Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared to confirm this week one of the greatest fears for civil libertarians in the aftermath of the burning of the Qu’ran (Koran) by Rev. Terry Jones. With Muslims murdering innocent people as a protest to the book burning, Senator Graham has called for Congress to go hold people accountable for such acts. The message is clear and predictable: if someone’s exercise of free speech has caused problems, limit the free speech.
In the video above, Graham states “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable.” He stresses “[f]ree speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, neither he nor his colleagues ever bothered to declare war. Likewise, Obama did not even consult with Congress before going to war in Libya.
Fortunately, the Constitution still exists to bar such impulses against free speech. Notably, however, China is arresting people who are viewed as destabilizing the country with their art and ideas. Now some members of Congress want to join countries in a type of criminal blasphemy law — an idea that Obama appeared to accept in supporting a resolution under pressure from Arab allies on protecting religion from critics.
Free speech is designed to protect us against our own leaders — like Sen. Graham. It is not enjoyed at the whim of the U.S. Senate. And, by the way, the diaper genie is a “great idea.” Free speech is what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley
Please don’t call names
I think that Chambers v. Nasco referred to the inherent authority of the court being used outside of contempt prosecutions and within the Rules of Civil Procedure. As I remember Nasco, it had to do with actions in two courts simultaneously. That was not a factor in my litigation. When Nottingham commenced contempt proceedings against me, he had lost jurisdiction by dismissing my case two years earlier.
kay,
“All I was asking for was an analysis of using civil contempt imprisonment instead of criminal contempt imprisonment and doing so for the purpose of affecting a third party lawsuit for which the government held records was a claim under 5 USC 552a e(7).
You have not stated any reason in law, simply that you don’t like the idea of a persistent pro se litigant trying again with a finding from a three party federal appellate court headed by Diane Woods that the contempt powers of federal judges is limited to criminal contempt.”
I told you that I do not and would not work for you.
Repeatedly.
“So your anonymous legal advice is not sound.”
The only thing not sound here is your mind. Hint: what are the only two courts in the land that can overrule circuit court judgments? What court decided Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132-33 (1991)? What case has not be overruled but sustained?
So why don’t you just go screw yourself further and see if I care, you parasitic psycho.
All I was asking for was an analysis of using civil contempt imprisonment instead of criminal contempt imprisonment and doing so for the purpose of affecting a third party lawsuit for which the government held records was a claim under 5 USC 552a e(7).
You have not stated any reason in law, simply that you don’t like the idea of a persistent pro se litigant trying again with a finding from a three party federal appellate court headed by Diane Woods that the contempt powers of federal judges is limited to criminal contempt.
So your anonymous legal advice is not sound.
There probably is some legal significance in your perception, however, that pro se litigants will always lose even when they have a cause of action.
Buddha,
It makes me feel genuinely sad … I wish she would take the sound advice being offered.
pete,
You are quite correct.
kay,
You have zero, I repeat, zero chance of winning no matter how you refine your “strategy”. The court had every right to hold you in contempt, jail you and impose sanctions. If you stood a chance of victory at one time, it has been reduced to . . . precisely and exactly zero. Driven by your insane antics at playing like you are a legal expert when you are manifestly and demonstrably not I might add.
I will not outline a goddamn thing for you. I will not and have not worked for you in any way, shape or form. You are a disaster and you are heading for even more disaster. The only advice I give you is this: Seek professional psychological counseling.
OS
you and buddha are trying but this is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
Kay, you have milked that cow dry. I doubt any of the lawyers here will give you a detailed exposition of why you do not have a case. It is always a bad idea to try to practice law by long distance without going over the entire file. That is not going to happen. None of us can speak except in general terms, that would apply only to generic situations–something like giving case examples in a classroom lecture. Based on what you have revealed, and keeping in mind that we have only seen your version of events, and further keeping in mind that every lawsuit or prosecution has TWO sides, we are hamstrung on the specifics.
Based simply on what you have said so far, you are in a losing proposition. Cut your losses. And as for obsessive, it is not just a dictionary definition. It is a complex diagnosis, and I do not do long distance diagnosis. You have reported here some of the symptoms of that disorder, but I am not about to diagnose you over the internet. I have my suspicions and that is as far as I am willing to go. Someone can have obsessive traits without rising to the level of a clinical diagnosis.
All of us are sympathetic to your plight, but please, stop digging.
PS
If you could phrase it like an outline for an Answer or a Motion for Summary Judgment or a Motion to Dismiss that would be great. Say start with the premise that we lost two distinct lawsuits based on damages from non over lapping time periods because USMS intentionally had records of them without authorization and that that is a claim cognizable under 5 USC 552a (e)(7).
Thanks again so much for the opportunity to discuss our claims.
It is 11 p.m. so I will write back tomorrow. In the meantime, more specific criticism would be really appreciated.
I’m not looking for general advice right now. I am looking for specific issues related to winning the lawsuit the complaint for which is my current writing project.
No Bil
I did NOT use the word obsessive to describe myself.
ob·ses·sive
[uhb-ses-iv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
being, pertaining to, or resembling an obsession: an obsessive fear of illness.
2.
causing an obsession.
3.
excessive, especially extremely so.
–noun
4.
someone who has an obsession or obsessions; a person who thinks or behaves in an obsessive manner.
Use obsessive in a Sentence
Origin:
1910–15; obsess(ion) + -ive
—Related forms
ob·ses·sive·ly, adverb
ob·ses·sive·ness, noun
non·ob·ses·sive, adjective
non·ob·ses·sive·ly, adverb
non·ob·ses·sive·ness, noun
I joked that I felt that I had to look up the definition of what the lawyer was criminally charged with because I wanted to understand the law. Sorry for joking.
It is important to me AND I think I can win if I optimize my strategy. So please address the reasons in law
Thank you for your time.
BIL, that is excellent advice. Channel anger and frustration into something where you can actually do some good for others. Nothing heals the soul like giving to others selflessly.
OS,
Hopefully she is coming around. On another thread, she even admitted she might be obsessive. As we both know, the first step to rectifying a problem is to recognize you’ve got one. If she wants to help promote justice though, and not dwell on her own loses past, I think she should consider a way to redirect her energy – perhaps starting off by volunteering for a pro-justice group like the ACLU or Amnesty International or something along those lines that would allow her to promote justice in a more universally applicable way that is unconnected to the specifics of her past problems. From there, maybe she can work it into a full time position where she can help others not getting justice. Those kind of organizations always need extra hands.
BIL, we have given Kay our best shot. She seems to be coming around, based on her response to Frank, but still clearly grasping at straws. I am genuinely worried for her mental health–this legal stuff has defined her life for so long, that if she gives it up she may feel there is little worth living for. Psychological myopia is a dangerous thing.
Sound advice, OS.
Kay, you will not win because you do not have a case. It is not a winnable case. You are tilting at windmills. There is an old psychologist joke that says the definition of a psychosis is to keep trying the same thing over and over, but failing every time, yet fully expecting a different outcome each time.
You have managed to make one judge mad enough at you to put you in jail, but you are rationalizing the reason. Rationalization is not solving a problem. You have gotten several thousand dollars worth of legal and mental health advice so far, but insist on plowing ahead with your near-delusional pursuits anyway. That is the same approach to a problem used by the late unlamented General Ambrose Burnside, who managed–repeatedly–to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Burnside had retreated when he lost, he would not have gone down in history as, arguably, one of the worst generals of all time. Worse even than General George Pickett. Please do not pull a Burnside and keep throwing resources into a bottomless pit. Stop looking backward at what might have been and look the other way to what can be done to improve the quality of the rest of your life.
@ Frank
I appreciate your sincere concern for my mental health.
It’s true that I have already lost even if a miracle happened & the court ruled in my favor — I will never be young again, never get that time back etc etc.
However, I would be in a much better place than not winning. And I truly think that Access to Court is the Foundation of Democracy —
Really if I could win that would be super great. My father is in his mid 80’s and he is super sharp. I could have a really great new career as a promotor of justice.
Why exactly do you think it is impossible for me to win?
a.) everyone hates me
b.) I am incompetent
c.) statute of limitations
d.) res judicata
e.) immunity
f.) federal register publications
h.) other
This is so sad.
Kay, BIL has given you great legal advice – FOR FREE!! and you refuse to listen. There are several other lawyers on this thread & if they have not agreed and reinforced what BIL has told you they have remained silent which, to my tiny mind at least, would indicate they don’t disagree. But you refuse to listen to that. Do you honestly believe you know the law better than trained lawyers?
If you do or if you refuse to take the advice offered and at least consider it you need to listen to BIL’s other advice – GET MENTAL HEALTH CARE!. Seriously, these seem like decent people who actually care about you but you refuse to listen.
If a doctor told you you had an illness and needed help and they told you this every time you told them you knew better and kept getting sicker and sicker don’t you think at some point you might actually shut the fuck up and listen to people who know more about it than you do?
Lets pretend you are right. You have not convinced a single person here. You have ‘lost’ you case before every judge (and lets limit this to only those who are members of the bar if that makes you happy) if you can not convince a relatively friendly crown here how are you going to convince a judge anywhere? You may be right but you can not win, there is no shame in admitting defeat, particularly when refusal to do so is going to cause more damage than quietly giving up.
How about this? Say you ‘win’, what are you going to gain? Say you lose, what will it cost you? Forget for a moment that your odds of winning are so near zero as to not matter. There is no win that would come close to what you have already lost. It no longer matters if you are right or wrong (and the HUGE majority say you are wrong) you will not be better off.
Give it up, you have already lost even if a miracle happened & the court ruled in you favor (which IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN). Spend the money you save on this death spiral on mental health care.
I’ll quit responding when you quit being a spammer on par with trolls.
To be clear, crazy woman:
I don’t care about your personal problem.
I do care about you wasting our time with it.
Again, I don’t care about your monomaniacal ramblings.
Seek help.
Quit wasting our time.
BIL
If you don’t care about my posts, then don’t read them and don’t respond.
BIL
You already did substantially help me just by debate. And if you are not interested then don’t make posts directed in my direction.
I don’t think it is possible to measure the importance of DOJ knowingly incarcerating someone because and only because of their First Amendment Records.
I read about a case involving perjury per se. That case was supposed to have really important legal significance to the entire legal system. It involved a barn that was over a sceptic field. In seller documents the owner signed that it was not over a sceptic field. I guess it was legally significant because it was a yes no issue, the owner knowingly misrepresented the facts, and the sceptic field made the barn dangerous for livestock because of methane fumes. The point of the article is that even though it was just a barn on a small field, the precedent would affect many legal cases.
I think that the future of procedural due process in general will be affected substantially by land use regulation decisions, something that many attorneys think is boring or don’t understand. In my case, much of the evidence is incontrovertible because it involves government documents and buildings whose existence can be physically verified even if they aren’t on the tax rolls.
The fact that there was no government purpose, no national security issues also simplifies the issues.
Suspected terrorists aren’t going to have more rights than a middle aged citizen with no criminal record and no guns.