From: pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell)
Subject: Re: Traveling with a gun
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:46:34 GMT

In article <8110308@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> post@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (David Post) writes:
>In talk.politics.guns, pecampbe@mtu.edu (Paul Campbell) writes:
>[ a nice article on the constitutional intrepretation of laws ]
>
>Some how, I think some of our Justices would argue with your presentation.
>
>For example, they use the concept of "Stare Dictus", which, I think, means
>something along the lines of " the Justices can do what we want if we so
>deam that otherwise will cause unreasonable hardships".

Perhaps a better translation of Stare Dictus is "I can do whatever I want
to because I am a Judge" or "Oh come on, you didn't think the Roman empire
really fell?" I have personally witnessed judges getting put in their place.
It's possible. That's why we have writs of prohibition, mandamous, habeus
corpus, oaths of office, and especially JURIES with the power of nullification.
For example, within the last several years, how many cases has the IRS been
losing right and left despite having judges essentially in their back pocket?	

In reality, you have to be pretty quick on your feet. The fact is that about
four years ago, a friend of mine went off hot headed after the largest
criminal in Kalamazoo county who dared to call himself a judge. He went there
and the judge essentially did the following:

Judge: I am de judge. Bow before me. Lick my boots.
Accused: But sir, this is a court of LAW. You can't do that kind of stuff.
Judge: Bow now, servant, or I will throw thee into the dunjin.
Accused: I'm sorry sir, but I must act lawfully.
Judge: Then ye shall rot in my dunjin until you learn to be a good servant.
Accused: Where do you get off claiming power over my sovereignty?
Judge: Ye shall rot in my dunjin for 10 days or until you have learned proper
respect for my rather respectable posterior. This I so command. Take him away,
guards.

Well, he rotted for about 2 days before they broke him. Then suddenly, LOTS of
lawyers and other judges started getting REALLY interested in what was going
on. Almost exactly one year later, the local paper reported that a lawyer was
raising a big stink in town on precisely the same pretenses my friend did.

It turns out that one has to know how to play the game, but that judges will
act lawfully about 80-90% of the time. The only shameful difference to this is
the current Supreme Court, who consistently ignore over 200 years of recorded
history and mouth the action of "Stare Decisis" while performing "Stare
Dictus". I can pull up numerous examples of this, too. For instance, there is
a series of cases in the record books about a man named George Gordon from
Idaho. He decided to challenge the court on the issue of driver's licenses.
One particular judge didn't really take much of a liking to Mr. Gordon, and
it came out LOUD and clear in the synopses. Then, once Mr. Gordon learned how
to play the game, he consistently won most of his cases. A particularly well
known case went to a Federal Appellate Court...They asked him to swear to tell
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. He contended that
since he was Christian, this was impossible because the Bible says every man
is a liar. So, he got the judge down to something like this:
"Are you saying that you're going to cast me into the dungeon because I'm
telling you the truth when I say that I'm a pathological liar, or because I'm
lying when I tell you that I'm a pathological liar?"

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns