival Salem. The oppressive power possessed by prosecutors arises principally from the oppressive laws on the books. The drug war is, of course, a war on people, and prosecutors are soldiers on the front line. Yet most drug prosecutors learn to justify their existence by weeding out the "serious" cases from the less, and hammering only a chosen few. Most of them are good people, helping to administer, some of the most unjust laws ever written, because the consensus of the sheeple still regards drugs as worthy of a futile attempt at prohibition. Out of necessity, to avoid trials, drug prosecutors help to mitigate those unjust laws, by discriminating between defendants and letting most go with a minor penalties. One could argue that by mitigating the penalties, prosecutors help to sustain the system, because if they ever enforced the drug laws to the max across the board, the justice system would explode with trials, and even the sheeple would rise up in arms against the tweny and forty year and life sentences handed out to a fifth of the population!
Sorry, but I haven't time to respond, as I must away to another secret meeting of the IBA, where The Queen awaits!
#2. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
#3. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
They wouldn't have written themselves out of the gummint they were creating.
#4. To: christine, bluedogtxn, who knows what evil, robin, horse, Peetie Wheatstraw, bluegrass, Jethro Tull, randge, Lady X, Sam Houston, Give Me Liberty, lodwick, Red Jones, Texans, Californians, Arizonans (#0)
ping
#5. To: intotheabyss (#4)
Alfred Norman Adask
#6. To: christine (#5)
I've attended events where Al was one of the guest speakers a couple of times.
#7. To: 2cb (#2)
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
#8. To: intotheabyss (#3)
It happened, I'm sorry you can't believe it.
#9. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
and extends that to the licensure of attorneys.
#10. To: bluedogtxn (#1)
#11. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
That's the bullshit part.
#12. To: 2cb (#10)
#13. To: SmokinOPs (#11)
... can see the doofuses falling for this shit in 1988, but not in this day and age.
#14. To: SmokinOPs (#11)
No, the bullshit part is that in all of these nutty "missing Amendments"
#15. To: intotheabyss (#14)
That's why our military had this amendment in it's text books shortly after it's passage.
#16. To: intotheabyss (#12)
Hell, 11 branch dividians are in jail even though the jury did not find them guilty. The judge took it upon himself to send them to jail.
#17. To: SmokinOPs (#15)
And I'm sure you have digital facsimiles of the pages of these textbooks to back your claim up.
#18. To: intotheabyss (#17)
Your powers of logic are impeccable and it is pointless for me to argue with you any further.
#19. To: 2cb (#16)
No, the bullshit part is that in all of these nutty "missing Amendments" and "The Queen controls the Bar", "Admiralty Law and the fringed flag" theories, they never include a digital picture of these alleged primary documents on their webpage.
#20. To: SmokinOPs (#18)
I should just take some anonymous dickhead's claim
#21. To: intotheabyss (#20)
It's obvious I hit a cord.
#22. To: SmokinOPs (#21)
Yeah,mmmmm, uh-huh. Well, when you come across anything resembling evidence, you just give me a ping there Chuckles. I'll be on pins and needles in anticipation.
#23. To: SmokinOPs (#18)
(Edited)
Yeah, silly me asking for evidence. I should just take some anonymous dickhead's claim on the internet as gospel and never show skepticism no matter how outlandish the claims. Kind of like you did.
#24. To: intotheabyss (#22)
It's going to be hard to lead you by the hand to a war college to view their early textbooks from here so I guess you are on your own.
#25. To: 2cb (#23)
anyone now want to challenge that all the above is made up and admiralty isn't working on you today as we speak?
#26. To: 2cb (#23)
#27. To: SmokinOPs (#26)
So all of that long post says what about the fringe flag being in a courtroom makes it under Admiralty law? Oh that's right, nothing. LOL.
#28. To: 2cb (#27)
(Edited)
i told you - go look at the US Code for fringed flag stuff.
#29. To: SmokinOPs (#28)
(Edited)
#30. To: 2cb (#29)
#31. To: intotheabyss, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
#32. To: intotheabyss, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
#33. To: SKYDRIFTER (#32)
What Am I missing, here?
#34. To: SmokinOPs (#30)
(Edited)
#35. To: 2cb, SmokinOPs (#27)
i told you - go look at the US Code for fringed flag stuff.
#36. To: All (#34)
#37. To: 2cb (#36)
the US didn't win the war. and if you think about it, it's kind of silly to assume the US beat the greatest military power on earth at the time with 10,000 rag-tag soldiers.
#38. To: bluedogtxn (#10)
1. why does the Supreme Court have "justices", and not "judges"?
#39. To: bluedogtxn (#37)
We won the Revolutionary war. We just lost it again in 1865.
#40. To: 2cb (#36)
...but i am not going to prove every detail
#41. To: All (#39)
#42. To: SmokinOPs (#40)
we are no different than Canada or Australia or New Zealand
#43. To: SKYDRIFTER, intotheabyss, christine (#32)
So, if the original 13th Amendment was trashed, why is it important?
#44. To: 2cb (#38)
1. why does the Supreme Court have "justices", and not "judges"? 2. what is the difference is between "State of Texas" and "Texas state"?
#45. To: 2cb (#39)
We won the Revolutionary war. We just lost it again in 1865.
#46. To: HOUNDDAWG (#43)
When I was a young musician I played the annual lawyers and judges gentlemen's Christmas stag party in Norfolk, VA.
#47. To: bluedogtxn (#45)
They didn't have to surrender, silly. We didn't try to conquer them, just get rid of them. And we did.
#48. To: intotheabyss (#6)
Did you find his information accurate?
#49. To: 2cb (#47)
#50. To: bluedogtxn (#44)
Nope. Don't have the answers and don't care to find them out. I take the world as it is for a starting point.
#51. To: HOUNDDAWG (#43)
#52. To: bluedogtxn (#51)
#53. To: christine (#48)
truth and justice and common law have no place in their courts. best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#54. To: HOUNDDAWG (#52)
Well, lawyers are cheep bastards and they got what they paid for....
#55. To: christine (#48)
best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#56. To: bluedogtxn (#54)
I know. I knew we shouldn't have let Levinstein hire the hookers. I think he pocketed half the damn money we gave him.
#57. To: christine (#48)
best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#58. To: bluedogtxn (#49)
Getting rid of them, establishing a separate government, enacting new constitutions, redirecting the taxes and disregarding Britain's laws forever changes the relationship.
#59. To: 2cb, intotheabyss (#50)
i am not asking how things were, or will be, i am asking how they are now, at the starting point.
#60. To: christine (#48)
best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#61. To: HOUNDDAWG (#56)
I know. I knew we shouldn't have let Levinstein hire the hookers. I think he pocketed half the damn money we gave him. I think I schmell an anti schzemite! ;)
#62. To: 2cb (#58)
we do not disregard Britains laws - we are under them right now - and always have been, eg, Admiralty Law/Courts.
#63. To: bluedogtxn (#59)
#64. To: bluedogtxn (#62)
#65. To: lodwick (#64)
Always great to have a pro bono attorney on board the 4.
#66. To: bluedogtxn (#61)
What was anti-schzemitic about that? Are you assuming that my good pal Moishe Levinstein is jewish?
#67. To: bluedogtxn (#59)
#68. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
The article takes an amendment (that may or may not have been ratified, and I don't care, really)...
#69. To: bluedogtxn (#59)
#70. To: 2cb, bluedogtxn, HOUNDDAWG, intotheabyss, ALL (#69)
#71. To: HOUNDDAWG (#43)
#72. To: christine (#70)
#73. To: SKYDRIFTER (#71)
(Edited)
I guess the issue isn't the morality, versus the accountability - if ever caught.
#74. To: HOUNDDAWG (#73)
#75. To: intotheabyss (#0)
WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored) If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, "special interests" and "immunities" might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against "honors" (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), our judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability.
#76. To: intotheabyss (#0)
MEANING of the 13th Amendment The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
#77. To: intotheabyss, SmokinOPs (#17)
And I'm sure you have digital facsimiles of the pages of these textbooks to back your claim up. I personally don't have any "digital facsimiles".
#78. To: SKYDRIFTER (#32)
Let's see - did Article one of the Constitution make this moot, or what?
#79. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, leveller, bluedogtxn, intotheabyss, christine (#77)
(Edited)
Recognized
Official Publ.
Official Publ. Delaware Dec. 7, 1787 1 Yes Rat. Feb. 2, 1811 Pennsylvania Dec. 12, 1787 2 Yes Rat. Feb. 6, 1811 1818 1824,1831 New Jersey Dec. 18, 1787 3 Yes Rat. Feb. 13, 1811 Georgia Jan. 2, 1788 4 Yes Rat. Nov. 22, 1811 1819 1822,1837,1846 Connecticut Jan. 9, 1788 5 Yes Rej. May 11,1813 1821,1824,1835,
1839 Massachusetts Feb. 6, 1788 6 Yes Rat. Feb. 27, 1812 1816 1823 Maryland Apr. 28, 1788 7 Yes Rat. Dec. 25, 1810 South Carolina May 23, 1788 8 Tabled Dec. 21, 1814 New Hampshire June 21, 1788 9 Yes Rat. Dec. 10, 1812 Virginia June 25, 1788 10 Yes Rat. Mar. 12, 1819 1819 New York Feb. 6, 1788 11 Rejected Rej. May 1, 1813 North Carolina Nov. 21, 1789 12 Yes Rat. Dec. 23, 1811 1819 1828 Rhode Island May 29, 1790 13 Yes Rej. Sep. 15, 1814. 1822 Vermont Mar. 4, 1791 14 Yes Rat. Oct. 24, 1811 Kentucky June 1, 1792 15 Yes Rat. Jan. 31, 1811 1822 Tennessee June 1, 1796 16 Yes Rat. Nov. 21, 1811 Ohio March 1, 1803 17 Yes Rat. Jan. 31, 1811 1819 1824,1831,1833,
1835,1848 Louisiana Apr. 30, 1812 18 Yes 1825,1838 Indiana Dec. 11, 1816 19 Yes 1824,1831,1838 Mississippi Dec. 10, 1817 20 Yes 1823,1824,1839 Illinois Dec. 3, 1818 21 Yes 1823,1825,1827,
1833,1839,1845 Alabama Dec. 14, 1819 22 Not Known Maine Mar.15, 1820 23 Yes The 1825 Constitutions of Maine and the US is the rediscovery document found by Dodge and Dunn in 1983 1825,1831 Missouri Aug. 10, 1821 24 Yes 1825,1835,1840,
1841,1845 Arkansas June 15, 1836 25 Not Known Michigan Jan. 26, 1837 26 Yes Terr. Publication
1827,1833 Florida Mar. 3, 1845 27 Yes Terr. Publication
1823,1825,1838 Texas Dec. 29, 1845 28 Not Known Iowa Dec. 28, 1846 29 Yes Terr. Publication
1839,1842,1843 Wisconsin May 29, 1848 30 Yes N.W. Terr. Publ.
1833 California Sep. 9, 1850 31 Not Known Minnesota May 11, 1858 32 Yes N.W. Terr. Publ.
1833 Oregon Feb. 14, 1859 33 Not Known Kansas Jan. 29, 1861 34 Yes 1855,1861,1862,
1868 West Virginia June 20, 1863 35 Yes Va. Publ. 1819 Nevada Oct. 31, 1864 36 Not Known Nebraska Mar. 1, 1867 37 Yes Terr. Publ.1855,
1856,1857,1858,
1859,1860,1861,
1862,
State Publ.1873 Colorado Aug. 1, 1876 38 Yes Terr. Publ.1861,
1862,1864,1865,
1866,1867, 1868 North Dakota Nov. 2, 1889 39 Yes Terr. Publication
1862,1863,1867 South Dakota Nov. 2, 1889 40 Yes Terr. Publication
1862,1863,1867 Montana Nov. 8, 1889 41 Not Known Washington Nov. 11, 1889 42 Not Known Idaho July 3, 1890 43 Not Known Wyoming July 10, 1890 44 Yes Terr. Publication
1869,1876
#80. To: SmokinOPs, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, bluedogtxn, intotheabyss, christine (#79)
#81. To: (#77)
(Edited)
#82. To: 2cb (#23)
All of what you wrote :)
#83. To: SmokinOPs (#28)
I'm not going off on a wild goose chase through thousands of pages of US Code, just to find out you're full of shit.
#84. To: leveller, christine, 2cb, bluedogtxn, Jethro Tull, rowdee, robin, Diana (#76)
This part of the article is intriguing, but where is the historical data to connect the IBA with American lawyers? The author makes no attempt to show that American lawyers in the early part of the nineteenth century sought recognition from the IBA.
#85. To: HOUNDDAWG (#67)
And, if prosecutors, lawyers, defense attorneys and legislative assistants (who refused to draft signing statements that were blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the legislative intent) were incorruptible
#86. To: leveller (#80)
In fact, 90 percent or more of the Federal budget is grounded in the deliberate misconstruction of the Commerce Clause that occurred in the 30's and 40's. That would be a more fruitful area in which to expend all of this energy.
#87. To: bluedogtxn, Zipporah, christine, rowdee, robin, lodwick, Diana, Minerva, intotheabyss, kiki (#85)
Sure. And if the world were flat, it'd have an edge.
#88. To: HOUNDDAWG, leveller, aristeides (#87)
Then, why does the bar insist on policing its own?
#89. To: HOUNDDAWG (#87)
Unfortunately, he couldn't give any examples because disciplinary actions against lawyers are mostly confidential!
#90. To: HOUNDDAWG (#84)
Where in the US constitution are American judges empowered to summarily punish contempt of court?
#91. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine, 2cb, bluedogtxn, Jethro Tull, rowdee, robin, Diana (#84)
#92. To: bluedogtxn, aristeides (#89)
#93. To: leveller, bluedogtxn, robin, rowdee, christine, Zipporah, Diana, Jethro Tull (#92)
#94. To: leveller (#91)
(Edited)
You might find this site interesting, as it contains a list of every contempt provision in the US code:
#95. To: intotheabyss (#0)
#96. To: kiki (#95)
speaking of which, my concerns would run more towards the self-proclaimed monarchy taking hold in this country, and not by a lawyer.
#97. To: HOUNDDAWG (#94)
Is there a listing for such for your state?
#98. To: HOUNDDAWG (#93)
So one half of the tag team tries to convince us that bad lawyers are held to answer to little people (a recent phenom, because until 15 yrs ago it was all but impossible to find a lawyer to sue another-remember WHY CAN I SUE MY DOCTOR BUT NOT MY LAWYER?
#99. To: HOUNDDAWG, bluedogtxn, robin, rowdee, christine, Zipporah, Diana, Jethro Tull (#93)
And, what about the fact that judges have never heard of the federal reserve, and at least one judge has ruled that Art. 1 sec 10, (gold and silver coin) is "superfluous" in defense of fiat currency?
#100. To: HOUNDDAWG, leveller, aristeides, all (#93)
So, these are the choices. Smarmy replies or legal misdirection/gibberish, and both delivered with obnoxious superiority.
#101. To: bluedogtxn (#100)
The LAWYERS started and supported the French revolution.
#102. To: bluedogtxn (#100)
Obnoxious superiority?
#103. To: aristeides (#101)
While that's true, I think you meant to say that about the American Revolution. And that, of course, is also tru
#104. To: HOUNDDAWG (#102)
you'll just have to accept the fact that Americans are wisely and correctly leery of you and your ilk, and I intend to do all I can to make certain that this continues.
#105. To: bluedogtxn, everyone here (#103)
#106. To: bluedogtxn, leveller, lodwick, christine (#104)
Uh huh. Call me when you get arrested.
#107. To: bluedogtxn, HOUDDAAWG (#104)
Uh huh. Call me when you get arrested.
#108. To: HOUNDDAWG (#106)
I apologize to you and other lawyers here for my rudeness.
#109. To: leveller (#107)
No, call me. I charge less. ;)
#110. To: bluedogtxn. any other attorneys here (#109)
Question -
#111. To: lodwick (#110)
How, and why, did the old saw come about that if a lawyer represents himself, he is said to have a fool for a client?
#112. To: bluedogtxn (#111)
He couldn't be objective about his own case.
#113. To: intotheabyss, All (#0)
#114. To: All, intotheabyss (#113)
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/knighthood.htm
#115. To: SmokinOPs, intotheabyss (#24)
#116. To: Axenolith, Itisa1mosttoolate (#115)
FWIW, here's a snapshot of the revised VA code of 1819. The original 13th is down at the bottom...
#117. To: SmokinOPs (#116)
#118. To: Axenolith, Itisa1mosttoolate, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, leveller, bluedogtxn, intotheabyss, christine (#117)
(Edited)
I'm missing something here, doesn't it have the 3/4 regardless?
#119. To: bluedogtxn (#109)
You get what you pay for.
#120. To: leveller, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#80)
C. An explanation as to how and why the removal of lawyers from public office would prevent the government from exploiting the people.
#121. To: HOUNDDAWG (#93)
#122. To: kiki (#95)
I think they would be surprised at the idea that they owe allegiance to the crown, any crown. they went to school, took a test, and have a job.
#123. To: bluedogtxn (#100)
Find a rational basis for your dislike other than acheivement envy
#124. To: HOUNDDAWG (#123)
Ping
#125. To: intotheabyss (#123)
Boy, you must really worship money to feel that people are envious because they disagree with you.
#126. To: intotheabyss, bluedogtxn (#123)
Boy, you must really worship money
#127. To: christine (#48)
best we lie low and stay the hell out of them.
#128. To: intotheabyss (#127)
Once we walk into their courts we are on the private property of a corporation outside the sovereign citizens jurisdiction and subject to their laws and not the constitution,
#129. To: All, christine (#127)
#130. To: wbales (#128)
Nonsense.
#131. To: intotheabyss (#120)
Are you really that stupid that you can't make the connection that when a group of people who defend people based on law get to make the laws.
#132. To: bluedogtxn, christine (#125)
"the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers...." Is a classic statement of envy.
#133. To: intotheabyss (#123)
For money is just about the only thing that your field of work seems to garner.
#134. To: leveller (#131)
Stupid I may be, but at least I know how to punctuate questions.
#135. To: intotheabyss (#132)
First Kill All the Lawyers”
#136. To: intotheabyss (#134)
to degrade into questioning ones spelling
#137. To: bluedogtxn (#135)
"The first thing we do. let's kill all the lawyers." - Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Part II.
#138. To: intotheabyss (#134)
#139. To: intotheabyss (#134)
#140. To: intotheabyss (#130)
I must applaud you,very articulate argument.
#141. To: bluedogtxn (#133)
#142. To: wbales (#128)
#143. To: christine (#142)
the judges (and attorneys in most cases) are there to protect the system.
#144. To: leveller (#143)
(Edited)
#145. To: christine (#144)
as officers of the court, isn't their allegiance first and foremost to the court rather than to their client?
#146. To: leveller, christine (#145)
....Attorneys also want to successfully represent their clients, for purely selfish reasons.....
#147. To: christine, bluedogtxn (#142)
(Edited)
#148. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!"
#149. To: HOUNDDAWG (#146)
"Plead guilty and I'll try to get you off with 20 years!"
#150. To: leveller, wbales (#149)
#151. To: christine (#144)
state and federal attorneys, not private defense attorneys
#152. To: HOUNDDAWG (#150)
You guys are funny!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
