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
Anosognosia is generally a condition that prevents a person from knowing something is wrong with them.
And as a technical matter, head injury is not the only way to sustain brain damage.
You wanted my opinion as to what is wrong with you and I have it to you. You are simply nuts, kay. Deny it to us and to yourself all you want.
The proof is in the eating of the pudding.
blah blah blah
Again.
Go ahead and let your incompetence to act as your own legal counsel get you in further trouble. See if I care. I long ago learned a lesson about self-destructive people the hard way. Say your piece about the error of their ways in hope the remedy their actions and then get the Hell out of their way.
It was true then.
It’s true now.
And seek professional mental health.
Your problems will only get worse until you properly address them.
I just ask that you quit displaying your decent into madness here as if we were a court of appeals. We’re not and the more, we don’t care. You’ve been told repeatedly and by multiple parties that you need professional legal help and that if you cannot get it, there is a good reason. Your persistent insistence that you have the abilities of a legal expert is as annoying as a child insisting to a physicist that they do indeed know how to build a perpetual motion machine. Your persistent thread-jacking is a trollish, childish and obsessive nuisance. If you want to be a fool, that is your right. Conversely, it is our right not to suffer fools gladly.
Carry on.
I looked up Anosognosia on Wikipedia. I didn’t have a head injury.
“A patient with Wernicke’s aphasia cannot correct his own phonetic errors and shows “anger and disappointment with the person with whom he is speaking because that person fails to understand him.” I didn’t show anger towards you, BIL
“Anosognosia is thought to be related to unilateral neglect, a condition often found after damage to the non-dominant (usually the right[4]) hemisphere of the cerebral cortex in which sufferers seem unable to attend to, or sometimes comprehend, anything on a certain side of their body.” Both sides of my body work fine. As you can see, I can type.
“Anosognosia may occur as part of Wernicke’s aphasia, a language disorder that causes poor comprehension of speech and the production of fluent but incomprehensible sentences.” While some people seem to disagree that people have a statutory right to represent themselves in court, that the Joint Automated Booking System was published in the Code of Federal Regulations as ONLY being used when there is a criminal charge, that The Privacy Act prohibits federal agencies from possession of any “record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity”, that the US Code requires a bail hearing within 24 hours of incarceration and a speedy trial notice, and other statements of law I have quoted, in court the ONLY time anyone filed a motion for a more clear statement, in 2003, they failed to respond to my reply.
I cut and paste accurately.
As far as proving the law, I have the statements that DOJ made on its own website.
kay,
Anosognosia is also a symptom of the mental problems I mentioned.
I don’t care if you want to defend your mental health to me or not.
You asked what I thought was wrong with you and I answered.
That you don’t like the answer is irrelevant.
Seek help.
Soon.
Because it doesn’t take a professional to realize your elevator isn’t stopping at all the floors.
I do have staggering proof of the crimes against me.
I have multiple statements threatening me if I file documents in a federal civil proceeding. These threats were made in federal court hearings and I have transcripts. They were made in motions posted on PACER.
I have a pile of letters from DOJ.
I have itemized attorney bills from two law firms showing them calling each other about a plan to get a no pro se order which then resulted in a no pro se order without a motion or hearing. These attorney bills were verified under penalty of perjury and filed in PACER.
So were billings to insurance companies that were not licensed in the states. The bills have a claim number. I have search results from the state insurance regulators showing lack of documents about these insurance companies and I have letters from state insurance regulators admitting their lack of documents.
Now that the GPO as a super automated search facility of the Code of Federal Regulations I can actually prove what is not in the Code.
Berliner,
You are correct, sir. I blame an insufficient coffee intake for the error and thank you for your correction.
@BIL:
Nitpick warning.
“Judgment at Nuremberg” is a fictionalized retelling (or rather a ‘fiction based on’) of the 3rd Nuremberg Trial 1947, the so called ‘Judges’ Trial.’
The Nuremberg Trial was held, as the name suggests, in Nuremberg, not the Hague.
Depression
While it’s normal to feel down sometimes—about the loss of a loved one or over the loss of a job, for instance—to consistently feel the symptoms of depression for a period of two weeks or longer may be indicative of depressive illness.
People with depression often report an inability to imagine a happy future or to see the positive in their present circumstances. Often they don’t realize they are suffering from a treatable mental illness. Emotions and physical pain can seem unbearable and the challenges of daily living insurmountable.
I don’t have those symptoms at all. I hope to win my Privacy Act lawsuit in a big amount and use part of the proceeds to fund state referendums to make attorney regulators an elected office. I want to fund model attorney regulation software.
I deal with customers, solicit sales, etc. cook, clean, have regular sex, exercise, sleep at normal hours etc.
You are delusional about your chances of winning pro se, kay.
Unless you have staggering proof of the crimes you allege, you are also delusional about getting a prosecutor to file charges – which is your only option to pursue justice since all you can do is file a complaint. Prosecution is at the discretion of the prosecutor.
kay, I cannot say this strongly enough: seek professional help before your obsession destroys you.
It has done considerable damage already.
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is currently classified as an anxiety disorder marked by the recurrence of intrusive or disturbing thoughts, impulses, images or ideas (obsessions) accompanied by repeated attempts to suppress these thoughts through the performance of certain irrational and ritualistic behaviors or mental acts (compulsions).
I definitely don’t have that. If my petitions to the courts were so irrational, then DOJ counsel wouldn’t have felt a need to lie about the existence of the Joint Automated Booking System records, the location of my First Amendment records, and to misrepresent that DOJ is exempt from 5 USC 552a (e)(7).
Delusional non-acceptance of the facts of past events/denial
I accept the fact that I was a victim of federal felonies including 18 USC 1512, 1513, 241, and 242.
Accept it in the same way as a victim of rape.
That doesn’t mean I don’t want the perps criminally prosecuted.
I accept the fact that DOJ systems allow the incarceration of people without a criminal charge.
I am trying to change that and have probably been somewhat effective as to the best of my knowledge DOJ has not incarcerated any other pro se litigant without a criminal charge and with Ed Slavin they let him go right away.
But first, you really need to contact a mental health professional, kay.
You are setting yourself up for a big, big fall if you don’t.
“That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law. “
I didn’t get this right. I’m going to put it in my new complaint.
That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances’ in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual’s overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons.
I didn’t get this right. I was held by USMS with several women who had been convicted of violent crimes and had received sentences of over 20 years.
1) Depression with suicidal thoughts
2) Delusional non-acceptance of the facts of past events/denial
3) Obsession, possibly even obsessive-compulsive disorder
All three of which are demonstrated in this thread alone.
But then again, I’m not that kind of doctor, kay. Mine is the opinion of a layman on that matter. However, that being said, you need to see a doctor who isn’t evaluating you for the purposes of going to court, but rather for your interests in your own mental health. Legally competent to stand trial, “normal” in that context, and medically sane are not the same thing. That just meant you know right from wrong. It doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem.
It’s obvious that you do have a problem. And it’s not just legal in nature.
Get help.
Soon.
The sooner the better.
I was already evaluated by a court licensed psychologist and he found that I was “normal”. Please identify the mental illness you are implying that I have.
On 9/2/05, when USMS first took me into custody without a criminal charge or a bail hearing, I showed up when I was supposed to, nicely dressed, stood up and sat down when and where I was supposed to, used normal tone of voice no screaming, didn’t bring a cell phone, and stopped speaking when Nottingham said my 5 minutes were up.
So his use of contempt had nothing to do with keeping order.
On 9/22/06, I didn’t show up. DOJ filed to the effect that I was convicted in my absence of civil contempt. And then Nottingham sent the USMS after me. So that use of contempt had nothing to do with keeping order.
Thank you for your other info. I am going through it. The first statement is
That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
So how do you rationalize USCourts and USMS deciding that this law should be ignored?:
28 USC § 1654. Appearance personally or by counsel
In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.
