Open Letter to Chancellor Bardo about the 1st Amendment

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 4 April 2006 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Rebelbase]

" I don't know why you have a chip on your shoulder, but it's unbecoming."

I hope you were not addressing me with that comment as I asked you an honest question, one which I would be asking you were I your opponent in an election. You're fair game for anything the opposition can throw at you and I'd hope you have a contingency for it.

[Congressman Billybob]

To take your issues in order presented:

There are those who claim that FR contained a lot of bigoted and racist comments. I disagree. A fair reading of FR is that there are very few of those, and they are promptly taken down by the Administrators, as they violate the policies of this forum.

Furthermore, I am no more responsible for what other people write than they are responsible for what I write. This is an open forum with a high degree of freedom of speech. At its best, FR is one of the most trail-blazing and effective discussion venues on the Internet.

There is no reason for me to apologize for my posts, nor for anyone else's.

Does that satisfactorily answer RebelBase's question?

BTW, there is a long and nasty tradition of gutter politics and whispering campaigns in the 11th District over the years. Attacks on me and on my family started 24 hours after I officially declared. So, I am accustomed to such, and prepared for such.

Regarding soliciting of funds, I do NONE of that on FR. I had conversations with JimRob about that three years ago, and have stayed strictly within his guidelines. I respect JimRob and I respect this forum.

As I noted before, no requests for Emergency Relief in the Supreme Court ever are argued. So those can be won or lost (I've done both) without a word of live argument. This is a fact, which your niece will confirm. That's why I have been careful for ten years on FR never to use the word "argued."

Now, I'll move on to the other posts.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I also find misrepresentation unbecoming. That's why I don't do it. Except for occasional factual mistakes and corrections, which I've discussed before, every word I have posted on FR over ten years has been accurate.

As a professional writer, as well as a lawyer, I use words precisely. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. Far from misrepresenting anything about myself on this forum, I have been extremely candid and open.

If you think otherwise, that's your business. But it is not my concern, because I have no interest in trying to convince every single person on FR that I am a straight-shooter. I think my actual count is three posters on FR in all those years that I have flat-out given up talking with, because they get something in their craw and neither facts nor logic can reach them.

There are hundreds of people on FR I've had vigorous disagreements with, over the years. That's normal, and neither I nor they take it personally.

I hope this closes the book on the little spat we've been having.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Rather than asking your niece or anyone else about the Quirin decision, I'd suggest you READ that decision. The Supreme Court specifically said that one of the eight defendants was "born in Chicago" and "was an American citizen." It also said there was a question whether one of the others was also an American citizen.

But in its analysis, the Court determined that whether any of the defendants were American citizens was irrelevant to the legal outcome that it was proper for the Military Tribunal to try them, outside of Article III.

I took the Supreme Court as stating the accuracy of the facts of the case. If you want to accuse the Supreme Court of "misrepresenting the facts," feel free. But if the Court is right, I am right, because I correctly referenced what it said.

I didn't "miss that." Your niece missed it. And you have missed it as well.

Until you read the Quirin case and acknowledge that you have it wrong, our conversation is over.

John Armor, Esq.

Post Script: By the way, only four of the German saboteurs came ashore in Long Island. The other four landed in Florida, IIRC.

[Rebelbase]

I give you the respect of addressing you in first person. In the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer to me directly instead in the third person.

[Congressman Billybob]

Here is the heart of the Supreme Court case (Quirin) concerning the Defendant Haupt:

"Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused."

In short, the Court is conceding that Haupt was and is an American citizen, and then clearly ruling that that fact is irrelevant on the facts of the case.

Since I just Googled and reread the decision, again, I can guarantee that four of the saboteurs were put ashore in Florida. You can look up the precise town if you want.

John Armor. Esq.

[Congressman Billybob]

Good Lord you are thick. The Court's paragraph immediately before the one I found and gave you, explicitly said the government had argued that Haupt had forfeited his citizenship by his actions. Far from deciding that question, the Court found it unnecessary to the decision, and then wrote the paragraph I gave you.

Haupt's citizenship was NOT forfeited. Instead, the Court ruled in plain English that he was properly tried and convicted of the charges against him despite being an American citizen.

John Armor, Esq.