More Heller Wanking

For some reason, I keep rereading J. Stevens's dissent and wishing that it had been the unanimous opinion of the court. I keep wanting to write J. Stevens and ask him if he knew my Uncle from the ABA and would go out for a beer with me at the Brickskeller.

But that isn't really my point here. My point is that the decision was crap for various reasons and doesn't satisfy either side. The starting point being the Simple Justice blog piece I mentioned in an earlier post. Here is another post. And this one from Lew Rockwell is a real doozy!

Here is another post which reiterates the Simple Justice comment. I have seen other blogs where the posters have realised that Scalia hasn't said all firearms regulations are suspect.


The best post is this one from Slate. The writer points out that if someone replaces Justices Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, or Kennedy (Thomas specifically), they could decide that Stevens's dissent made better legal sense.

Stevens ends his dissent with the following two paragraphs:

I do not know whether today’s decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the “breaking point” envisioned by Justice Cardozo (in Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974)), but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’sopinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

Another thing I said in an earlier post was that if the court didn't want to burden the Second Amendment with baggage, and by further implication the Constitution: the should have used stare decisis and produced J. Stevens dissent as the unanimous opinion of the court. But no, they had to come up with some political puffery.

Stevens points out that the position he advocates does not affect civilian firearms ownership, other than to take it from being a right.

On the other hand, while stating there is some sort of right, Scalia's position doesn't define this right. A conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. In fact, it is the best gift for the "gun grabbers" as there is no way that a law can ban the lawful ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens from what little Scalia says. When people realise that was the meaning of all of Scalia's blather, then the Heller decision is decidedly firing blanks.

Or as one commentator I mention above says "Second Amendment Sharpshooter Scalia Shoots Self In Foot".

Today was my birthday

I spent the entire day with Michael, which meant about 3 hours in the sherpa tote as I went to work, court (CH478), the dentist, and Trader Joes. Too bad they don't knock Michael out at the dentist the way they do me. My big treat for today was to chase two squirrels in the park.

Too bad Michael will be off tomorrow for Jury Duty without me.

More War for American Independence

Believe it or not, I have a lot in common with the average colonial at the time of the War for American Independence. They considered themselved British and that was a major part of their grievance at their being taxed without their consent.

I saw something in the Philadelphia Weekly that struck a chord with me about the "tea Parties" which are occurring over in the States. As Joel Mathis says: "It’s getting so you can’t tell regular Republican insanity from the lunatic fringe anymore."

I liked the part where antitax activist Larken Rose took the microphone and praised America’s Founding Fathers as “cop killers”—and wondered aloud why today’s citizens are too wimpy to follow in their footsteps.
 (A rough transcript of Rose's speech is available at his website).

“Those people were criminals, they were tax cheats, they were traitors,” Rose told the audience, which had dwindled to a few hundred people in the late afternoon. “Truth be told, some of the colonists were cop killers.”


Where, asked Rose, were the Americans who were willing to break the laws passed by crooked politicians and fight back against “crushing” governmental taxation?


“I’m not talking about voting and whining to your congressman,” he told the audience. “I’m talking about resistance.”


Needless to say, the organisers wanted to distance themselves from this type of talk.
“The speakers we had at our tea party gave the message we wanted to portray—period,” says Chris Clemency of the Independence Hall Association.


Pennsburg resident Rob Pepe helped organize the second tea party under the “ReTeaParty” banner. He says he wasn’t the person who invited Rose—but suggests Rose’s speech was to be taken metaphorically.
 “This is an educational revolution,” Pepe says. “It’s time to understand what liberty is all about.”


Rose—an author who served prison time for tax evasion—denies the legitimacy of the federal government and writes angry tirades against “Gestapo” police tactics on his website. It sure didn’t sound like he was speaking in metaphors. He mocked “Freedom Movement” members who vote and obey the law, and smilingly acknowledged a shout of “9/11 Truth!” from the crowd.


“If 2 to 3 percent taxation justified a revolution in 1776, why doesn’t 50 percent and growing justify a revolution?” Rose asked. “If a few little excise taxes on pieces of paper and tea justified open lawlessness from these rebels that were all celebrating, why don’t the myriad of incomprehensible, unavoidable, crushing taxes—state, local and federal—why don’t they justify a revolution today?”


By the way, Rose didn’t respond to an interview request from PW . But it’s worth noting that despite his fiery talk, he doesn’t always walk the walk. He urged his audience to refuse to recognize the authority of the government­—but when convicted of tax evasion in 2005 he didn’t exactly go down in a hail of bullets: Instead, he was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison and lived to write and speechify another day.


Now, this is a good point. Most of the "patriots" were pretty conservative. And, Like Rose, were quite willing to raise taxes on themselved beyond the low taxes which caused the rebellion. As I say, they didn't like taxation without representation, but would go on to tax the crap out of themselves.

The Tories were correct, things were pretty good and far from "tyranny", unless you take into account the standing armies. The problem is that rebellion for the hell of it would lead to people like Larkin Rose.

236 years of a mistake, it's time to go back!

These religious pains....or I'd love to ask for those directions.

It was normal practice for a medieval street name to reflect the street's function or the economic activity taking place within it.

With that as an introduction, Gropecunt Lane was a street name found in English towns and cities during the Middle Ages, believed to be a reference to the prostitution centred on those areas. Gropecunt, the earliest known use of which is in about 1230, appears to have been derived as a compound of the words grope and cunt. Variations include Gropecunte, Gropecountelane, Gropecontelane, Groppecountelane, and Gropekuntelane. There were once many such street names in England, but all have now been bowdlerised. In the city of York, for instance, Grapcunt Lane—grāp is the Old English word for grope—was renamed as the more acceptable Grape Lane. Streets with that name were often in the busiest parts of medieval towns and cities, and at least one appears to have been an important thoroughfare.

Under its entry for the word cunt, the Oxford English Dictionary reports that a street was listed as Gropecuntlane in about 1230, the first appearance of that name. Organised prostitution was well established in London by the middle of the 12th century, initially mainly confined to Southwark in the southeast, but later spreading to other areas such as Smithfield, Shoreditch, Clerkenwell, and Westminster. The practice was often tolerated by the authorities, and there are many historical examples of it being dealt with by regulation rather than by censure: in 1393 the authorities in London allowed prostitutes to work only in Cocks Lane, and in 1285 French prostitutes in Montpellier were confined to a single street.

Although the name was once common throughout England, changes in attitude resulted in its being replaced by more innocuous versions such as Grape Lane. Gropecunt was last recorded as a street name in 1561. With the exception of Shrewsbury and possibly Newcastle, where a Grapecuntlane was mentioned in 1588, the use of Gropecunt as a street name seems to have fallen out of favour by the 14th century. The ruling Protestant conservative elite's growing hostility to prostitution during the 16th century resulted in the closure of the Southwark stews in 1546, replacing earlier attempts at regulation. A street called Grope Countelane existed in Shrewsbury as recently as 1561, connecting the town's two principal marketplaces. At some date unrecorded the street was renamed Grope Lane, a name which it has since retained. In Thomas Phillips' History and Antiquities of Shrewsbury (1799) the author is explicit in his understanding of the origin of the name as "... [a place of] scandalous lewdness and venery", but Archdeacon Hugh Owen's Some account of the ancient and present state of Shrewsbury (1808) describes it as "called Grope, or the Dark Lane". As a result of these differing accounts, some local tour guides attribute the name to "feeling one's way along a dark and narrow thoroughfare".

Some medieval street names such as Addle Street (stinking urine, or other liquid filth; mire) and Fetter Lane (once Fewterer, meaning "idle and disorderly person") have survived, others have been changed in deference to contemporary attitudes. Sherborne Lane in London was in 1272–73 known as Shitteborwelane, later Shite-burn lane and Shite-buruelane (possibly due to nearby cess pits). Pissing Alley, one of several identically named streets whose names survived the Great Fire of London, was called Little Friday Street in 1848, before being absorbed into Cannon Street (would it be Pissing Alley Station?) in 1853–54. Petticoat Lane, the meaning of which is sometimes misinterpreted as related to prostitution, was in 1830 renamed as Middlesex Street, following complaints about the street being named after an item of underwear.

Now, just imagine if some developer decided to use some of these quaint, Olde Englishe street names in his housing estate.

Well, turn down Cock Street and make a left on Pissing Alley You'll see Gropecunt Lane after you've passed Shiteburn Lane.

Or maybe Cock Street runs into Gropecunt Lane.

A couple of days late, but...

The Philadelphia police arrested the first of the shooters in the Rian Thal case and have arrest warrants for the other two. Read about it here.

Right when I was going to do a piece about how the real first freedom is the ability to write and spread your ideas. There was a great piece about how Czech and Polish dissidents wrote and spread their thoughts on the BBC news tonight.

BTW, if you could check the IP address this was posted from (213.146.164.142), you would find that it was posted from the UK.

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 saying 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 decried "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. That is the legislature, not the judiciary.

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". Amusingly enough, Scalia has already said it doesn't: “[T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.” A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (1997). Let's see if he can stick with his own precedent!

Anyway, 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 his new 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, Stepan Bandera, who was assassinated by the Russians in 1959

Who do people in the United States appeal to?

I have to admit watching the furore over the elections in Iran and thinking about the contested Bush v. Gore election. Personally, I believe that Bush was not elected president and that there were indeed suspicious circumstances. The amusing thing was that a newspaper in Zimbabwe had an editorial pointing out that if the son of any other former head of a security service had been elected under similar circumstances, there would have been serious questions raised.

The question went to the Supreme Court which had this

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

in the dissenting opinion. Bush v. Gore dissent

That works for where I am going with this post because first off, I am a sore loser that Bush had 8 years to ruin the US and the world.

But even more upset at how the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) decision was decided. Amusingly enough, both Bush v. Gore and the Heller decision were written by the same person: Justice Scalia (editorial comment: and the dissents in these cases by the same person: Justice Stevens).

Now, if the US were a commonwealth country, it could appeal to Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council which was formerly a supreme court of appeal for the entire British Empire.

Now, I realise that Heller addressed the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, but the case was wrongly decided as "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it." [Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 175(1803)] Meaning that the question framed by the court in DC v. Heller (ibid):

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

was a resounding "NO" and had been made precedent by 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.

I realise that McReynolds wrote this holding in an ass backward manner, it makes much more sense if the first paragraph is read after the second or to paraphrase this for the intellectually challenged:

The entire text of the Second Amendment was made with the obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the forces created under authority of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. It must be interpreted and applied in consideration of that purpose. Without evidence that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' is reasonably related 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 of the body organised under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution or that its use and possession would contribute to the common defense.

As far as I can tell, no deference was given to the precedent set by the unanimous decision in United States v. Miller.

Which takes me to my second point, the Second Amendment states:

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.

Now, I have seen a couple of versions of this with various punctuation, but the verbiage is pretty much the same.

I do not see the words "self-defence".

One cannot place words or concepts into a law without their being there in the actual text.

Justice Scalia glommed in the concept of self-defence where it does not exist. In common law, this is a big no-no.

It would be nice to be able to take this to the Privy Council as they have familiarity with the common law concept of self-defence.

The right to keep and bear arms also comes from the British Bill of Rights:

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

Amusingly enought, as I like to point out, the real issue of the Second Amendment is the prevention of the establishment of a standing army by ensuring the vitality of the militia institution, and this:

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.

is right before the clause on bearing arms.

Yet, there is loads of US scholarship which removes the Second Amendment from its role of preserving citizen militias creating a bulwark against standing armies. On the other hand, no other common law country with a similar provision has the concept of "gun rights".

Actually, shouldn't that be "arms" rights?

Another concept in the British Bill of rights is freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge. Likewise, the executive should not have sway over the judiciary. Even more importantly, neither should popular opinion. The proper forum for changing the constitution is the legislature, not the judiciary.

Heller was a political decision, not a proper legal one, and Justice Scalia needs to have his wrist smacked by a higher authority (or maybe even a nun). My blog is for my own amusement and to exorcise my demons. I doubt Justice Scalia gives rat's arse what I say, but he should be ashamed to have his name attached to Heller.

And I want to point out something from the opinions above: It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. In other words, it is having faith that the proper rules of judicial decision making, that is following the law and precedent are followed, which allows for confidence in the judicial system. I need to trust that Judges will follow legal precendent and not whims.

It is a sad state of affairs if the Judges of the highest court are swayed by political considerations rather than legal ones.

I think that all should be disturbed by the Heller decision and its disregard for legal process.

Now, am I too late to file this appeal to the Privy Council?

Changes, or first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.

I've decided to add that "I have been to court more than most US law school professors ever have" after engaging in a debate with someone whose only qualifications in the law were two judicial clerkships and is now a law professor with a reputation. I am assuming that this person is not admitted to the bar since that should also be listed on his bio.

I mean I would list my bar admissions and do on my online CV. 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).

Anyway, as they say, those who can't teach.

The scary bit is that his blogs have quite a following: especially amongst the great unwashed. But then again, I think the masses are indeed asses.

Not sure whether to describe the blog as a circle-jerk or confederacy of dunces. Of course, that may sound like sour grapes since I tried to join his listserve and never had a response. Of course, someone with real experience in the field could be detrimental to the party. Not to mention I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member.

I have no love for the legal profession in the US for a myriad of reasons: the system of legal education being the primary one. Having people trained by academics with no grounding in reality should frighten the masses. Additionally, all one need do is survive an accredited law school and pass the bar to inflict oneself upon the US legal system.

Other legal systems have ways to cull the herd, but not the US legal system. There are stagiaires, pupillages, and articled clerkships in other countries which actually ground the fledgling lawyer in the law. When I was doing my pupillage in England, the Law Society (the governing authority for British Solicitors) knocked down the number of articled clerks allowed for that year's class size. Barristers need to be admitted to chambers after they finish their pupillage. Otherwise, you can't practise law as a barrister.

Not to mention that not only do law schools have professors who have never actually practised law, but are pretty lax in who gets in with class sizes growing. Which ends up with this frightening fact that the US has half the lawyers in the world since anyone who can pass the bar exam and get admitted is admitted to practise law!

Tara Grinstead

The case of Tara Grinstead has come to my attention through cruising the internet. She is a teacher from Ocilla, GA who disappeared on 22 October 2005.

Quite franklly there is quite a bit about her out there and I don't really feel like being reptitive. What is important is that there are people out there who need to know what happened to her.

Her mother died without knowing what happened to her daughter.

To quote one of the Tara websites:

If YOU are responsible for Tara's disappearance or know what happened to her. Please give her family the answers they deserve. Send an anonymous note or email or make an anonymous call to someone and let them know where to find her. Your conscience must be really bothering you. Do the right thing now and let someone know where she is. We will NOT stop looking. We will NOT give up until she is found.

We want Tara back!

I wish we would find her alive, but I think that possibility is not very realistic. So, let's give her remaining family and friends some closure.

Also, Tara was a good Christian and she deserves a Christian burial, not some hole in a field.

She is a person, not yesterday's garbage.

How bad is the economy?

The economy is so bad that not even counterfeiters are able to make money!

I wanted to get that in print before anyone else does. Not sure what good it will do me, but....

A stupid comment

You're a pseudo-intellectual and you're spouting crap

Hey, it's better than being a real dumbfuck, which you are.

Serously, this is called an ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

An ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

The first premise is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The contention is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong" or "X says Y, therefore anything else X says is wrong". The fallacy does not represent a valid form of reasoning because even if you accept both co-premises, that does not guarantee the truthfulness of the contention. This can also be thought of as the argument having an un-stated co-premise.

This type of tactic shows that one is losing the argument or just can't back up their argument since they can't address the issues, but must attack the person saying it.

So-- "Hey, dumbfuck, your argument is incorrect because of reasons A, B, C, and D" is not an ad hominem. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.

So, "you're an idiot to believe that the Second Amendment includes self-defence since the term is conspicuously absent" or you are an ignorant person and can't understand what I am saying may be insulting, but they are not ad hominem arguments.

The monetary crash is inevitable

If you are a good capitalist, then you should have no problem with banks failing, or people losing their houses since they are making bad money decisions. The problem is that you have been deceived. This video is an excellent exposition on the monetary system:

14 October 2008

I have been seeing a lot of things like this posted on the Internet recently:

My Dear brothers and sisters of light, I have just registered on ATS to send you this wonderful news and confirm something great that is about to happen. I am also a channeler for the Pleiadians and Galactic Federation of Light and there is a message I would like to share. I would like to confirm Blossom Good Childs message that I have also received and it’s wonderful news that this year on October 14th the GFL will show up in a super galactic space ship beyond human comprehension in size. I have channeled some of the details about the ship and it will be around 2,000 of our earth miles in diameter and will send loving messages to all the people of the world. This ship will cover entire cities and circle areas of earth for 3 days, no sky will be seen upon it’s arrival for those viewing it and this will cause panic among the masses but we shall not fear because they are here to reveal to the world that it’s time for our awakening, it’s time to realize we are not alone and that we are being watched over by a benevolent group of loving ET’s who look almost identical to us and consider us family in the stars.

They have carefully selected this time to show up and are doing it out of goodwill because of the great evils behind this world that we as humans cannot see for this cause they have decided to take action before it‘s to late, they do love us and care for us like family, they realize most of us our blind to the truths of this world and being controlled by something we do not really fully understand. It’s time to break free from wars, pestilence, famine, poverty, sickness, disease, rich and poor and all the world sufferings that people have purposely caused us. It’s time for us to demand these world afflictions and sufferings stop once and for all so everyone may ascend and properly evolve as the due time of the galactic alignment is coming soon. The help will soon arrive but we need to work together and assure each other not to lose faith, be prepared and spread the word, keep love in your heart, this love is the very light that connects us together with all life and light in the universe.

For this reason our family of light has chosen to come for us in this great time of need because they do know what the rulers of this world who are not even human are about to unleash before a great awakening occurs on the planet and they are here to set us free. These evil rulers have controlled those who rule as puppets and been the very reason for wars, famine, starvation, disease and great sufferings and they do not want the human race to succeed in a great awakening of the soul. They do not want us to learn who we really are and what are true capability is but for those who stand firm in love and light there is no stopping us.

If you are not a believer in any of this please remember I warned you as I have heard their voices personally and know of a surety this will happen. Please follow your heart and at least keep an open mind as they will surely show up as they have promised. When they do maybe then you will see the reality of this and then you can consider that all we have said is true, be prepared in mind and heart as those who rule this world will do all they can to stop you from believing and containing this information.

Please watch this video with love and Light to all!



Well, it beats what is contending to be elected in the States!

Why is the term "Conservative" synonymous with "Cretin" in US English?

Try this lady if you want a conservative woman: not some cretin like Sarah Palin. She can't have a thought on her own.

Tyranny

OK, isn't tyranny where people who are not local enact unpopular laws upon people without a vote? Isn't tyranny where people are spied upon for their political views? Isn't tyranny where people talk about Freedom, yet advocate policies which eliminate freedom?

Funny, but I am thinking about a group that runs around saying it protects America's First Freedom, yet works to overturn locally enacted laws enacted by locally elected officials. In particular, those of Washington, DC.

As I like to point out, Washington, DC's gun laws were popular among the people who enacted them: the citizens of Washington, DC.

But they sure pissed off people who didn't live there!

Now, it seems that the NRA wants to tell the US legislature how to draft Washington, DC's gun laws.

Funny, but the "Patriots" (or "traitors" in my opinion) during the War for American independence were protesting just that kind of action. Legislators from far away creating legislation for a populace without a vote. The United States would be much better off taking its legislation from Britain if that is the way it wishes to act.

I won't get into the spying aspect, but I will reiterate something I like to quote, Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

PATRIOT, n.
One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.
PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Tell us more Mrs. Palin!

From Time Magazine:

The Obama campaign has a lot less margin for error than Reagan did in 1984, and it knows that. So while it is quick to point out inaccuracies in Palin's record — her claim that she firmly opposed the so-called Bridge to Nowhere and other wasteful Washington earmarks — the campaign is primarily relying on the public and the media to press Palin. Answers may be a long time coming, though, if McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace is to be believed. She suggested on MSNBC Thursday that the media has been so unfair to Palin that it doesn't deserve a chance to interview her, and that all anyone will see of Palin will be her public speeches. The Obama campaign wasted little time in latching onto this: "I assume the American people are going to demand that she account for her own record and for John McCain's agenda," says David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

OK, if Mrs. Palin is so tough, let her explain her record.

Not to mention the fact that she is supposedly very abrasive. Any opposition is seen as personal, which has no place in politics. Sarah Palin is divisive, not inclusive.

Shark Food Sarah.

Funny

Shouldn't this be in Red, White, and Blue?

These are the Alaska State Colours!

This is not a beauty contest Mrs. Palin!

Washington, DC is full of sharks and "Sarah Barracuda" will be shark food.

Her handlers are doing a wonderful job of keeping her out of the public eye and in an arena where she will be turned into mooseburgers. I mean why did she name her daughter a word that means "tits" anyway? I can't keep my mind off of that one and it would be a scream if the late night crowd found that one and started harping on it.

But what do you expect from a woman who has never been out of the US?

I am not sure if she considers the US a foreign country anyway.

I mean even though they are obfuscating her connections to the Alaskan Independence Party, that video makes me really question her connections to it.

I mean would Margaret Thatcher have done a welcome video for the Scottish National Party? She was for competition as well.

We need the truth here!

Anyway, I make no bones about it, my loyalties are to the UK, not the USA. So, Sarah, you are in good company!

At least Ms. Palin is willing to put her son where her mouth is as far as the Iraq war. Will she be so confident of a victory if he comes back in a box, or without some of his limbs?

Sorry, Sarah, but you are no Mrs. Pritchard.

You will be ripped to shreds.

It's 9 O'Clock. Do you know where your daughter is Mr. and Mrs. Palin?

Now, I know everyone is saying: lay off poor Bristol Palin (editorial note: WTF did the Palins give their kid a name which means "breasts" in British slang?) and her parents, but these are people who purport to believe in family values. Despite Sarah's claim that she is against corruption, she did fire an Alaskan State Trooper because he was having custody problems with Ms. Palin's sister.

Now, why couldn't they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don't run about saying "family values" like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself "a fucking redneck" who doesn't want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.

We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.

Also, doesn't "family values" mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?

OK, The Palins don't believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn't fair as she wasn't responsible in the first place. It's fine that the Palins don't believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.

On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.

If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people's business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person's personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.

On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.

Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others' religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.

Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.

I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.

I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.

So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.

You have nothing in common with those citizens of the "lower 48".

Sarah Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party

Lately, the Alaskan independence Party has changed its tune that Sarah Palin was a member. For some reason, the leader of the party remembered her as a member, but now the records show that it was only her husband. This is despite comments by high ranking AIP members that Gov Palin was a member.

Why the change of tune?

Also, why would Gov. Palin make an introductory address for a convention to a party of which she was not a member? Why would she say she holds the same ideals?



This video is an edited version of the above which has more info on Gov. Palin's relationship to the Alaskan independence Party:



Of course, I see nothing wrong with Gov. Palin wanting to see the destruction of the Failed states of America, but I worry about what will take its place. Those who rebelled against the Crown over 200 years ago were like bratty children, but we have to live with their mistakes.

So, fess up Sarah, what are your connections to the AIP?

Palinguage

John Ridley came up with a guide to Sarah Palin's Palinguage. A couple of examples are:

If you live in an urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy."

If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning, noon and night.)


Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America.

White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

I would add in that it's useful that Sarah Palin is a life member of the NRA since it makes it easier to ensure her daughter will have shotgun weddings.

Sarah Palin is indeed a Washington outsider since she belongs to the extreme right wing fringe. I would say she is on the outside of most American politics.

I'll take my religious fanatic extra crispy!

The religious right needs to remember that the First Amendment was written to provide us from government interference in religious affairs. In fact, the United States is supposed to be religiously neutral.

Unfortunately, countries such as Britain with an official church show a much better example of religious tolerance than the religiously neutral United States. Somehow the belief that this is a Christian nation has become popular.

And given the tendency of Justice Robert's Supreme Court's to neglect inconvenient language in the constitution, we may be able to kill Catholics and burn protestants.

Nothing like a nice religious war.

I love Sarah Palin!

How can you not love someone who belonged to a political party that is dedicated to the destruction of the United States? Sarah was a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s, but I guess she decided to go more mainstream with the new Republican Party, which is working on making the Failed States of America a reality.

Not to mention she is the embodiment of the Bimbos for McCain caucus.

I also love her belief in family values and the advocacy of abstinance-based sex education. I know that oopses can happen in any family, but Sarah, you need to talk with your daughter about sex if you believe in abstinance-based sex education.

I mean isn't parental responsibility the real basis for abstinance-based sex education?

Another thing is that family values means you spend time with your family, not run around being mayor, governor, or vice president. You have a special needs child and a daughter with a bun in the oven, which shows you aren't being very good in the family values department.

Add in that it seems you cut funding for programs that help teenaged mothers. Now, Sarah dear, if you believe that a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant, you are being a real hypocrite here. What are you doing running for political office? I guess it comes from the confusion between women's two roles in the far right wing paradigm, which doesn't account for women being anything of substance.

No, this isn't left wing hypocracy, but right wing hypocracy as someone attempts to force her beliefs upon other women. Sarah can remain confused whether she is a virgin or a whore for all I care, but other women would like to have a choice, especially when it comes to their reproductive rights. Abstinance-based sex education does not work, even in families which claim to have "family values", such as the Palins. And you can't go around cutting benefits for teen moms if you're going to advocate policies that bring more unwanted children into this world.

Do you realise how much grief poor, uneducated teenage mothers can bring to society, Sarah?

You can have 100 children, but that is your choice: do NOT force your belief about reproductive freedom on others.

As Cecile Richards said "expecting women to vote for Sarah Palin is like expecting chickens to vote for Colonel Sanders". The working class males who supported Hillary Clinton may support Sarah Palin since she is a piece of ass, but that is really hoping that the citizens of the United States are thicker than pig shit.

I guess that the republican party is really hopeful that racism will scare off voters from Obama to John McCain.

That is if Sarah Palin survives scrutiny. She may be the governor of the Largest US State (not for long if she had her way), but size doesn't matter, Sarah. It's population, not geographic size. The Alaska National Guard has fewer soldiers than a large lower 48 city has police officers.

So, the American people should vote for a bimbo from a huge ass state with more moose than people.

As for you, Sarah, you can do whatever you will with your life, but don't force your values upon others: especially if it will cost society.

Give me a break!