Top Republican Lobbyist Turns State's Evidence In Washington Corruption
Starmail - 6. Jan, 09:52
Vote USA 2004
6
Jan
2006
Attacking habeas corpus: the damage will be irretrievable
Magie Burns
Thu Jan 5, 2006 13:19
Attacking habeas corpus
by margieburns
at 10:45AM (CST) on January 5, 2006
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/5/1603030.html
Republican Senator Lindsey O. Graham of So. Carolina is not up for re-election until 2008, and I cannot find that South Carolina has any provisions for a recall campaign except for its statewide offices. Presumably this is partly why Graham was picked to spearhead the White House attack on habeas corpus.
"HABEAS CORPUS. Lat. (You have the body.) The name given to a variety of writs, (of which these were anciently the emphatic words,) having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge."
"The sole function of the writ is to release from unlawful imprisonment. . . The office of the writ is not to determine prisoner's guilt or innocence, and ONLY ISSUE WHICH IT PRESENTS IS WHETHER PRISONER IS RESTRAINED OF HIS LIBERTY BY DUE PROCESS." (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., caps added)
Make no mistake. Current moves in our GOP-dominated Congress regarding the "detention" of "terrorists" are not security measures. They do not defend the American people. They do not protect us from actual terrorists -- some of whose relatives may well have been shepherded out of the U.S. right after 9/11 by this White House. They do not attack terrorists. They attack the ancient right of habeas corpus, which underlies our most immediate freedoms, namely the everyday right NOT to have our persons or property seized without reason, or for unnamed reasons.
This point is so fundamental that it is impossible that Sen. Graham fails to understand it. Lindsey Graham is an attorney, and every law student is required to take a Constitutional Law course in law school.
Only the most ignorant or gullible person, and Mr. Graham is neither, could honestly believe that accused terrorists should be treated differently from other accused persons. An accusation is still an accusation. Only to the abjectly ignorant, and Mr. Graham is not that, does the word "terrorist" mean "someone with magical powers." Only a pitiably ignorant, rabidly bigoted or quasi- illiterate individual could seriously believe that accused terrorists have such telepathic powers, like Johnny Carson in his turban reading an envelope through his forehead, that our security is undermined by -- by what? By merely telling them the charges against them.
Any infringement on habeas corpus is a straight-out, cynical taking advantage of ignorance.
But worse than that, it is a practice that puts all of us in danger of the same fate as accused terrorists. Make no mistake. This is not a practice that can be limited to one category of individuals. The basis of the right of a writ of habeas corpus is humanity. You don't have to be some special kind of person; you just have to be a person. Therefore, since we are all people, any law or procedure that takes it away, takes it away from all of us.
If anyone can be detained without even being told the charges against him -- then, anyone can be detained without being told the charges against him or her.
It is small consolation that Sen. Graham himself could become a "detainee." By the time things get so horrendous, so overt, that even individuals like him rebel, the damage will be irretrievable.
Without Justice, there is JUST_US! "The Law"!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/thelaw.htm
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Truth / True"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/truth-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Oath"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/oath-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "(un)Lawful(ly)"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/lawful-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "God"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/god-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Authority"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/author-.shtml
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97316;show_parent=1
Thu Jan 5, 2006 13:19
Attacking habeas corpus
by margieburns
at 10:45AM (CST) on January 5, 2006
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/5/1603030.html
Republican Senator Lindsey O. Graham of So. Carolina is not up for re-election until 2008, and I cannot find that South Carolina has any provisions for a recall campaign except for its statewide offices. Presumably this is partly why Graham was picked to spearhead the White House attack on habeas corpus.
"HABEAS CORPUS. Lat. (You have the body.) The name given to a variety of writs, (of which these were anciently the emphatic words,) having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge."
"The sole function of the writ is to release from unlawful imprisonment. . . The office of the writ is not to determine prisoner's guilt or innocence, and ONLY ISSUE WHICH IT PRESENTS IS WHETHER PRISONER IS RESTRAINED OF HIS LIBERTY BY DUE PROCESS." (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed., caps added)
Make no mistake. Current moves in our GOP-dominated Congress regarding the "detention" of "terrorists" are not security measures. They do not defend the American people. They do not protect us from actual terrorists -- some of whose relatives may well have been shepherded out of the U.S. right after 9/11 by this White House. They do not attack terrorists. They attack the ancient right of habeas corpus, which underlies our most immediate freedoms, namely the everyday right NOT to have our persons or property seized without reason, or for unnamed reasons.
This point is so fundamental that it is impossible that Sen. Graham fails to understand it. Lindsey Graham is an attorney, and every law student is required to take a Constitutional Law course in law school.
Only the most ignorant or gullible person, and Mr. Graham is neither, could honestly believe that accused terrorists should be treated differently from other accused persons. An accusation is still an accusation. Only to the abjectly ignorant, and Mr. Graham is not that, does the word "terrorist" mean "someone with magical powers." Only a pitiably ignorant, rabidly bigoted or quasi- illiterate individual could seriously believe that accused terrorists have such telepathic powers, like Johnny Carson in his turban reading an envelope through his forehead, that our security is undermined by -- by what? By merely telling them the charges against them.
Any infringement on habeas corpus is a straight-out, cynical taking advantage of ignorance.
But worse than that, it is a practice that puts all of us in danger of the same fate as accused terrorists. Make no mistake. This is not a practice that can be limited to one category of individuals. The basis of the right of a writ of habeas corpus is humanity. You don't have to be some special kind of person; you just have to be a person. Therefore, since we are all people, any law or procedure that takes it away, takes it away from all of us.
If anyone can be detained without even being told the charges against him -- then, anyone can be detained without being told the charges against him or her.
It is small consolation that Sen. Graham himself could become a "detainee." By the time things get so horrendous, so overt, that even individuals like him rebel, the damage will be irretrievable.
Without Justice, there is JUST_US! "The Law"!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/thelaw.htm
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Truth / True"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/truth-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Oath"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/oath-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "(un)Lawful(ly)"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/lawful-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "God"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/god-.shtml
Word Study from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Authority"
http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/bouvier/author-.shtml
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97316;show_parent=1
Starmail - 6. Jan, 09:41
The Oath required by the Constitution and Federal Law
Ervin Swartwoudt
Thu Jan 5, 2006 12:49
Article. VI. United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The oath of office as required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. , the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331: (Emphasis added)
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331Prev | Next § 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
(such as this one below) (Emphasis added)
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4--THE STATES
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: ``I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.''
TREASON (Treason is a Hanging offense)
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
Therefore, if a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then that judge's orders are void. In re Sawer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. (Emphasis added)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such trespassers". Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1878) (Emphasis added)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, late 2d, Sec 256
GOOGLE: APFN OATH An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
http://www.google.com/search?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=APFN+OATH&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97309;show_parent=1
Thu Jan 5, 2006 12:49
Article. VI. United States Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The oath of office as required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. , the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331: (Emphasis added)
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 3331Prev | Next § 3331. Oath of office
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: "I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
(such as this one below) (Emphasis added)
TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4--THE STATES
Sec. 101. Oath by members of legislatures and officers
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to wit: ``I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.''
TREASON (Treason is a Hanging offense)
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).
Therefore, if a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then that judge's orders are void. In re Sawer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. (Emphasis added)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is "without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such trespassers". Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1878) (Emphasis added)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177, late 2d, Sec 256
GOOGLE: APFN OATH An Oath is an Oath is an Oath
http://www.google.com/search?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=APFN+OATH&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97309;show_parent=1
Starmail - 6. Jan, 09:36
Jack Abramoff & the Tribal Lobbying
C-SPAN Special: Jack Abramoff & the Tribal Lobbying Investigation (1/3/2005) http://tinyurl.com/dyku3
QUOTE _ "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah." Abramoff, in an e-mail to an ally, about an American Indian tribe's contributions to Democrats. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/abramoff_scandal.htm
"No Matter Where The Trail Leads"...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/abramoff_scandal.htm
Update 22: Top Republicans Give Up Abramoff Donations Forbes - 7 hours ago ... House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his successor Roy Blunt on Wednesday joined the list of officials shedding political donations from Jack Abramoff, the once ... ABRAMOFF SCANDAL BACK IN COURT Special Broadcasting Service GOOGLE NEWS UPDATES: http://tinyurl.com/daoqq
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97289;show_parent=1
(excerpt)
QUOTE _ "I'd love us to get our mitts on that moolah." Abramoff, in an e-mail to an ally, about an American Indian tribe's contributions to Democrats. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/abramoff_scandal.htm
"No Matter Where The Trail Leads"...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/abramoff_scandal.htm
Update 22: Top Republicans Give Up Abramoff Donations Forbes - 7 hours ago ... House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his successor Roy Blunt on Wednesday joined the list of officials shedding political donations from Jack Abramoff, the once ... ABRAMOFF SCANDAL BACK IN COURT Special Broadcasting Service GOOGLE NEWS UPDATES: http://tinyurl.com/daoqq
Source:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=97289;show_parent=1
(excerpt)
Starmail - 6. Jan, 09:13
Bribery: the Alternative Fuel
Paul Hein on business and government.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein123.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein123.html
Starmail - 6. Jan, 09:04
