Question About Courtroom Practices.

[Airman1270 0]

For many years I've been critical of the legal profession's apparent determination to manipulate juries into making their decisions based, not on sober analysis of factual information, but on cheap appeals to emotion.

During the recent Andrea Yates trial, I saw a news blurb which mentioned that the jurors were shown photos of the dead kids.

My question: Why was this necessary? The woman was on trial for killing her kids. Can we not stipulate that the kids were dead? What purpose was served by showing the photos? If the photos had not been shown, what evidence is there to suggest the jury would not have been able to process the testimony and arrive at a verdict?

Over the years I've read reports of newspaper vending boxes at courhouses being covered with cardboard so jurors would not be exposed to the contents. If these people are so superficial, so easily influenced by chance exposure to a news headline, why are they selected as jurors in the first place?

Another point: What is the definition of a "fair trial?" According to law school graduates, it seems a "fair trial" is one in which an obviously guilty defendant has a real good chance of going free.

Example: The guy who shot up an Atlanta courtroom last year, killing several people. (Sorry, I forget his name.) This is not a situation where they might have caught the wrong guy. This guy did it, period. Nobody has suggested he has been wrongfully accused. How can he be tried, and convicted, without some defense attorney braying that he did not receive a "fair trial?"

Just wondering...

Cheers,
Jon S.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

During the recent Andrea Yates trial, I saw a news blurb which mentioned that the jurors were shown photos of the dead kids.

My question: Why was this necessary? The woman was on trial for killing her kids. Can we not stipulate that the kids were dead? What purpose was served by showing the photos? If the photos had not been shown, what evidence is there to suggest the jury would not have been able to process the testimony and arrive at a verdict?

My guess would be that the prosecution was trying to demonstrate to the jury exactly what the kids went through, and trying to convince the jury that there was no way that someone who was crazy could do what she did for the length of time required to drown five kids. Do I think it was necessary? probably not.

Quote

Over the years I've read reports of newspaper vending boxes at courhouses being covered with cardboard so jurors would not be exposed to the contents. If these people are so superficial, so easily influenced by chance exposure to a news headline, why are they selected as jurors in the first place?

The court has no control over what jurors do once they are sent to deliberate. This lack of control is compensated for by strictly regulating what goes in to the juror's heads. As a society, many of us trust what's printed in our newspapers and shown on our news television broadcasts. The court is concerned that if a juror sees a headline "OJ Simpson Killed Wife" that the juror will believe the newspaper has more information than is being given to the juror. This may or may not be the case, but shouldn't be taken into account by the juror. It's hard to ignore knowledge that you think you have (evidenced by the declaration of mistrials instead of striking very prejudicial comments from the record and letting the trial continue). Do I think they go overboard sometimes? Yes.

Quote

Another point: What is the definition of a "fair trial?" According to law school graduates, it seems a "fair trial" is one in which an obviously guilty defendant has a real good chance of going free.

Example: The guy who shot up an Atlanta courtroom last year, killing several people. (Sorry, I forget his name.) This is not a situation where they might have caught the wrong guy. This guy did it, period. Nobody has suggested he has been wrongfully accused. How can he be tried, and convicted, without some defense attorney braying that he did not receive a "fair trial?"

A fair trial, IMO, is where the defense team forces the prosecution to prove its case. It's not enough to just "know" someone did something. The prosecution must provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Defense attorneys exist to keep the prosecution honest and to hold the government accountable for the evidence it presents, as well as to be an advocate and voice for their client in a system where they really have very little power. We have an adversarial system by nature, and it breaks down if both sides do not do the best job they can.

[Hazarrd 1]

Quote

For many years I've been critical of the legal profession's apparent determination to manipulate juries into making their decisions based, not on sober analysis of factual information, but on cheap appeals to emotion.

During the recent Andrea Yates trial, I saw a news blurb which mentioned that the jurors were shown photos of the dead kids.

My question: Why was this necessary? The woman was on trial for killing her kids. Can we not stipulate that the kids were dead? What purpose was served by showing the photos? If the photos had not been shown, what evidence is there to suggest the jury would not have been able to process the testimony and arrive at a verdict?

Over the years I've read reports of newspaper vending boxes at courhouses being covered with cardboard so jurors would not be exposed to the contents. If these people are so superficial, so easily influenced by chance exposure to a news headline, why are they selected as jurors in the first place?

Another point: What is the definition of a "fair trial?" According to law school graduates, it seems a "fair trial" is one in which an obviously guilty defendant has a real good chance of going free.

Example: The guy who shot up an Atlanta courtroom last year, killing several people. (Sorry, I forget his name.) This is not a situation where they might have caught the wrong guy. This guy did it, period. Nobody has suggested he has been wrongfully accused. How can he be tried, and convicted, without some defense attorney braying that he did not receive a "fair trial?"

Just wondering...

Cheers,
Jon S.

1. The court allows the pictures (evidence) based on whether or not it feels it is pertinent to the prosecution's (or defendant's) case. Obviously they felt that the pictures showed how intentional and ruthless the murders were. Pictues are better than words. I'm not sure why you don't see that as being relevant to convicting a murderer.

2. I think you are saying that there are humans existant in this world who are not influenced by any outside media? The jurors are selected based on actual tendencies they may have, such as if they are adverse to police officers, or if they don't like white people. I don't think you will find many people who are not influenced by the media during a trial.

3. You should research the definition of a fair trial. There are many factors invovled that could lead the court to believe that an unfair trial took place. It doesn't matter whether the defendant committed the crime or not. That doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place with rules that need to be followed.

No, the legal system in this country is not perfect, but it's damn close and as good as it gets.

I'm just a law student, so don't take what I've said to heart.

.-.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

During the recent Andrea Yates trial, I saw a news blurb which mentioned that the jurors were shown photos of the dead kids.

My question: Why was this necessary?

I don't believe it is. Relevant? Yes. Necessary? No. Guess why I don't like DA's. Everything said about defense attorneys doing their damnedest to get people off the hook is exactly what DA's do.

Under the rules of evidence, even relevant evidence can be excluded by a court if the relevance is outweighed by the risk of unduly inflaming the passions of the jury. Basically, the way it is phrased is that the court can exclude something bad before a jury hears it in order to avoid "the obviously futile effort to unring the bell." I guess the pictures weren't that bad, but I don't believe it to be necessary if she admitted to killing them.

Quote

If these people are so superficial, so easily influenced by chance exposure to a news headline, why are they selected as jurors in the first place?

I learned at my trial that you simply cannot unring a jury's bell. I'll put it this way - the power of rumors is amazing. People tend to believe things, even if untrue. In the court of public opinion, everything is admissible. In a court of law, the rules of evidence are based upon trustworthiness.

A newspaper reporter can say, "Unidentified sources say that an as yet unidentified witness saw the defendant eating the liver of the victim, who was still alive." The newspaper may be 100 percent accurate - someobody told the reporter exactly that. But, unless that "witness" who "saw it" comes in to testify, it won't be allowed. Why not? Because people will believe what is said, even if nobody ever actually saw something like that.

Quote

What is the definition of a "fair trial?"

I'd define it as a trial in which the rules of procedure, evidence and proof are followed properly. Look - the job of a criminal defense attorney is not to "win" the trial. The job of the criminal defense attorney is to make sure that the prosecutor proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and does so under the constitutional constraint. Example? People would bitch at the criminal defense attorney preventing a jury from seeing those photgraphs. But that defense counsel is doing his best to ensure that the jury makes a rational and reasoned decision.

Quote

How can he be tried, and convicted, without some defense attorney braying that he did not receive a "fair trial?"

You can't guarantee it. But, then again, how can you ensure a "fair trial" for the guy? I'll tell you - prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list because their power is unequaled. Only a prosecutor can ruin an innocent persons life without fear of liability. And when people can get away with things without consequence, they can be expected to do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Absoulte power corrupts, I would say that it may take some new rule to say that if an innocent man ever gets railroaded, and then it is found that the prosecuters actually had knowingly lied or cheated, then maybe they should serve the sentence that man had to.

Even death

[diverborg 0]

I remember a show on HBO about a 14 yo black boy that was charged with murder while robbing a bank. He was completely innocent and was actually on his way home walking his dog after picking up a job app at blockbuster. There was no evidence tying him to the case other than a mistaken arrest where one and only one witness claimed he was the guy. Very sad watching this poor kid get destroyed by the prosecution. The prosecutors came across like they knew beyond a doubt this boy was a ruthless murderer regardless of the lack of evidence. The family was too poor to afford a lawyer so the public defender who honestly felt this boy was innocent did everything in his power to win this case. When it was over it made you want to have some time alone with these prosecutors. Very moving documentary, and I wish I knew the specifics, but I would recommend watching this to anyone interested in our legal system. I'm sure you know all about this.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. The California SUpreme Court cited a "mountain of deceit and unethical behavior'' by prosecutor Rosalie Morton in reversing the conviction and death sentence of Shawn Hill, who was found guilty of robbery, murder and attempted murder. The ruling granted him a new trial on all charges. The conduct? Among other things, the court said that Ms. Morton falsely claimed the blood on a knife had been identified as the murder victim's, misstated
testimony by an eyewitness, described a victim's surgical scar as a stab wound and told jurors, without evidence, that the defendant had killed in the past and gotten away with it.

There have been reported events of such things as prosecutors prosecuting two defendants for the same crime and getting convictions in both cases. Prosecutors often fail to provide exculpatory evidence. Well, civil litigators do, as well, only the latter can be held liable for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

there are no Judicial Courts in America and there has not been since 1789 C.E. Judicial Branch Judges do not enforce Statutes And Codes. Executive Administators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v.G.E.,281 u.s. 464; Keller v.PE, 261 U.S. 428; 1Stat. 138-178


There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have been only Administrators. same legal cites as above.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[Airman1270 0]

...prosecutors at at the top of my legal shit list because their power is unequaled. Only a prosecutor can ruin an innocent persons life without fear of liability...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I know a guy who was arrested for "open container" back when he was 19. He was not drinking; he was
the designated driver for two friends who had been drinking.

What purpose was served by arresting him? According to most citizens, he was doing exactly what those stupid, expensive taxpayer-funded PSA's were asking us to do: He was enabling his friends to drink responsibly & thus avoid a threat to public safety. (That's the motivating reason behind ALL police activity, right? Concern for public safety?)

The cop should have given him a handshake, not a hassle. If some sort of harsh action was justified, he could have written the guy a ticket. Frankly, I think any cop who would arrest someone over such a minor violation deserves to endure something unfortunate.

As far as the prosecutor is concerned, the case was dismissed the next day so I don't know how far this would have traveled through the system. But I did speak a few times with a prosecutor...My mind drifts back...

...to 1997. Was driving a Camaro around 45 in a 40 zone. Cop said I was doing 63. (Later determined the large vehicle behind me caused the radar reading.)

First visit to court. Clean record going back more than 20 years. Told the attractive prosecutor lady with nice breasts that I didn't drive like than as a teenager and I sure don't drive that way now. Explained my case. She offered a real nice deal, saying "she" has never lost a radar case. I looked at her funny, almost came right out and asked "What does this have to do with you?"

Next appearance. She gave me one last chance to accept the deal before trial. Thanked her, but said I'd like to speak with the judge. While waiting, I saw the cop in the hallway behind the courtroom. They called my name, said the witness against me has not appeared, and that the case was dismissed. I almost said "NO, he's back there, I just saw him..."

I don't know, but I ASSume this was their mechanism for dealing with people who had been wrongfully accused without allowing the prosecutor to score a series of acquittals.

At times I wonder to what extent justice & common sense are compromised because prosecutor's careers can only be advanced by contradicting these principles.

Cheers,
Jon

[warpedskydiver 0]

How would you like to be a cop and really need your job and be forced to lie?

This problem cuts both ways, no wonder it's hard to hire good cops, they have had it with towns that require them to be POLICE, instead of Officers of the Peace.

I wonder if any of you older cops out there rememeber back when the Cops actually were liked by the local citizens and there was mutual trust because you knew them and trusted their character?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Judicial Branch Judges do not enforce Statutes And Codes. Executive Administators enforce Statutes and Codes.

Correct. The executive branch enforces statutes and codes. The executive makes a determination that it thinks that a person has violated a statute or code. The executive goes to a judge and says, "X violated a statute or code, namely 'abcde.'" X says, "No I didn't, and even if I did, it is okay because of 'cdefg.'"

Then the judge determines who is right. A judge administers the law in court, but nowhere else.

There are judges, you know. Article III of the Constitution talks about them. There are also state court judges.

The cases you cited are cases of Administrative law - a subdivision of law that vests adjudication of issues in an executive branch setting. There are adminstrative proceedings under the executive branch because the legislature has conferred specific authority for these things.

Let's say you lose your driver's license. You cannot sue the DMV in court to get your license back - general jurisdiction courts lack that authority. Instead, you go before an administrative law judge (ALJ) to duke it out. You don't want courts deciding whether or not a person gets a license. All the general courts can do is tell the ALJ that they didn't follow their own rules, and refer it back (what is called "Administrative mandamus).

Why is this? Because it should be left up to the experts. A doctor committed malpractice? A court can determine that. Whether a doctor should lose his license to practice medicine is a matter for the professionals. Let us not tie up our regular courts with these matters - not only will they crowd the already crowded calendars, but they will also be dealing with matters that are beyond the experience of the judges, and also have problems of separation of powers.

After all, licensure is never a matter of personal right - it's all under government executive authority. Regular judges cannot make decisions that trample on the executive. The ONLY thing that regular judges can do with these is the administrative mandamus, because there IS a right to procedural due process, and if the person who lost a license was not afforded that, the court can order the ALJ to do it over again following proper procedures.

So, there have been "Administrators," too. But, don't get your things mixed up. Saying "there are no judges, only administrators" is like saying, "There are no automobiles - only cars." ALJ's are but one kind of judge. It doesn't mean that the traditional judges aren't there, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

since 1972, The U.C.C. has been the law of the land. this combined intent with the act, thereby abolishing the plea of innocent.

your corporate courts only recognize creditors and debtors. not guilty, guilty, nolo contendere are all pleas of guilt.

actions under the U.C.C. are ALL Admiralty actions.

"The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/STATE. Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353U.S. 2388,239. The state bar card is not a license; it is a Union Dues Card of A Professional Association, etc., etc.

A bar cardholder can only represent "wards of the Courts"

B.A.R. Association-(British Accreditation Registry)

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[lawrocket 3]

It's really not that difficult to change my mind on things. It actually is not that difficult to get me to see your side of things. You state your point and give me the evidence which supports it.

See, my problem is that I read the stuff that people ask me to read - I don't just accept it carte blanche. I actually do some investigation myself. So when you cite something like a Supreme Court Case, I'll do my best to look at it. I did, and the Supreme Court didn't say what you said that some guy said it said.

Take Schware v. Board of Examiners (1957) 353 U.S. 238, for example. You stated that the opinion stands for the notion that ""The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/STATE." So I read it at page 238-239. And you are correct, the court DID say that, but you forgot to put the last part on it - "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection [353 U.S. 232, 239] Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." D'Oh! Your cite only included the part from page 238! 238-239 uses that Due Process thingy to modify your statement. Oh, yeah, I mentioned Due Process in my prior post.

That thing about being able to look ahead to arguments. I've got that gift.

I often mention why things are excluded from evidence at court - that the overriding concept of evidence in court is trustworthiness. Courts don't want to give jurors ideas about what happened on the basis of innuendo and other people's understanding of the facts. That's why hearsay isn't allowed.

Your post is, "I say that this guy says that the Supreme Court said that 'The practice of law CAN NOT be licensed by any state.'" I said, "Fuck what that guy said the court said. Let me see what the court said. And I read what the court said. And I say that the court said that a state can't prevent a person from practicing law without due process.

No, I leave it to the other readers to check up on it.

Here's the case. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=353&page=238

It's about a guy who was found by the State Bar of New Mexico to lack the moral character to be a lawyer on the basis of stuff that happened 20 years ago that didn't appear to be a crime, anyway.

p.s. the court said that whether the practice of law is a "right" or a "privilege" need not here be determined; it is not a matter of the State's grace, and a person cannot be barred except for valid reasons. Note 5 on page 239. Okay, so the court specifically said that it wasn't saying anything about whether there was or was not a right. Yet, your secondary authority said that the court did. Huh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

since 1972, The U.C.C. has been the law of the land.

Is that the Uniform Commercial Code you are taling about?

By the way, there ain't no "law of the land" that isn't in the Constitution. States and municipalities can do different things than other states, which is why you can pay for sex legally in Nevada, but not in Las Vegas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I know a guy who was arrested for "open container" back when he was 19. He was not drinking; he was the designated driver for two friends who had been drinking.

What purpose was served by arresting him? According to most citizens, he was doing exactly what those stupid, expensive taxpayer-funded PSA's were asking us to do: He was enabling his friends to drink responsibly & thus avoid a threat to public safety. (That's the motivating reason behind ALL police activity, right? Concern for public safety?)

In this example, your beef is not with the police, the courts, or the legal system – it's with the state legislature that passed the "open container" statute. The police were simply enforcing the law that was on the books. If the citizens don't like it, they should petition the legislature to repeal the statute.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I cannot comment directly on the US but in England, photographs showing dead kids may well not go into evidence, though there will be circumstances when they may.

The question before the jury is whether or not person a) killed person b). Generally, it matters not how horrible the killing was or how mutilated the bodies were - the jury simply has to consider if a) killed b), (as well as things like intent etc etc).

How horrific the killings were generally only really becomes an issue during sentencing - a matter for the Judge alone. Therefore those photo's usually don't go before a jury as there's nothing to be gained from them seeing them - but an awful lot to be lost.

Lawrocket posted above some of the requirements for such evidence to go before a US jury - they are extremely similar to the requirements to be considered by English courts, save for the wording.

Here the court must consider whether or not the "probative value of the evidence would out way its prejudicial effect".

On this basis, either US courts are more prone to find that there is probative value to even very prejudicial evidence, (perhaps based on some minor difference in the differently worded tests to be applied), or there simply was a good deal of probative value in this particular evidence going before this particular jury.

For example, what if there were distinctive cut marks or something which could not be dealt with through simple expert testimony? Maybe there was something of forensic importance? Who knows - we weren't there, (and I certainly don't know as I'm not even familiar with the media reports of the case that prompted this thread).

This is the one huge problem with second guessing courts - none of those doing the guessing were actually there to hear all of the evidence. Hell, even if they were there, there are usually arguments going on behind the scenes dealing with this kind of stuff. It's certainly not the kind of argument that gets heard before the jury.

On the face things though... I have gained the impression that US courts are more open allowing this kind of evidence to go before juries than are their English counterparts... but I must stress that this impression is based on a very lop-sided exposure to the US vs. English legal system. As such I can't exactly guarantee its accuracy.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Here the court must consider whether or not the "probative value of the evidence would out way its prejudicial effect".

This is actually the wording we use most often - I just thought I'd put it into more easily understood words.

Quote

This is the one huge problem with second guessing courts - none of those doing the guessing were actually there to hear all of the evidence. Hell, even if they were there, there are usually arguments going on behind the scenes dealing with this kind of stuff. It's certainly not the kind of argument that gets heard before the jury.

Excellent point here, too. In fact, the appeals courts typically do not disturb the trial court's rulings on this. For matters of evidence, etc., the appeals courts decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in either allowing or disallowing evidence. The trial judges get the benefit of the doubt at least 90 percent of the time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

you know what i'm talking about. all attorn-ey are officers of the court, an attorney first duty is to the court, not his client(ward of the court). When the later conflicts with former, the later must yield to the former. i'll get the cite later.

if you google for 'cracking the code', there is an interesting chapter about the profession.

you cannot prove this one false, my friend. the united states is a bankrupt corporation

read the bar treaty of 47, will you, please

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[hairyjuan 0]

what is the highest law in the land?

