IANAL... That's the worst possible approach. It's exactly what the system wants. Then they can call you 'incompetent' or whatever and lock you away for an indefinite period. With doctors who are convinced you're nuts. Yep, that's a smart move. That's like asking for 4 with 3 of a kind.

From the transcripts I saw it looked like somebody as smart as you could find a host of constitutional issues with the way the process itself was carried out.

The only 'crime' (ie an act which harmed a person or their property) commited was related to mail, and he wasn't facing charges on that. Everything else that was presented was opinion. I didn't see a single 'established beyond a reasonable doubt fact' in the entire prosecutions case. A lot of mumbo jumbo about 'how scared I felt' (emotional impact, unless demonstrably physically or mentaly debilitating, in some way is not 'harm' in the criminal sense). The crap about 'commercial only access' is so un-constitutional on so many grounds you'd have to be blind not to see them. A discrimination between 'business' and 'personal' use with regards publicly funded documents and resources is clearly a violation. You are in effect saying that I as an individual can do nothing more than walk down to the courthouse, dig through a database, fill out a form and create a DBA. It usually is quite cheap to free to submit (they alternate between free and $15 here in Texas on some weird process I've never understood). Then you walk over to the County Comptrollers Office and get yourself a Tax ID, they're free. They like people volunteering to pay them more money. And all of a sudden I've got some 'right to access' over and above a 'non-registred' human being? Bullshit. The failure of the judge to provide witnesses and access to material for Jim's defence is clearly in violation of the 6th. The entire issue of how much money Jim has is nothing more than a slide around the 5th. & 6th. The guns are completely inadmissable because at no time did anyone show Jim had 'intent' to do anything with them. Otherwise you've got to be saying he was 'sleep walking' first, and then prove it was his 'psychological hatred of law enforcement' that drove him to commit...what acts again? Owning a firearm in and of itself is insufficient for any reasonable deduction of 'intent'. They also never demonstrated he had any bullets for them. Or that he had been practicing with them. Or any other act for that matter specificaly related to the possession of a firearm and a commission of a crime. He owned guns, big fucking deal. The officer was 'afraid'? I thought that was the justification for the gun in the first place. You either are or aren't afraid for your life. There is no degree. And being afraid of ones life is in and of itself nothing more than a strongly held opinion. Prove you hold that feeling please? Demonstrate it here in the court. Opinions, however strongly felt, are inadmissable as evidence in most cases. etc., etc., etc. And our brightest go to law schools to help make a better society... On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ace Cholinesterace wrote:

Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions 6.8 INTOXICATION�DIMINISHED CAPACITY

You may consider evidence of [intoxication] [abnormal mental condition] in deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to commit [crime charged].

http://207.41.19.15/web/sdocuments.nsf/dcf4f914455891d4882564b40001f6dc/7332...

____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 04:42 PM 04/12/2001 -0700, Ace Cholinesterace wrote:

Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions 6.8 INTOXICATION—DIMINISHED CAPACITY

You may consider evidence of [intoxication] [abnormal mental condition] in deciding whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the intent to commit [crime charged].

Does this include "The prosecutor was paranoid" or "was the judge *stoned* or just senile?" as reasons to acquit?