PDA

View Full Version : Second Amendment Surprise Is Coming September 11, 2006


donhamrick
09-08-2006, 6:40 PM
FROM DON HAMRICK (pro se civil plaintiff in Hamrick v. President Bush, et al, U.S. District Court/DC)
American Common Defence Review (blog)
http://americancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/

After 4 years of being jerked around the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in what began as a simple judicial review of a final agency action denial by the U.S. Coast Guard in 2002 that escalated into a RICO Act case alleging the United States Governmet of racketeering an unlawful and an unconstitutional protection scheme over the Second Amendment I finally called it quits with the federal courts in Washington, DC because the judicial bias and corruption is insurmountable.

I filed my motion to dismiss without prejudice and the Assistant U.S. Attorney Dennis Barghaan of Alexandria, Virginia conceded my right to dismiss my own case.

I have prepared a new and updated Civil RICO Act Complaint, 3 volumes, each at 1-inch thick (2,100 pages total, double-sided printing making for 1,050 sheets of paper for thickness of all 3 volumes) to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock), Northern Division (Batesville) on September 11, 2006.

The timing is part coincidental with the judicial events in Washington, DC and partly timed of symbolic publicity for September 11 - the want of a handgun in the cockpits of commerical airliners as all part of the racketeering allegations of government racketeering activities over the Second Amendment.

I spent about $400 on specialty law books on the RICO Act to be more proficient with my case than I have been these last 4 years. Right off the bat I learned from these law books that I am acting as a "private attorney general" (so says the U.S. Supreme Court in case law). Morever, I have the perfect standing to sue: Stigmatic Harm among other causes for standing.

I will be trying new tactics this time. I have the 3 stringient requirements for Mandamus relied in the bag! I have 4 years of memorandums in support of motion to dismiss from the government attorneys to which I have rebutted very nicely in my Civil RICO Act Complaint.

And by the grace of coincidence the American Bar Association on August 7th issued their recommend on "Civil Gideon" the right of civil litigants to court appointed attorneys. I have filed my motion as a civil plaintiff with a very complex civil RICO Act case to have a court appointed attorney profficient with the RICO Act and Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Remember! The U.S. Supreme Court case from 1939, United States v. Miller had its origin in the U.S. District Court for the WESTERN Division of Arkansas. Now here is my case for the Second Amendment in the U.S. District Court for the EASTERN District of Arkansas.

My case is a GOLD MINE for publicity for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com, etc. etc. But because I am litigating for National Open Carry in intrastate and interstate travel all those gun rights advocacy groups ignored my case.

Monday will mark a new beginning in the fight for gun rights Whether Wayne LaPierre, Robert Dowlut, Allen Gottlieb and gang like it or not!

My case as about "actual freedom" under the Second, Fifth, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendmens and under the "Common Defence" clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution from a U.S. merchant seaman's perspectie where I can us federal laws and regulations to my advantage.

The NRA's agenda for National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry is "bull********" (so says Alan Korwin, www.gunlaws.com)

Four years of litigating the Second Amendment on my own using my wages earned aboard ships at sea.

This time I downloaded the needed titles from the U.S. Attorney's Manual, especially on RICO, which helped me structure my Civil RICO Act Complaint.

This will be a whole new ballgame of a Second Amendment case.

Matt C
09-08-2006, 6:57 PM
The surprise will be a damaging ruling against the 2nd amendment.

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 7:07 PM
this guy again:eek:

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 7:36 PM
The surprise will be a damaging ruling against the 2nd amendment.

You don't know ******** about my case!

Shane916
09-08-2006, 7:42 PM
You don't know ******** about my case!

I don't :( Any way to sum it up in a brief right to the point paragraph ? :)

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 7:48 PM
this guy again:eek:


The day will come. I will win my case.

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?


Edited for language and rude comments

blkA4alb
09-08-2006, 7:50 PM
You are one sorry excuse for a human being.
You're not moving up at all in my book. Boy you sure know how to gain some respect. :mad:

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 7:55 PM
The day will come. I will win my case.

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?

Don I really hope that day does come but I just don't see that happening.I don't think you stand much of a chance.Who knows I could be wrong but I don't think I am.


Quote edited to remove language and rude comments.

BigMac
09-08-2006, 7:56 PM
Hey I respect your effort. I dont respect personal attacks. Don't stoop to them and loose credibility.

