- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Did you ever notice?...
by Jim Choate 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

Realy only the Supreme Court, they'd look pretty silly ruling against the line; No people, the Supreme Court is more authoritative than the Constitution. My suggestion, not being a lawyer, would be that when one were arraigned you demand a lawyer and a 'whatever the legal term is for a time-out' so that you could submit procedural issues to the Supreme Court related to the fundamental legal process and its Constitutionality (the court appointed attorney, however crappy, should know this process). Be sure to send all the bills to the prosecutors office for payment as well. You reallly don't have to worry in the long run about them confiscating your property, the Constitution says private property taken for public use must be compensated for. Determining if the legal system is constitutional is clearly a 'public use' with respect to confiscated property. But the reality is we don't really have to worry at all about what they think/want. It's supposed to be openly confrontational. Fuck the bastards. It ain't like you're a federaly owned nigger or something. And you sure as hell don't owe them an accounting until after you've been found guilty by a jury of commiting some crime. And even then they must respect ALL your civil liberties since they don't come from the government in the first place (eg see 1st). Here's my plan...;) It is clear that since the Civil War the influence of the states has wained. As a result we've seen an immense, and now clearly unwanted, growth in fascist/socialist and now free-market/libertarian views at the federal level. Views in fact fed by the statistical mechanics of spin doctor journalism based on 'surveys' (as if might makes right). Look at the hue and cry over the New Deal being 'socialist' and this was roughly 60 years ago? And we de-cry the press manipulation of the Chinese over the recent aircraft fiasco? Pot, Kettle... So we need to come up with a way such that the States can re-take their role as 'relief' driver/brakeman on the wagon train we call America. The people are the horses, by the way (just because we're in charge doesn't mean we get to sit on our asses - damned puritan work ethic :) In each state a group of citizens forms with the express intent of developing potential constitutional amendments and assisting in the election of poly-partisan state representatives who will accept such amendments for review. The point is to get people elected who are favorable to receiving these sorts of public input, not to elect persons of a certain view. Each individual state group works in concert with the n-1 state groups through some 'national caucus' where the actual submitted amendments would be filtered and 'homogenized'. Then they would be submitted to each of the states for review and disposition. Note that the actual text would in all cases be exactly the same, there is a real issue over verbage with respect to amendments. Best to avoid the litmus test since it isn't covered in the DoI or the C. The states, through a 3/4 majority can amend the Constiution without federal involvement of any kind. The bastards just get up one morning and have a new hoop to jump through. Through this mechanism any activity of the federals could be countered in short order. In a critical and widely held case possibly as little as 30 days. Hell, the fed's can't wipe their ass that fast from a precedural point of view. The fact is that all amendments to date have come through Congress. Every time the states have started a movement Congress has taken it up. I've spent several hundred dollars having different lawyers review this suggestion and each has said it is legal. Not one of them liked it however. You are of course welcome to your own opinion. On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, J.A. Terranson wrote: > Hrmmm... You think you could convince the USG? ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Re: Affording an attorney...
by snit 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

At 11:33 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, snit wrote: > > > and that defense attorney is worth exactly squat. > >Doesn't need to be. > >He's there to help advise process and make sure papers get fuiled in an >acceptable manner. He isn't there to defend you per se, that's your job >under the 1st and 5th. spoken by someone who has clearly never even tried to use the "services" of a public defender. heh. break the cycle choate. snit

1 0

Looking for qualified IT professionals?
by latestandgreatest2＠hrpromotions.com 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

1 0

Re: Re: Affording an attorney...
by snit 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

At 10:34 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: <snippage> > Amendment X > >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or >to the people. > >Now the state is REQUIRED to demonstrate through some clause (ie delegate) >in the Constitution that the defendent MUST show financial disability? >Haven't we already demonstrated that there is no such clause above? > >Hence, the state is required to provide an attorney for every person who >is accussed of a crime. No exceptions, no test, no if's, no and's, no >but's. and that defense attorney is worth exactly squat. snit

2 1

Affording an attorney...
by Jim Choate 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

Note that there's NO stipulation about 'if you can't afford an attorney one will be appointed to you'. Whether you're rich or poor the state is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

7 10

Pointy-headedness
by Jimmy Inchoate 05 Apr '01

05 Apr '01

You really don't get the pats on the head that you crave, do you, Jim? >At 7:24 AM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Well, at least thank you for honestly admitting my points and view are >valid and legitimate. ... >At 10:36 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Which proves my main point. ... >At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Which clearly demonstates my main point. ____________________________________________________________________ Reminder: insert quote here that makes me look clever and well-read. _(__)_ V '-e e -'__,--.__) The Armored Dildo Group (o_o) ) Jimmy Inchoate \. /___. | ravaged(a)homebase.cryptofortress.com ||| _)/_)/ o //_(/_(/_( ooo --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Needing a law degree for the Constitution
by Declan McCullagh 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

At 10:36 PM 4/4/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >Which proves my main point. Only if you're entirely on the side of the defense and have no desire to be an independent actor. -Declan

1 0

Needing a law degree for the Constitution
by Jim Choate 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

The point is you don't need one. Read the 1st and the part about representing yourself and having an attorney appointed to ASSIST you. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Affording an attorney...
by Jim Choate 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 aluger(a)hushmail.com wrote: > At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:32:57 -0500 (CDT), Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> > wrote: > > >Note that there's NO stipulation about 'if you can't afford an attorney > >one will be appointed to you'. Whether you're rich or poor the state > >is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney. > > False. Most states require a showing of need before they will assign a > public defender. > Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com Apples and Oranges...but thanks for recognizing my point. Additionaly, to answer such a question or furnish such proof can't be required. It might be incriminating and violate my 5th Amendment right also. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Cornerstones of society
by aluger＠hushmail.com 04 Apr '01

04 Apr '01

At Wed, 4 Apr 2001 17:51:24 -0500 (CDT), Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: >There are two fundamental corner-stones to any society: > >Toleration Tolerance I think you mean. Have I mentioned lately that you are an idiot? No? You're an idiot. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com

2 1