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

Due Process does seem to matter to them

Expand Messages
  • Russell Mortland
    The US Supreme Court would not even honor their owe case law Turned down the Certiorari Certiorari was based on the US Supreme Court ruling in WALTER A.
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 18, 2010

    The US Supreme Court would not even honor their owe case law

    Turned down the Certiorari

    Certiorari was based on the US Supreme Court ruling in WALTER A. ROTHGERY, PETITIONER v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS

    No. 07-440  March 17, 2008   Argued June 23, 2008, Decided

    The Courts in the State of Texas ignore the Supreme Court rulings.

     

     


    From: Jake <jake_28079@...>
    To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
    Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 7:55:10 AM
    Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Opinion request

     

     The 6th Amendment doesn't just "permit" a defendant in a criminal case to have "assistance of counsel", it's an enumerated right & the U.S. supreme court has ruled that a defendant who cannot afford an attorney shall have one appointed for him, so it's not a matter of opinion.  See e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436, 473 (1966):

     

       In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system, then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a lawyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one. The warning of a right to counsel would be hollow if not couched in terms that would convey to the indigent -- the person most often subjected to interrogation -- the knowledge that he too has a right to have counsel present. As with the warnings of the right to remain silent and of the general right to counsel, only by effective and express explanation to the indigent of this right can there be assurance that he was truly in a position to exercise it.

    That would be sweet.

    ~ ~ ~

    .

  • The Handyman
    Your post contains the following words and phrase presumptions: Counsel present! Assistance of counsel! Appointed for him! Right to consult! and a
    Message 2 of 8 , Dec 20, 2010
      Your post contains the following words and phrase presumptions:

      "Counsel present!"
      "Assistance of counsel!"
      "Appointed for him!"
      "Right to consult!"
      "and a lawyer will be appointed to represent him."
      But if there are objections to representation .......then what? You will not find anywhere where a plaintiff or defendant has a right to be represented in a civil or criminal trial. A lawyer will be appointed to represent him is not saying Miranda or anyone has a right to be represented if an objection is made. He only has the right to be assisted and that assistance is not qualified....nor could it be as at common law lawyers were not allowed in court. Anyone could assist......but no one could represent a living, breathing man therein. Fiction represent fictions. Men are assisted. Shalom



      The 6th Amendment doesn't just "permit" a defendant in a criminal case to have "assistance of counsel", it's an enumerated right & the U.S. supreme court has ruled that a defendant who cannot afford an attorney shall have one appointed for him, so it's not a matter of opinion. See e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436, 473 (1966):
    • Coalbunny
      Thank! YOU! Just making sure it s not my imagination . I have a misdemeanor criminal charge pending via municipal court, and when I asked for a public
      Message 3 of 8 , Dec 20, 2010
        Thank!
        YOU!

        Just making sure it's not my "imagination".

        I have a misdemeanor criminal charge pending via municipal court, and
        when I asked for a public defender, the judge said no. He said they
        don't do that for misdemanor charges. Either I hire one or defend myself.

        The case is really cockeyed. But I think I can do it myself if need be.

        Again, thanks!
        c


        On 12/20/2010 2:55 PM, The Handyman wrote:
        > The 6th Amendment doesn't just "permit" a defendant in a criminal case to have "assistance of counsel", it's an enumerated right& the U.S. supreme court has ruled that a defendant who cannot afford an attorney shall have one appointed for him, so it's not a matter of opinion. See e.g., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.436, 473 (1966):

        --
        "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.