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[lawrocket 3]

A treaty tying together professional organizations means exactly jack and shit. I'm not a member of the ABA. Melvin Belli, a well-known shyster from the latter of last century, said, "Getting kicked out of the American Bar Association is like getting kicked out of the Book of the Month Club."

Which is actually true. We could look at it like the American Book of the Month Club making a treaty with the rest of the Book of the Month Clubs in North and South America. The ABA has no say - only sway.

It is true - all attorneys are officers of the court. To whom the attorney's first duty lies (court or client) is the subject of great debate, and an irreconcilable tension. Oh, yeah - these are also controlled by the individual states.

I am an attorney in California. Here, the Legislature has told me that I must "maintain inviolate the [client's] confidence, and at every peril to [myself] to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." See? That's interesting - at every peril to myself. Although this has been changed in the last couple of years so that I "may" reveal confidential information if it is to prevent a crime.

Oh, yes. This is at odds with ABA Model Rule 1.6, that gives a few more examples of when I can disclose a confidential communication. However, I raised my hand to support California's laws, and not the ABA policies. Isn't that neat that I could be disbarred for doing things the ABA way?

Also, Rule 5-200 of the Rules of Professional Conduct tell me that I "Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth," and "Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." Ths is actually fairly consistent with the ABA Model Rules.

However, inlooking at it, it can generally (in my opinion) be specified to, "I can't lie to the court. I cannot forward a lie to the court. If my client lies, I can't argue the lie. If my client insists on it, I must motion to withdraw without telling the court the reasons why."

It's about the only way I can avoid breaking a rule.

Quote

you cannot prove this one false, my friend.

Not any more than I can prove to you that I didn't open my Legal Dictionary in the last 20 minutes.

Quote

the united states is a bankrupt corporation

What does this have to do with the legal profession?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

you google for 'cracking the code', there is an interesting chapter about the profession.

For truth in advertising, the book should have the disclaimer, "Federal criminal defense lawyers agree, this book is great for their businesses."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

what is the highest law in the land?

The US Constitution. For purposes of your statement, the 16th Amendment, which reads: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

I've seen your attachments and I wonder why people keep thinking taxes are voluntary? I mean, there are all kinds of statements about court decisions from the 1890's, etc. These decisions mean nothing once aConstitutional Amendment comes through. The prior decisions are all "superceded."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

the highest form of law is the Law of Contracts. I commend you for not joining the BAR. look at the 1040, it says right on it, VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. IRS Publication 6209-- a 1040 is for tribute paid to Great Britain.

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[lawrocket 3]

I'm a Libertarian - I, too, agree that the law of Contracts is the way I'd like to build society. I like that the UCC seeks to let people contract for what they want.

Most of what we deal with for UCC involves the sale of goods under Article 2. Note that the UCC really has no provision for certain types of contracts, namely service contracts, etc.. That comes under common law.

Now, don't be mistaken. I am a member of the California Bar, just not a member of the ABA.

I did a search for IRS Publication 6209 and couldn't find it anywhere. I saw lots of references to it. I think I'd be just as likely to get a firsthand look at Pepperland, though I have heard much about it. It seems everybody knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knew someone who moved to Pepperland to be with Paul and the others.

BTW - I looked at my 1040 from last year - I didn't see "voluntary compliance" anywhere on it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[hairyjuan 0]

i thought you were, me too. everything thing i quoted is from a Senatorial candidate from the libertarian party in my state. Article 9 par. 7 U.S. Constitution reads: No Title of Nobility Shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of trust under them, shall, without consent the consent of congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office,or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

no disrespect to you with that cite, didyou read the original thirteenth amendment attached above? i have several copies of that document we bandy about with the original 13th included, as well as copies from the archives of the several States united proving its ratification. also, certified copies from my states archives of its presence in 1868 and its replacement in 1870. if you would like copies i'll send them to you.

Liberty-Freedom; Exemption from Extraneous control
License(as petains to every in this country-Permission granted by a belligerent state to itsown subjects, or to the subjects of the enemy, to carry on a trade interdicted by war. Wheat Int. Law


"the people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!" Abraham Lincoln

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish