Tag Archives: trial

New Hampshire Nullification

20 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

They are serious about “Live Free or Die”in the Granite State. A buddy of mine just bought a house there and I’m sure he will appreciate the following “leave me alone” news.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill that would make it the first state in the nation to require courts to inform juries of their right to vote not guilty when the verdict would produce an unjust result. This right, which all juries possess but may not be aware of, is called jury nullification. The bill is now awaiting approval in the Senate.

Yes, all juries in the United States possess the right and authority to nullify a law as it affects a particular defendant via a not guilty vote. Think of it as a vote of conscious. Here’s an example from a case that really happened. An underaged, teenage girl took some naughty selfies and sent them to a friend. Kids do stupid things like that. Governments do worse. The state where she lived (actually happened in multiple places) charged her with manufacturing and distributing child pornography – pictures of herself. The government even acknowledged her as both the suspect and the victim. This is near the absolute height of stupidity. A conviction would put such an innocent (if silly) girl on the sex offender registry, which is supposed to protect innocent (even silly) people from real predators. Supposed to. Really, it’s just another state scheme for power.

If such a stupid case ever made it to a jury, the jury could (regardless of the technicalities of the law) return a verdict of “not guilty” as a guilt verdict (even if correct under the law and by the facts) would be an injustice to the young girl – the victim also, remember.

The Free Thought story goes on:

Even if government has proved that someone is guilty under its law, a jury can let the person go free if it disagrees with the law and the punishment. This is one of the few ways in which citizens have power within the system to counter the irrational tendencies of centralized bureaucracy.

New Hampshire currently allows the defense “to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.” However, the House bill would have judges explain this right to juries which, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, makes it “more likely that a juror will consider this option.”

Judges would be required to make the following statement:

“Even if you find the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case, a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.”

…

If the New Hampshire bill makes it through the Senate and past the governor, it will be an historic moment in the American justice system. The current legal system is hostile to the idea of jury nullification, with judges threatening “secret juries” and police defying injunctions by removing activists.

However, in past times, jury nullification was viewed as a primary and necessary function of juries. As the Cato Institute points out:

“You can’t find references to “jury nullification” around the time of the American Revolution. That’s because it was considered to be part and parcel of what a jury trial was all about. If jurors thought the government was treating someone unjustly, they could acquit and restore that person’s liberty. Jury trials were celebrated–and explicit provisions were put into the Constitution so that the government could not take them away.”

Perhaps New Hampshire can remind the nation that we are not bound by the dictates of government, and we still have the power to protect our fellow citizens from state-sanctioned injustice.

Openly hostile is putting it mildly. A few states indirectly dance around the issue. For instance, the Georgia Constitution expressly says juries are the judges of the facts and the law. However, in reality in the Peach State – as in most jurisdictions, the judge declares himself the arbiter of what the law is and how the law applies to a given case. Judges give “charges” on the law to a jury at the conclusion of evidence and arguments. Some, most charges are “pattern” and are given preemptively by the judge right out of a handbook (complied by other judges in conference). The parties can make special suggestions. But, in no case, will it be permitted to tell the jury they can find a defendant not guilty because they disagree with the law.

Judges put people in jail for contempt and even jury tampering for even trying to get the word out about nullification. That’s hostility in an attempt to preserve power. As CATO points out, this is part of the traditional system for juries. Not just in America and England but all the way back to Athens and Rome. The violent prevention of nullification knowledge is just another part of the near-terminal decline of the trial by jury.

republicbroadcasting.org.

New Hampshire is often in the vanguard of freedom fighting in the U.S.A. Let’s hope the Senate and Governor feel as strongly about decent legal tradition as the House did.

…well…

I did a little follow-up research and discovered that the Senate did not follow through. Instead, on or around May 5th they let the Bill (HB 1270) die a procedural death. Very noble of them. Perhaps more than a few members will suffer a similar electoral fate come November. Anyway, there’s always next session. Live free or nullify.

Trial By Jury, The Yellow Ribbon Myth and the Decline of an Ancient Institution

29 Wednesday Apr 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The ancient Greeks and Romans had the crazy idea that a man accused of a crime should have the benefit of a public trial.  During this ordeal the accusing party (the State) would have the burden of presenting facts, which might establish a crime.  The Sword of God crowd would hold these base allegations sufficient to show the underlying criminal act.  Our ancient ansestores had other ideas.  To them the issue was important enough to warrant consideration by an assembly of impartial justices – a jury.

Of old the jury consisted of various members of the accused’s peers.  These were his friends whom knew him well.  Why were such pre-disposed men considered impartial, as they were friends of the accused?  The idea was that, being men of honor, they would hear the evidence and weigh it in their minds fairly regardless of their relation to the suspect.  The fact that they were friends of the accused served as a check against an illicit prosecution.

If “X” was charged with a baseless crime, the jury might collectively judge that, “yes, X is given to bouts of indiscretion, but he would never do something like this.  Or, they might find that X, while am affable fellow, might be the sort who would commit such an act as alleged.

The system, while not perfect, worked well.  In Rome, such trials were reserved for the upper classes – for men of privilege.  Commoners were generally tried by magistrates in shorter, more informal settings.  These lessor citizens, being of lessor importance, faced lower burdens of proof and lower levels of punishment.  Fair if not.  Members of the elite classes, given to higher responsibilities, were treated to high levels of justice.  See the defense of Milo (a murder suspect), presented by one Marcus Tullius Cicero, one of the greatest lawyers of antiquity.

This theoretical approach to justice lived on after the 5th Century, being embodied in the Magna Carta, a core right of Englishmen.  Thus, the right to a jury came to America.

Today this right is practically non-existent.  In modern Amerika a jury trial, while nominally “of one’s peers” is one assured not by your peers.  The fact is that very few criminal prosecutions end with a trial.  Most of those end with a conviction (the vast majority).  This is due to the overwhelming influence of the State and the extremely limited powers of the accused to resist such influence.  Every effort is made to ensure that the jury does not, in nay way, know of the accused on a personal level.  Further, only those enslaved to the power and suggestion of the accusing State are favored or empaneled.  The system has been turned on its head.

Lately, several high-profile trials have made the news; these illustrate my point that there is no right to a fair trial in Amerika.

In 1989 Debra Milke was tried for the murder of her four-year-old son, Christopher.  A jury (not of her peers) found her guilty – based solely on the unsupported testimony of a rogue police detective.  Despite all indications of innocence the State’s chosen jury found Milke guilty.  Thus, for several decades Milke lived in the daily terror of Arizona’s death row – dimmed to die for a crime she did not commit.  The guilty parties averred she had nothing to do with the crime.  This did not matter to the State until the matter was finally (thankfully) reviewed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court.  See also: Arizona Supreme Court Won’t Allow Retrial of Debra Milke. The prosecutor is, naturally, frustrated by this untimely carriage of justice.

Milke was blessed by higher intervention.  Too often the innocent in Amerika are executed for crimes they did not commit.  A recent admission shows that the FBI and its crime lab have doomed at least a dozen innocents to death.  You have probably never heard of these cases of injustice.  So it goes.

Thus do the innocent, robbed of true justice, resort to filing pleadings in courts entitled, “F*ck this Court.”  This one warrants reading and consideration.

Debra Milke faced execution because a heartless police officer lied under oath.  The officer has since “taken the fifth” so as to avoid prosecution himself for his lies.  The citizens of Arizona will pay millions of dollars to right this injustice.

A thousand miles away, in Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnev has been found guilty of the Boston Marathon Bombings.   His was one of the most bizarre trials I have ever heard of. See: Boston Marathon bombing trial: 18 jurors at a glance.  The jury was selected based on their indifference toward the accused and their alliance with the state.  Tsarnev was not allowed a defense.  Rather, he, by way of his “counsel,” admitted guilt but relied on specious allegations of the undue influence of his older brother.  His brother and other key witnesses were, conveniently, dead.

The case was tried backwards.  The prosecutor first present victims of the bombing and their woeful statements – this usually comes after guilt has been established, during the penalty phase of the trial.  Tsarnev’s counsel never even questioned these witnesses.  The government then presented an unopposed fable of how Tsarnev constructed and utilized homemade bombs.  Again, no challenge came from the “defense.”  The lack of direct evidence was deafening.

Having admitted guilt and completely failing to challenge the government’s base allegations it was a given fact Tsarnev would be found guilty.  They strategy (if any) of his counsel was that he would attempt to evade the death penalty by way of the supposed undue influence of his dead brother.  Charming.  Pathetic.

It is entirely likely that this young man played a part in the bombings.  Thus, he deserves execution for his crimes.  However, I have long suspected he was only a pawn in a false-flag operation designed to test America’s willingness to endure a police state (shelter in place, and all that).   We will never know the truth here.

As a former criminal defense attorney I am well aware of the failings of the modern, American jury system of “justice.”  Here follows the entire account of one of my trials in federal court, before a jury and bereft of justice.  The names have been changed to protect the innocent, the guilty, and me.  This story was originally designed for publication (never achieved) in a major news journal:

The Yellow Ribbon Myth: Amerikans Do Not Support The Troops, Nor Justice.

Do you “support the troops?” One sees countless bumper stickers proclaiming such support. I no longer believe the propaganda. When someone says, “I support the troops,” I hear, “I support the government.” This concept was made painfully obvious to me during a criminal trial last fall.

My client, “Donny’s” case, in a U.S. District Court, 2012:

I’m am calling my client “Donny” as I have not yet sought his permission to use his name; I also may be restrained from using certain facts due to Orders of Sealing/Impoundment.

Donny enlisted in the U.S. Army while in high school and completed basic training the summer before his senior year. Donny received an appointment to West Point though, after one year, he stopped his education and entered the Army as an enlisted man. He served with the 375th Ranger company in Afghanistan where he was forced to kill men, women, and children. The experience haunts him daily.

While in the field and during additional training he sustained major injuries, which necessitated his retirement on disability: I think his physical was 50%; his mental injuries (PTSD, psychosis, etc.) were 100%. During his tenure he rose to the rank of Sargent and was awarded so many medals and commendations that multiple forms DD-214 were necessary to list them all.

He received continuing physical and psychiatric treatment at the Augusta, GA VA hospital; they placed he on enough narcotics and psycho-tropic drugs to turn anyone into a zombie. His mental condition was initially rated as temporary. Throughout 2011 he pursued the status of “permanent and unemployable.” During this time he suffered marital and mental health-related troubles daily. Towards the end of his bureaucratic ordeal he made a phone call to the VA national “service” center.

During the (recorded) call he made statements which the VA took as terroristic threats – they alleged he said he was going to the regional VA office in Atlanta to kill the first 3,000 people he encountered using unspecified weaponry. My review of the call lead me to believe he was not sane during the call, that the government’s allegations were a wild, composite stretch of the words used, and that VA’s service isn’t. He was originally arrested on State charges. He was legally carrying a pistol at the time though the arrest was without incident. Damningly, his permanent status was approved the next day. He was released on bail only to be rearrested by the feds, charged with violating 18 USC 875, interstate terror threats (a 5-year maximum felony). Had he specified a “weapon of mass destruction” he would have faced 40 years in prison.

I was appointed as defense counsel and immediately moved for a psychiatric evaluation, thinking this would easily end the case. After several months I received a lengthy report from the MCC New York which exhaustively listed Donny’s chronic mental problems and concluded he was permanently psychotic. However, the good (government) doctor also stated he was obviously sane at the time of the call and competent to stand trial.

We elected to present the matter to a jury, figuring no twelve people could possibly convict a sick man for seeking help from the only source available. We were wrong. The government’s doctor explained the extent of Donny’s condition. The VA representative from the call stated she was not threatened by Donny’s language. The VA stated they did not take any defensive measures when faced with this 9/11 magnitude threat from a man they had trained to expertly kill other human beings. The VA storm-trooper in charge testified he lied under oath to the Grand Jury to obtain the indictment and that he, for no reason, held Donny’s elderly, disabled father at gunpoint AFTER the arrest. Despite all this the twelve morons returned a guilty verdict in less than half an hour. As an aside, at trial the government sandbagged me with thousands of pages of previously withheld discovery and they handed me the afore-referenced pistol LOADED in open court (I cleared it in disbelief).

Donny was sentenced to time served with the probationary condition that he continue his torture at the VA. When I walked into the hearing I was greeted by the AUSA and the VA goon who both suddenly agreed Donny was out of his mind during his “crime.” Donny accepted his sentence and declined both an appeal and a request for a Presidential pardon. I fear his condition will worsen, perhaps with morbid consequences. He is a delightful but pitiful and broken man. I was saddened and broken by this affair.

In modern Amerika Grand Juries, while supposedly independent in their deliberations, are little more than tools of State prosecutors.  The defense is usually excluded entirely. The State has the free reign to present any “evidence” no matter how contrived.

The trial that follows (if any) is a showing of prosecutorial imagination and juridical ignorance.  Less that 3% of defendants are acquitted under this system.  The innocent are convicted and often executed.  The lucky escape after years of torment.  Life goes on and things are not likely to change any time soon.

I will, shortly, present an alternative, if primitive, alternative to this mad, fixed system of “justice.”  Until then, be forewarned and prepared.

It Depends…

16 Saturday Mar 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On any given day I receive requests for legal advice – from clients, friends, and strangers.  Half of the time I am not truly familiar with the subject and usually not that interested.  Lawyers are trained to qualify any response they give to such questions as to their lack of specific knowledge.  They can be sanctioned for malpractice for giving advice which is incompetent.  Thus, I usually make it known that any answer is largely my off the cuff opinion, that I am not giving official advice unless retained to do so, and that any further explanation will require research.  This generally gets rid of most inquirers.  Usually their questions aren’t important enough to spend money answering.

My civil procedure professor in law school told us the answer to any legal question, initially, is always, “it depends.”  As a first year student, in a class that doesn’t begin to make sense until the end of the semester, this statement was perplexing.  It is entirely correct though.

confused

(Uhhhhh…weeeellll.  Google Images.)

“It depends” is a fancy, professional way of saying, “I don’t know.”  Most attorneys don’t know the answer to most legal questions, even in areas they specialize in.  To begin with, the law is such a vast, confusing, and constantly changing field, it is completely impossible to know everything about anything.  That senior lawyer with the “encyclopedic knowledge” of the law from the Tom Hanks’ movie, Philadelphia, resides on the silver screen and nowhere else.  Next, the facts presented by a particular person’s circumstances may differ from any other set of facts conceivable.  Think of laws as wrenches and facts as pipes; a lawyer is like a plumber, applying different wrenches to different pipes.  Most importantly, cases in court will ultimately have conclusions which cannot be foreseen, let alone guaranteed.  Any lawyer who guarantees an outcome is a liar and should be avoided. 

I have won cases I knew I was going to loss.  I have lost cases when I should, by all rights, have won.  Judges are as fallible as any other human beings and juries are like living roulette wheels.  Jurors are often influenced in their decisions by things completely unrelated to the case they’re reviewing.  As a prosecutor I once lost a DUI case just because the jury did not like the way my arresting officer presented himself on the witness stand.  They agreed the law applied to the defendant and the defendant’s actions qualified under the law as clear indications of guilt.  However, the officer kept yawning on the stand and the jury felt he wasn’t interested in the case and didn’t try to convince them of the State’s position.

Jury-Images-1

(Not a good day in court.  Google Images.)

That particular officer was well-seasoned and knew his job.  Unfortunately for me, he had just come straight into court from the night shift and was focusing most of his energy on staying awake.  I did not foresee that and there was nothing I could do about it.  As a consolation prize, I did win on the related minor parking charge.  The judge informed the very happy defendant he had dodged a bullet.  Chance leads to many dodged bullets in the law, and bullets that sometimes find innocent victims.

Usually an experienced attorney, once familiarized with the case in full, has a pretty good idea as to what will happen.  The attorney can relay this confidence to his client.  However, for the reasons I just gave, no attorney should ever declare even the most trivial matter a slam dunk.

In my article Legal Education I noted that law schools primarily teach worship of court decisions and legal research methods.  While it’s impossible to know all the law, it is quite easy for a skilled practitioner to look up and educate himself on any given subject.  I’ve had clients call, upset about “research” charges on their bill.  I always stand by these fees, so long as they are reasonable for the given case.  Doctors do extensive research before they cut a patient in surgery.  Lawyers are no different.