Kay,
You really shouldn’t comment on things about which you admittedly do not know. “Judgment at Nuremberg” is about Nazi war crimes trials at the Hague. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055031/
As to civil contempt in German courts, they do have that power – along with criminal contempt – under the section 176 of the Judiciary Act of January 27, 1877, which reads “The presiding judge is charged with maintaining order in the session.” The way contempt charges are exercised and appealed is different than in the U.S. version, but the function is essentially the same.
You also won’t get far arguing U.N. treaties in American courts, especially when the treaties in question were signed and ratified with exceptions which defer to the U.S. Constitution on matters involving equal protection. This is the case with the treaty in question which the U.S. made the following reservations to:
“United States of America
Reservations:
“(1) That article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
“(2) That the United States reserves the right, subject to its Constitutional constraints, to impose capital punishment on any person (other than a pregnant woman) duly convicted under existing or future laws permitting the imposition of capital punishment, including such punishment for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.
“(3) That the United States considers itself bound by article 7 to the extent that `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel and unusual treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
“(4) That because U.S. law generally applies to an offender the penalty in force at the time the offence was committed, the United States does not adhere to the third clause of paragraph 1 of article 15.
“(5) That the policy and practice of the United States are generally in compliance with and supportive of the Covenant’s provisions regarding treatment of juveniles in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, the United States reserves the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults, notwithstanding paragraphs 2 (b) and 3 of article 10 and paragraph 4 of article 14. The United States further reserves to these provisions with respect to States with respect to individuals who volunteer for military service prior to age 18.”
Understandings:
“(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, proerty, birth or any other status – as those terms are used in article 2, paragraph 1 and article 26 – to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based `solely’ on the status of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin, not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.
“(2) That the United States understands the right to compensation referred to in articles 9 (5) and 14 (6) to require the provision of effective and enforceable mechanisms by which a victim of an unlawful arrest or detention or a miscarriage of justice may seek and, where justified, obtain compensation from either the responsible individual or the appropriate governmental entity. Entitlement to compensation may be subject to the reasonable requirements of domestic law.
“(3) That the United States understands the reference to `exceptional circumstances’ in paragraph 2 (a) of article 10 to permit the imprisonment of an accused person with convicted persons where appropriate in light of an individual’s overall dangerousness, and to permit accused persons to waive their right to segregation from convicted persons. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 of article 10 does not diminish the goals of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation as additional legitimate purposes for a penitentiary system.
“(4) That the United States understands that subparagraphs 3 (b) and (d) of article 14 do not require the provision of a criminal defendant’s counsel of choice when the defendant is provided with court-appointed counsel on grounds of indigence, when the defendant is financially able to retain alternative counsel, or when imprisonment is not imposed. The United States further understands that paragraph 3 (e) does not prohibit a requirement that the defendant make a showing that any witness whose attendance he seeks to compel is necessary for his defense. The United States understands the prohibition upon double jeopardy in paragraph 7 to apply only when the judgment of acquittal has been rendered by a court of the same governmental unit, whether the Federal Government or a constituent unit, as is seeking a new trial for the same cause.
“(5) That the United States understands that this Covenant shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Covenant.”
Declarations:
“(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing.
“(2) That it is the view of the United States that States Party to the Covenant should wherever possible refrain from imposing any restrictions or limitations on the exercise of the rights recognized and protected by the Covenant, even when such restrictions and limitations are permissible under the terms of the Covenant. For the United States, article 5, paragraph 2, which provides that fundamental human rights existing in any State Party may not be diminished on the pretext that the Covenant recognizes them to a lesser extent, has particular relevance to article 19, paragraph 3 which would permit certain restrictions on the freedom of expression. The United States declares that it will continue to adhere to the requirements and constraints of its Constitution in respect to all such restrictions and limitations.
“(3) That the United States declares that the right referred to in article 47 may be exercised only in accordance with international law.”
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec
Also, to reiterate the very wise advice of Otteray Scribe, it is becoming manifestly clear that you need to seek professional mental help.
I strongly urge you to do so.
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
I don’t have this right
Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
I don’t have these rights
No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. — I didn’t get this right
Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. — I don’t have this right.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. — I don’t have this right.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — I don’t have this right.