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 8:03 PM
[QUOTE=donhamrick]

My case is a GOLD MINE for publicity for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com, etc. etc. But because I am litigating for National Open Carry in intrastate and interstate travel all those gun rights advocacy groups ignored my case. [QUOTE]


They have ignored it because they know you probably won't win

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:04 PM
You're not moving up at all in my book. Boy you sure know how to gain some respect. :mad:

Yeah. I know. I am one intolerant individual when it comes to people denigrating others.

I have been criminally interrogated by the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued a Bar Notice prohibiting me from visiting any DOT, FAA, or U.S. Coast Guard headquarters building in Washington DC just because I criticized th U.S. Coast Guard in an article I posted on the Internet exercising First Amendment rights pursuing Second Amendment rights. I am on a Government watchlist because of my litigious activities in the federal courts in Washington, DC.

I have placed myself at risk of getting arrested by the feds and in every confrontation with the feds they cannot touch me because everything I do is within the law and within my Bill of Rights.

Anyone who cannot or refuse to respect another person for what he is doing in the name of freedom and the Bill of Rights does not deserve respect in return. Moving up in your book does not interest me in the least.
You will treat the people on this board with civility and respect or you will be a fading memory.

ArmedWolf
09-08-2006, 8:06 PM
Time for some popcorn and a fun night of reading :D

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 8:17 PM
It's the same as the last time you posted this stuff here.People tell you what you don't want to hear and you start talking trash.If you don't want to hear the truth about what people think then don't post it

hoffmang
09-08-2006, 8:17 PM
Popcorn and a wink to the fact that there is an interesting 2A challenge update thread right there at the back button..

*Chomp, Chomp*

-Gene

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:19 PM
Time for some popcorn and a fun night of reading :D

Don't hog the popcorn!

anotherted
09-08-2006, 8:22 PM
The day will come. I will win my case. And to all you pessimistic smartass jackoffs bad-mouthing my efforts I will shove your insults back in your faces!

Yeah! This guy again! What do you expect when the government violates your rights? Just let them do it without any resistance at all?

You are one sorry excuse for a human being.

And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/TeddyJ/200px-Mad_scientist_caricature.png

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:24 PM
It's the same as the last time you posted this stuff here.People tell you what you don't want to hear and you start talking trash.If you don't want to hear the truth about what people think then don't post it

Nope! That is no what is going on.

People are criticizing something that they are complete ignorant about.

That is an intolerable abuse of free speech. There's a proverbial saying: I you don't want people to know you are ignorant on a subject then keep your mouth shut.

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:27 PM
And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/TeddyJ/200px-Mad_scientist_caricature.png

Too funny!!

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 8:30 PM
Nope! That is no what is going on.

People are criticizing something that they are complete ignorant about.

That is an intolerable abuse of free speech. There's a proverbial saying: I you don't want people to know you are ignorant on a subject then keep your mouth shut.
So it's not the same as last time?

ohsmily
09-08-2006, 8:34 PM
Yeah. I know. I am one intolerant individual when it comes to people denigrating others.


Um, you "denigrated" others in response to their comments. I guess you should practice what you preach.

By the way, I am clerking for a judge at the San Diego County Superior Court and CAN'T STAND reading motions and other court documents that have been drafted by parties who are representing themselves pro se. Hire a dang attorney. In our particular department, the judge does what he can to help people who are representing themselves, but there is only so much he can do without prejudicing the other party and thoroughly wasting the court's time. The motions are deficient nearly 100% of the time, and I write recommendations to the judge accordingly. Get an attorney.

I am glad to hear you FINALLY did SOME of the research you need to do for your RICO claim...so, what were you doing for the last 4 years before you did this research? wasting your time? yes. So now you have done some legal research...do some more, and then hire an attorney. Let me ask you, 'how many of the judges you have come across have implored you to hire an attorney?'....did you think they were kidding?

If you don't have the money to hire an attorney full time to represent you, then at least pay them for some face time and to advise you on some of the points of your case.

Anyway.


Quote edited for language.

ohsmily
09-08-2006, 8:35 PM
And soon the world will be MINE!!!.......all MIIIIIIIIINE!!! MUUUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/TeddyJ/200px-Mad_scientist_caricature.png

I got a kick out that....:D

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:43 PM
So it's not the same as last time?

No. It is not the same as last time.

