Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: memorandum threatens judge with violence of arrest?

Expand Messages
  • Frog Farmer
    I received permission to forward from this private list. ... From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:24 AM To:
    Message 1 of 1 , May 15 4:03 PM
      I received permission to forward from this private list.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:24 AM
      To: James Alan Daum
      Subject: Re: memorandum threatens judge with violence of arrest?

      ** here are words about the Stanley conviction for "threatening" a
      judge.**

      Actually more of minutia or obiter dictum.

      You know I already think of Stanley as a loose cannon that doesn't have
      any common sense. I've been proving that only a grand jury can issue a
      warrant to hold a Citizen and this flathead wants to be Wyatt Earp.

      "At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant
      and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that
      resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting
      arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer
      had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if
      the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by
      the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law,
      was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere
      misdemeanor not committed in his presence." JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177
      U.S. 529 (1900)

      The right to conduct court for justice comes before the right to keep
      and bear armaments.

      **A memorandum threatening to arrest a judge for violating one's
      constitutional rights constituted a "an intent to commit an act of
      unlawful violence" and (Black) "an intent of placing the victim in fear
      of bodily harm or death."**

      What did you expect? We've been proving that an illicit use of the
      police power is corruption all along. Too bad Stanley didn't simply
      jeopardize him with an indictment.

      **The Court came to the conclusion that to threaten an arrest is ".an
      act in which the prospect of physical violence is inherent."**

      YOUR WORDS? After these many months I would think that you realize that
      court doesn't speak and the attorneys interpret the law in their own
      words with YOUR CONSENT. If Stanley had published his own decision then
      there would be a paradox but Stanley prefers to wave a gun in the best
      tradition of cowboy melodrama.

      **Really? Is that how courts would describe the lawful arrest of
      citizens, as inherently including a threat of violence?**

      COURTS don't describe anything. Just call it the record if you don't
      understand that the attorneys are saying these things and fooling people
      into believing that an inanimate object has said them!

      TECHNICALLY, do you think Stanley said that he was going to unlawfully
      seize the person of the judge and take him into bodily custody or did
      arrest mean to curtain the crime?

      Main Entry: 1ar.rest <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrest>
      Pronunciation: &-'rest
      Function: transitive verb
      Etymology: Middle English aresten, from Anglo-French arester to stop,
      arrest, from Vulgar Latin *arrestare, from Latin ad- + restare to remain
      -- more at REST <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rest>
      1 a : to bring to a stop <sickness arrested his activities> b : CHECK
      <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/check> , SLOW
      <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slow> c : to make inactive
      <an arrested tumor>...

      **Very interesting. These treasonous attornies can rationalize every
      hipocracy to serve their ends. Should I try to get the whole decision
      on this?**

      WE might find it interesting reading.

      I have some real legal scholars on my list and I ask if any of them has
      more information on Stanley's situation.

      Are you meaning "hypocrisy" or are you attempting to steal my
      copyrighted term "hypocracyC" which means "a state controlled by corrupt
      politicians masquerading as honest men."

      **But I doubt it would be much use to us, since this was Colorado.**

      Good point. It wasn't even our nation's court was it?

      It would only be worthwhile if Stanley takes it to real court and
      eventually gets an opinion from the justices that we can hold up.

      "The act of impressing an American is an act of lawless violence. The
      confinement on board a vessel is a continuation of that violence, and an
      additional outrage. Death committed within the United States, in
      resisting such violence, would not have been murder." THE AMISTAD, 40
      U.S. 518 (1841)

      "That means that he shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that
      end; that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may
      use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom he considers
      to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not necessarily
      for punishment, but are by way of precaution, to prevent the exercise of
      hostile power." MOYER v. PEABODY, 212 U.S. 78 (1909)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.