In other case news:
All Rise! Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Oyez!, etc., etc....
|Copies of amicus |
Wowsers! He strenuously objects to the SEC case!
What would drive
Here is a posting signed by a "Jesse Townsley" discussing how (like Don and his Dry Reactor Design) he created the "profession" of "Constitutional Law Advocate" out of thin air (and a bit of stretching the Declaration of Independence):
Posted by Jesse Townsley on 8/31/2010 7:11:28 AM
If we are waiting for the citizenry to wake up and become truly patriotic Americans in the mold that was originally created by our founding documents, I am afraid we will be waiting until hell literally freezes over.
The fact is that the hearts and minds of most Americans leans to how much largesse they can derive from the public treasury, and freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility are subjects quite foreign to their belief systems.
However, we are still technically a constitutional republic, with three departments of government: i.e. executive, legislative, and judicial, each of which is supposed to watch the others closely for signs of usurpation of powers not granted to them. This responsibility has been shirked by each, and so we have no one in authority who is watching our backs. But, the courts are derived directly from the Constitution, and each judge swears an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. We need to force them to do it.
I have created a new profession which I have named "Constitutional Law Advocate". This is a kind of "super lawyer" who has shunned the present day laws schools in favor of wielding the law of the Constitution as a weapon. While this post was not described in the Constitution per se, its need can be implied from the mandate in the Declaration giving the People the right to throw out any government that does not protect their Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I am currently testing this concept in three lawsuits I have instigated against the Pennsylvania DOT regarding the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code. I believe the Code is illegal because it takes away the right of citizen-drivers to make rational decisions and substitutes the judgment of "law enforcement" in its place. This very action reduces driver responsibility and increases the accident rate, among other evil results. My plan is to force the Judge in the appeals court to accept that he must, under his own oath, pay heed to his responsibility to protect the Rights of the People, and not to protect the power of the government.
I have three cases scheduled to be heard on September 28th. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles my attack on what amounts, at the present time, to a 'kangaroo court'.
Wish me luck!