FW: memorandum threatens judge with violence of arrest?
- I received permission to forward from this private list.
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
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>
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
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)