US v. Rodriguez: Defective Death Penalty Instructions?

It would be far more entertaining and challenging if possum had multiple personalities. But this possum has only one repetitive, easily-identifiable noxious personality despite his/her/its attempts at disguise through a forever-increasing arsenal of user names.

See e.g.:

Just above, MarionT wrote: "These people should have been at the very least, clerks for someone on the Supreme Court like the malignant dwarf--Bader or the superannuated Liberal--John Paul Stevens."

Mort B A T a/k/a MarionT, et al., wrote: "At least he never nominated someone like the malignant dwarf, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose resume was almost completely sullied by her tenure as the ACLU's chief counsel."

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1655475#1655475

Never mind the style- Debra Law- Tell us when you will be running for the Supreme Court. It is clear to me that idiots like you who think they know the law challenge geniuses like Scalia since you know he would not bother with taking you and Joe from Chicago apart. If you and Joe from Chicago were really such skilled lawyers, you would not have so much time to write your half learned garbage on these threads. People who make $250,000 a year in law don't have the time or inclination to write on threads such as these. So get back to your desk in the far corner of the Legal Aid Office and pray that they will raise your salary from $22.50 an hour to $25.00.

Debra L A W!! indeed. Such chutzpah!!

The name Renatus is a Latin name meaning "born again." Not so original a user name for poster known for reincarnating himself. And not so unexpected since your other alter ego spends a lot of time on the other languages forum converting English to Latin.

Actually Debra Law is one of the reasons I bother to read threads on this board. It's always a pleasure reading her posts.

I am not an idiot. Joe from Chicago is not an idiot. The name of this discussion forum is "able2know." This is a place where all members (most of whom are not idiots) may share their knowledge, acquire new knowledge, and (hopefully) grow as human beings. I have experienced growth. I am not the exact same person with the exact same knowledge or exact same set of skills as I was when I signed up for forum membership on June 14, 2004. The exchanges and discussions that I have shared with so many people here on A2K have taught me far more than words can express.

While I don't work in a legal aid office, if I did, I would be proud to do so. The measure of an individual's worth is not measured by the size of one's paycheck or where one works. I participate on this forum because I find that doing so is worthwhile. If it's your contention that only unskilled garbage-writers take the time to participate, perhaps that's your personal reflection of yourself. But, from my perspective, it does not reflect the vast majority of people that I have encountered here.

Debra L A W wrote:


While I don't work in a legal aid office, if I did, I would be proud to do so. The measure of an individual's worth is not measured by the size of one's paycheck or where one works. I participate on this forum because I find that doing so is worthwhile. If it's your contention that only unskilled garbage-writers take the time to participate, perhaps that's your personal reflection of yourself. But, from my perspective, it does not reflect the vast majority of people that I have encountered here.

Really?

Do you call yourself Debra L A W because you think you have expertise in law? If so, why do you have so much time to post on these threads? Any lawyer worth their salt would not give a forum like this their valuable time or even have the time to post. Are you a wannabe?

Do you really think you are more skilled in the law than the people you criticise? If so, please provide your services to the ACLU so you can destroy Scalia or Alito with your brilliance. They would blow you away like a dead leaf.

The size of one's paycheck or where one works is not a measure of an individual's worth. That maybe so but I have heard some drugged out filthy homeless people say the same thing. It is easy to say I am the greatest- I am Debra L A W. Who says?

I think any moron who came on to these threads who named himself
Bob SURGEON or Anita ARCHITECT or Henry COMMERCE would be guilty of megalomania.

Your Bulls*it is inacceptable because any real student of law or practicioner does from time to time show thier real knowledge by admitting that both the liberal and conservative postions are at times, correct. As a biased partisan, you have never, to the best of my knowledge, done that. Therefore, I must consider you to be not a writer on law but a left wing dupe.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who spouts nothing but bullshit.

Very well put, Debra, but, considering the target of your remarks, a complete waste of your time.

My heart goes out to you, MarionT. Mental illness of that magnitude must be a terrible burden.

LOL Joe from Chicago talks about "a complete waste of time" yet,he the Lawyer is practically tounge tied when it comes to giving people real useful information about law. I told the people who visited that thread far more than Joe from Chicago ever began to think about.

Joe from Chicago fears my posts. Again, review the law thread to see how hapless Joe from Chicago really is when compared with the information that I gave those who wished to find good data.

Wow. Inasmuch as you're my number 1 fan and stalker on this forum, it surprises me that you failed to observe--in this very thread--that I cited Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Brown v. Sanders to set forth the applicable legal standard that applies to the issue under discussion.

It is clear that you didn't enter this thread to discuss the topic, but rather to shower me--and Joe--with your jealous outbursts. Because you're unable to discuss these topics in an intelligent manner and thereby obtain the accolades of your readers, you resort to personal attacks on others and, frequently, to the invention of sockpuppets to enter threads to admire your dribblings. While watching you play tennis with yourself is entertaining, you're motivated by pure jealousy--and, as Merry Andrew pointed out--mental illness.

If you start a thread entitled, "I'm a sick possum, help me," I'm sure that helpful forum members will provide you with several links to reputable mental health providers.

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v RODRIGUEZ (MIMS)


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term, 2000

(Argued:January 11, 2001Decided: April 26, 2002)

Docket No. 00-1345

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

- v. -


RAFAEL GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ, JOHNNIE MURIEL, TYLON MIMS, XAVIER QUINONEZ, JOSE QUINONEZ, BENJAMIN COOK, ANGEL MANTILLA, JOSE ALBINO, FELIX RIOS, SHAWN ABRAMS, CARMELO SANTIAGO, and HECTOR GARCIA,



Defendants,


DONALD MIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

B e f o r e:VAN GRAAFEILAND, WINTER, and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.


Appeal from a conviction after a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Christopher F. Droney, Judge), to one count of conspiracy to distribute narcotics. Appellant contends that his guilty plea should be vacated as not fully informed because the district court's description of the government's evidentiary burden regarding the charges against him was erroneous under the Supreme Court's subsequent Apprendi decision. We affirm because the facts do not warrant reversal on plain error review.






RICHARD R. BROWN, Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendant-Appellant.



MICHAEL J. GUSTAFSON, Assistant United States Attorney, Hartford, Connecticut (Stephen C. Robinson, United States Attorney, of counsel), for Appellee.




WINTER, Circuit Judge:


Donald Mims appeals from his conviction after a plea of guilty before Judge Droney to one count of conspiracy to distribute narcotics in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. Appellant contends that his conviction should be vacated because, when he entered his plea, he was not correctly informed about the law pertinent to the charges against him. In particular, he argues that, in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the district court erred in telling him that the government had to prove his involvement with only a "detectable" quantity of heroin to obtain a conviction by a jury and expose him to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. We hold that, although the district court's statement was inaccurate under Apprendi, the mistake was not such as to call for reversal on plain error review. We therefore affirm.

Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

People ask me to define "the practice of law" These 7 cases attempt and fail to define the practice of law. Thus B&P 6125 is unconstitutional for overbreadth and vagueness. That is why they declined to ever prosecute me for that. The prosecuted me once for 6126 which is advertising - and I won that case. Here is my winning argument, by the way: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

California Business and Professions Code section 6125 says:

"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." But 1995 rule of court 1-311 specifically permits suspended and disbarred lawyers to write petitions - as though they are trying t comply with the 1st amendment Here is rule 1-311 at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6102.html



Here are the 7 cases used illegally by the bar to define "practice law" and to abridge speech of lawyers. Why illegally? Because the definition is too vague and overbroad! See my overbreadth page here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html See also http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/yickwo.html The entire medley is as follows (listed in order of newness):

1 People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548];

2 Farnham v. State Bar (1976) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/farnham.html 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611];

3 Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bluestei.html 4 Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/baron.html 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673];

5 Crawford v. State Bar (1960) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crawford.html 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746];

6 People v. Sipper (1943) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/sipper.html 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].) and

7 People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363];

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=People+v.+Merchants+Protective+Corporation+%281922%29+189+Cal.+531%2C+535&btnG=Google+Search

And here is the statute that the define: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

This is about______. Now 14 years later, the state bar permits non-lawyers to do evictions if they buy a license from the bar. This aint about protecting the public and it never has been. Since 1927 the bar here has taken away our speech and press rights and sold em back to us as a license. This is the theme of my group at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude Note well that they don't discuss the lies of the cop who did the sting. They find nothing wrong with the service provided. They use police and other public money to enforce their oppression and abridgment of speech - and to what end? They have served nobody except the license sellers at the bar who now sell licenses to non lawyers!

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html



These cases are used to interpret these really bad overbroad statutes in the state bar act: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

In 1993 they raided my office. This is the "Raid at the Good Nite Inn" story at this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5460.html

and this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5453.html

They did NOT file a criminal complaint. They did file in the newspaper an accusation of 7 felonies - practicing law without a license. And the paper did not report it when they found out that I was innocent and the prosecution never did file a complaint. Now fast forward 6 years to May 14, 1999. They raided my farm in Illinois and put me in jail. the FBI agent Eley told me that it was for practicing law without a license - but he was slightly wrong. Thus started my personal extradition case, a case where the extradition should have been refused but the lawyers and judges involved were all weak idiots. I suffered an illegal extradition. After being extradited I faced a jury trial and won. It was a week long trial and the jury took less than 2 hours for all 12 of them to vote me NOT GUILTY. The sole charge from the beginning was advertising - although they told my Mom that it was fraud - and my Mom disinherited me. The charge was 6126 which is stated verbatim here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html



Here are the links to that story: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/4055v31pt1.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5996.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789history.html



I have NEVER been convicted of a bar offense. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been accused of helping people with IRS cases. I don't do much IRS work. I am only now beginning to use what I learned in law school about the IRS.

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude's most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: [email protected]

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http

Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:



California Business and Professions Code section 6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." See my brief #3789 regarding overbreadth of this unconstitutional statute. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789.html

Analysis:

Highlights:



6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

Annotations to 6125

Crawford v. State Bar (1960)



6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly



"6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

The bar mistakenly uses a 1960 pre-overbreadth, pre-enlightenment case (the Crawford case) to define the practice of law. The state bar act was unconstitutional when it was passed. Crawford has obviously been made obsolete by the subsequent free-speech doctrines reiterated in such cases as:

Shuttlesworth (overbreadth) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html ,

the Pentagon Papers (unlawful prior restraint) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5799.html , and

Brandenberg (clear and present danger test) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5802.html . The 1st amendment says that free speech may not be abridged.

Annotations to 6125 : "While petitioner did not sign any legal documents or make a court appearance on Graham's behalf, in a larger sense, the practice of law includes legal advice and counsel and the mere preparation of legal instruments." (Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659 , 667-668 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746, 355 P.2d 490].) 2 Cal.3d 535. The Crawford case relies on the scolding amateur opinion which punished a lawyer for advertising. We forget how backwards and oppressive the bar has been. "In May, 1942, the petitioner, admitted to practice law in this state in 1932, was charged with violations of his oath and duties as an attorney within the meaning of rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After hearings before the local administrative committee and the Board [21 Cal.2d 863] of Governors it was found that he had intentionally solicited professional business by advertising in violation of the rule. It was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months. The petitioner filed the present proceeding for a review of the findings and recommendation.



The petitioner was born in Turkey in 1892 of Armenian parents. He is a graduate of the law schools of the University of Istamboul, Turkey, of the University of Paris, and of the Detroit College of Law. He practiced law in Constantinople, Turkey, and in Detroit, Michigan, before his admission to the California Bar. He was naturalized in Michigan in 1928." - Libarian v. State Bar , 21 Cal.2d 862[L. A. No. 18544. In Bank. Apr. 19, 1943.] M. (MANASSE) STEPHEN LIBARIAN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.



The Crawford case is cited in the following cases which are hyperlinked.



BARON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES May 5, 1970. L.A. No. 29717. 13 Cal.3d 162



Bluestein v. State Bar December 19, 1974. L.A. No. 30241. 15 Cal.3d 762



In re Cadwell December 22, 1975. L.A. Nos. 30449. 15 Cal.3d 878



Segretti v. State Bar January 27, 1976. L.A. No. 30423. 17 Cal.3d 605 Segretti, a 34-year-old attorney, was admitted to practice in 1967. In L.A. 30423 he was charged in a notice to show cause with, among other things, committing specified acts involving moral turpitude in connection with the 1972 campaign of Richard Nixon for reelection as President of the United States.



Farnham v. State Bar July 28, 1976. L.A. No. 30538. 24 Cal.3d 133



People v. Perez April 26, 1979. Crim. No. 20630. 48 Cal.3d 468



In re Utz March 30, 1989. No. S005651. 49 Cal.3d 784



Matthew v. State Bar November 16, 1989. No. S008386. 50 Cal.3d 889



Layton v. State Bar May 7, 1990. No. S010566. 6 Cal.App.3d 565



Emmons, Williams, Mires & Leech v. State Bar April 13, 1970. Civ. No. 12114.




6126. (a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the person shall be confined in a county jail for not less than 90 days, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would be served by imposition of a lesser sentence or a fine. If the court imposes only a fine or a sentence of less than 90 days for a second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision, the court shall state the reasons for its sentencing choice on the record. (b) Any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar, or has been suspended from membership from the State Bar, or has been disbarred, or has resigned from the State Bar with charges pending, and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. However, any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 6007 and who knowingly thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (c) The willful failure of a member of the State Bar, or one who has resigned or been disbarred, to comply with an order of the Supreme Court to comply with Rule 955, constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (d) The penalties provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.



6126.5. (a) In addition to any remedies and penalties available in any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor, the court shall award relief in the enforcement action for any person who obtained services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 or who purchased any goods, services, or real or personal property in connection with services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 against the person who violated Section 6125 or 6126, or who sold goods, services, or property in connection with that violation. The court shall consider the following relief: (1) Actual damages. (2) Restitution of all amounts paid. (3) The amount of penalties and tax liabilities incurred in connection with the sale or transfer of assets to pay for any goods, services, or property. (4) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs expended to rectify errors made in the unlawful practice of law. (5) Prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of loss to the date of judgment. (6) Appropriate equitable relief, including the rescission of sales made in connection with a violation of law. (b) The relief awarded under paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) shall be distributed to, or on behalf of, the person for whom it was awarded or, if it is impracticable to do so, shall be distributed as may be directed by the court pursuant to its equitable powers. (c) The court shall also award the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney reasonable attorney's fees and costs and, in the court's discretion, exemplary damages as provided in Section 3294 of the Civil Code. (d) This section shall not be construed to create, abrogate, or otherwise affect claims, rights, or remedies, if any, that may be held by a person or entity other than those law enforcement agencies described in subdivision (a). The remedies provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to the remedies and penalties provided under other laws.



6127. The following acts or omissions in respect to the practice of law are contempts of the authority of the courts: (a) Assuming to be an officer or attorney of a court and acting as such, without authority. (b) Advertising or holding oneself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law in any court, without being an active member of the State Bar. Proceedings to adjudge a person in contempt of court under this section are to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Title V of Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure.





6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly certificated pursuant to the Professional Corporation Act, as contained in Part 4 (commencing with Section 13400) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and pursuant to Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code, when the law corporation is in compliance with the requirements of (a) the Professional Corporation Act; (b) Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code; and ©) all other statutes and all rules and regulations now or hereafter enacted or adopted pertaining to such corporation and the conduct of its affairs.



Posted: August 5, 2003 (7:43pm). Tuesday
Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

People ask me to define "the practice of law" These 7 cases attempt and fail to define the practice of law. Thus B&P 6125 is unconstitutional for overbreadth and vagueness. That is why they declined to ever prosecute me for that. The prosecuted me once for 6126 which is advertising - and I won that case. Here is my winning argument, by the way: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

California Business and Professions Code section 6125 says:

"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." But 1995 rule of court 1-311 specifically permits suspended and disbarred lawyers to write petitions - as though they are trying t comply with the 1st amendment Here is rule 1-311 at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6102.html



Here are the 7 cases used illegally by the bar to define "practice law" and to abridge speech of lawyers. Why illegally? Because the definition is too vague and overbroad! See my overbreadth page here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html See also http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/yickwo.html The entire medley is as follows (listed in order of newness):

1 People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548];

2 Farnham v. State Bar (1976) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/farnham.html 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611];

3 Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bluestei.html 4 Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/baron.html 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673];

5 Crawford v. State Bar (1960) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crawford.html 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746];

6 People v. Sipper (1943) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/sipper.html 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].) and

7 People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363];

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=People+v.+Merchants+Protective+Corporation+%281922%29+189+Cal.+531%2C+535&btnG=Google+Search

And here is the statute that the define: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

This is about______. Now 14 years later, the state bar permits non-lawyers to do evictions if they buy a license from the bar. This aint about protecting the public and it never has been. Since 1927 the bar here has taken away our speech and press rights and sold em back to us as a license. This is the theme of my group at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude Note well that they don't discuss the lies of the cop who did the sting. They find nothing wrong with the service provided. They use police and other public money to enforce their oppression and abridgment of speech - and to what end? They have served nobody except the license sellers at the bar who now sell licenses to non lawyers!

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html



These cases are used to interpret these really bad overbroad statutes in the state bar act: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

In 1993 they raided my office. This is the "Raid at the Good Nite Inn" story at this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5460.html

and this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5453.html

They did NOT file a criminal complaint. They did file in the newspaper an accusation of 7 felonies - practicing law without a license. And the paper did not report it when they found out that I was innocent and the prosecution never did file a complaint. Now fast forward 6 years to May 14, 1999. They raided my farm in Illinois and put me in jail. the FBI agent Eley told me that it was for practicing law without a license - but he was slightly wrong. Thus started my personal extradition case, a case where the extradition should have been refused but the lawyers and judges involved were all weak idiots. I suffered an illegal extradition. After being extradited I faced a jury trial and won. It was a week long trial and the jury took less than 2 hours for all 12 of them to vote me NOT GUILTY. The sole charge from the beginning was advertising - although they told my Mom that it was fraud - and my Mom disinherited me. The charge was 6126 which is stated verbatim here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html



Here are the links to that story: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/4055v31pt1.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5996.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789history.html



I have NEVER been convicted of a bar offense. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been accused of helping people with IRS cases. I don't do much IRS work. I am only now beginning to use what I learned in law school about the IRS.

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude's most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: [email protected]

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http

Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:



California Business and Professions Code section 6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." See my brief #3789 regarding overbreadth of this unconstitutional statute. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789.html

Analysis:

Highlights:



6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

Annotations to 6125

Crawford v. State Bar (1960)



6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly



"6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

The bar mistakenly uses a 1960 pre-overbreadth, pre-enlightenment case (the Crawford case) to define the practice of law. The state bar act was unconstitutional when it was passed. Crawford has obviously been made obsolete by the subsequent free-speech doctrines reiterated in such cases as:

Shuttlesworth (overbreadth) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html ,

the Pentagon Papers (unlawful prior restraint) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5799.html , and

Brandenberg (clear and present danger test) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5802.html . The 1st amendment says that free speech may not be abridged.

Annotations to 6125 : "While petitioner did not sign any legal documents or make a court appearance on Graham's behalf, in a larger sense, the practice of law includes legal advice and counsel and the mere preparation of legal instruments." (Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659 , 667-668 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746, 355 P.2d 490].) 2 Cal.3d 535. The Crawford case relies on the scolding amateur opinion which punished a lawyer for advertising. We forget how backwards and oppressive the bar has been. "In May, 1942, the petitioner, admitted to practice law in this state in 1932, was charged with violations of his oath and duties as an attorney within the meaning of rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After hearings before the local administrative committee and the Board [21 Cal.2d 863] of Governors it was found that he had intentionally solicited professional business by advertising in violation of the rule. It was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months. The petitioner filed the present proceeding for a review of the findings and recommendation.



The petitioner was born in Turkey in 1892 of Armenian parents. He is a graduate of the law schools of the University of Istamboul, Turkey, of the University of Paris, and of the Detroit College of Law. He practiced law in Constantinople, Turkey, and in Detroit, Michigan, before his admission to the California Bar. He was naturalized in Michigan in 1928." - Libarian v. State Bar , 21 Cal.2d 862[L. A. No. 18544. In Bank. Apr. 19, 1943.] M. (MANASSE) STEPHEN LIBARIAN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.



The Crawford case is cited in the following cases which are hyperlinked.



BARON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES May 5, 1970. L.A. No. 29717. 13 Cal.3d 162



Bluestein v. State Bar December 19, 1974. L.A. No. 30241. 15 Cal.3d 762



In re Cadwell December 22, 1975. L.A. Nos. 30449. 15 Cal.3d 878



Segretti v. State Bar January 27, 1976. L.A. No. 30423. 17 Cal.3d 605 Segretti, a 34-year-old attorney, was admitted to practice in 1967. In L.A. 30423 he was charged in a notice to show cause with, among other things, committing specified acts involving moral turpitude in connection with the 1972 campaign of Richard Nixon for reelection as President of the United States.



Farnham v. State Bar July 28, 1976. L.A. No. 30538. 24 Cal.3d 133



People v. Perez April 26, 1979. Crim. No. 20630. 48 Cal.3d 468



In re Utz March 30, 1989. No. S005651. 49 Cal.3d 784



Matthew v. State Bar November 16, 1989. No. S008386. 50 Cal.3d 889



Layton v. State Bar May 7, 1990. No. S010566. 6 Cal.App.3d 565



Emmons, Williams, Mires & Leech v. State Bar April 13, 1970. Civ. No. 12114.




6126. (a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the person shall be confined in a county jail for not less than 90 days, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would be served by imposition of a lesser sentence or a fine. If the court imposes only a fine or a sentence of less than 90 days for a second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision, the court shall state the reasons for its sentencing choice on the record. (b) Any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar, or has been suspended from membership from the State Bar, or has been disbarred, or has resigned from the State Bar with charges pending, and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. However, any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 6007 and who knowingly thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (c) The willful failure of a member of the State Bar, or one who has resigned or been disbarred, to comply with an order of the Supreme Court to comply with Rule 955, constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (d) The penalties provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.



6126.5. (a) In addition to any remedies and penalties available in any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor, the court shall award relief in the enforcement action for any person who obtained services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 or who purchased any goods, services, or real or personal property in connection with services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 against the person who violated Section 6125 or 6126, or who sold goods, services, or property in connection with that violation. The court shall consider the following relief: (1) Actual damages. (2) Restitution of all amounts paid. (3) The amount of penalties and tax liabilities incurred in connection with the sale or transfer of assets to pay for any goods, services, or property. (4) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs expended to rectify errors made in the unlawful practice of law. (5) Prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of loss to the date of judgment. (6) Appropriate equitable relief, including the rescission of sales made in connection with a violation of law. (b) The relief awarded under paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) shall be distributed to, or on behalf of, the person for whom it was awarded or, if it is impracticable to do so, shall be distributed as may be directed by the court pursuant to its equitable powers. (c) The court shall also award the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney reasonable attorney's fees and costs and, in the court's discretion, exemplary damages as provided in Section 3294 of the Civil Code. (d) This section shall not be construed to create, abrogate, or otherwise affect claims, rights, or remedies, if any, that may be held by a person or entity other than those law enforcement agencies described in subdivision (a). The remedies provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to the remedies and penalties provided under other laws.



6127. The following acts or omissions in respect to the practice of law are contempts of the authority of the courts: (a) Assuming to be an officer or attorney of a court and acting as such, without authority. (b) Advertising or holding oneself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law in any court, without being an active member of the State Bar. Proceedings to adjudge a person in contempt of court under this section are to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Title V of Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure.





6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly certificated pursuant to the Professional Corporation Act, as contained in Part 4 (commencing with Section 13400) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and pursuant to Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code, when the law corporation is in compliance with the requirements of (a) the Professional Corporation Act; (b) Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code; and ©) all other statutes and all rules and regulations now or hereafter enacted or adopted pertaining to such corporation and the conduct of its affairs.



Posted: August 5, 2003 (7:43pm). Tuesday
Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

People ask me to define "the practice of law" These 7 cases attempt and fail to define the practice of law. Thus B&P 6125 is unconstitutional for overbreadth and vagueness. That is why they declined to ever prosecute me for that. The prosecuted me once for 6126 which is advertising - and I won that case. Here is my winning argument, by the way: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

California Business and Professions Code section 6125 says:

"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." But 1995 rule of court 1-311 specifically permits suspended and disbarred lawyers to write petitions - as though they are trying t comply with the 1st amendment Here is rule 1-311 at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6102.html



Here are the 7 cases used illegally by the bar to define "practice law" and to abridge speech of lawyers. Why illegally? Because the definition is too vague and overbroad! See my overbreadth page here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html See also http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/yickwo.html The entire medley is as follows (listed in order of newness):

1 People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548];

2 Farnham v. State Bar (1976) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/farnham.html 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611];

3 Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bluestei.html 4 Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/baron.html 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673];

5 Crawford v. State Bar (1960) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crawford.html 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746];

6 People v. Sipper (1943) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/sipper.html 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].) and

7 People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363];

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=People+v.+Merchants+Protective+Corporation+%281922%29+189+Cal.+531%2C+535&btnG=Google+Search

And here is the statute that the define: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

This is about______. Now 14 years later, the state bar permits non-lawyers to do evictions if they buy a license from the bar. This aint about protecting the public and it never has been. Since 1927 the bar here has taken away our speech and press rights and sold em back to us as a license. This is the theme of my group at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude Note well that they don't discuss the lies of the cop who did the sting. They find nothing wrong with the service provided. They use police and other public money to enforce their oppression and abridgment of speech - and to what end? They have served nobody except the license sellers at the bar who now sell licenses to non lawyers!

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html



These cases are used to interpret these really bad overbroad statutes in the state bar act: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

In 1993 they raided my office. This is the "Raid at the Good Nite Inn" story at this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5460.html

and this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5453.html

They did NOT file a criminal complaint. They did file in the newspaper an accusation of 7 felonies - practicing law without a license. And the paper did not report it when they found out that I was innocent and the prosecution never did file a complaint. Now fast forward 6 years to May 14, 1999. They raided my farm in Illinois and put me in jail. the FBI agent Eley told me that it was for practicing law without a license - but he was slightly wrong. Thus started my personal extradition case, a case where the extradition should have been refused but the lawyers and judges involved were all weak idiots. I suffered an illegal extradition. After being extradited I faced a jury trial and won. It was a week long trial and the jury took less than 2 hours for all 12 of them to vote me NOT GUILTY. The sole charge from the beginning was advertising - although they told my Mom that it was fraud - and my Mom disinherited me. The charge was 6126 which is stated verbatim here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html



Here are the links to that story: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/4055v31pt1.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html



http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5996.html



http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789history.html



I have NEVER been convicted of a bar offense. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been accused of helping people with IRS cases. I don't do much IRS work. I am only now beginning to use what I learned in law school about the IRS.

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude's most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: [email protected]

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http

Lawyerdude's explanation of the state bar act:



California Business and Professions Code section 6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar." See my brief #3789 regarding overbreadth of this unconstitutional statute. http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789.html

Analysis:

Highlights:



6125.:"No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

Annotations to 6125

Crawford v. State Bar (1960)



6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly



"6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar."

The bar mistakenly uses a 1960 pre-overbreadth, pre-enlightenment case (the Crawford case) to define the practice of law. The state bar act was unconstitutional when it was passed. Crawford has obviously been made obsolete by the subsequent free-speech doctrines reiterated in such cases as:

Shuttlesworth (overbreadth) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html ,

the Pentagon Papers (unlawful prior restraint) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5799.html , and

Brandenberg (clear and present danger test) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5802.html . The 1st amendment says that free speech may not be abridged.

Annotations to 6125 : "While petitioner did not sign any legal documents or make a court appearance on Graham's behalf, in a larger sense, the practice of law includes legal advice and counsel and the mere preparation of legal instruments." (Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659 , 667-668 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746, 355 P.2d 490].) 2 Cal.3d 535. The Crawford case relies on the scolding amateur opinion which punished a lawyer for advertising. We forget how backwards and oppressive the bar has been. "In May, 1942, the petitioner, admitted to practice law in this state in 1932, was charged with violations of his oath and duties as an attorney within the meaning of rule 2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. After hearings before the local administrative committee and the Board [21 Cal.2d 863] of Governors it was found that he had intentionally solicited professional business by advertising in violation of the rule. It was recommended that he be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of three months. The petitioner filed the present proceeding for a review of the findings and recommendation.



The petitioner was born in Turkey in 1892 of Armenian parents. He is a graduate of the law schools of the University of Istamboul, Turkey, of the University of Paris, and of the Detroit College of Law. He practiced law in Constantinople, Turkey, and in Detroit, Michigan, before his admission to the California Bar. He was naturalized in Michigan in 1928." - Libarian v. State Bar , 21 Cal.2d 862[L. A. No. 18544. In Bank. Apr. 19, 1943.] M. (MANASSE) STEPHEN LIBARIAN, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.



The Crawford case is cited in the following cases which are hyperlinked.



BARON v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES May 5, 1970. L.A. No. 29717. 13 Cal.3d 162



Bluestein v. State Bar December 19, 1974. L.A. No. 30241. 15 Cal.3d 762



In re Cadwell December 22, 1975. L.A. Nos. 30449. 15 Cal.3d 878



Segretti v. State Bar January 27, 1976. L.A. No. 30423. 17 Cal.3d 605 Segretti, a 34-year-old attorney, was admitted to practice in 1967. In L.A. 30423 he was charged in a notice to show cause with, among other things, committing specified acts involving moral turpitude in connection with the 1972 campaign of Richard Nixon for reelection as President of the United States.



Farnham v. State Bar July 28, 1976. L.A. No. 30538. 24 Cal.3d 133



People v. Perez April 26, 1979. Crim. No. 20630. 48 Cal.3d 468



In re Utz March 30, 1989. No. S005651. 49 Cal.3d 784



Matthew v. State Bar November 16, 1989. No. S008386. 50 Cal.3d 889



Layton v. State Bar May 7, 1990. No. S010566. 6 Cal.App.3d 565



Emmons, Williams, Mires & Leech v. State Bar April 13, 1970. Civ. No. 12114.




6126. (a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the person shall be confined in a county jail for not less than 90 days, except in an unusual case where the interests of justice would be served by imposition of a lesser sentence or a fine. If the court imposes only a fine or a sentence of less than 90 days for a second or subsequent conviction under this subdivision, the court shall state the reasons for its sentencing choice on the record. (b) Any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar, or has been suspended from membership from the State Bar, or has been disbarred, or has resigned from the State Bar with charges pending, and thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. However, any person who has been involuntarily enrolled as an inactive member of the State Bar pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of Section 6007 and who knowingly thereafter practices or attempts to practice law, or advertises or holds himself or herself out as practicing or otherwise entitled to practice law, is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (c) The willful failure of a member of the State Bar, or one who has resigned or been disbarred, to comply with an order of the Supreme Court to comply with Rule 955, constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail. (d) The penalties provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.



6126.5. (a) In addition to any remedies and penalties available in any enforcement action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General, a district attorney, or a city attorney, acting as a public prosecutor, the court shall award relief in the enforcement action for any person who obtained services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 or who purchased any goods, services, or real or personal property in connection with services offered or provided in violation of Section 6125 or 6126 against the person who violated Section 6125 or 6126, or who sold goods, services, or property in connection with that violation. The court shall consider the following relief: (1) Actual damages. (2) Restitution of all amounts paid. (3) The amount of penalties and tax liabilities incurred in connection with the sale or transfer of assets to pay for any goods, services, or property. (4) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs expended to rectify errors made in the unlawful practice of law. (5) Prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date of loss to the date of judgment. (6) Appropriate equitable relief, including the rescission of sales made in connection with a violation of law. (b) The relief awarded under paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) shall be distributed to, or on behalf of, the person for whom it was awarded or, if it is impracticable to do so, shall be distributed as may be directed by the court pursuant to its equitable powers. (c) The court shall also award the Attorney General, district attorney, or city attorney reasonable attorney's fees and costs and, in the court's discretion, exemplary damages as provided in Section 3294 of the Civil Code. (d) This section shall not be construed to create, abrogate, or otherwise affect claims, rights, or remedies, if any, that may be held by a person or entity other than those law enforcement agencies described in subdivision (a). The remedies provided in this section are cumulative to each other and to the remedies and penalties provided under other laws.



6127. The following acts or omissions in respect to the practice of law are contempts of the authority of the courts: (a) Assuming to be an officer or attorney of a court and acting as such, without authority. (b) Advertising or holding oneself out as practicing or as entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law in any court, without being an active member of the State Bar. Proceedings to adjudge a person in contempt of court under this section are to be taken in accordance with the provisions of Title V of Part III of the Code of Civil Procedure.





6127.5. Nothing in Sections 6125, 6126 and 6127 shall be deemed to apply to the acts and practices of a law corporation duly certificated pursuant to the Professional Corporation Act, as contained in Part 4 (commencing with Section 13400) of Division 3 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code, and pursuant to Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code, when the law corporation is in compliance with the requirements of (a) the Professional Corporation Act; (b) Article 10 (commencing with Section 6160) of Chapter 4 of Division 3 of this code; and ©) all other statutes and all rules and regulations now or hereafter enacted or adopted pertaining to such corporation and the conduct of its affairs.



Posted: August 5, 2003 (7:43pm). Tuesday

Phoenix wrote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra_Law- Check out "Borderline Personality Disorder" on the internet. From your description, it sounds like the gf might be suffering from that.......and how!

I know that your son is an adult, but if there is anything that you can do to assist him in extricating himself from this harridan, help him. Normally, I would advise a parent to butt out, but this kind of relationship is so destructive to the partner, that in this case, I think that it is wise to intervene.

You might want to check out this book, and see if anything in there rings a bell!

Link to Book

How do I know about this? I went through the same thing with MY son!!!!

Good luck, and let us know how you are doing.

Geez, Massagato, don't you get confused with all these name changes? Now you call yourself Madison instead of Marion. After a while you won't know who you are any more, Chickzaira. It must put a stress on you, Bernie.

Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:32 pm Post: 824844 - interesting

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foxfyre wrote:
I have always interpreted an inalienable right as those freedoms that require nothing of other persons other than their noninterference--breathing, sunshine, thinking, feeling, etc. The minute our want or need or expectation requires another person(s) to provide it, it is no longer a right but a privilege granted by either charity or law.

Debra Law wrote:
There is the gamut of "inalienable rights" that the people once had--and specifically formed our government to secure for our benefit--but those rights were lost over the decades (chip by chip) through governmental regulation. Many former rights (thought to be inalienable) have been regulated to almost nonexistence or taken away completely and "sold" or "licensed" back to the people as a "privilege" rather than a "right."

The "rights vs. privilege" dichotomy reminds of "NewSpeak" advocated by Big Brother in the book, 1984, to convince the people that freedom is slavery. Another one is "punitive vs. remedial." So long as government takes adverse action against an individual and labels that action "remedial" rather than "punitive," the rights of the individual magically become watered down or disappear completely.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NewSpeak advocated by Big Brother in the book, 1984.



Note:


Excerpt from
"The Principles of Newspeak"
An appendix to 1984
Written by : George Orwell in 1948


Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles of the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist, It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile, it gained ground steadily, all party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of Newspeak dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the dictionary, that we are concerned here.

It is Newspeak--NOT NewSpeak.