My case started out in 2002 as a simple case of judicial review of a final agency action denial (U.S. Coast Guard denying my application for National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, (ID Card resulting my mandatory small arms training as a pre-requisite for employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition).

But because the U.S. District Court/DC and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice opposed my case at every step of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. My case evolved into a RICO Act case in Round 2. (2003 to the present) until I discovered 28 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1) that said I should have filed my case in Arkansas because I am a resident of Arkansas. So I filed my motion to dismiss my case without prejudice and the Govt Defense Counsel had to concede to my right to dismiss my case.

Now, I have taken evidence from these past 4 years and used them as evidence of racketeering activities in my Civil RICO Act Complaint giving my a 3-volume complaint, each volume is 1-inch thick, double sided printing.

Not the same as last time! But a far more serious version of it.

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 8:50 PM
No. It is not the same as last time.

My case started out in 2002 as a simple case of judicial review of a final agency action denial (U.S. Coast Guard denying my application for National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, (ID Card resulting my mandatory small arms training as a pre-requisite for employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition).

But because the U.S. District Court/DC and the Assistant U.S. Attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice opposed my case at every step of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. My case evolved into a RICO Act case in Round 2. (2003 to the present) until I discovered 28 U.S.C. 1402(a)(1) that said I should have filed my case in Arkansas because I am a resident of Arkansas. So I filed my motion to dismiss my case without prejudice and the Govt Defense Counsel had to concede to my right to dismiss my case.

Now, I have taken evidence from these past 4 years and used them as evidence of racketeering activities in my Civil RICO Act Complaint giving my a 3-volume complaint, each volume is 1-inch thick, double sided printing.

Not the same as last time! But a far more serious version of it.
I meant same as last time as in people not telling you what you wanted to hear and you getting all pissy.

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 8:52 PM
Um, you "denigrated" others in response to their comments. I guess you should practice what you preach.

By the way, I am clerking for a judge at the San Diego County Superior Court and CAN'T STAND reading motions and other court documents that have been drafted by parties who are representing themselves pro se. Hire a dang attorney. In our particular department, the judge does what he can to help people who are representing themselves, but there is only so much he can do without prejudicing the other party and thoroughly wasting the court's time. The motions are deficient nearly 100% of the time, and I write recommendations to the judge accordingly. Get an attorney.

I am glad to hear you FINALLY did SOME of the research you need to do for your RICO claim...so, what were you doing for the last 4 years before you did this research? wasting your time? yes. So now you have done some legal research...do some more, and then hire an attorney. Let me ask you, 'how many of the judges you have come across have implored you to hire an attorney?'....did you think they were kidding?

If you don't have the money to hire an attorney full time to represent you, then at least pay them for some face time and to advise you on some of the points of your case.

Anyway.


http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/sclaid/downloads/06A112A.pdf

I have already filed for a "Civil Gideon" Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney proficient with RICO and with Second Amendment jurisprudence and Constitutional Law.

I wll not answer the rest of your questions due to the manner in which you asked them.

Joe
09-08-2006, 9:12 PM
thank you for trying to protect/further our rights as gun owners. :)

i am curious though, what is so special about 9/11 (besides the world trade center anniversary)? are you getting a ruling in your case or are you just filing a new case?

Matt C
09-08-2006, 9:17 PM
You don't know ******** about my case!

Not so. I read all about it the last time you posted. Your case will be dismissed at best, and will lose at worst. If it does, it harms the 2nd amendment. Even if you had a valid case, which I am not convinced you do, without a paid, top notch, dedicated laywer representing you, you will have very little chance of winning.

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 9:26 PM
thank you for trying to protect/further our rights as gun owners. :)

i am curious though, what is so special about 9/11 (besides the world trade center anniversary)? are you getting a ruling in your case or are you just filing a new case?

I am withdrawing my case from Washington DC and re-filing an updated and more expansive Civil RICO Act case in Arkansas. Primarily the September 11 date is coincidental to KINKOS production of my complaint not being ready any sooner than this weekend. Nevertheless, the correlation to my RICO Act case is that the GOVERNMENT did not allow guns in the cockpits which would have averted the terrorist attacks. Hence my claim that the Second Amndment is a vital function of the "Common Defence" clause of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

Kestryll
09-08-2006, 9:28 PM
Once.
Just once.
donhamrick we expect the members of this forum to treat others with courtesy and respect and to post in a civil and courteous manner. If you can not do this then we have a problem. Please keep your posts to the details of the case and leave the rude comments, foul language and insult out.

