Posted on 08/13/2004 12:58:25 PM PDT by .cnI redruM
The strongly partisan among both The Democrats and The Republicans will tend to find new and puerile ways to call the other side a bunch of Nazis. As if they were actually going to convince dedicated people of a different political dogma to recant by the sheer force of personal insult. This generally doesn't win any sympathy from an informed electorate and it also misses the gravest threat to individual liberty in our country.
For those who have membership in Stormfront and actually hope Nazis will get power one day, the totally dictatorial behavior of judges and attorneys greatly trumps anything that either party has on their 2004 Presidential Platform. A recent example occurred in Bowling Green, Va.
BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- A woman was sentenced Thursday to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke around her children.
Tamara Silvius was banned last year from smoking around the youths, now ages 8 and 10, as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.
She allegedly violated the order during a trip to South Carolina for Thanksgiving. For that, Silvius was fined $500 and was given a 10-day suspended sentence on the condition she not do it again. - The Associated Press
Yes, I know this stems from an agreement between her and her not-so-dearly beloved, but I'm also certain she was at least partially coerced into what she signed. I also know that this violates any semblance of individual liberty. Should we also detain pregnant women who eat too many bad things during pregnancy?
I personally don't smoke and wouldn't recommend the habit to any sane individual. However, there comes a point where we stop being America if a court can kick down our door and take us away for crap like smoking in front of our kids. Like Germany after WWII, the legal profession is badly in need of denazification.
This was already posted, but for an FYI: she was arrested for violating a court order, not for the act itself.
It had to do with the father wanting the court to issue the order -- it was HIS idea. The court accepted the evidence and essentially told her that if she wants custody it would be with that proviso.
She didn't have to accept that, but once she did, she was bound.
BTW, this is an example of the Socialist in our Court system, not that the Taxocrats aren't close to being Nazi's. The German Party for the Nazi's was called "The National Socialist Party".
So the question for Americans is which party, between the two is Socialist?
The tacitcs of this laywer is from the Socialist mold.
In a word, no. You can blame your friendly socialists, liberals, leftists, lawyers and their butt kissing pals, judges. America is not free anymore? Just stop and think about it. Really think about all the silly laws out there keeping you from doing things, thinking things, going places, attempting things, etc. If you decided that life is no longer worth living, just decided to give it up, and tried to end your life, they would put you in a padded cell, to protect you from yourself they say. You do not even have the right to decide for yourself what to do with your own life. Though I would never think of taking my own life, it is still mine. I breath every breath of it, so why does the imperial federal government, state government, city, town, county governments get involved with all parts of your life? You HAVE to pay taxes or be arrested at the point of a gun and sent to jail. You are not truly free. What ever gave you that idea? ;^)
Anyone who can create that kind of headline is pretty stupid. Why post his views? You can hear these truths from any wino on the corner.
If anyone doesn't think that the judicial system is out of control then they should review the landmark cases of the last few years.
The unconstitutional changes to our Constitution is self-evident, and points to a need for a drastic change in the American judiciary.
The National Review had a recent article on the subject of how lawyers and attorneys general have taken over the role of the legislature and congress in making law. Smoking is just one example. Asbestos is paying out huge sums to the attorneys of people who've never been infected. The editors suggested pharmaceutical companies, like the tobacco firms, would become wards of the the state with a continuing obligation to pay and pay.
In all due respect to the "Preamble People" in which the United States of America government was established, and all recongized in the jurisdictions' outside of these United States of America under the 13th and 14th Amendment's otherwise known as U. S. Citizens-is what is at issue. Judicial Branch of Government is very important, but also is the other branches of government, that's why the "separation of powers principles" was activiated. I respond as follows: (1) are servant's also known as public trust employment employee's all corrupt? (2) Whether the preamble people will subject themselves back under the crown due to tainted judicial officer's public employment? (3) Shall dishonest, disloyal, treasonist, judicial officer employed with the judicial branch or executive branch of government, dictate to the U.S. Armed Forces? (4) Shall the U.S. Armed Forces proceed to prosecute judicial officer's, executive officer's who engages in crimes against the U.S. Constitution? or will these treasonist judicial officer's, and executive officer order the U.S. Armed Forces in what to do?
Two points. First, Ms. Silvius apparently agreed by consent not to smoke and the judge simply enforced the agreement. Don't make an agreement in a divorce and then violate your agreement or you could get thrown in jail. Perhaps she had no lawyer or got bad legal advice. Judges can be real pigs, so be careful.
Second, as a trial lawyer, I can tell you that the injustice visited upon Ms. Silvius is nothing compared to the abuse our government perpetrates against its own citizens in the courts of this country. Judges enforce laws created by our legislators. If you are concerned, as I am, that the government is trying to micromanage our lives, you need look no further than Congress or your State legislature to find the source of the problem.
violating a court order, not for the act itself.
Spoken like a true lawyer/judge/politician ...which are you?
In the olden days in Greece, Sparta I think, the ruling was done by Tyrants.
That is the way today in America, the Tyrants are judges and their minions the lawyers.
America is a Tyranny of the law.
Your syntax is really hard to follow, but I think you mean to disagree with my premise that the judiciary needs a good overhauling.
I contend that the Judicial branch of government is not being properly overseen by the Legislative branch of government which is the "watch dog" of the people.
The Judiciary issues edicts from the bench which has the force of law, and in turn become law of the land. If you doubt this then look at the abortion issue which never went through the Legislature, but went directly to the courts where a more favorable outcome was both expected and realized.
Of course the Judiciary is but one of three branches of government, but it is now looked upon as the sole provider of our laws. Should Congress pass a law unpopular with some, it is taken to court for "review" by the Judicial branch's nine unelected, appointed-for-life, black-robes.
This is the state we find American jurisprudence in today, and it is contrary to everything the Founding Fathers fought for.
If you doubt that our Judiciary is stepping outside its authority, as laid out in our Constitution, then read its opinions as well as the sources of those opinions. The facts are there for those who wish to see.
The questions that must be asked are:
1 Can the Judicial branch of government violate the Constitution?
2. If so what actions should be taken against them?
3. If everyone is equal under the law then aren't activist
justices liable for their actions?
4. Are there separate laws for the public and those who sit on the bench?
"It had to do with the father wanting the court to issue the order -- it was HIS idea. The court accepted the evidence and essentially told her that if she wants custody it would be with that proviso.
She didn't have to accept that, but once she did, she was bound. "
[sarcasm on] Ah yes, I'm sure she voluntarily accepted the deal. [/sarcasm off]
Who could refuse that kind of order... "agree to this or you never see your kids again"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.