indeed. Demanding - and getting, no questions asked - pretty much any individual they choose anywhere in the World, extradited to the US for incarceration in the deepest shit pit they can find for them?
I would advocate for more advocates - lawyers who do not answer to a Bar, solicitors who do not belong to a monolithic Boys' Club where membership is mandatory before you can even append the word to your business card. Such individuals (as I, formerly), who do not rely on satisfying the State for continued income from the State (as Public Defender), who instead give their time and skill freely or barter to those without the means to hire someone who is going to take their money, bend them over and fuck them up the arse.
Work the Constitution of the United States back to its roots, to something I am very familiar with: Magna Carta.
Clause 29 of the Edward I (1297) Revision reads thus:
"29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Oh, I love this clause - it is still in force. It means: you CANNOT be denied bail nor can you be imprisoned EXCEPT by due process of Law. You CANNOT be denied representation simply because you either have no money or refuse to pay for it if you do have money. Your rights as a Human Being do not end at the threshold of a Lawful Court, and any who abrogate your rights under colour of Law is committing fraud.
870 Code of Alfred [The Great] 1215 Magna Carta 1679 Habeas Corpus Act 1688 British Constitution 1688 UK Bill of Rights 1707, 1800, 1840 Acts of Union 1848 Treason Felony Act 1861 Offences Against The Person Act 1911 Official Secrets Act 1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1989 Children Act 1998 Data Protection Act 2002 Children And Adoption Act 2005 Serious Organised Crime And Police Act 2010 Family Procedure Rules 2010 Civil Procedure Rules 2010 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 Civil Bench Book 2010 Criminal Bench Book...among the several tens of thousands of Acts of Parliament and Royal Proclamations and Secondary Statutory Instruments (Enabling Acts) in UK Law, if which the Criminal Code is but a teeny, tiny fraction of a dot, enacted, passed, revoked and abolished over the last 1200 years. These are just the ones I can immediately think of that I'm intimately familiar with, between the ones listed here are probably contained 7500 pages.
if a hundred grand is something you do not have, then it is not a risk to you. If you are innocent, fight and fight and fight. Keep filing those appeals until they get fed the fuck up with you and turn you out just to be rid of you. They DO have a hundred grand, multiplied in spades. Make THEM spend money they have, you don't have to worry about it if you ain't got it.
Public Defenders get paid on the Legal Aid scheme (in the UK). They get paid whether or not they succeed for their clients. Therefore, there is no incentive for them to succeed for their clients. Hence the name "professional losers".
not with over what, 30,000 Statutory regulations in each State? The UK has, at last count, nearly 11 million pages on the Statute Roll - that's not including local ordinances or enabling Instruments.
Some solicitors in this country make their living on just ONE ACT of Parliament - the Children Act 1989. That's over 300 pages long by itself.
Disclaimer: I am a *former** Lay Advocate in civil, constitutional and family matters....In the UK we already have this problem, where in civil litigation, everything's done as close to politely as possible. Everybody (theoretically) agrees on a compromise, and the judge rubberstamps it. That's the extremely short version.
When trying to apply this method to criminal prosecutions, everything falls over.
A court adjudicator hears differing stories from two sides (generally), which for the most part are disparate in the extreme. A court hearing two sides is an adversarial one, and there's simply no way that it can be otherwise. It is for the court, not either one side, to decide one way or the other; in theory, this would be the side with the most plausible story, backed up with the most plausible evidence.
The start of it falling over is where representation for each side agrees on what evidence should be submitted. This, I argue, is solely the purview of he who holds said evidence; his lawyers obligation is to submit any and all materials relevant to the case - whether or not is is in his clients' interest to do so, as his primary obligation is to the Law. When agreement is made as to what evidence should be suppressed, then the spirit of the Law is being sullied. I do not agree with this.
*This is why I said *former* Lay Advocate. I quit because everywhere I turned, evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Public Authorities, NHS Trusts and of Police individuals, was being suppressed in situations where criminal prosecutions against individuals and corporate bodies should have been brought instead. Where in such cases, the futures of entire families were being decided upon not the preponderance of actual physical evidence, but the batshit predictions of fraudsters masquerading as "child psychologists" whose ramblings were taken as "Gospel Honest Truth, Guv" by imposters posing as judges who then signed off on orders to make children from prebirth to 16 disappear forever.
