Learn the Language or Accept your Status as a Slave

Black’s law Dictionary, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A friend of mine sent me an email based on recent reports that “On Friday, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act which gives the government the ability to electronically monitor the phone calls, e-mails and other communications of Americans without a probable cause warrant as long as they can claim that one of the parties to the communication is believed to be outside of the U.S.”

The average American is unconcerned that the FISA Act authorizes the federal government to make warrantless wiretaps of phone calls made from the “U.S.” to Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.  The vast majority of Americans will never make a call to a foreign country “outside of the U.S.,” so the vast majority don’t care if the government can wire tap calls to foreign countries without a warrant.  But the average American’s indifference to these warrantless wiretaps is based on the assumption that the phrase “outside the U.S.” necessarily applies only to calls made to foreign countries.

My friend, however, asked, “I wonder if ‘outside the U.S.‘ means to the government what it does to us?”

 

A State of WAR?!!

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was recently enacted.  That’s the bill that allows government to cause the warrantless arrest and indefinite detention of Americans without judicial process or even a semblance of due process.  That unconstitutional power is exactly the kind of tyranny that the Jews learned to expect from the Nazis during WWII.

As a result of the NDAA,  movements have been initiated in several States to recall those Senators or Representatives who voted for the NDAA.  Montana is probably foremost among the State pushing for recall.

Today, I received an email and attached “Declaration” concerning the NDAA  from someone in Montana.  The gist of the email is that someone in Montana has allegedly drafted and distributed copies of an unsigned “Declaration” which declares that, based on the NDAA, a “State of War” now exists between the Government and People of “these United States”.

 

Notice vs. Notice Pleading

It’s a regular event for me to find myself somehow “compelled” to read something that I have no desire, energy or intent to read.  Maybe I’m just obsessive-compulsive, but I think the Good LORD sometimes “forces” me to stick my snoot in a book or article until I suddenly discover something that (for me, at least) is an important and even exciting insight.

The following PDF file concerns an A.D. 1918 article from the Harvard Law Review that was written to advocate that the American judicial system (which started with “common law pleading” and later changed to “code pleading”) change again to “Notice Pleading”.  The position advocated in this article was largely adopted and today “Notice Pleading” is the predominant form of pleading in the American courts.

I didn’t want to read the original article.  Didn’t have energy to read it.  Didn’t enjoy reading most of it.  But I felt “compelled” to read it all, just the same–and sure enough, before I was done I found what was for me, a number of important and powerful insights.  The effort was well worth my time and energy–and when the Good LORD “compels” me, it always is.

The entire text is about 10,000 words (about half is from the original author; half is my commentary and analysis).  If you’ll take time to read it, I believe you’ll be at least intrigued and you may also even learn something important.

Click to download:  1918 NOTICE PLEADING Harvard_law_review EDITED

 

Notice Pleading Notes

I’ve been trying to make sense of our legal system for 26 years. So, I was much surprised when I recently learned that “notice pleading” is America’s “dominant form of pleading”. Up until a couple of weeks ago, I’d never even heard the term “notice pleading,” and now I find out that it’s the “dominant form” of pleading. As is often the case, I’m a little humiliated to learn that after a quarter century of studying this legal system, I had no clue to our “dominant form” of pleading.

However, I don’t feel too embarrassed because I’ll bet that you, too, haven’t previously heard of “notice pleading”. In fact, I’ll bet that 99.9% of Americans have not previously heard of “notice pleading”. If I won that bet, it would be evidence that something important might be concealed in the concept of “notice pleading”. After all, how can the “dominant form” of courtroom pleading be “accidentally” unknown to virtually all of the American people unless “the powers that be” were trying to hide something?

 

A Critical Analysis of a “Demand to Quash”

The following “Demand to Quash” was written by an acquaintance who’s a good man and on the right track.  The demand is fairly well-written and contains some good case cites concerning fraud.  It’s a document that I, myself might’ve written, say, five years ago.  But today, I read the document as see so many elements that I regard as errors or omissions that it strikes me as extremely unlikely that this document will succeed in “quashing” a particular presentment by gov-co. Nevertheless, this document offers a lot of insight–if only into the comparative differences between my own theories and those of someone else.

 

FRCP 12(b)(6) “Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted”

For years, I’ve watched pro se plaintiff after pro se plaintiff have their complaints dismissed by federal courts based on a defendant’s pre-trial, Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” Although the federal courts’ repeatedly grant of 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss, the meaning of the phrase “failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted” has remained almost as obscure as that of a magical incantation (“abra cadabra!”). Everyone has heard the words but no one seems to understand what they really mean.

 

Notes On Notice & Procedural Due Process #2

Virtually every American adult has received a Notice. Some from the IRS, some from a municipal court, some from a local utility company. In fact, Notice constitutes the first of the two essential elements (the other is “opportunity to be heard”) that comprise “procedural due process”—the minimum “due process” that must be provided to every defendant under the 5^th or 14^th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Notice is the first and most important “particle” in the nuclear physics of law. Without Notice, there is virtually no “process”. Procedural due process requires, first, Notice and then, second, Opportunity to be Heard. The “Opportunity to be Heard” is the Hearing before a court. Thus, a defendant who could successfully argue that he hadn’t received sufficient Notice might not have to go to court.

 

Notes on Notice and Procedural Due Process

The one thing the courts of “this state” seem willing to enforce is “procedural due process”. As I understand it, procedural due process consists of two elements: 1) Notice and 2) Opportunity to be heard. With that understanding of “procedural due process” in mind, I asked myself Why has our government—and therefore our country—become bilingual or even multi-lingual?