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@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the use of the word 'compulsory' with respect to obtaining witnesses. The judge and the feds have zero say in it. If the defendent calls they answer.
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@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bell wanted to call Ryan Lund, but the judge said no and denied the subpoena. Bell accuses Lund of being (as a fellow prisoner) a government informant and long-arm. -Declan On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:34:53PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Note the use of the word 'compulsory' with respect to obtaining witnesses. The judge and the feds have zero say in it. If the defendent calls they answer.
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@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim Bell wanted to call Ryan Lund, but the judge said no and denied the subpoena. Bell accuses Lund of being (as a fellow prisoner) a government informant and long-arm.
Which clearly demonstates my main point. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:56 PM 4/4/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim Bell wanted to call Ryan Lund, but the judge said no and denied the subpoena. Bell accuses Lund of being (as a fellow prisoner) a government informant and long-arm.
-Declan
Did the judge give any reason for the denial? steve
In my article that I wrote yesterday evening, I said that the judge was reasonable. He did not live up to that billing today. Judge Tanner simply said no, and didn't give much reasoning. He thought these were old accusations and had little relevance to the current trial. Bell's attorney said he was not required to show relevance before having subponeas served, but Tanner didn't seem to care. At this point, Bell may not have *any* defense witnesses. The government has put on about a dozen so far, rapid-fire. Also the judge sealed the *entire court file* including publicly-available motions, just because someone (ahem) was posting some of the documents on the Net. DOJ's London started complaining at the end of the trial today, and then got even more than he asked for. Citing that ruling, Tanner's clerk refused to give me a copy of the government's 3/30 pre-trial brief. (I can't get it through the court clerk's office since Tanner has the file.) -Declan At 08:15 PM 4/4/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:56 PM 4/4/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim Bell wanted to call Ryan Lund, but the judge said no and denied the subpoena. Bell accuses Lund of being (as a fellow prisoner) a government informant and long-arm.
-Declan
Did the judge give any reason for the denial?
steve
At 08:22 PM 4/4/01 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
In my article that I wrote yesterday evening, I said that the judge was reasonable. He did not live up to that billing today.
Judge Tanner simply said no, and didn't give much reasoning. He thought these were old accusations and had little relevance to the current trial. Bell's attorney said he was not required to show relevance before having subponeas served, but Tanner didn't seem to care.
At this point, Bell may not have *any* defense witnesses. The government has put on about a dozen so far, rapid-fire.
Also the judge sealed the *entire court file* including publicly-available motions, just because someone (ahem) was posting some of the documents on the Net. DOJ's London started complaining at the end of the trial today, and then got even more than he asked for.
Citing that ruling, Tanner's clerk refused to give me a copy of the government's 3/30 pre-trial brief. (I can't get it through the court clerk's office since Tanner has the file.)
This is looking more and more like a Kangaroo court every day. If this were picked up by the mainstream press perhaps many would start to wonder of Bell's idea wasn't so crazy after all. steve
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Whether you're rich or poor the state is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney.
Provided that you are willing to execute complete financial disclosure forms, and attest to their accuracy, *and* provided that this disclosure backs your assertion that you cannot afford an attorney. This is from personal experience ;-) As I understand it: Yes, you are entitled to an attorney, however, that does *not* mean that the State *must* pay for it. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
You should have screamed 5th Amendment. It says you don't have to answer ANY question. On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Whether you're rich or poor the state is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney.
Provided that you are willing to execute complete financial disclosure forms, and attest to their accuracy, *and* provided that this disclosure backs your assertion that you cannot afford an attorney.
This is from personal experience ;-)
As I understand it: Yes, you are entitled to an attorney, however, that does *not* mean that the State *must* pay for it.
The last sentence most certainlly DOES say the state must pay for it, and in ALL criminal cases. That 'compulsory process' clause guarantees it. 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. Since there is no clause which states that I as the accused must pay for my own defence (which if you think about it for half a second goes against democratic philosophy in the first place, the burden is always on the accuser) I claim the right, under the 9th, that the state must pay. The state wishes to disagree? 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. ____________________________________________________________________ Beware gentle knight, there is no greater monster than reason. Miguel de Cervantes The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
I once had a friend that had the same myopic legal fixation as Choate. She had this love/hate relationship with the law. On the once hand, she was a libertarian and very skeptical of the government. On the other, she did things like become a notary to gain some sort of government-anointed prestige. One of the things she did to play lawyer was repeatedly circle the block in her car to make a left turn at an intersection with a sign that said, "No Left Turn--Except Buses" or something like that. When she finally got a cop to ticket her, she was ecstatic. In court, she pulled out a definition of a "bus" from a source totally unrelated to the traffic code. It said a bus was any vehicle capable of carrying 6 or more people. Well, her car seated 6 or more, so it was a bus, right? The judge was so amused, that he cut her loose. She counted it as a victory and thought her legal "reasoning" had won the day. I only pray that I live long enough to see Jim Choate in the docket someday. Of course, he's way too smart to hire a lawyer, so he'll demand a free lawyer. When that doesn't work, he'll begrudgingly representing himself. He'll strut about, use big words he doesn't understand and waive around a tattered copy of the Constitution. Maybe he'll be as lucky as my friend. Probably he won't. Whatever the case, I want to be there. God, will it be SO rich. S a n d y
At 9:02 PM -0500 4/4/01, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Whether you're rich or poor the state is OBLIGED to provide you an attorney.
Provided that you are willing to execute complete financial disclosure forms, and attest to their accuracy, *and* provided that this disclosure backs your assertion that you cannot afford an attorney.
This is from personal experience ;-)
As I understand it: Yes, you are entitled to an attorney, however, that does *not* mean that the State *must* pay for it.
In Choate Prime, the world that exists parallel to our own, the State provides an attorney. On our own world, in the U.S., the line goes "If you cannot afford one..." --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
participants (7)
-
Declan McCullagh -
J.A. Terranson -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Sandy Sandfort -
Steve Schear -
Tim May