tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-819711698688655785.post2496635095766434052..comments2023-10-30T00:44:05.942-07:00Comments on Governing through Crime: Extrajudicial Killing of American Citizens: What Are the Limits?Jonathan Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15217567476776700363noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-819711698688655785.post-50148603494798201292010-06-22T11:04:09.245-07:002010-06-22T11:04:09.245-07:00The First Amendment limits restrictions on pro se ...The First Amendment limits restrictions on pro se speech.<br /><br />"We start with the premise that the rights to assemble peaceably and to petition for a redress of grievances are among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. These rights, moreover, are intimately connected, both in origin and in purpose, with the other First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. “All these, though not identical, are inseparable.”MINE WORKERS V. ILLINOIS BAR ASSN., 389 U. S. 217 (1967)<br /><br />Resort to the courts to seek vindication of constitutional rights is a different matter from the oppressive, malicious, or avaricious use of the legal process for purely private gain… Although petitioner has amply shown that its activities fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the State has failed to advance any substantial regulatory interest, in the form of substantive evils flowing from petitioner’s activities, which can justify the broad prohibitions which it has imposed.” NAACP v. BUTTON 371 U.S. 415 (1963) U.S. Supreme Ct.<br /><br />The Supreme Court wrote on 4/20/10 that:<br /> Since its enactment, the First Amendment has permitted restrictions on a few historic categories of speech—including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct—that “have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572. .... The Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, distinguished. Pp. 5–9. US. v. Stevens No. 08-769 (U.S. 04/20/2010)<br /><br />“Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction "furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest…. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker's "financial ability to engage in public discussion." Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 (U.S. 01/21/2010)<br /><br />Content-based restrictions on speech are "presumptively invalid" and subject to strict scrutiny.” Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U. S. 177, ___. Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 129 S.Ct. 1093 (U.S. 02/24/2009). <br /><br />… Among the particular privileges and immunities which are clearly to be deemed fundamental, the court in that case specifies the right 'to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state.' CHAMBERS V. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO., 207 U.S. 142 (1907) <br /><br />“leaves it undisputed that the right to maintain actions in the courts is one of the fundamental privileges guaranteed and protected by the Constitution” CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. EGGEN, 40 S. Ct. 402, 252 U.S. 553 (U.S. 04/19/1920)<br /><br /><br /> “Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 817 (2000).”Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 124 S.Ct. 2783, 542 U.S. 656, 159 L.Ed.2d 690 (U.S.)kay sieverdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751978887958544151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-819711698688655785.post-36658524978717296892010-06-21T07:30:07.654-07:002010-06-21T07:30:07.654-07:00P.S. There are lots of USDOJ employees who have ra...P.S. There are lots of USDOJ employees who have ratified DOJ imprisonment without a criminal charge. The general DOJ emails use firstname.lastname@DOJ.gov. DOJ employees ratifying DOJ imprisonment without a criminal charge include:<br />David Rybicki david.rybicki@usdoj.gov<br />Rudolph Contrareras rudolph.contrareras@usdoj.gov<br />Channing Phillips channing.phillips@usdoj.gov<br />John McNulty john.mcnulty@usdoj.gov<br />William Bordley william.bordley@usdoj.gov<br />Stephen Wallisch stephen.wallisch@usdoj.gov<br />Roberto Rodriquez roberto.rodriquez@usdoj.gov<br />Paul Server paul.server@usdoj.gov<br />Edward Zahren edward.zahren@usdoj.gov<br />Paul Otto paul.otto@usdoj.gov<br />Robert Anderson robert.anderson@usdoj.gov<br />Stephen Sinnot Stephen.Sinnot@usdoj.gov<br />David Gaouette David.Gaouette@usdoj.gov<br /><br />There are others too. I will send this blog to the emails above so the named parties can correct any misunderstandings about DOJ extrajudicial incarcerations.kay sieverdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751978887958544151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-819711698688655785.post-28217258178923016952010-06-20T18:25:37.983-07:002010-06-20T18:25:37.983-07:00DOJ has recently won a district court case giving ...DOJ has recently won a district court case giving it immunity for extrajudicial incarceration -- imprisoning citizens without a criminal charge. See <br />https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0562-58<br /><br />I was imprisoned by DOJ for 5 months without a criminal charge, an arraignment, a bail hearing etc. This was on the order of former judge Naughty Nottingham. I was told in court that I was not entitled to a lawyer or an evidentiary hearing before going to jail because I wasn't accused of a crime. This happened three times. The last time, assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Anderson showed up and said that the government wasn't a part of this. See PACER for Fed D of Columbia Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 47-2 Filed 11/12/2009 Page 11 of 141. After that I was held by USDOJ for another three weeks and taken 1200 miles in chains before I was released. I don't have a criminal record.<br /><br />DOJ claimed that there was no obligation for criminal procedure. DOJ counsel David Rybicki argued successfully that DOJ has immunity from liability for incarceration without a criminal charge because it published in the Federal Register that it uses Prisoner Tracking Systems when there is a criminal conviction. I emailed to DOJ counsel David Rybicki and asked him DOJ's position on discovery of the statutory basis of any charges against me. He was "opposed". Look up on PACER Case 1:09-cv-00562-JDB Document 47-2 Filed 11/12/2009 Page 26 of 141. <br /><br />I did pay $455 and I filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, # 10-5149. However, the chance that I will lose that appeal is over 99% because pro se litigants almost always lose. They are not allowed oral argument and they don't have a right to file using ECF. Without ECF filings it is really difficult for the judges to read what you file. According to the Federal Judicial Conference, most pro se appeals are actually decided by a clerk. The DC Court of Appeals is the most important one. So probably in a year they will rule that DOJ has no liability for extrajudicial incarceration, meaning no one gets in trouble because it is so inexpensive. Then DOj will probably do a lot more incarceration of American citizens without a criminal charge. Maybe I will apply to the S.C. but the S.C. very rarely picks pro se cert petitions. So then extra judicial incarceration will be accepted in the U.S. Then if you die in prison, who will know or care other than your immediate family?<br /><br />I did argue the NonDetention Act 18 USC Section 4001. What I was accused of was representing myself in court, which I argued is a fundamental right as well as a statutory right see 28 USC section 1654 (signed by President George Washington). But I already argued that in the 8th and 10th Circuit without success.<br /><br />Federal public defender Raymond Moore wrote to me in jail that the public defenders couldn't represent me because I wasn't accused of a crime. I put a copy of his letter in PACER see D of Colorado 02-cv-1950 document 644. He said it was because I was only accused of civil contempt. When I was incarcerated, the prosecutors were insurance company lawyers. They accused me of engaging in civil litigation without judge Naughty's permission. <br /><br />I was not accused of perjury or fraud. I was accused of telling a federal judge that Kevin Bennett, Steamboat Springs city council president, might be a drug dealer. Then Bennett admitted that he was convicted of conspiracy to sell hash so I was right about that. <br />http://steamboatsprings.net/sites/default/files/2005/09/06/ccmn0906.pdf<br />http://www.exploresteamboat.com/news/2009/sep/30/candidates_divided_financing_issue/ <br /><br /> I'm sorry I wasn't more effective in arguing that DOJ can't imprison U.S. citizens without a criminal charge but I really tried hard.kay sieverdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11751978887958544151noreply@blogger.com