Open Carry in California: 12031 Check, More Belligerent Cop

Portrayal of the 12031 check with a “More Belligerent Cop.” This happens with great frequency though not as high as the “Generally Belligerent Cop”

Law, transport, openly carrying, case law, practical considerations, etc.

FAQ HERE!

http://caopencarry.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-carry-faq.html

Duration : 0:3:57

Read more about Open Carry in California: 12031 Check, More Belligerent Cop

Fox News Murderabilia Stories Mislead Viewers?

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

Even though Fox News ran several stories about the “‘Stop the Sale of Murderabilia to Protect the Dignity of Crime Victims Act of 2010” last Friday, none of the stories accurately informed viewers about either the scope of this proposed “murderabilia” law or the source of its likely potential legal challenges as I show in this video.

The Fox News clips I use in this video come from segments on the supposed straight news programs “America’s Newsroom,” “America Live” and “Special Report,” all broadcast on June 18, 2010, with the 3 segments from which I took my clips available at the following 3 links:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4245781/murderabilia-controversy

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4245088/lawmakers-want-crackdown-on-murderabilia

The image I show of the text of the “‘Stop the Sale of Murderabilia to Protect the Dignity of Crime Victims Act of 2010” cosponsored in the US Senate as S.3468 by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3468/text

And, finally, the image I use of the Supreme Court case overturning NY’s “Son of Sam” law, Simon & Schuster v. Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991), is from http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/502/105.pdf

Duration : 0:5:14

Read more about Fox News Murderabilia Stories Mislead Viewers?

Curtis Caton – Rights and Fights: The Current Politics of Constitutional Law

Rights and Fights: The Current Politics of Constitutional Law
Curtis Caton
Tuesdays, 9:3011:30 am
Oct 6-Nov 10, 2009

What happens when social controversies ripen into lawsuits that reach the U.S. Supreme Court? We will cover the right of privacy in relation to abortion, gay rights, and post-9/11 governmental wire-tapping; environmental law and global warming; torture, extraordinary rendition, and the rights of enemy combatant detainees; school prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and government aid to sectarian education; and problems posed by claims of executive privilege and the state secrets doctrine.

Duration : 0:3:15

Read more about Curtis Caton – Rights and Fights: The Current Politics of Constitutional Law

Lawrence Lessig: Congress to Blame for Bush Era Mistakes

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/10/08/Lawrence_Lessig_on_Institutional_Corruption

Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig explores the concept of institutional responsibility by comparing a boarding school sexual abuse case with Congress during the Administration of President George W. Bush. In both cases, he argues that witnesses who did not act responsibly should be held just as culpable as the offender.

—–

Larry Lessig introduces the Safra lecture series with a discussion on institutional corruption.

He explores the prevalence of this form of corruption in fields ranging from politics to medicine to journalism, and describes his plan to study and contain this problem. – Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University

Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Society. He teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, contracts, and the law of cyberspace. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a professor at the University of Chicago.

He clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. For much of his career, he has focused on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright.

Recognized for arguing against interpretations of copyright that could stifle innovation and discourse online, he is CEO of the Creative Commons project, and he has been a columnist for Wired, Red Herring, and The Industry Standard.

Duration : 0:3:11

Read more about Lawrence Lessig: Congress to Blame for Bush Era Mistakes

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