The latest in the Rian thal case.

Just being a curious poopster, I decided to check out Katoya Jones's record and cases (MC-51-CR-0030337-2009 and MC-51-CR-0030338-2009). I know the UJS portal isn't considered an official record, but what the heck. Ms. Jones may have had a prior contact with the system in a traffic court appeal, CP-51-SA-9907678-2006, but that's not really criminal as most of us have disputed a traffic charge.

Funny, but for someone who lived in a ritzy apartment complex Ms. Jones appears to have a court appointed attorney, Michael Medway. Please excuse me if I am reading the docket sheet incorrectly, but that's how I read entry #2, 07/09/2009--Appointment Notice. That and the notation "Court Appointed" next to the attorney info. Medway's being appointed on the first listing of the preliminary hearing led to a continuance based upon the attorney being recently retained/appointed. Also, the preliminary hearing is listed in room 306, which is a super duper murder trial room.

I mean if I were really curious, I could go to the courthouse and watch the drama live and in person. On the other hand, if you want that sort of commentary, you had better be willing to pay me.

So, I will just check out the UJS portal and make my own conclusions, but I am pretty sure there is more video out there from this article. The cops usually know more than they tell the media.

So, I am sort of correct about the first arrest, even though Ms. Jones isn't a big fish, but she is big enough to be in Riverside Correctional Facility for the time being. I am surprised the docket sheets don't show her bail.

So, that it straight from the pooch.

Wait a minute!

From: Texas, other states file 2nd Amendment amicus brief

The amicus brief reads in part: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is not just a ‘fundamental’ liberty interest. In the Anglo-American tradition, it is among the most fundamental of rights because it is essential to securing all our other liberties. The Founders well understood that, without the protections afforded by the Second Amendment, all of the other rights and privileges ordinarily enjoyed by Americans would be vulnerable to governmental acts of oppression.”

Government oppression in a democracy? Are these people listening to themselves?

As I just pointed out in my previous post, in a democracy, the people are the government!

Anyway, Tyranny to the founding fathers would have meant a large standing army used to waste money by some pointless excursion, say invading Iraq.

So much for the Second Amendment protecting me from Tyranny.

Tyrants don't fear an armed populace, they just bomb the fuck out of them.

General rant

Let's see: I could write a book of how we all ended up in the current mess we are in and have been thinking about various topics.

1) failure of leadership: it seems that people are finger pointing at everyone for not taking responsibility. CEOs for not saying that it was ridiculous to fire everyone in a market economy, having a system based upon debt, using mumbo jumbo accounting practises to show a profit, and so on and so forth. Well, I have been sayiing how dumb these practises are and have the proof of it.

But no one listens to me.

2) The fact that I am a slacker and shirk responsibility. Sorry, but there is no reward in it for me. I've tried and know that I am a leader. On the other hand, there is only so long you can bang your head against a wall before you say "ouch".

3) "Leaders" refuse to tell the truth. For example, remember the Village Idiot on the Air Craft carrier deck saying something about "mission accomplished?" Likewise, I have been banging on about the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is that it is to protect the institution of the Militia organised Under Article I, Section 8 and any other interpretation is gibberish. The masses tell me I am wrong and hurl a misquotation at me.

OK, let's see how the Heller decision works out. People are seeing that there is nothing there but meaningless words.

Why, because the Second Amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whatever punctuation you may choose.

It's not

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

or

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

or

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The Second Amendment must be read as a whole and in context of the Constitutional framework, which Includes Article I, Section 8 (and some other bits as well). Both the Militia clause and the Right to Keep and Bear arms clause work together and you can't separate them without turning the thing into total rubbish.

Tough shit if you think the contrary

4) On the positive side, people are not driving as much as they did or consuming as much fossil fuels as they have been because of the economy. Pluses and minuses here in my opinion. The major plus is that I think it is part of the reason that the weather is acting a bit more "normal". Not that I am a scientist or have proof behind this belief.

On the other hand, it's about time this happened. Too bad the infrastructure for public transportation has been neglected, trashed, or otherwise stagnated. It would be nice if Washington, DC's metro system were the worst of the pile instead of the best. INEPTA, or SEPTA, could use a lot of work and far more frequent service. NYC has a super system, but it's downright frightening compared to London.

I show my London bias when it comes to public transportation. London has the Best public transportation system I have seen for its age. NYC and London are roughly the same age, but London has tried to keep its system up to date. And terrorists to the contrary, it runs pretty well.

Of course, I love Belgian trams.

I wish Philly had all its trams still. The place would remind me of Melbourne (as Baltimore reminds me of Sydney).

5) Health care: why is it taking the Yanks so long to get it together?

6) Public v. Private debate in the US. Isn't this a non-issue, or are Yanks really stupid people?

In a "democracy" the government IS the people. I find it interesting how the anti-gevernment types get suspicious about the "government" when THEY ARE the government.

I guess they don't trust themselves.

Anyway, public means that the public has oversight over the process.

On the other hand, would you trust private enterprise with your retirement? Which is a question I have been asking for ages, but seems much more relevant now that everyone's retirements are tanking.

Private industry means that business as usual goes on and fuck the little guy.

Feeling a bit fucked lately?

7) On the other hand, I am feeling very anti-democratic and am probably in good company with the founding fathers. Quite a few of them owned slaves and deried "mobocracy".

Didn't anyone point out to Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that it made no sense to say things such as "give me liberty or give me death" or "all men are created equal" yet own slaves? We the people, that is we the rich, white men who run things, not you effing peasants.

Furthermore, The unfortunate thing is that myth has won out over reality and they image of the Colonial miltiaman prevails (sorry Ladies, BUT). Instead of the War for American Independence being seen as a world war with France contributing a significant amount to the war effort. For example, the Siege of Yorktown, did you realise that there were 10,800 French troops and 29 French War ships compared to a total of 11,000 Colonial troops (8,000 regulars and 3,100 Militia). The militia had a terrible reputation in both the War for Independence and 1812 Wars.

I think the amount of Loyalists in the population was never properly assessed. Historians have estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of the white population were Loyalists. Historian Robert Middlekauff estimates that about 500,000 colonists, or 19 percent of the white population, remained loyal to Britain. I think this number comes from the about 20% of the Loyalists left the U.S. to resettle in other parts of the British Empire.

But how many people were loyalists who kept their mouths shut just to stay in their homes?

Remember that most Colonials thought of themselves as British. Which is a good seque to...

8) Rights: What a nebulous term. What is a god given right anyway? If owning a firearm is a god given right, wouldn't they have been around well before 1100 AD?

9) I think the real issue though is that most people don't want to take responsibility for their action or contribute to society. For example taxes.

I wouldn't mind taxes if I had a way to pay them (same for bills for that matter). Taxes are the cost of living in society.

If we take the private enterprise model, a shareholder needs to contribute his share to the effort. Likewise, in a public/civic model, a citizen needs to contribute.

10) Which gets to the final point, there was a counter-argument to Thomas "Revolution for the Hell of it" Paine's Common Sense called Plain Truth. Unfortunately, it didn't have the flowery language of Paine's drivel, or the popular appeal.

Volumes were insufficient to describe the horror, misery and desolation, awaiting the people at large in the form of American independence. In short, I affirm that it would be most excellent policy in those who wish for TRUE LIBERTY to submit by an advantageous reconciliation to the authority of Great Britain; “to accomplish in the long run, what they cannot do by hypocrisy, fraud and force in the short one.”

INDEPENDENCE AND SLAVERY ARE SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

An arrest.

OK, yesterday I said there would be an arrest in the Rian Thal case by the 7th. Well it turns out, the first arrest happened today. It was Thal's neighbour, Katoya Jones. Jones wasn't a major player in the murders, but she is a link.

So, I still say that the big arrest will happen in the next week.

Here is some of the surveillance video:


I've heard there is some better video out there, including the acutal shooting. Not sure if that is the old rumour mill though. But that would be the final wrap on their nooses.

Still, these clowns should have just left their tags for all it mattered.

For those of you who are no in the know, CCTV is the upcoming crime fighting tool. I've already had one client have to admit after video footage showed him doing what he was "alleged" to have done. Britain is notorious for its use of CCTV. Sure, at this point, crime hasn't fallen significantly, but that is a matter of time.

The criminal "mind" takes a while to realise that it is being outfoxed. Also, it is dependant on its belief that there is a "get out of jail free" card.

So, these crims can do their shooting and not realise they are on candid camera, which will be only one factor in their conviction. You can be sure Katoya Jones will be cooperative once she becomes aware of the implications of her actions. Add in the prints of the one perp who is sitting on that chest. There are also several witnesses to this from just watching the surveillance tape.

BTW, there is another rumour floating around that the one "associate" who made off the the duffle bag was carrying 10 kilos of coke and even more money. As is wont, there was enough money and drugs left to show that the people who were killed were drug dealers.

I feel sorry for Rian Thal, but crime just doesn't pay. There is really no quick way to make money: but my posts on avarice are another thing.

R.I.P. Steven Wells: aka Seething Wells, Susan Williams, Swells

I have to admit to a regret at not meeting Steven Wells. As I said in a comment on the Philly Weekly site

Funny that Steven and I never met in person given we are both Brits who have made Philadelphia our homes for the past 10 plus years. Probably because I have been working in the legal field and Steven in journalism. I did write him to say I agreed with his opinion on Christ and Christmas, after all we did come from a country which banned Christmas for being too pagan.

I googled Steven to find this page and saw he was also a writer for the Guardian and FourFourTwo as well as the Philly Weekly and NME.

Come on folks, give this bloke credit! the Guardian also ran a super obit on Steven

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/29/obituary-steven-wells

That's worth noting as well.

I am not sure whether we would have loved each other or wanted to kill each other if we had ever actually met. We were both early punks, but I have moved away from that to World Music, although you could say I have always been into world music.

I can imagine him telling me that the Bollywood stuff I am listening to as I write this is shite. So, I just switched to L'Arpeggiata's Monteverdi. Anyway, we shared a love of music and I am sure we wouldn't have lacked for conversation. Probably the difference in opinion would have been one of our links if we were friends.

We had the Great Western Railway as another link, Swindon being one of the more boring places in Britain (although it did give us XTC). I was from further West: Warwickshire and went to University in Exeter, but Paddington was my link to home in the counties or in London. Swindon was the home to the GWR.

I have heard two sides of the Eton Story, one that said they thought he was an Etonian (scroll down) and another that said he hated them. Whatever. I know loads of old Public School boys in shit jobs. And as my Grandfather pointed out, the lowest are just as important as the folks on the top. So, I would hope we would be a class free zone, despite my putting my title in my comment on Philly Weekly.

Hey, we could have both sold out if we had wanted. So, I guess I should be glad to be in my position. I bet Steven is agreeing with W. C. Fields right now: "On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

Well, it beats the alternative!

I mean what is someone who wrote for the Guardian and another who was a barrister in training who was told it was a shame I had to leave Britain to find work by Paddy Ashdown when I graduated from University given my credentials.

Not that Philly is a total wasteland.

Part of me says we would have gotten on like a house on fire, which gives me comfort in not having had met him. I would be another of the people who miss you and see the world as an emptier place on your passing. Maybe Philly is a wasteland now that you aren't here.

So, I'll raise a pint in your honour, mate, and miss you. I will add to those grieving your loss and write my ha'penny's worth to the cyber mourner's book.

Well planned murder?

OK, my boss says that I am totally out of the loop on local Philadelphia news (but can tell you what is happening in London).

It seems that I missed the crime of the century here, which is the shooting of Rian Thal.



Anyway, he used my expertise to find her myspace page and dig up some info on her.

Anyway, I keep hearing how the "hit" was "well planned".

Excuse me, but they caught all 4 perpetrators on camera and one left his finger prints at the scene. Not to mention there was 4 kilos of cocaine and 100 grand in cash left at her apartment.

I am the first to say that criminals are not the brightest stars in the firmament, but this crew wins a Darwin award. I am curious as to how long it will take to find and prosecute them.

Well planned would have been to have scoped out the CCTV cameras and worn something like latex gloves. Not these geniuses.

Fortunately, their little ambush would net them the death penalty, but I know how the criminal justice system works and predict that they get something less than that. How does life in prison sound? As someone who has taken the course on death penalty, I know that is a more probable outcome.

So, Life in prison, 20-40 years, or the death penalty as a possible outcome for the four stooges.

Of course, another outcome is that one turns "rat" for a sweetheart deal and the others get the death penalty.

So, I am waiting for an arrest by the end of next week (7 July). Max time for arrest being the end of July or early August.

Anyway, yet another young woman is buried before her time. Sad.

The only people who can make crime pay are law enforcement, lawyers, security personnel, and alarm system companies.

Taken from Simple Justice

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/06/24/the-problem-with-scotus.aspx

and

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/06/26/the-heller-decision-a-massive-disappointment-for-all.aspx

The Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbitrator of constitutionality. It's purpose is to provide the courts of our nation, and hence the people of our nation, with clear guidance as to what the law is. The Supreme Court has failed to do so.

It's like a tease, taking cases and leading us on to believe that we will finally get some answers to questions that plague the courts. And then, a bunch of words that may (or may not) resolve one question, but leaves us with a bunch of new questions to flesh out the rule. In other words, we are no better off after the case is decided then we were before.

Of particular concern is the game being played where the court expressly refuses to determine some critical aspect of an issue, whether under the guise that it is not before them, or the record is inadequate, or "it need not be decided" for lack of a better excuse. These are extraordinarily smart people, and they have incredibly smart people supporting them. They know that their decision fails to serve any real purpose unless it covers the issue in its entirety, addresses the new questions that arise from their answer to the old question. They know what it means to provide meaningful guidance. And still, they refuse to do it.

Rothgery was a disaster of a decision. Not because of how it came out, but because it was so lacking in clarity, and so limited in scope, that it accomplishes nothing. Who needs a Supreme Court that accomplishes nothing?

The bottom line, with all due respect to the lawprofs, is that courts exist to resolve issues for real people. To do so requires clarity of thought and expression, together with a level of completeness to their decision that serves to tell regular people, not to mention us trench lawyers, how to conduct ourselves. We need issues resolved. They are not giving us answers. The Supreme Court is failing us.

In many instances, the issues taken up by the Supremes are so limited, perhaps even trivial, that we don't feel much heat as a result of their partial decision-making, or their indecipherable holdings. While certainly a warning of problems ahead, such decisions aren't important enough to society to raise voices in concern. But this week may well prove to be very, very different. This may be the week that the Supreme Court decides one of the most significant issues to impact society in decades. This may be the week of Heller.

District of Columbia v. Heller could cause a seismic shift in society. It could hold that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. It could hold that laws restricting this right must pass the strict scrutiny test. And it could wreak havoc upon our society if it is consistent with the half-baked decisions that the Court has issued of late.

Should the Court open the door in Heller, but fail to address the many obvious questions that arise from such a decision, it could open the door to a decade (if not more) of confusion, litigation, inconsistency and irrationality, as people, legislators and courts try to sift their way through the application of a broad rule without any real parameters.

This will cause chaos. It will throw the legal world into disarray. It will cause harm, expense and anger. It will put people into prison who may have committed no crime, but won't know because the Court neglected to provide answers to the obvious questions. It is unacceptable.

Perhaps the justices (and those who provide support) are too intelligent, paralyzed by their brilliance from providing fully fleshed-out answers to the questions before them. Perhaps they are disconnected from the need for guidance in the trenches, satisfied with their product and oblivious to the fact that those of us in the trenches who rely on their every word can't make use of decisions that beg more questions than they answer. Maybe internal politics precludes them from providing fully formed answers to pressing questions, leaving us with nothing more than a decision unworthy of the tree that was killed.

But one thing has become clear to me. The Supreme Court has failed to deliver this term. If they cannot issue a decision that provides meaningful guidance on how courts should decide cases, people should behave and other branches of government should conduct their affairs, then there is no reason for the Supreme Court to exist.

I pray they do a better job in Heller. I fear they won't.

I have to disagree with this in part since I think that Justice Stevens did a super job of following precedent and clarifying United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which is what I believe the court should have done as a unanimous opinion rather than produce the politically motivated pap which passed for a majority opinion that was produced in this decision.

Not to mention that any amendment of the Constitution's language should come through proper channels.

Simple Justice also says this about Heller:

To cut to the chase, the sum total of Heller is that states cannot have a blanket prohibition on the possession of a handgun within the home for purposes of self-defense by individuals who are not otherwise prohibited, such as felons and the insane. That's all she wrote.

Another point Simple Justice points out is:

During the arguments preceding Heller, I asked everyone, particularly the lawprofs, to provide any explanation of how one concludes that the Second Amendment provides a fundamental individual right, and still avoids all the implications of such a right. We now have an answer, straight from the pen of Justice Antonin Scalia:

There is absolutely no rationale to support such a conclusion, so Scalia simply announced that all the limitations that he wants to apply continue to do so and provides no explanation or rationale at all. It's a total punt.

I am less of a Supreme Court Junkie than Simple Justice since I tend to practise law and do these rants as a sideline to exorcise my demons, which is why I don't sign my name. Trust me, you could figure out who I am from what I write here if you were as intelligent as you think you are: there is a mass publication article about us which is easily googled if indeed you were as intelligent as you think you are (it came up first go for me).

The thing is that it would have been very easy to have stuck with precedent and give an opinion like that of Justice Stevens. In fact, I made a comment about how CJ Roberts said he didn't want to burden the second Amendment with baggage, which could only be achieved by following precedent.

Also, I believe that Simple Justice points out as I do, the finding of an "individual Right" outside of the militia context requires something much more substantial than the Heller decision provided. First off, what is the standard of review for this right? Scalia, as I have also pointed out, states that restrictions are allowable. In fact, I know he allows for reasonable restrictions.

Now what the fuck does "reasonable restriction" mean when the wording is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Sorry, but that type of language means that laws restricting this right must pass the strict scrutiny test.

What most people don't realise is that the Civic/Collective right interpretation doesn't mean gun control is a requirement: only that the Second Amendment applies to the militia organised under Article I, Section 8: not personal firearms ownership.

That means you could have a complete gun ban, or make everybody buy a gun. Well, the latter might be hard as people could say their religion prevents them from owning a deadly weapon. But still, there would be no ruling on firearms being a personal protected right or not.

On the other hand, The Justice Stevens removes the concept of "gun right" from the political arena in his opinion, which would have been a very good thing. I mean Heller could provide a field day for lawyers bent on causing mischief.

Which in some ways, Heller removes the concept of gun rights or the spectre of a gun ban from the political arena as well.

So, do you prefer pandering or precedent?

I'll stick with precedent.

Does the Second Amendment apply to the States?

The problem with the Second Amendment is that it was intended to prevent Federal interference with State run militias organised under Article I, Section 8. I've gone on at length that most of the half quotations used by those posing as Second Amendment scholars deal with the conflict between the Federal Army and the State Militias set up under Article I, Section 8--not some weird individual right. That was pointed out in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Scalia breezed over this very salient point to Second Amendment jurisprudence as do most alleged "Second Amendment Scholars".

The Second Amendment is a limitation on the Federal Power granted Under Article I, Section 8. As I pointed out in my critique of Dellinger's advocacy he neglected that Miller had already set for the standard of review and that the Second Amendment was written to address the Federal Power granted Under Article I, Section 8, which he should have hammered on about like a broken record.

Now, Any first year law student who has participated in moot court knows that one shouldn't let the Judges take over your argument. Dellinger should have hammered that it was settled law by a Unanimous opinion and that the Second Amendment guarantee should not be extended.

Now with Chicago fighting any Second Amendment challenge to its gun ban based upon the Second Amendment being a limitation on the power of Congress/Federal Government and not local jurisdiction. I hope that Chicago has better appellate advocates than does Washington, DC.

On the other hand, I hope that other lawyers see the advantage to open up the scope of rights granted by the Bill of Rights since Heller was willing to give a broad reading to the rights granted under that document. The Heller decision was bad law as it set a precedent which will allow for much mischief by clever lawyers.

Why should we be bound by the words of the Constitution, especially where clever lawyers can argue an extension of our rights?

As I said, isn't health care a fundamental right? How can one argue with health care?

I want my right to health care that is guaranteed under the Ninth Amendment!

Brilliant!

The oiks who think that Heller was properly decided didn't think out the implication of suddenly extending a right where it had not existed. In fact, firearms have been used as a wedge issue to avoid the problems we are now facing. But now we can use Heller's expanded reading of the Second Amendment to our advantage.

You see, if there is a right to life for the unborn and a right to a deadly weapon for self-defence there must surely be a right to health care, a home, and I would even add in a job. After all the economy is based upon debt (see one of my other posts), it is ridiculous to not have the ability to pay those debts.

We have had these clever lawyers out there making a change in how the law was interpreted by coming up with something not grounded in reality: which the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is. The Second Amendment has been used as a wedge issue to great effect.

Well, let's use our expanded Ninth Amendment rights to our advantage for issues that are important to people: health care, housing, and jobs. I mean if the Second Amendment can be expanded to allow for a right to deadly force, why can't the Ninth be used for the benefit of the people.

So, let's just expand our rights. Let's add baggage to the Constitution!

Maybe DC v Heller isn't so bad....

I am curious is there anyway that the DC v. Heller decision could be extended to Universal Health care?

I mean if it's my right to own a firearm for self-defence even though that term is never mentioned in any version of the text of the Second Amendment, isn't there a way that my right to health care can be protected by the Constitution? In fact, the common law doctrine of self-defence said that one should use only enough force reasonable to stop the attack and that excessive force could turn a defender into an aggressor to paraphrase Blackstone. That puts paid to self-defence and gun ownership since deadly force is last recourse, not the first.

On the other hand, I believe that the health and well being of a nation's citizens are of utmost importance. Health care must be a right if owning a firearm is a right.

Don't forget that the Ninth Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people "

Now, doesn't that mean that I have the right to health care? Isn't my good health a fundamental right and of interest to society? I believe I have the right to health care. I'm sure the founding fathers would agree with me as well since they said something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. Not to mention we have the technology to ensure good health care for all.

That is the ultimate fundamental right. In fact, I don't want to live in a country where the right to use deadly force is more important than people's health.

In fact, couldn't we also extend my rights to say that I have a right to a home, no matter how humble that home may be.

Why should deadly force be a right but not health care and the right to a home?

Why would the founding fathers believe in a right to a firearm, which cost a significant portion of personal income, yet deny us healthcare or a home?

It is my Ninth Amendment right to health care and a house.

How do we remedy this wrong?

Or, you are charged with possession of an illegal weapon and

the weapon in question is a Great Highland Bagpipe.













The prosecution is based upon a statute dealing with firearms. In fact, the precise language is that "the weapon must fire a projectile using either a chemical, explosive, or pneumatic pressure force"

The prosecution relies upon the 1746 prosecution of James Reid, a Piper who was executed at York as a rebel. In his trial it was alleged in his defence that he had not carried arms, but the court observed that a Highland regiment never marched without a piper and therefore that his bagpipe in the eyes of the law was an instrument of war.

"The bagpipe is the only musical instrument deemed a weapon of war because it inspired its troops to battle and instilled terror into the enemy. The skirl of the pipes stirs men's and women's souls and its power and influence in battle as in life, is measurable".

The prosecution brings forth loads of documentation to prove that the bagpipe is an instrument of war and should be considered a weapon. Oh dear, even the EU bureaucrats want to go after bagpipes as well!

Should the law be extended based solely upon this new scholarship?

You're in court and the Judge is a large marsupial

Why because you have been charged with a crime.

Let's make this fun, you were charged with possession of a controlled substance: Motor Oil.

The law you were charged with states:

a person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree when that person knowingly and unlawfully possesses one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances are of an aggregate weight of one-half [1/2] ounce or more.

I'll add in the narcotic drugs for purpose of this act (and example) are opium, morphine, heroin, and Oxycontin, which is found in the definition section that I just made up for this example.

But the controlled substance you are found in possession is pure motor oil: no weird summertime blend that just happens to contain any of the mentioned narcotics.

Where in the words of the quoted statute are the words "motor oil"?

Nowhere, right.

My point exactly.

But the prosecutor is arguing that motor oil is controlled since there are taxes on it, it is only sold in filling stations, and has been rationed in the past. The words "containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances" don't really matter since this is about controlled substances, which motor oil surely is. She even brings in loads of legislative histories dealing with the rationing of motor oil, which in her opinion proves beyind a reasonable doubt that motor oil is a controlled substance. And she has popular opinion on her side to boot.

There is the new scholarship which proves motor oil is a controlled substance.

So, Nearly everybody believes motor oil is a controlled substance since this is my example and you have to take this as a given, even though it is legally incorrect.

All the case law says that this is ridiculous because the whole wording of the statute needs to be considered. One cannot go outside of the statute, or just use part of the statute and disregard inconvenient language such as "containing a narcotic drug and said preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances". Add in that motor oil and narcotics are two different things. The intent of the legislature writing the controlled substance law didn't consider motor oil, let alone have it around ad arguendo (after all this is my example). Add in that all legal precedent says that controlled substance only applies to narcotics enumerated in my example.

If you think Heller was correctly decided, then you should have no problem with being convicted.

As I like to say:

show me the words "self-defence" in this text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

or this one:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You can't, can you.

I see the words "well regulated militia", but zip about self-defence.

Now, if you were charged with a crime and the actual act wasn't covered by the wording in the text, would you expect to be convicted?

Nope, any lawyer would rip holes in the prosecution. Well, except for the second amendment crowd as they would believe it was a controlled substance just because everyone believes it is a controlled substance.

Additionally, you are saying that the law can be anything a judge decides it to be irrespective of the wording or precedent since Heller was correctly decided. Popular opinion counts far more than legal precedent or proper legal method.

Is that what you really want?

He who should not be named.

There are several "Second Amendment Scholars" out there who really should be ashamed, but one pisses me off completely. It seems I am not alone. He is a law prof, which started my rant on law profs, although I have never liked the US system of legal education.

Somebody said he isn't an idiot? Maybe just an ignorant bastard. The only thing he who should not be named is good at is carpeting the internet with his opinions, which some people are beginning to see as total crap. The reason for the spouting of shit is that research scores are influenced by blogs.

I made a comment about not trusting someone who called himself Russian when he was from the Ukraine. He was born in Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. These days, Ukrainians constitute the largest ethnic group in Kiev, and they account for 2,110,800 people, or 82.2% of the population. His response:

"I was born into a highly Russified segment of society in what was at the time a highly Russified city in a latter-day Russian Empire. I almost never heard Ukrainian spoken, and Russian was my first language."

Well, it is the capitol of the Ukraine, there might haver been a couple of Ukrainians hanging about back then. The fact that he didn't care to see them says quite a bit. It also says what an arrogant fuck this guy is as well.

Which got to my response which dealt with the fact that Ukrainians see Russians as occupiers. They were forced to speak Russian under the Soviet Union. Never mind the Holodomor, a massive famine caused by Soviet Policies.

Add in Chernobyl.

Why would the Ukrainians like the Russians?

That's just what I see as his ignorance of the history of the country he was born in. He isn't much better on hisnew homeland's history either.

His legal opinions aren't very good and he is a law professor, and I don't think he is a member of a bar or actually practised law. I post those qualifications on my professional webpage and would expect anyone who is a practising lawyer to do so as well.

But that is pretty typical for most US law professors not to have actually set foot in a courtroom let alone tried a case.

If his answers to law school exams were anything like his responses to my comments, then this person isn't worth the bandwidth.

Actually this exchange shows up He who should not be named for the wanker he is:

{He who should not be named is head commentator at a legal site} which I read frequently, and asked him to check what I said about the death penalty above. He is a top legal scholar who regularly posts on legal topics. His reply: "Nope, sorry, not an expert on the death penalty, and swamped. Have to pass." I suppose I had better take his name off of my "death penalty" expert list.

Funny, but I googled He who should not be named and death penalty and the web is carpeted with his opinions. My guess is that He who should not be named doesn't want to be caught out for the ignorant bastard he really is by someone who knows what they are talking about. Personally, I would remove He who should not be named name from any list of experts except for one on being an expert in self-promotion.

I don't want to name him because that would only raise his score on the computer, which is what he wants.

He who should not be named agrees with Oscar Wilde that "The only thing worse than being talked about it not being talked about".

But as I like to say, I want to get things off my chest which is why I blog. I do this for myself.

But I am not going to say this character's name because I don't want him getting any more publicity. I just hope that others see him for what he is: an arrogant wanker whose opinions aren't worth wiping one's arse with who has used the system to get himself publicity.

Editorial comment: the author is related to a Ukrainian nationalist who was assassinated by the Russians in 1959