COMPILATION AND BROADER LOOK: Assembled by Kevin Hayden. LAST UPDATED -- 12/26/2014 FYIs some not child friendly: news.nationalpost/2013/04/28/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide/ youtube/watch?v=vMm3ry1HqBc&feature=player_detailpage Gerry Spence - 60 Years as a lawyer. Well the law as I saw it at that time was broken. As I see it today it is still broken the justice system is broken It is still broken. It offers nothing but a promise. An empty promise of Liberty and Justice for all. It is not there. People cant get justice in this country. People believe they can get justice until they need it. Then they cant get it. I have been involved in trial of cases against governments defending people. Little people. And even occasionally big people. And I have never. Hear me I have never once been in a single case over a period of 60 years in the courtrooms of this country that the government hasnt violated the law or misused its power. Never one case. Not one. And they brag about a 98% conviction rate. You can imagine why. They have this huge power. They use it against little people. youtube/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8 Divorce Corp Movie Trailer. nytimes/2014/12/22/opinion/prosecute-torturers-and-their-bosses.html?smid=re-share&_r=1 Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses [Lang on site] avoiceformen/mens-rights/angry-harry-who-rules-over-us-part-iv/ avoiceformen/mens-rights/angry-harry-on-who-rules-over-us-part-one/ avoiceformen/mens-rights/angry-harry-on-who-rules-over-us-part-2/ avoiceformen/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/those-who-rule-over-us-part-iii/ https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21585-divorce-corp-backlash-by-divorce-lawyers-begins opposingviews/i/society/crime/north-carolina-man-trying-put-life-back-together-after-being-wrongfully-accused-chil examiner/article/divorce-corp-documentary-exposes-family-law-system Bought and watched Divorce Corp movie recently. It contains lots of huge problems. Divorce Industry is ~$50B world wide. Huge amount of conflicts of interest baked in. Judges get their campaigns funded by other lawyers who see them in their courts sometimes. Revolving door between judges working in legal firms. Lots of broken in that movie. The lawyers intent is to transfer your children’s college funds to the lawyers…. Is one semi-quote. [from memory after] The practices they talk about from Iceland were much better and not allowed to last very long or cost much. nytimes/2014/01/05/opinion/sunday/rampant-prosecutorial-misconduct.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1& archive.mises.org/20665/the-limits-of-tyrants-are-prescribed-by-the-endurance-of-those-whom-they-oppress/ ”If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others.” Attributed to Frederick Douglass, 1857. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [snip] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an African American slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scotts request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.[4]Although Taney hoped that his ruling would settle the slavery question once and for all, the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, especially Republicans. Most scholars today (and many contemporary lawyers) considered the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision would prove to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave blacks full citizenship. It is now widely regarded by scholars as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.[3][5][6][end]
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:51:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015