|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/12/2019)
|
Any civil action the consequences of which impose a penalty indistinguishable from that of a criminal conviction MUST include full 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment protections.
This is particularly true of ex parte judicial acts. Regarding the suspension of liberty or property, the respondent MUST be permitted an adversarial hearing, i.e. an opportunity to face accusers, cross-examine witnesses and present witnesses and evidence in their own behalf. This must happen before any rights are suspended or related property is seized.
ERPO allegations can establish reasonable suspicion, but not probable cause. That doesn't meet the burden necessary for a seizure warrant.
These things are so obvious that they should need no debate. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/12/2019)
|
My experience in small claims court is that the judge will always rule in favor of the side represented by a lawyer, no matter how compelling your case. I have represented myself against other drivers and in one case my township government where the dollar amount was not worth paying an attorney. The other side came in with an attorney (paid for by the insurance company or taxpayers) and I lost every time. Even when the other party clearly was in violation of the motor vehicle code and caused the accident.
It is an old boy's network and you don't stand a chance. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/12/2019)
|
"Of the 13 cases where the defendants had a lawyer, judges approved 12 risk protection orders, or about 92%.
"By comparison, of the 53 cases where the defendants didn’t have a lawyer, judges approved 47, or roughly 89%."
This system is rigged against law abiding citizens. You don't have a chance.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
