Real World Event Discussions
Is This Legal?
POSTED BY: SoulOfSerenity
UPDATED: Friday, April 7, 2006 22:12
VIEWED: 6590
PAGE 3 of 3
Friday, April 7, 2006 5:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Every US citizen has a God-given Constitutionally guaranteed Natural Right to travel
Nobody's stopping you. You can walk as long and as far as your feet will carry you. But if you want to drive...I'll need to see a liscense and proof of insurance.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, April 7, 2006 7:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Every US citizen has a God-given Constitutionally guaranteed Natural Right to travel
Nobody's stopping you. You can walk as long and as far as your feet will carry you. But if you want to drive...I'll need to see a liscense and proof of insurance.
H
In Tennessee, insurance is only required by statute AFTER a person crashes a car, THEN fails to pay for any financial damages. But Gangsta Govt makes massive profits off this scam. So do insurance rackets, where insurance CEOs routinely pay themselves personal salaries of $100-million/year or more. Warren Buffet owns GEICO - Govt Employees Insurance Company. He's reportedly the 2 richest person in USA, with net worth of 25-billion. (Buffet is a Jewish homosexual child molester, according to million-dollar trial testimony by witnesses for Senator John DeCamp. Buffet hid in the bunker with Jr Bush on 9/11/2001, while "coincidentally" playing golf with WTC CEOs at Strategic Air Command HQ in Omaha Nebraska, on the morning of 9/11. Buffet owns NetJets, owner of the bizjet shadowing United Airlines Flight 93 that was shot down on 9/11. Buffet held the, er, hand of Nazi gay porn star Arnold Schwarzennegger, on their trip together to Jewish Lord Rothschild's palace in England, for permission to win governor of the California colony for the German British Empire.)
http://images.scotsman.com/2002/09/25/2509ARNB.JPG
Schwarzenegger flanked by Warren Buffet, left, and Lord Jacob Rothschild, at stately Waddesdon Manor. But has the actor set his sights on a house of a whiter hue?
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=869&id=1063282002
The current expert on the Right to Travel is Carl Miller, a professional ex-serial killer employed by Gangsta Govt. His audiotapes detail this successful argument in court. I'm sure Gangsta Govt has poured massive resources into attempts to shut down his legitimate citation of US Supreme Court cases. Do a search on www.Google.com to find transcripts and MP3 files on Miller's lectures. Miller is EXPERT at oral argument of memorized case citations, which is the hardest part of being a "trial lawyer". No matter how good a person's written arguements are, appeals courts ONLY read the oral transcript. Judges and prosecutors know this, so they routinely interrupt defendants, and refuse to allow oral arguments in "their" courts, to subvert the transcript on appeal. Most pro se's don't know how to make an Offer of Proof (how to tell a judge and prosecutor to sit down and shut up). If that doesn't work, prosecutors and judges often extort the court reporters to purjur themselves, to censor the transcripts.
Quote:
VIDEO DOWNLOAD: Institute on the Constitution
The 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik, attorney at law, teaches his famous class about the Constitution. If you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege, this is a must see! Is the right to travel by driving an automobile a privilege or a right?
www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik
If driver licenses really were mandatory, then why can ANY person "practice law without a license", which is allegedly a criminal misdemeanor, too. It's called "Power of Attorney-In-Fact". POA IS SO POWERFUL, THAT NO "LICENSED LAWYER" IS ALLOWED TO "PRACTICE LAW" IN ANY COURT, UNTIL AFTER HE GETS A POA SIGNED BY HIS OR HER CLIENT. THE POA IS THE REAL "LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW". Law school students routinely represent defendants and plaintiffs in criminal and civil courts. A "law license" is nothing but a court order signed by a supreme court judge, and is merely a blanket "admission to the bar". ANY PERSON can be "admitted to the bar" in any court, by saying the magic words "I'm represeting myself pro se". PRO SE IS A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IN ANY COURT. That's why those 2 words are never taught to the sheeple in school or on TeeVee.
Quote:
pro se.
One who represents himself in a court proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer.. AlNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, April 7, 2006 8:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
In Gideon vs Wainwright, pro se Gideon WON in US Supreme Court, with appeals hand-written in pencil on prison paper. He won the right to counsel for indigent defendants, setting legal precedent for all Americans. His best-selling book, "Gideon's Trumpet", is a must-read for trial lawyers.
'Gideon's Trumpet' was written by Anthony Lewis, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was famous for his coverage of the Supreme Court in the 1960's.
Never read the book, good movie though. If you can stay awake the whole way through you'll notice that Mr. Gideon was given a lawyer once his appeals were accepted. The lawyer was none other then future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas who went on to successfully argue on Mr. Gideon's behalf in front of the Supreme Court.
For the record, PN can bluster all he wants about practicing law without a license. If he walks into a courtroom he has the right to represent himself, pro se, same as anybody does, but without a license he will not be allowed to practice on anyone else's behalf. The divider between the gallery and the tables and bench in the front of a courtroom (with a little gate usually) is called a "bar", only witnesses, defendants, and officers of the court are allowed "past the bar" for trial. Hence the big test we all take and PN would fail is called the "bar exam" and once we've passed the bar we can pass the bar.
Although to be honost, I know a lot of lawyers who can't pass up a bar. Oddly, that was Gideon's problem too. He was tried for robbing a bar that he frequented.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, April 7, 2006 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
In Gideon vs Wainwright, pro se Gideon WON in US Supreme Court, with appeals hand-written in pencil on prison paper. He won the right to counsel for indigent defendants, setting legal precedent for all Americans. His best-selling book, "Gideon's Trumpet", is a must-read for trial lawyers.
'Gideon's Trumpet' was written by Anthony Lewis, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who was famous for his coverage of the Supreme Court in the 1960's.
Never read the book, good movie though. If you can stay awake the whole way through you'll notice that Mr. Gideon was given a lawyer once his appeals were accepted. The lawyer was none other then future Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas who went on to successfully argue on Mr. Gideon's behalf in front of the Supreme Court.
For the record, PN can bluster all he wants about practicing law without a license. If he walks into a courtroom he has the right to represent himself, pro se, same as anybody does, but without a license he will not be allowed to practice on anyone else's behalf. The divider between the gallery and the tables and bench in the front of a courtroom (with a little gate usually) is called a "bar", only witnesses, defendants, and officers of the court are allowed "past the bar" for trial. Hence the big test we all take and PN would fail is called the "bar exam" and once we've passed the bar we can pass the bar.
Although to be honost, I know a lot of lawyers who can't pass up a bar. Oddly, that was Gideon's problem too. He was tried for robbing a bar that he frequented.
H
Yes, everyone wanted a piece of poor Gideon, who was not a lerned man of letters. I bet his attorneys profited greatly, as did his publisher and producer. Gideon was found Not Guilty of robbing that bar, and was in fact innocent, if my memory from 30 years ago is correct. Tho he admitted that he did perp other crimes, just not THAT crime. Cops routinely grab the wrong criminal, and prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers don't care.
The key to Gideon was common sense. This is the key to all Constitutional arguments - "simplicity". The Constitution is still the controlling document for every other book in a law library. Gideon refused to waiver his Constitutional right to DUE PROCESS. Any defendant can likewise refuse to sign away their Constitutional rights and "civil rights" (statutory rights), in a civil contract signed under duress to a judge. Gideon refused to give up, even after he got hammered by many cops, prosecutors and judges. Gideon proved himself a "good American". I just hope he was able to turn his life around after winning the burden of success.
It's like Miranda, a confessed killer, winning for every American "the right to remain silent". (Is that where Joss got that name?) Miranda was subsequently found guilty of murder, after remand for retrial, but without using the improper confession. Why does the US S Ct only cherrypick cases for predetermined precedent, from CRIMINAL defendants, not purely innocent ones? There are plenty of innocent people rotting in jails and Death Row in USA today. I find that ODD.
I do concede that attorneys-at-LAW have cornered the market on use of the word LAWYER, which might encompass the term "PRACTICING law". I'm not talking about "practicing", I'm talking about representing another person based on common-law right to contract, as guaranteed by the US Constitution's "Contract Clause".
As for the alleged chain letter:
Quote:
Greetings: I am a retired attorney. A few years ago, a man came to me with a letter. He asked me to verify the fact this was legal to do...
He/she wrote "attorney", not "attorney-at-law". In fact, the single word "attorney" is misleading, since it specifies neither attorney-at-law nor attorney-in-fact, both of which require a contractural agreement in writing before the attorney actually has "power of attorney". Is this alleged person actually a "lawyer/attorney-at-law", fo
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME