-- The Solidification of Nonsense
There seems to be several different roots, origins or reasons local and state governments started off with the notion they had a "right" or "need" to control crime or, particularly, "gun-related crime" with licensing procedures and other regulations -- well before this controversy led to the development of several anti-gun organizations "nibbling" at constitutional law under a pretense of "protecting civil rights."
One obvious root or origin started off at the turn of the 20th century in the City of New York. It was a time when "organized crime" had successfully infiltrated into the city government, including such criminal activity as a "protection racket" supported by local government officials (for a piece of the action, naturally).
These racketeers would come into a small local business, such as a "Mom & Pop Store" with a demand for "protection money" or else their place might go up in flames.
However, there was always a certain number of small businessmen who would consistently fight back against these government-supported racketeers. One method was for them to defend themselves with a knife or a gun to kick them out of their store, depending on their ethnic background and personality type.
These racketeers could defend themselves against anyone with a knife, no doubt, but a businessman confronting them with a loaded gun was much more difficult. That was the time, to combat this kind of defense against their criminal enterprise, for the local corrupt officials to introduce legislation requiring everyone to possess a license to carry firearms before they could possess a firearm in their businesses. Naturally, these corrupt officials made it very difficult for anyone to "qualify" for a license and, truthfully, the only people who did "qualify" were the police, the government-supported racketeers and, of course, themselves.
Almost immediately, some citizens of the City of New York challenged the constitutionality of these new licensing procedures in a local court of law. They would argue there is a civil right for the citizen to keep and bear arms for his self-defense. Since the judge presiding over the case was also part of a conspiracy and probably receiving a "kick-back" in these criminal enterprises, the citizen had no level playing field. The attorney for the defendant City of New York would argue nonsensically, while the citizen would cite constitutional law, and the judge would rule in favor of the City. Then this phony argument or legal adjudication would go into law as a "case precedence."
Later, another citizen in the same City or, possibly, another city or state, would challenge either the same law or something similar. The attorney for the defendant would look up any case precedent to support his defendant's position and, of course, would immediately discover that nonsensical case precedence. With nothing else he would use it. The judge, also part of a collusion with the defendant, would accept the defense attorney's use of this precedence and his accompanying nonsensical argument. That, also, would go into print as another case precedence.
Each time, when the plaintiff-party would appeal to the appellate division the court would summarily affirm the lower court's decision typically without a hearing creating, again, yet another precedence. That would continual on for years with each subsequent case precedence further solidifying each case precedence into a highly complex system of legal nonsense.
If it should go to the supreme court of the state, a collusion would accompany the decision from the lower court to the appellate division to the supreme court. Typically, either that court would refuse to hear the case or solidify the lower court decision with its own nonsensical arguments -- each time creating another nonsensical case precedence.
If we were to read the decision recently laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States between Washington, D.C. vs. Heller, we will find that this same solidification of nonsense spread out over a period of almost 100 years had a significant contribution in several of the briefs -- or "Friends of the Court" -- most notably the brief submitted by the city of Chicago to support Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns for self-defense in the home. This entire brief consisted of a series of legal "arguments," with its citation of case precedences and use of false logic and history, and contained an origin we can trace back to nearly a 100 years ago.
We will find this same pattern in the solidification of nonsense, solidified over a period of many years, in the briefs written by several anti-gun organizations, including the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. In this instance, it is a body of nonsense they originated and developed in their campaign to support gun-control. It is the results of their repeating their nonsense so extensively they can no longer interpret reality correctly and accurately, effectively rendering their legal arguments meritless and absurd.
In most instances, however, this nonsense actually came from the lines of continuity of nonsense traveling back and forth through the grave-vine circuits common among children playing games with each other of pretending to know more than they do that the anti-gun organizations had chosen to use for their own use, but forgot the origin and their motives for using it.
Frankly, it is very hard to fight this kind of conspiracy, with its accompanying system of solidified nonsense and collusion between the judge and opposing attorney. Every attempt to appeal to the next level will almost always lead to a collusion accompanying the appeal from the lowest court to the highest court, and nothing in the system allows anyone to effectively fight it -- except an honest judge.
One obvious root or origin started off at the turn of the 20th century in the City of New York. It was a time when "organized crime" had successfully infiltrated into the city government, including such criminal activity as a "protection racket" supported by local government officials (for a piece of the action, naturally).
These racketeers would come into a small local business, such as a "Mom & Pop Store" with a demand for "protection money" or else their place might go up in flames.
However, there was always a certain number of small businessmen who would consistently fight back against these government-supported racketeers. One method was for them to defend themselves with a knife or a gun to kick them out of their store, depending on their ethnic background and personality type.
These racketeers could defend themselves against anyone with a knife, no doubt, but a businessman confronting them with a loaded gun was much more difficult. That was the time, to combat this kind of defense against their criminal enterprise, for the local corrupt officials to introduce legislation requiring everyone to possess a license to carry firearms before they could possess a firearm in their businesses. Naturally, these corrupt officials made it very difficult for anyone to "qualify" for a license and, truthfully, the only people who did "qualify" were the police, the government-supported racketeers and, of course, themselves.
Almost immediately, some citizens of the City of New York challenged the constitutionality of these new licensing procedures in a local court of law. They would argue there is a civil right for the citizen to keep and bear arms for his self-defense. Since the judge presiding over the case was also part of a conspiracy and probably receiving a "kick-back" in these criminal enterprises, the citizen had no level playing field. The attorney for the defendant City of New York would argue nonsensically, while the citizen would cite constitutional law, and the judge would rule in favor of the City. Then this phony argument or legal adjudication would go into law as a "case precedence."
Later, another citizen in the same City or, possibly, another city or state, would challenge either the same law or something similar. The attorney for the defendant would look up any case precedent to support his defendant's position and, of course, would immediately discover that nonsensical case precedence. With nothing else he would use it. The judge, also part of a collusion with the defendant, would accept the defense attorney's use of this precedence and his accompanying nonsensical argument. That, also, would go into print as another case precedence.
Each time, when the plaintiff-party would appeal to the appellate division the court would summarily affirm the lower court's decision typically without a hearing creating, again, yet another precedence. That would continual on for years with each subsequent case precedence further solidifying each case precedence into a highly complex system of legal nonsense.
If it should go to the supreme court of the state, a collusion would accompany the decision from the lower court to the appellate division to the supreme court. Typically, either that court would refuse to hear the case or solidify the lower court decision with its own nonsensical arguments -- each time creating another nonsensical case precedence.
If we were to read the decision recently laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States between Washington, D.C. vs. Heller, we will find that this same solidification of nonsense spread out over a period of almost 100 years had a significant contribution in several of the briefs -- or "Friends of the Court" -- most notably the brief submitted by the city of Chicago to support Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns for self-defense in the home. This entire brief consisted of a series of legal "arguments," with its citation of case precedences and use of false logic and history, and contained an origin we can trace back to nearly a 100 years ago.
We will find this same pattern in the solidification of nonsense, solidified over a period of many years, in the briefs written by several anti-gun organizations, including the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence. In this instance, it is a body of nonsense they originated and developed in their campaign to support gun-control. It is the results of their repeating their nonsense so extensively they can no longer interpret reality correctly and accurately, effectively rendering their legal arguments meritless and absurd.
In most instances, however, this nonsense actually came from the lines of continuity of nonsense traveling back and forth through the grave-vine circuits common among children playing games with each other of pretending to know more than they do that the anti-gun organizations had chosen to use for their own use, but forgot the origin and their motives for using it.
Frankly, it is very hard to fight this kind of conspiracy, with its accompanying system of solidified nonsense and collusion between the judge and opposing attorney. Every attempt to appeal to the next level will almost always lead to a collusion accompanying the appeal from the lowest court to the highest court, and nothing in the system allows anyone to effectively fight it -- except an honest judge.
posted by Alvah Buckmore, Jr., at 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home