Thursday, June 30, 2011

Dane County Courts VS Democracy

There have been, at least, two Dane County Circuit Court decisions halting the enforcement of our "collective bargaining law"---The last being by Judge Maryann Summi. More recently, another Dane County Circuit Court judge has attempted to nullify the State Constitution's provision defining marriage and forbidding allowing marriage related benefits to "other" couples.

. This again raises this question: Why do the citizens of Dane County (Especially Madison, that "X square miles surrounded by reality") have the unequal power to elect those judges who have the "first shot" at challenging the acts of our Legislature, whose members are elected from all of Wisconsin's counties, and the Administrative Rules of the Executive Branch of our government, headed by a governor elected by all the voters of this State?

Again, this appears to very much be an unequal protection of the law, one acting against the People outside of Dane County.

Again, I suggest randomly selected from all of Wisconsin's Circuit Courts, three judge panels (No two judges from the same Court Of Appeals district), to make decisions on all such challenges to State Acts. With today's teleconferences and like communications, this should not be a problem. Appeals from those panels would go, if accepted, directly to the State Supreme Court.

In fact, it is well-past-the-time when the Legislature should enforce equal rights to those citizens, outside of Dane County, as to judicial reviews of the acts of that Legislature and of our various Administrative Rule making agencies.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Jury Instruction VS Too Complex Laws

Many of our laws (Most specially as to tax-codes, business laws, "green" laws and such like creations of those lawyers lurking in legislative bodies and administrative agencies). "Common sense", as a requirement for citizens who generally wish to obey our laws, has become most uncommon.

As for criminal court (Or other prosecutions) which may result in jail/prison terms or crippling fines, I suggest that the following be the first "jury instruction" given and the first rule for trials without juries or for Administrative Hearing Examiners or tribunals.

(This is written for jury instructions in criminal cases. Like positions should be posited for non-jury trials and administrative hearings.)

"The jury is first to consider if the law in question is one that can be understood by the ordinary citizen, with an average education and without prior consultation with an attorney or other like specialist. If the Jury finds the answer to be "no", it (They) must acquit without further consideration of any facts or other instructions of the Court. The jury must not consider any "should have known" position unless the defendant was proven to be an expert in the applicable part of the Law. If, and only if, the answer is "yes", then they may proceed to the consideration of the other facts and law pertaining to this case/matter."

It is very likely that such an instruction will not be automatically considered by the Court and may, very likely, be rejected by judges. Yet, proposing it and having it rejected offers a wide door for appeals of any convictions.

You may wish to refer to: Silverglate, Harvey A.; "Three Felonies A Day---How the Feds Target the Innocent"; Encounter Books; New York & London; 2009.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Dark Side Of Compromise

Mr. David M. Shribman (Executive Editor, the "Pittsburgh Post-Gazette") has touted the benefits of compromise in our national-political life ("Loss of compromise is a threat to nation"; "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel"; June 26, 2011; Page- 1J). I suspect that he has put aside his history books some years ago and has forgotten the very "dark side" of compromise.

During the formation of this nation we executed a probably necessary compromise as to counting slaves to determine States' representation in the Congress. During the 1850s the USA compromised further on the question of slavery. The results of such compromises were: A delay in the abolishing of slavery; The bloodiest war fought by the American People; And, an anti-democracy movement from "these United States" to "the United States".

In the 1930s the United Kingdom and most European nations compromised with Adolf Hitler when a firm "NO!", a few French soldiers and, perhaps, a few rifle shots would have stopped his expansion-of-power into the Saar and throughout Europe. The results of that compromise was many millions of dead and the physical-and-other exhaustion of the USA and other nations.

By "reaching out" and "dialog" the Churches, European nations and the USA are attempting to compromise with a newly resurgent Islam (Which seeks its perpetual goals by traditional means). The results are: Multiple wars in the Middle East; Asymmetrical war with Muslims throughout the world ;Weekly reports of small group or individual, military-style, Jihad everywhere; And severe threats to democracy and public safety in every jurisdiction where Muslims form more that a minute part of the local population.

Within the Congress compromise with morality and financial sanity have yielded a multi-trillion dollar debt, spending well beyond revenues, a great danger to the security of the nation as well as an ongoing roll-call of corruption and anti-democracy arrogance from the White House down to local elected officials.

Compromise with the examples of history will condemn us to repeat the most horrid lessons of history (Paraphrased from George Santayana).

Friday, June 24, 2011

Treason & Support Of Islam


Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
“ Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[13]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695. In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[14] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

To me it would seem that such persons as Major Nidal Hasan (Of Fort Hood infamy), those members of the "Fort Dix Six" who were US Citizens. the ex-Marine recently charged with shooting at the Pentagon, the other two and West Coast Muslims recently arrested before they could execute an armed attack on a military installation were all waging war against the USA or planning to do so. But, they were not so charged nor is it likely that the newer cases will result in that object-lesson and most horrid of crimes.

Why? Could it be that Muslims have become "more equal than others" (Like the pigs in "Animal Farm)? Or, could it be that active prosecution of treason cases would place at risk so many editors, publishers, politicians, professors and such persons.
More specially, I note that it has been clearly demonstrated-and-proved that most contributions to "islamic charities" end up in the hands of terrorists who are, also in fact, involved in active military "jihad" against the Armed Forces of the USA. Such actions meet the requirements of the Constitution and above-reported court case to warrant charges-of and convictions-for treason.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Constitutional Amendment Regarding Lawyers & Congress


Section-I: No person who has ever graduated from a school-of-law or has practiced law shall be seated as a Member of the Congress of the United States.

Section-II: Nothing in the Constitution of the United States or in its laws shall prohibit the People of the Several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or of the Territories of the United States from enacting like measures as to the Members of their Legislatures.

Section-III: This Amendment shall take effect five-years after ratification.

NOTE BENE: As lawyers already control the Courts in our national government (And that of the Several States and territories or possessions of the USA) and are well on their way to control the various agencies as make up the Administrative branch of our government(s), it would be well to have one branch free of them. Why?

Attorneys generate laws which are so complex as to insure the full employment of other attorneys (And themselves if removed from office). This complexity leaves the USA in a handicapped place to such economic power-houses, who lack a large lawyer-class, as Japan, Korea, India and the “Peoples Republic” of China.

For the individual citizen or business-owner, the complexity of laws leaves them open to many penalties (Including prison “time”) if they fail to comply with even the smallest detail of some law or Administrative Rule.

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse—For violating any law” was a sound maxim, when laws (And administrative-rules) were few, written in English and could be known and understood by most citizens with no more than a high-school education. That is no longer the case.

Of course, we could follow William Shakespeare's recommendation (Henry VI, Part-2, Act-4, scene-1) where Dick-The-Butcher states, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers”. (I would excuse my lawyer who I like!)

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Curtilage--So You Do Not Have To Look It Up

The curtilage is an important legal term to define the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated 'open fields beyond'. It defines the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where 'intimate home activities' take place. It is an important legal concept in some jurisdictions for the understanding of burglary, trespass, and in relation to planning controls.

In urban properties the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start.[1]

Curtilage in United States law

This distinction is important in United States law for cases dealing with burglary and with self-defense under the "Castle Doctrine." In some state law, such as Florida, burglary encompasses the English common law definition and adds (among other things) curtilage to the protected area of the dwelling into which intrusion is prohibited. Similarly, under Florida's Castle Doctrine a home-owner does not have to retreat within the curtilage.

The boundary between the home and the curtilage that surrounds it, on the one hand, and the open fields beyond the curtilage, on the other, is also important for the application of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies only to the "home," which courts have construed to include the area immediately surrounding the house in which the intimate home activities occur, but not to the open fields beyond. The requirement that law enforcement officers obtain a warrant before searching a suspect's home extends, therefore, to the curtilage, but not to private property beyond the curtilage, even if their access to such "open fields" without the owner's permission would constitute a trespass. [2]

In United States v. Dunn, the Supreme Court identified four factors as critical when assessing the limits of curtilage: "the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included wit

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Reinstate The Poll Tax!!!


With the "underclass" getting more-and-more out-of-hand and increasing demands on the budgets of our state and local governments (eg Provision of Voter ID Cards for the poor; Costs associated with "punish the voters" recounts), we must find a way to pay for (At the least) such spending of public funds. THEREFORE, we should reinstate the "Poll Tax!

I suggest that the State charge about $30,00 every five-years PLUS the costs of an annual finger-print check (To minimize voting by convicted felons).

Ah, but naysayers will claim that voting (Unlike, for example, legally operating a motor vehicle) is a "constitutional right" AND that poll taxes (Along with ambiguous pre-voting testing of citizens wishing to execute the right to vote) has (have) soundly been declared as truly and fully unconstitutional by the Courts.

This is NOT a problem as the Wisconsin Legislature is intent on imposing like and unconstitutional charges and requirements against citizens who wish to execute the
parallel right (Please see the very broad AND unrestricted Article-1, Section-25 of Wisconsin's Constitution).

I have little doubt that someone will, upon being charges with any CCW under the proposed law, will successfully challenge it on such grounds as were successful in putting-down the Poll Tax and examination pre-conditions.


Jim Crow VS Jaime Cuervo

I doubt me that it is any desire to return to "Jim Crow" in the USA which is driving the push for "Voter ID". I suggest that it is a understanding of a "clear and present danger" to the sanctity of the vote which moves the People towards an anti "Jaime Cuervo" position.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Guns & President Jefferson

The Other Thomas Jefferson Quotes
Much, too much, has been made of the PRIVATE letter of Thomas Jefferson as to the "wall between church and state". Perhaps all should not the following, OTHER, quotes from that founder's statements.

No free man shall ever be debarred
the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the
people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.

. President Thomas Jefferson's note on the interpretation of the Constitution: "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Exclusion From The House Of Representatives

In 1919 AD the House Of Representatives refused to “seat” Congressman Elect Victor Berger of Wisconsin's Seventh District apparently because: Mr. Berger was honestly an honest Socialist (Of the variety called “Sewer Socialists” who were much more interested in protecting the health and well being of the People than in an “theoretical” socialism); And, in response to violent acts by union members and socialists in other parts of the USA, which had little, if anything, to do with Mr. Berger.

My recollection of contemporary press reports were the considerable number of claims that allowing
Socialists a role in government would result in: Murder and mass-murder in the streets; The disease of “free love” being rampant throughout the nation; The sexual abuse of little girls; Overthrown of our democratic systems of laws and government; Destruction of the Middle Class in this nation, that part of our population seen as the bulwark of our land; And, of everything which makes Western Civilization the mainstay of our world.

The not-seating of Mr. Berger did not appear to stop “free love”, murder and serial mass-murder and various forms of sexual abuse of children. Our subsequent, especially of late, Administrations have made considerable progress in abolishing the Middle Class and weakening those standards and institutions which support Western Civilization.

Strangely enough, the Congress has seated two persons who subscribe to a 1400-plus year old, medieval, criminal-terrorist ideology-or-movement which does, in fact, use murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, perpetual-and-violent military-level actions (ie “Declared War), lying and organized theft and lying to accomplish its very anti-democracy goals being: The destruction or near suppression of all ideologies other than itself and of all religions; Rule of all nations by only Muslims; Replacement of all legal systems other than Sharia; Subjection of all women and all non-Muslims to the will of male Muslim; And, the other horrors of that Nazi like movement

The 1919 Congress saw even Mr. Berger's brand of Socialism as a clear-and-present danger, That position might, without “20/20 hindsight”, be considered not unreasonable considering the concurrent and bloody revolutions occurring in such newsworthy places as Russia and Germany. Even without that “clarity of vision” as demonstrated by such leftists as Adolph Hitler, J. I. Stalin, Mao and others of that ilk.

It appears that the case of "Powell v. McCormack, 395 US 486 (1969) would probably prevent such removal today. However, as the Supreme Court no longer holds fast to the rulings of prior courts, I could be wrong.

With our much better knowledge of history (If we use it as, to paraphrase: “Those who do not study history, learn from history and apply those lessons will be condemned to repeat its worst lessons”) and what should be our better knowledge of the goals-and-means of Islam, we should wonder at why the current Congress and those of future terms should seat any Muslims---Who do not, publicly and fully, deny those horrid and perpetual Islamic goals and means.


Tower Of Power

There have been many recommendations as to reducing the “carbon footprint” left by the use of coal and petroleum products, especially as to the generation of electrical power. Some of these proposals are: Nuclear fission plants (What to do with the radio-active waste products?); Wind driven turbines (Apparently OK except off the shores of Senator Kennedy's estate; But, otherwise limited in other locations by terrain, average wind flow, bird migration patterns, etc.); Geo-Thermal “heat wells” (Drilled at a very high cost and requiring water supplies often not readily available in the proper geological areas); Solar reflector arrays with photo-electric cells (VERY expensive) or closed circuit hot fluid-to-steam turbines (One of the better ideas, but dependent on sunshine-per-year amounts and availability of vast spaces); And, some others I cannot recall.

Yet, there is one proposal about which little has been written or, as far as I can tell, considered. That is the use (Especially in desert areas) of a “tower of power”, being a very tall (1000') chimney (As used in many coal fired electric power plants or ore refining facilities; Some still existing without current use), having about it four-to-ten air intakes above the ground effect level (20'-plus), using the heat rising effect to draw in air from the surrounding area and passing it through moderate-to-slow turbines at each such intake or one large, multi-stage, turbine in the stack, all to generate electrical power.

By experiment, gates could be installed to open in the eye of any wind to increase air flow.

I suspect that this type of devise would work best in the hot and dry environment of a desert (eg Southern California, Arizona, parts of Australia, Israel) where the power produced would vary as the day's heat (Which would assist in providing power during the high-demand, air-conditioning, parts of the day).

Of course, we might “go to the source” and erect such a tower over the Capitol Building in Washington (DC), EU headquarters, the UN (Useless Nations) HQ AND, of course, so many academic buildings.

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Defining Islam---Again

1. Islam is NOT a religion; But, is a criminal-terrorist movement-or-ideology not far
different from the KKK or Nazi-Party (Sharing the same principles of hate-of-Jews and all real religions, use of violence and the other horrors taught in Mein Kampf and the Koran;
2. Islam (Like the KKK, Mafia and the SS brand of Nazism) has/had a very thin veneer of religion;
3. The false-prophet Mohammed (Who was a murderer, liar and treaty breaker, bandit and the perverted sexual abuser of a nine-year-young girl-child) declared perpetual war against all "unbelievers" (Until they join Islam or accept the slave-like state of dhimmitude), a war which continues in our era in the Sudan, Thailand, parts of the Philippines,,Fort.Hood and New York City on "9/11";
4. Most Mosques are, to some extent, funded by the most regressive, medieval and anti-civilization branch of Islam (ie Wahhabism) and use that sect's hate literature, much printed in Saudi Arabia;
5. Lying to "unbelievers" is one of the standard and common responses of Muslims to any questions, about their ideology, from "unbelievers", including before the Courts in the USA whose authority Muslims do NOT recognize;
6. Muslims "behave themselves" ONLY until their part of any local, regional or national population reaches certain levels (eg France; "Londonistan"; the Nordic nations; Dearborn, Michigan);
7. The true believers of Islam must believe that the words of the the Koran are directly from its Allah (Not the same as Arabic speaking Christians) and, along with the sayings and examples of Mohammed, are totally binding on them;
8. The declared goals of Islam include: The destruction or effective suppression of all ideologies other than itself and of all real religions; Rule of all nations by only Muslims; Replacement of all legal systems other than Sharia; Subjection of all women and all non-Muslims to the will of male Muslims; And, the other horrors of that Nazi like movement.
9. The allowed, approved and too often commanded methods of Islam and Muslims to achieve those goals include: Murder and mutilation; Rape and enslavement; Genocide;
Perpetual war with "unbelievers" until they become Muslims or accept the slave-like state of "dhimmitude"; Lying to "unbelievers" as the approved and commanded tactic of Muslims as to "pointed questions" regarding Islam; AND, the consideration of any resistance to or complaints about Islam as an attack which the "faithful" are required to counter-attack, very often by physical attack.