>Subject: Re: LAW: Bar Associations and Monopolies (Was: POL: Reaction to
>Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:09:59 EDT
>Well, searching on the term "missing 13th Ammendment", I came up with these
>(which are actually the same piece). With respect, this material strikes
>as paranoid hogwash. The plain language and common-sense historical
>seems to indicate that this text was simply an example of anti-monarchical
>revolutionary rhetoric, mean-spirited aggression toward loyalists and
>anti-British chest-thumping. The interpretation this author puts on the
>is right up there with the best "black helicopter, New World Order, secret
>troops" type lunacy.
> Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<email@example.com>
Well, here's the actual URL that I mentioned, which took some effort to
track down, as "the Practice" site no longer points to Cameryn's own site,
and her site has been commercialized and no longer mentions her brother's
site. So, the site is http://faculty.lls.edu/~manheimk
Meanwhile, I really am not biased either way on the historical issue. I
just thought it was intrigueing. Professor Manheim does not seem to take a
position on the issue himself, rather including the same article that
appears on your site listings, but also contra material, especially a large
FAQ from someone who seems to share your general opinion, All under his
I do find it rather grotesque, however, to make any claims to an
independent, impartial judiciary in this country, when the source of income
for many of the "officers of the court" is directly or indirectly tied to
succesful prosecution of defendants, leading to fines and/or siezures.
According to the Orange County Register a few years back, over half the
income of the local police departments came from siezures, in which, in most
cases, no person was ever charged, arrested or prosecuted. The legal action
was taken against the property itself, using the absurd legal fiction that
the property itself was guilty of a crime. This fiction, however, allowed
the police and courts to ignore the entire Bill of Rights, as no person had
been charged, although, of course, it was a real person(s) who lost the
Then the person had to sue in the courts and PROVE INNOCENCE to get the
property returned. Of course, they might not have the wherewithal to do so,
as their assets might be gone or reduced to the point of bankrupting them.
Also, the property was frequently sold at auction as quickly as possible.
A prominent female reporter went into one of the major state prisons as a
volunteer prisoner recently, in order to get a real picture of what went on
there. Larry King (Larry King Live, syndicated talk/interview show) spent
several hours interviewing her and other prisoners in the women's section,
as well as guards, the warden, attorneys, etc.
The really shocking thing was that a high percentage of the prisoners had
never been to trial, or even had a single hearing before a judge. Many of
them had been incarcerated for years without receiving a single hearing.
How had this happened? Well, they had been assigned a public defender at
the outset. (Often, THE public defender, as many counties had ONE attorney
to handle hundreds of "defences.") Their "attorney" waived the time limits
- there goes the right to a speedy trial - and then refused to take their
calls. Can you say hapless? Hopeless? Helpless?
The local radio news - KFWB, I believe - in discussing the newest flock of
prosecutions in the ever-widening L.A. Rampart police scandal (joy upon
joys!) - happened to mention in passing that the U.S. had just passed Russia
as the country with the most people incarcerated in the world. Actually,
this happened several years back, I believe.
Like, who needs black helicopters, etc.???
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:45 MDT