Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

And this is from 1995 folks. Give this Johnny some credit.

Duration : 0:6:31

Read more about Reclaiming Your Sovereign Citizenship 6 of 17

Adventures in Legal Land (with Marc Stevens)

2004 interview with Marc Stevens, anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian, author of “Adventures in Legal Land”, and host of “The No State Project” (a weekly radio show discussing news and issues related to the law, courts, and personal liberty, with a particular interest in considering free-market alternatives to government-provided services).

Website:
http://www.marcstevens.net/

The book:
http://www.amazon.com/Marc-Stevens-Adventures-Legal-Land/dp/061512299X

On Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MarcStevens3

Duration : 0:39:53

Read more about Adventures in Legal Land (with Marc Stevens)

Natural Rights, Enumerated Rights, and the Ninth Amendment

October 15, 2008
Speaker: Michael W. McConnell, Presidential Professor of Law, Judge, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Summary: The Sumner Canary Lecture
When faced with drafting a Bill of Rights, members of the First Congress were faced with an impossible problem: what to include and what to leave out. Lockean theory told them that after construction of a social compact, such as the Constitution, the people would retain all rights not relinquished to the state. But what was the legal status of those retained rights, and how would they be affected by the explicit enumeration of some but not all of them?

Michael W. McConnell joined the faculty of S.J. Quinney College of Law in 1997 after teaching at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years, where he was William B. Graham Professor of Law. Prior to his teaching career, Professor McConnell served as assistant to the solicitor general with the U.S. Department of Justice, assistant general counsel for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, and clerked for Chief Judge J. Skelly Wright, of the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He also served a clerkship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Among the country’s most distinguished scholars in the fields of constitutional law and theory with a specialty in the religion clauses of the First Amendment, Professor McConnell has argued 11 times before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is widely published in the areas of church-state relations and the First Amendment. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was sworn in as a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 3, 2003.

Professor McConnell teaches constitutional law, family law, state and local government, religion and the First Amendment.

Duration : 1:8:21

Read more about Natural Rights, Enumerated Rights, and the Ninth Amendment

Fox News Misrepresents Treason?

20+ MORE examples of Fox News Biased Video Editing at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=814374ED833C9047

100+ MORE examples of Fox News Bias at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Whether it’s misrepresenting the law of treason or the applicability of Miranda warnings, Fox News contributors on “Fox and Friends” this week spent a lot of time making a false legal distinction between citizens and non-citizens in the discussion of the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of planting an SUV bomb in New York City’s Times Square on May 1, as I show in this video.

The clips of Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr., come from the segment on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” broadcast May 5, 2010, available in the foxnewschannel YouTube video titled “Terror and Treason” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2zP53kYCE

The clips of Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napalitano, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, and Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade come from a segment on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” broadcast May 4, 2010 (which I have not been able to find online).

The image of my February 2010 video titled “Sarah Palin Says Only Americans Worthy of Rights?” comes from the YouTube player page at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3fm_IQ5Hco

The quote of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution comes from the Cornell University Law School page at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

And, finally, the quote from the US Supreme Court case of Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U.S. 210 (1877) comes from the webpage at http://supreme.justia.com/us/95/210/case.html

Duration : 0:7:21

Read more about Fox News Misrepresents Treason?

Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Knowing Your Rights Constitutional Law UPMART ORG

ShaneCMuirhttp://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/shanecmuirNewsKnowing, Your, Rights, Constitutional, Law, UPMART, ORGKnowing Your Rights Constitutional Law UPMART ORG

Duration : 0:7:22

Read more about Knowing Your Rights Constitutional Law UPMART ORG

Equal Protection Lecture Excerpt 1.mov

An introtuction to Equal Protection under the United States Constitution. Equal Protection is a basic right under the American system of government. Lecture on Constitutional Law.

Duration : 0:9:17

Read more about Equal Protection Lecture Excerpt 1.mov

WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Pulled form PBS Show called “The Botany of Desire pt1 Cannabis”

MARIJUANA CANNABIS MARIHUANA MEDICAL LEGALIZE WEED 420 OBAMA RON PAUL JACKSON DOPE GRASS BONG RIP JOINT KUSH DRUGS SEEDS WAR NWO NEWS VAPORIZER BOWL HASHISH BLUNTS H1N1 Flu HASH GANJA HEMP SEX LIBERTARIAN RAGE swine LEGALIZATION POT ALEX JONES PRISON PLANET LIBERAL COMPASSIONATE PRIVACY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW EDUCATION ACTIVISM HERB smoke HIGHTIMES CUP hydro HIGH ECONOMY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE MEXICO PATRIOT MARYJANE hosser420 NORML MPP DMT legalize conservative sex tits freedom GMO New Jersey nj

Duration : 0:2:49

Read more about WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE WANT MARIJUANA LEGAL? (3 of 4)

Freedom Under Fire – 2nd Amendment in danger? (part 1)

Update: he was sentenced to 30 months in jail! http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65455

Lou Dobbs reports on the story of a National Guard Drill Instructor who was convicted of illegally transferring a machine gun, a felony, when his perfectly legal AR-15 misfired. He had loaned the rifle to a student and the gun misfired while the student was shooting it at the gun range. Talk about an injustice! Gun owners beware, this could happen to any of us if our legal gun was to accidentally misfire for any reason.

More info:
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45503

Duration : 0:4:56

Read more about Freedom Under Fire – 2nd Amendment in danger? (part 1)