Sen LIEberman is to be memorialized in the Chia Pet Hall of Fame.
Posted on 07/18/2003 12:16:57 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
but then he's a DIMocRAT, so it's natural for him.
free dixie,sw
You are correct, and I would also say that the legal 'system' today is fine. The problem is the corrupt manner in which too many courts are controlled and operated by those who operate them in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1962(a),(b),(c),(d); the federal RICO statutes. That the courts in the state of Washington, including the state supreme court is operated in this manner cannot be disputed. The chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court, Gerry Alexander, as much as admitted this to me in a meeting I had with him in his chambers on August 12, 2002. This would be a defamatory statement, except for the fact that the truth is an absolute defense.
And do you think law school makes someone suspect, as opposed to being a lawyer? If so, what is the basis for the statement.
If you had ever tried to litigate an action as a pro se in court, you would know exactly what I mean. I have never encountered so much lying about facts, and blatant ignoring of the clear meaning and construction of words and the law than I have encountered with the courts as a non-lawyer. The courts simply ignore the facts and the law when dealing with pro ses and do whatever the hell they want to do.
What they fail to understand or accept is that not all pro se litigants are ignorant of the law; and I am one pro se who really knows the ropes of the law and court rules.
I don't think it should be a requirement that a person graduate from law school or go through a 'clerk program' in order to be a lawyer. I have no problem with a requirement that a person be required to pass an examination to establish that they meet a minimum level of legal knowledge such as a 'bar exam' and possibly even a requirement to work with an experienced lawyer for 2-3 years. Anything more than that is very possibly unconstitutional. That this has not been challenged in the courts by now is more an indication that those who are already members of 'the club' have no personal interest in opening the door to more competition.
Sen LIEberman is to be memorialized in the Chia Pet Hall of Fame.
One can almost hear Kweisi's sighs of ectasy......"Oh, Joe, that feels so good." .............LOL........
Not true- Crazy Mfume did rear some of his kids (all sons) at least part time.
The federal RICO statutes are a bit difficult to understand, even for many attorneys. Basically, there are four elements to RICO:
1. Operate, manage, control, or obtain control
2. An enterprise (a court is an enterprise)
3. Through a pattern (at least two within a ten year period of time, but two may not be enough)
4. Of racketeering activity (listed in 18 U.S.C sect. 1961).
There is also a requirement in some of the substantive RICO stautes that requires that the conduct of the enterprise affect interstate commerce, but it is only a deminimus standard. For example, a court's purchase of office equipment, office supplies or even law books from an out of state vendor meets the requirement of affecting interstate commerce. If two or more people conspire to violate the substantive RICO statutes, they are also guilty.
There is an additional requirement in order to maintain a civil RICO action, and that is there must be damages. 18 U.S.C. 1964 provides a civil remedy for people damaged by violations of Sect. 1962.
If judges or other public officials commit at least two acts of racketeering activity (a pattern) in an effort to maintain their control of their public office (the enterprise). Their salaries and benefits of their office is certainly enough to meet the requirement for them benefitting from their control of their offices through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Many people are under the mistaken impression that the RICO statutes were enacted to only go after what most people would consider organized crime such as the mafia and other similar criminal enterprises. The RICO statutes have no requirement that the 'enterprise' be criminal. When you stop to think about it, an inanimate object is incapable of committing a crime. In my case, a court cannot commit a crime, but the people who control them certainly can. An analogy would be does a gun commit a crime when used by someone to commit a murder? Of course not, the person qho operated the gun committed the murder. The gun is an inanimate object that was used for a criminal purpose.
I know you are an attorney, and I do not mean to imply that all attorneys are dishonest or corrupt, but when a citizen goes after judges and powerful political figures for their crimes, you cna certainly imagine that they all circle the wagons to do whatever they can to prevent any of them from being held accountable. Once one of them goes down, the rest will follow in short order.
Not many citizens have the knowledge, ability, will and desire to do what I and a few others are doing to expose the corruption in the State of Washington, but I am one of them; and it has been at a great cost financially and personally. Someone has to do it and there isn't a long line of people awaiting their opportunity.
Nothing. The Soliciter General is not mentioned in the Constitution.
A reasonable person would have to conclude that something is amiss, wouldn't they? Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges? What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?
I know nothing about your case except what you posted some time ago, which I don't remeber that well, so I have no opinion on the subject either way.
Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges?
No; where did I say that?
What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?
I made no statement either way as to the validity of your claims; what are you getting so excited about?
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.