Fuck that. I want nothing more to do with the legal system in the UK, because it's downright unlawful. Hell, it's not that. It's because no matter how hard I tried, I saw more kids taken into the arms of strangers who went on to do fuck knows what with them than I saved from such a fate. Far more. And it wrecked me every time.
One of these days I'm gonna have to write about it.
can I invent a word here? It's more nutritropism than memory. Much like plants grow toward the sun (phototropism), or their roots grow down and their shoots grow up (geotropism), but following a food source.
Erm... no. I do not trust any Government to tell the Truth.
Construction steel melts at 825C. Kerosene DOES NOT burn this hot, even in the presence of a pure oxygen source. This tells me that kerosene fires did not cause the collapse.
You don't have to melt steel to weaken it enough for it to become useless. Had you read the goddamn report you would have understood this.
Read my previous line.
I don't swallow the official lines because they are bullshit. I have my own theories on what happened.
One is always able to manage to find evidence that fits their narrative. The question is what next? Claim victory and turn off your brain or expend some critical attention to try and discredit your own ideas and conclusions? Crackpots are crackpots because they lack necessary discipline and vigor to question their own feelings.
I said THEORIES. I have the discipline and vigour to formulate my own instead of letting someone else do my critical thinking for me.
Try it, you might like it.
Look over Jane Standley's left shoulder, that's the roof of WTC7 still 47 stories up and not collapsed
WTC7 was on fire and all fire control efforts had been pulled from that building. It was not worth risking more lives to try and save it... the assumption was for quite some time it was going to burn down.
WTC7 WAS NOT ON FIRE AT THAT POINT. LOOK AT THE FUCKING VIDEO. ALSO, THE BUILDING WAS EMPTY, AS IT HAD BEEN ALL MORNING.
Read the final WTC7 report... took them long enough..There are plenty of pictures of the damage with eloborate time lines on what happened when.
BTW in the 911 commission report Cheney reported it was his understanding planes had already been shot down when in fact none had. We had the VP of the country with wrong information so before we rev up the conspiracy machine against BBC bumbling facts might I suggest we should at least be willing to accept the idea this sort of thing is not unprecidented.
WTC7 was PULLED. It was DEMOLISHED.
As for the BBC "bumbling": no, they didn't "bumble". There were TWO newscasters on that live broadcast who BOTH SAID WTC7 HAD COLLAPSED, when it QUITE PLAINLY HAD NOT. THEY EVEN DESCRIBED THE FACT THAT IT HAD 47 FLOORS. THEY WERE LYING.
...and the point where you used several exclamation marks consecutively was the point where the last lingering threat of credibility in your argument disappeared in a puff of smoke.
As a matter of historical fact, no other glass and steel building, in the entire history of glass and steel highrise construction, has ever collapsed (on its own footprint for that matter) as a result of fire or aircraft impact.
The towers stood for nearly an hour after impact. This tells me that the impacts DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE.
If kerosene was able to melt steel or titanium, we would not have either material INSIDE JET ENGINES. Construction steel melts at 825C. Kerosene DOES NOT burn this hot, even in the presence of a pure oxygen source. This tells me that kerosene fires did not cause the collapse.
I don't swallow the official lines because they are bullshit. I have my own theories on what happened, and no my source is not the BBC. Look over Jane Standley's left shoulder, that's the roof of WTC7 still 47 stories up and not collapsed. Oh yeah, millions of people watched that broadcast live - I was one of 'em.
Or an American sub skip. I remember reading somewhere several years ago about a German navy sub that collided with the coast of Norway, but I'm having trouble finding a link to that one...
NETHACK! Classic, genre-defining game. Unbelievably funny as well (where else do you get to write a spell with a magic marker(!)?) and Douglas Adams' BUREAUCRACY. Very difficult even now, but doable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Lots of college campuses in the US employ their own private police forces. Some even carry guns.
Tell that to Bernard Madoff. 150 years for tax fraud!?
um... he'll've been supplying the local beat cops with a bag of the best, or a significant cut of the proceeds as insurance/protection money.
What, you thought cops were above bribes? If there was something in it for them they won't give two shits how much he had.
indeed. Demanding - and getting, no questions asked - pretty much any individual they choose anywhere in the World, extradited to the US for incarceration in the deepest shit pit they can find for them?
Ask yourself the same question the day your trial for [whatever heinous thing you did or did not do] starts.
I would advocate for more advocates - lawyers who do not answer to a Bar, solicitors who do not belong to a monolithic Boys' Club where membership is mandatory before you can even append the word to your business card. Such individuals (as I, formerly), who do not rely on satisfying the State for continued income from the State (as Public Defender), who instead give their time and skill freely or barter to those without the means to hire someone who is going to take their money, bend them over and fuck them up the arse.
thanks ya! I couldn't think which one it was (being a UK lawyer, it didn't come up very often!)
Work the Constitution of the United States back to its roots, to something I am very familiar with: Magna Carta.
Clause 29 of the Edward I (1297) Revision reads thus:
"29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."
Oh, I love this clause - it is still in force. It means: you CANNOT be denied bail nor can you be imprisoned EXCEPT by due process of Law. You CANNOT be denied representation simply because you either have no money or refuse to pay for it if you do have money. Your rights as a Human Being do not end at the threshold of a Lawful Court, and any who abrogate your rights under colour of Law is committing fraud.
wow, you only have to start at 1899?
Let's see, here... I have:
870 Code of Alfred [The Great] ...among the several tens of thousands of Acts of Parliament and Royal Proclamations and Secondary Statutory Instruments (Enabling Acts) in UK Law, if which the Criminal Code is but a teeny, tiny fraction of a dot, enacted, passed, revoked and abolished over the last 1200 years. These are just the ones I can immediately think of that I'm intimately familiar with, between the ones listed here are probably contained 7500 pages.
1215 Magna Carta
1679 Habeas Corpus Act
1688 British Constitution
1688 UK Bill of Rights
1707, 1800, 1840 Acts of Union
1848 Treason Felony Act
1861 Offences Against The Person Act
1911 Official Secrets Act
1984 Police And Criminal Evidence Act
1989 Children Act
1998 Data Protection Act
2002 Children And Adoption Act
2005 Serious Organised Crime And Police Act
2010 Family Procedure Rules
2010 Civil Procedure Rules
2010 Criminal Procedure Rules
2010 Civil Bench Book
2010 Criminal Bench Book
if a hundred grand is something you do not have, then it is not a risk to you. If you are innocent, fight and fight and fight. Keep filing those appeals until they get fed the fuck up with you and turn you out just to be rid of you. They DO have a hundred grand, multiplied in spades. Make THEM spend money they have, you don't have to worry about it if you ain't got it.
My rights are worth more than you got. What're you bringing to the table, again? Give me my fucking jury trial.
Public Defenders get paid on the Legal Aid scheme (in the UK). They get paid whether or not they succeed for their clients. Therefore, there is no incentive for them to succeed for their clients. Hence the name "professional losers".
Disclaimer: IWAL.
they'd just build more.
They're doing that here.
not with over what, 30,000 Statutory regulations in each State? The UK has, at last count, nearly 11 million pages on the Statute Roll - that's not including local ordinances or enabling Instruments.
Some solicitors in this country make their living on just ONE ACT of Parliament - the Children Act 1989. That's over 300 pages long by itself.
If you've spoken to the police, you're going down.
Disclaimer: I am a *former** Lay Advocate in civil, constitutional and family matters. ...In the UK we already have this problem, where in civil litigation, everything's done as close to politely as possible. Everybody (theoretically) agrees on a compromise, and the judge rubberstamps it. That's the extremely short version.
When trying to apply this method to criminal prosecutions, everything falls over.
A court adjudicator hears differing stories from two sides (generally), which for the most part are disparate in the extreme. A court hearing two sides is an adversarial one, and there's simply no way that it can be otherwise. It is for the court, not either one side, to decide one way or the other; in theory, this would be the side with the most plausible story, backed up with the most plausible evidence.
The start of it falling over is where representation for each side agrees on what evidence should be submitted. This, I argue, is solely the purview of he who holds said evidence; his lawyers obligation is to submit any and all materials relevant to the case - whether or not is is in his clients' interest to do so, as his primary obligation is to the Law. When agreement is made as to what evidence should be suppressed, then the spirit of the Law is being sullied. I do not agree with this.
*This is why I said *former* Lay Advocate. I quit because everywhere I turned, evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Public Authorities, NHS Trusts and of Police individuals, was being suppressed in situations where criminal prosecutions against individuals and corporate bodies should have been brought instead. Where in such cases, the futures of entire families were being decided upon not the preponderance of actual physical evidence, but the batshit predictions of fraudsters masquerading as "child psychologists" whose ramblings were taken as "Gospel Honest Truth, Guv" by imposters posing as judges who then signed off on orders to make children from prebirth to 16 disappear forever.
Fuck that. I want nothing more to do with the legal system in the UK, because it's downright unlawful. Hell, it's not that. It's because no matter how hard I tried, I saw more kids taken into the arms of strangers who went on to do fuck knows what with them than I saved from such a fate. Far more. And it wrecked me every time.
One of these days I'm gonna have to write about it.
Just start worrying when the glowing green marshmallow runs up the stick.
can I invent a word here? It's more nutritropism than memory. Much like plants grow toward the sun (phototropism), or their roots grow down and their shoots grow up (geotropism), but following a food source.
Please read the "official" NIST reports on all incidents. The information is avaliable to you at no cost.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
Erm... no. I do not trust any Government to tell the Truth.
Construction steel melts at 825C. Kerosene DOES NOT burn this hot, even in the presence of a pure oxygen source. This tells me that kerosene fires did not cause the collapse.
You don't have to melt steel to weaken it enough for it to become useless. Had you read the goddamn report you would have understood this.
Read my previous line.
I don't swallow the official lines because they are bullshit. I have my own theories on what happened.
One is always able to manage to find evidence that fits their narrative. The question is what next? Claim victory and turn off your brain or expend some critical attention to try and discredit your own ideas and conclusions? Crackpots are crackpots because they lack necessary discipline and vigor to question their own feelings.
I said THEORIES. I have the discipline and vigour to formulate my own instead of letting someone else do my critical thinking for me.
Try it, you might like it.
Look over Jane Standley's left shoulder, that's the roof of WTC7 still 47 stories up and not collapsed
WTC7 was on fire and all fire control efforts had been pulled from that building. It was not worth risking more lives to try and save it... the assumption was for quite some time it was going to burn down.
WTC7 WAS NOT ON FIRE AT THAT POINT. LOOK AT THE FUCKING VIDEO. ALSO, THE BUILDING WAS EMPTY, AS IT HAD BEEN ALL MORNING.
Read the final WTC7 report... took them long enough..There are plenty of pictures of the damage with eloborate time lines on what happened when.
BTW in the 911 commission report Cheney reported it was his understanding planes had already been shot down when in fact none had. We had the VP of the country with wrong information so before we rev up the conspiracy machine against BBC bumbling facts might I suggest we should at least be willing to accept the idea this sort of thing is not unprecidented.
WTC7 was PULLED. It was DEMOLISHED.
As for the BBC "bumbling": no, they didn't "bumble". There were TWO newscasters on that live broadcast who BOTH SAID WTC7 HAD COLLAPSED, when it QUITE PLAINLY HAD NOT. THEY EVEN DESCRIBED THE FACT THAT IT HAD 47 FLOORS. THEY WERE LYING.
DOTT was 1993 :) Still, bloody good game. I have a copy - and it works on windows 7!
yeah, come to think of it...
someone please tell me Eddie Olmos isn't aboard!
1993-1996. Khan (according to the Blish novelisation) escaped aboard the Botany bay in 1997.
...and the point where you used several exclamation marks consecutively was the point where the last lingering threat of credibility in your argument disappeared in a puff of smoke.
As a matter of historical fact, no other glass and steel building, in the entire history of glass and steel highrise construction, has ever collapsed (on its own footprint for that matter) as a result of fire or aircraft impact.
The towers stood for nearly an hour after impact. This tells me that the impacts DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE.
If kerosene was able to melt steel or titanium, we would not have either material INSIDE JET ENGINES. Construction steel melts at 825C. Kerosene DOES NOT burn this hot, even in the presence of a pure oxygen source. This tells me that kerosene fires did not cause the collapse.
I don't swallow the official lines because they are bullshit. I have my own theories on what happened, and no my source is not the BBC. Look over Jane Standley's left shoulder, that's the roof of WTC7 still 47 stories up and not collapsed. Oh yeah, millions of people watched that broadcast live - I was one of 'em.
Or an American sub skip. I remember reading somewhere several years ago about a German navy sub that collided with the coast of Norway, but I'm having trouble finding a link to that one...
NETHACK! Classic, genre-defining game. Unbelievably funny as well (where else do you get to write a spell with a magic marker(!)?)
and Douglas Adams' BUREAUCRACY. Very difficult even now, but doable.