Like doctors, lawyers sometimes feel the need to associate expert counsel to assist with a really complicated area of the law.  Once a client came to me in a tizzy over a copyright infringement case which had been filed against him in federal court.  As the case was in a district where I do not normally practice, and after a cursory review of the maze of intellectual property laws, I concluded justice required me to hire another attorney from a giant Atlanta firm for assistance.  This was a very costly decision for the client.  In the end, though, the money was well spent.  I would draft the responsive pleadings to the best of my ability and with the client’s in-person co-operation.  Then I would email the drafts to the expert for touch-up and filing. 

As a result we were able to re-open the case and have a default judgment set aside as unjust.  Then, we removed the case to my area (where the client lives and operates his business).  There’s something to be said for home-field advantage.  We even got the “foreign” district judge to issue a scathing censure against the opposing counsel for his obnoxious behavior in the case!  That had the dual effect of making me and my expert look good and it took the slimy steam out of the other guy.  He was fired shortly thereafter.  In the end, we wrangled out a terrific settlement for pennies on the dollar out of the whole ordeal.  It was good work of which I am still proud.

Don’t be taken aback if your attorney reveals she isn’t familiar with the topic you present.  Such revelation is the mark of honesty.  Be ready to spend time and money on an investigation which may end up disappointing you.  It’s better to be told your case does not have merit or is unwinnable in the beginning, rather to discover such at a trial.

Remember, the advice I’ve given here is merely legal education for the lay audience, not exact legal advice.  If you have a specific case, you should consult a specific attorney.  Based on the subject and how your facts fit the law the outcome may be difficult to predict and will require some degree of research and work to resolve.  As for what I could tell you right now?  It depends.

Don’t Make A Federal Case Out Of It!

23 Saturday Feb 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The title of this column is a common phrase, the equivalent of “don’t make a mountain out of a mole-hill.”  It is an admonishment to not blow things out of proportion.  I use it, here, as a legitiment plea.  Too many cases, particularly criminal cases, go through the federal court system.  “The more laws, the less justice!” remarked, Cicero, perhaps ancient Rome’s ultimate statesman.  I echo his sentiment as one of my favorite quotes of all time.

In general, in Amerika today, too many things are against the law.  In the old days you have to harm someone or actually threaten them with harm to find yourself in court.  Now, any excuse will do for a persecution .. prosecution, rather.   Owning certain plants is illegal, and not only the ones some people smoke to get high.  “Short” lobsters are illegal.  Not reading a contract in full is illegal.  Everything is illegal.  By the way, I write “Amerika (with a “K”),” like many commentators, to lament the decline of my country, America.  I have watched it change completely during my life, I’m sure you’ve noticed it too.

Back to federal criminal laws.  There are somewhere on the order of 10,000 criminal laws inside and outside of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.  Add to that the innumerable regulations which carry criminal-like penalties and the ways to criminally control and extort the people are almost limitless.

Remember that old rag called the Constitution?  It seems most people have forgotten it, especially those charged with defending and upholding it.  I am one such sworn defender who keeps it in mind more than most. 

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

(Birth of a government… Source: Google Images).

Oddly, I am not the greatest fan of the Constitution.  This shocks many people who know me as an ardent proponent of the document.  The Constitution was drafted for one reason – to create a new government.  Not being a fan of government, and not being able to find sufficient fault with the previous version under the Articles of Confederation, I view the Constitution and its child as unnecessary, dangerous even.  However, since we have it, one would assume we should use it.  The problem is we don’t.  “We” is misplaced.  The problem is the government’s complete abdication of the limits placed on it by the Constitution.

Lysander Spooner observed, over 100 years ago, “whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.  In either case, it is unfit to exist.”  And, that was before the exponential growth of the present government. 

As is, I have sworn several oaths to support and defend the Constitution; therefore, I do so.  I read the Constitution literally (adhering to the “strict construction” view) and only put credence in what is actually listed therein, no more.

Back to federal criminal laws, again.  Do you know how many crimes are designated for federal prosecution?  The number is a little less than 10,000.  The Constitution authorized congress to make and allow prosecution of THREE crimes!  Those, all found under Article I, are: 1) counterfeiting money; 2) piracy and; 3) treason.  Most of these are almost exclusively committed by the government these days. They obviously don’t prosecute themselves absent exigent circumstances (political payback, etc.). 

Actually, there are other crimes acceptable as federal crimes.  The great Ron Paul, speaking in the House Floor, noted four federal crimes.  I would not dare dispute the Honorable Doctor.  Thus, I defer to his number, though I will question exactly what the fourth crime is.  There are a few possibilities.  I do not read expansively, as some do, that the other legitimate functions of the government authorized in the Constitution might lead to hypothetical or extrapolated crimes.  That reading is how we got to our present state of insanity.

The Constitution authorizes punishment for violation of the “law of nations.”  I’m not sure what that means but it is written.  The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery (I have a new series coming on the subject!) and provides for punishment.  That would be a federal crime.  It’s possible there are others but the number thereof is very short.

All other crimes, legitimate crimes, are left for state or local prosecution.  That’s what the Constitution says.  You can read the whole thing here and I recommend you do, frequently: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html.

The federal government was never intended to be all-powerful, though it has assumed that god-like position.  Blasphemy, I say!  I have never thought of any easy way to reverse the course of tragedy in our laws.  Therefore, I have resolved myself to faithfully do what I can, individually, to maintain true allegiance to the Constitution, flawed though it may be.  I have met with little success.

Over my professional legal career I have undertaking criminal defense matters with great enthusiasm.  I have worked and tried many cases, including many in federal courts.  During my tenure I have never defended anyone charged with piracy, counterfeiting, treason, or slavery.  One client was close to counterfeiting – accused of identity theft which robbed people and banks of money, kind of like printing the stuff from scratch – like the Federal Reserve does with Congress’s illegal blessing.

Most of my clients were charged with any and everything else, though usually the cases involved firearms and narcotics.  Most of these defendants chose to enter pleas in exchange for reduced sentences.  Most (like 97%) of federal defendants do this.  This is a sad statistic.  Very few cases go to trial and the government wins most of those by a similar margin.  I have successfully had cases dismissed outright.  That is rare in any court system.  I also negotiated better than most attorneys for my clients and any reduction in punishment they might receive.  I am not really proud of that last part and I have found it difficult to accept.  The lesser of two evils is still evil.  I don’t like evil.

The last case I tried to a jury involved charges of terroristic threats against a government agency.  Such vague “threats” as they were probably would not have supported a prosecution had they been leveled at me or you.  Directed towards the government they were unforgivable.  The nefarious methods employed by the government to obtain an indictment and a conviction were similarly outrageous. 

The jury did not hesitate to convict my client, a truly helpless man who had done harm to no-one.  He was released with “time served” with the government’s blessing.  Frequently, they just like to remind people they are in charge, and no more.  I must admit most of the local officials I deal with are more honest and compassionate than the average.  Still, that does not change the system.  My client declined my suggestion of an appeal and even my offer to seek a Presidential pardon (those of usually reserved for “buddies” and campaign contributors).  My guy just wanted to get back to life as normal.  I understand his plight and decisions.

During the trial, before the jury was sent to deliberate the case, I made a legal motion to have the case dismissed for purely legal reasons.  Juries consider all facts in conjunction with the law.  Judges consider matter purely legal in nature.  My motion was three parts, the last being reference to the lack of Constitutional authorization for the charged offense.  The motion was denied completely.  The denial would have survived appellate review.  The courts have consented to Congress’s massive expansion of the criminal laws and the President’s prosecution thereof.  So much for separation of powers.

I have made the same argument before.  To my knowledge I am the only attorney in the area (maybe the nation) who still dares to do so.  I care not for erroneous appellate decisions.  Recall, if you will, that once the Supreme Court said slavery was a-ok.  It never was.  Likewise, honesty and justice compel me to recite the legal truth about law, Natural and statutory, over and over regardless of the ultimate outcome.  When I make such arguments the Courtroom usually goes dead silent and I have gotten used to icy stares.  I have also learned not to push my luck and that these arguments do not work.  Making a simple point is enough, I never argue to the point of being held in contempt.  I have heard others have done that.  I am too much of a coward to risk jail over moot points.   

Some have told me these concerns are better taken up with Congress.  All things being equal, that is correct.  Congress is supposed to be there to hear grievances.  Have you tried communicating with Congress lately?  It was largely a pointless endeavor in days past; almost no members of the assembly cared for truth.  With the departure of Dr. Paul, there is no point now. 

We have lost the greatest champion of Liberty since the passing of the Founders.  We have lost truth and justice.  At least we have 10,000 criminal laws to comfort us.  Enjoy!