Thank you and good luck with your case.

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 9:33 PM
Once.
Just once.
donhamrick we expect the members of this forum to treat others with courtesy and respect and to post in a civil and courteous manner. If you can not do this then we have a problem. Please keep your posts to the details of the case and leave the rude comments, foul language and insult out.

Thank you and good luck with your case.

YEAH, JUST ONCE!!!

Can you not see in the thread that I am civil and polite to those that are civil and polite to "me?"

If you cannot see that then this is a one-sided board.

hoffmang
09-08-2006, 9:35 PM
Sigh...

Don - All the very best and very brightest Second Amendment lawyers and scholars have made the point for you in a pending case that has a real chance of changing the laws. You should read and steal liberally from - http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Don - Are you familiar with the issue of standing incorporation by the 14th Amendment? That's why the case linked above is in the District of Columbia...

(I know I should just be quiet... but...)

-Gene

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 9:37 PM
Not so. I read all about it the last time you posted. Your case will be dismissed at best, and will lose at worst. If it does, it harms the 2nd amendment. Even if you had a valid case, which I am not convinced you do, without a paid, top notch, dedicated laywer representing you, you will have very little chance of winning.


Okay. I have said my piece. And you have said yours. You haven't changed your opinion. And I haven't changed mine. Nothing more can be said on this point.

Next topic!

Kestryll
09-08-2006, 9:41 PM
YEAH, JUST ONCE!!!

Can you not see in the thread that I am civil and polite to those that are civil and polite to "me?"

If you cannot see that then this is a one-sided board.

I have edited your use of foul language and and rude comments out of this thread. I was the one who did it so yes, I have seen how civil and polite you have or have not been.
If you find the restrictions of courtesy, civility and respect to be too much of a burden say the word and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 9:47 PM
Sigh...

Don - All the very best and very brightest Second Amendment lawyers and scholars have made the point for you in a pending case that has a real chance of changing the laws. You should read and steal liberally from - http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Don - Are you familiar with the issue of standing incorporation by the 14th Amendment? That's why the case linked above is in the District of Columbia...

(I know I should just be quiet... but...)

-Gene

I am waaayyyyy ahead of you! Got it on my laptop. I have been following that case from the beginning. And the Silveira case, and the Seegars case. And Bach v. Pataki (govnr of NY).

I even keep my eye open for new cases like this one:
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/UnivofUtah090806.pdf

Matt C
09-08-2006, 10:05 PM
I'm glad you know of the Silveira case in particular, because it should show you exactly the sort of harm a case with little chance of victory can do to the second amendment.

rssslvr
09-08-2006, 10:08 PM
Don without an attorney you should not go further with your case.It will do more damage to our 2A rights if you do lose

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 10:16 PM
I have edited your use of foul language and and rude comments out of this thread. I was the one who did it so yes, I have seen how civil and polite you have or have not been.
If you find the restrictions of courtesy, civility and respect to be too much of a burden say the word and you won't have to worry about it anymore.

http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/safe/NoBully.gif

http://www.dominie.com.au/images/TA-67109.jpg

And the following with a nautical flavor because I am a merchant seaman who gets beaten on by the written word quite frequently!

http://www.boatshirt.com/images/IMG_1721.JPG

http://www.flappinflags.com/images/flag_noGutsNoGlory.jpg

Kestryll
09-08-2006, 10:28 PM
Cute.
Amusing.
And to be honest probably the most humorous way I've been blasted in a long time.

Were I a bully I would simply delete your thread, ban you outright, knock over yor bicycle and take your lunch money.

Instead I am letting you know that some of your posts have been over the line, have been edited and pointing out where the problems were.

You are right in one regard, this is a one sided board. We are on the side of the Second Amendment. Whether your case is valid or not, whether it will be thrown out or not is up to a Judge so I can not speak to that. Since for good or ill it can affect the Second Amendment battle I have chosen to leave this thread open. As long as it progresses in a civil manner it's fine.

Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....

Joe
09-08-2006, 10:32 PM
Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....

Kestryll FTW

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 10:35 PM
Cute.
Amusing.
And to be honest probably the most humorous way I've been blasted in a long time.

Were I a bully I would simply delete your thread, ban you outright, knock over yor bicycle and take your lunch money.

Instead I am letting you know that some of your posts have been over the line, have been edited and pointing out where the problems were.

You are right in one regard, this is a one sided board. We are on the side of the Second Amendment. Whether your case is valid or not, whether it will be thrown out or not is up to a Judge so I can not speak to that. Since for good or ill it can affect the Second Amendment battle I have chosen to leave this thread open. As long as it progresses in a civil manner it's fine.

Now, I think we need to discuss that lunch money.....


No harm. No foul. Let the debate begin!

donhamrick
09-08-2006, 10:42 PM
I'm glad you know of the Silveira case in particular, because it should show you exactly the sort of harm a case with little chance of victory can do to the second amendment.

My case was in the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 03-145) right aong side the Silveira case (No. 03-51).

Just compare the two dockets and you will see how the U.S. Supreme Court biased against the unrepresented civil plaintiff.

Hence the reason why I am using the RICO Act!

The evidence

ohsmily
09-08-2006, 11:01 PM
My case was in the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 03-145) right aong side the Silveira case (No. 03-51).

Just compare the two dockets and you will see how the U.S. Supreme Court biased against the unrepresented civil plaintiff.

Hence the reason why I am using the RICO Act!

The evidence

Wait, what? I guess you are saying that you petitioned for writ of cert and that you were rejected. What do you mean your case was IN the US Supreme Court? Obviously you weren't granted certiorari and heard.

Grakken
09-08-2006, 11:32 PM
I have nothing to add to this debate but...

http://www.boatshirt.com/images/IMG_1721.JPG


I have this shirt from when i went on a windjammer cruise in the Carribean. Good times and good luck.

Matt C
09-09-2006, 3:22 AM
I have nothing to add to this debate but...

http://www.boatshirt.com/images/IMG_1721.JPG


I have this shirt from when i went on a windjammer cruise in the Carribean. Good times and good luck.

Hehehe, I have that shirt as well, bought it in savannah.

tenpercentfirearms
09-09-2006, 7:24 AM
Ok, so break it down for me in English. How is this case going to change the 2nd Amendment forever? What do you have going here that I should be so excited about? I don't want to research it, I want a brief opinion.

Stormfeather
09-09-2006, 8:57 AM
Now thats what im talking about 10%, somebody break it down for this knuckle draggin neanderthal.
Me speek guud. . . me be alowed tew keri babee boomstick fer defenz?

mikehaas
09-09-2006, 9:40 AM
When NRA is on board, I'll listen.

Otherwise, it appears just another impatient, undisciplined (obviously, can't even treat other pro-gunners with respect) gun-owner who thinks they know more than everyone else. Another "SAVIOR" for the Second Amendment. Oh, boy.

But it's not your Second Amendment, it belongs to the generations that follow us. And millions of us empower an association to defend it with legal geniuses the likes of Halbrook, Kates, Michel. They're name is "The National Rifle Association", perhaps you heard of them? Do you have any opinions from those individuals? No.

They all condemned Silviera, each put out articles describing it as a parriah, a travesty if it ever got to SCOTUS. But the Silveira "geniuses" didn't listen. Is that why you have no representation, why other groups and individuals don't back you up? You don't listen?

Mr. Hamrick throws the same warning signals as the Silviera clowns - the same abusive, arrogant, "FU"-based "debate" style. Disagree with me and you deserve insult. (Some debate skills, eh?) 4 pages into this thread, he says "Let the debate begin!" - that's because he's been wasting his time insulting those he wants to agree with him. This whole issue is 100% waste-of-time.

And he's representing himself? Aren't we simply viewing another client that has a fool for an attorney?

Like the Silveira team, Mr. hamrick can't be debated because his mind is made up. So it's not a debate - which is why this individual jumped to insults in his second post in this thread - A THREAD HE CREATED TO GEN UP SUPPORT!!! (BTW, Don, how's that working out for you?)

These frustrated, hotheaded, can't-play-with-others types need to stay away from litigating the Second Amendment. It's WAY above their pay grade.

Mike

luvtolean
09-09-2006, 9:52 AM
Just compare the two dockets and you will see how the U.S. Supreme Court biased against the unrepresented civil plaintiff.

Of course they are. You'd be biased too if you had spent the time and money in law school to learn how this works, and had to deal with people "playing" attorney everyday because they slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

You don't go fight a case like this without an attorney. Period.

I don't know what you are...merchant marine? Would you appreciate an attorney coming on your boat and telling you you don't know how to sail it?

M. Sage
09-09-2006, 10:02 AM
I still don't understand how this can go RICO. If you DID happen to get a favorable ruling under RICO, wouldn't the whole government be a racketeering organization? I don't just mean in certain instances, I mean for every activity they perform. Filing taxes and stuff isn't exactly voluntary...

TBH, I just don't see how this could win. The best that could be hoped for, it sounds like, is a dismissal and the worst would be a repeat of Silviera.

A repeat of Silviera at the national level would be a complete disaster.

1: You NEED a lawyer. Or, preferrably, two or three.

2: Pro-gun organizations need to be on board. Going it alone sounds really macho and all, but the best route in my mind would be to have them fight it on your behalf. They have experts in this area of law... This would be a great solution to #1, if you can get NRA on board, then you probably wouldn't have to worry about getting a lawyer.

jnojr
09-09-2006, 10:37 AM
Ok, so break it down for me in English. How is this case going to change the 2nd Amendment forever? What do you have going here that I should be so excited about? I don't want to research it, I want a brief opinion.

+1 The only attempt I've seen to explain this:

My case started out in 2002 as a simple case of judicial review of a final agency action denial (U.S. Coast Guard denying my application for National Open Carry Handgun endorsement on my Merchant Mariner's Document, (ID Card resulting my mandatory small arms training as a pre-requisite for employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition).

is incoherent and rambling. He wanted employment aboard a U.S. Government ammunition??? WTF???

mikehaas
09-09-2006, 10:59 AM
...if you can get NRA on board, then you probably wouldn't have to worry about getting a lawyer...
Or getting critisized by knowledgable pro-gun activists.

Mike

CALI-gula
09-09-2006, 11:59 AM
If numerous experienced lawyers and average-joes that post here can obviously see that you need a lawyer, and you have proven to yourself that you need a lawyer by the mistakes you have made for the past 4 years, why can't you see now that you need a lawyer? And a really GOOD lawyer that doesn't need the money so he will tell it to you straight, that you are doing more harm than good.

I don't think you are doing anything that will benefit 2nd Amendment rights, nor that you will harm them because your case is going to get more chuckles than any chances to be heard, but you MAY very well end up doing more harm to yourself.

You have already spent 4 years in futility and impotently pursuing this - you have already harmed yourself in that respect. Only NOW you see the obvious mistakes you were making before? You'll never get those 4 years back, and if you continue in this uniformed direction, you will never get the next 4 years back.

There is nothing wrong with posting on these bulletin boards to gain perspective that may run against your own. Yet, you need to be intelligent enough to step away from this and gain more outside views without screaming and ranting every time someone points out your errors. What do you think a judge is apt to do? And when they do, when they tire of your belligerence, they can always easily remove you from the court-room for contempt.

And can't you see that the various gun organizations have turned you down, not even blinking your way, due to the fact that they can see this as a misdirected, misguided effort? You need to take the NRA's advice on this one.

You may be genuine and heartened to your own cause, and that is admirable - but you lack the tact, utility, and knowledge to pull it off. Your posts and statements seem to be originating from a raving loon, the view of a single person whose actions may even be aggressively dangerous, borne out of delusions of a single account and spiced with just enough paranoia to paint the picture of an obsessed individual, coming apart at the joints. It appears you might have simply been told "no" to what you wanted (which may not be a 2nd Amendment infringement at all) and that you are still at it again and again, and approaching it wrong each time.

And you really think RICO is a logical approach? Just what makes you think that any judge, from Little Town, PA, all the way up to the biggest desk in DC, is going to take you seriously when you say that the government is conspiring in schemes as a racketeering influenced and corrupt organization? Your use of RICO against any large government entity is wholly the wrong approach. Immunity goes a LONG way to defeat your cause. You will essentially be saying everything the judge stands for is a part of that scheme, and no judge will accept that, and immediately see it as a waste of time. Then you tell them you are representing yourself? Shame on you for even wasting their time.

You really needs to wise up and stop this temper-tantrum pitching. This repetitive approach speaks loudly as to other reasons why you might have been denied a job. It's OK to be wrong, and learn from your mistakes, but it's not OK to be perennially wrong-minded. Stubbornly using your head as a hammer will eventually lead to one big headache.

If I am wrong, and all of this goes your way, and you set America on its ear by winning back the "un-infringed" right to carry nationally, I GLADLY pre-grant you the right to come back and tell me "I told you so" and laugh in my face. I would be thrilled to have you do that! Something in your approach assures me that is not going to happen.

.

bwiese
09-09-2006, 12:16 PM
I do have some slight sympathy for Mr Hamrick, lotsa folks called we CA OLL types "loons" back in December but we trudged on.

But we were dealing with a far smaller range of applicability, against an interface between regulatory law, statutory law and some court decisions that all interacted against each other (plus a helpful paper trail from DOJ).

Trying to go to some of the highest courts in the land with poorly-written, poorly-thought out material accusing the gov't of racketeering just won't fly, though. Just from a "personal applicability" standpoint, do you think a Fed judge would admit he's part of a racketeering organization? That's in essence what he'd have to do to agree with you.

RICO is used against Mafia(s), corporate entities acting in criminal ways, or (sketchily) certain lower level gov't agencies - let's say we had a sheriff's dept in the deep south that was still administering Jim Crow laws, a RICO thing might somehow fly.

At this point - unlike Silviera - I doubt it will harm the 2nd. Most of this stuff will be laughed away. The NRA had to come into Silviera at the last minute because it was getting downright dangerous and had to salvage things, because those boys got in way too deep - I think Silviera started over a coupla guys (one a neer-do-well lawyer) having some beers and deciding to sue the gov't. Nice sentiments, bad tactics. In fact, wasn't it Silviera (???) that got 9th Cir. judge Reinhardt to propagate the BS that 2nd wasn't about individual rights? Now we have that to fight in this district.

the_quark
09-09-2006, 5:11 PM
Of course they are. You'd be biased too if you had spent the time and money in law school to learn how this works, and had to deal with people "playing" attorney everyday because they slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

No to be pedantic, but I believe it is only sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express that confers that particular benefit. Regular Holiday Inns simply don't cut it.

the_quark
09-09-2006, 5:18 PM
At this point - unlike Silviera - I doubt it will harm the 2nd. Most of this stuff will be laughed away. The NRA had to come into Silviera at the last minute because it was getting downright dangerous and had to salvage things, because those boys got in way too deep - I think Silviera started over a coupla guys (one a neer-do-well lawyer) having some beers and deciding to sue the gov't. Nice sentiments, bad tactics. In fact, wasn't it Silviera (???) that got 9th Cir. judge Reinhardt to propagate the BS that 2nd wasn't about individual rights? Now we have that to fight in this district.

I agree, from his description of his case so far, the worst he's going to get from the judge is, "RICO doesn't apply here, so none of your other arguments matter." He's gone from trying to fight for the 2nd Amendment to trying to fight for legal recognition of the corruption of the Federal government, so his precedents won't matter for the brass ring.

That said, Bill, that's an interesting point on Silviera. If Parker wins in DC, one of the possible outcomes is that DC will fail to appeal in order to not set the Supreme Court precedent. But, that means that we'll have a clear circuit split - I believe the 5th said, "there is an individual 2nd amendment right to own arms" and then we'd have the 1st saying the same. But, thanks to Silviera, the 9th has said there clearly is no such right, which would set up the circuit split that could get this whole issue into the Supreme Court at the most advantageous possible time, especially if a Democrat wins the White House in '08. Ironically, Silviera, in defeat, might just give us the win...

oaklander
09-09-2006, 7:35 PM
Just for fun, Google the thread starter's name. It will put things in perspective.

oaklander
09-09-2006, 7:47 PM
This is for nobody in particular. . .

As a *real* practicing attorney, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to speak and write clearly. The best legal writing I've seen is written very simply and very plainly.

It's also short and to the point.

Really good lawyers know just how many words they need to make a point. They don't waste time with extra words.

The reason for this is that judges (and their clerks) don't have a lot of extra time. So the point is to make things as easy as possible for them. You write in short sentences, you use clear language, you say what you mean (and what you want) right up front.

You make it easy for them to agree with your point of view. You don't punish them with a barrage of words.

Anyways, back to my popcorn.

:)

mblat
09-09-2006, 8:01 PM
I agree, from his description of his case so far, the worst he's going to get from the judge is, "RICO doesn't apply here, so none of your other arguments matter." He's gone from trying to fight for the 2nd Amendment to trying to fight for legal recognition of the corruption of the Federal government, so his precedents won't matter for the brass ring.

That said, Bill, that's an interesting point on Silviera. If Parker wins in DC, one of the possible outcomes is that DC will fail to appeal in order to not set the Supreme Court precedent. But, that means that we'll have a clear circuit split - I believe the 5th said, "there is an individual 2nd amendment right to own arms" and then we'd have the 1st saying the same. But, thanks to Silviera, the 9th has said there clearly is no such right, which would set up the circuit split that could get this whole issue into the Supreme Court at the most advantageous possible time, especially if a Democrat wins the White House in '08. Ironically, Silviera, in defeat, might just give us the win...


I always wonder - what in the world makes people think that current Supreme Court will decide that 2nd amendment is an individual right?
Really?

Outside of the fact that based on current makeup of the court such decision isn't guaranteed based on the pure law, one have to admit that SCOTUS judge will be thinking:
“OK even if I think that 2nd amendment WAS created as individual right AT THE TIME it was written, am I prepared to affirm this right in age of nuclear weapons? Because if I affirm that it is an individual right, now I WILL HAVE TO provide dividing line what constitutes ARMS (a shotgun definitely does) and what doesn’t (nuke definitely doesn’t). Do I need this?”

That what I would be thinking. Don’t you think we would be better off if SCOTUS won’t be forced to ponder over that question?

hoffmang
09-09-2006, 8:06 PM
mblat,

Because if the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says then the Civil War was clearly unconstitutional and we have no freedom of speech.

I would suggest you read the Parker briefs and come back telling all of us who you think is more correct about the Bill of Rights.

-Gene

mblat
09-09-2006, 8:12 PM
mblat,

Because if the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says then the Civil War was clearly unconstitutional and we have no freedom of speech.

I would suggest you read the Parker briefs and come back telling all of us who you think is more correct about the Bill of Rights.

-Gene

I am not questioning who is right. I BELIVE that 2nd amendment is individual right. I also think that legal argument for that is VERY strong. However SCOTUS decisions are OFTEN not based on law and law only. They are often based on political “needs” real or perceived of the moment. That is why I am not so certain in what SCOTUS decision would be regardless of how conservative it is, and it isn’t all that conservative at the moment!

EDIT: BTW, don’t you agree that that any decision of this kind will have for very least to say: “No WMDs? No anti-aircraft missiles? No ballistic missiles? No guns with caliber bigger than(put your number here? - can we agree that Main Caliber of Missouri would a bit too much to allow in individual possession? )” And based on that it would indirectly admit that government has the right to regulate what weapons are OK and what isn’t?

hoffmang
09-09-2006, 8:15 PM
It is pretty clear we have 4. You think we'll get a 5th?

Also, there is an outcome where SCOTUS says its a collective right that allows a pro-gun state to make them look really, really stupid.

And a real 2A case is going to say that Miller wasn't wrong. The weapons in question are the weapons we'd be called upon to show up for military service with. We're not going to get a right to cruise missiles, but select fire AR-15's will be very, very interesting...

Things that are likely to survive a 2A ruling:
1 Handgun a month
HSC
CA Safe Handgun law?

Not likely to survive a 2A ruling:
AW Bans
Significant parts of the NFA (short barrel M4s, select fire)
Grenade ownership/launcher restrictions
Federal bans on carrying on airplanes

None of this is on topic in this thread however...

-Gene

CALI-gula
09-09-2006, 8:18 PM
Just for fun, Google the thread starter's name. It will put things in perspective.

You forgot to mention it's good for a few laughs too. More fun than a Monty Python skit, and more bizarre than some of the characters created by Scorsese.

.

mblat
09-09-2006, 8:20 PM
It is pretty clear we have 4. You think we'll get a 5th?

Also, there is an outcome where SCOTUS says its a collective right that allows a pro-gun state to make them look really, really stupid.

-Gene


Not if Republican won't win the presidency in 2008. And even then - even if we will have 6 Scalias on the Court I am not sure that a favorable desision is guaranteed based on the question I asked above.

hoffmang
09-09-2006, 8:28 PM
mblat,

We've done an edit war so I'll respond to your edits if you respond to mine.

If the weapon is a common infantry arm somewhere in the world it is going to be covered by the 2A. AKs, .50 cal, grenade launchers...

We have 4 easy:
Thomas
Scalia
Alito
Roberts

I expect we can get one of:
Stephens
Souter
Kennedy

I think those are pretty good odds - especially when there is plenty of comment at SCOTUS that clearly the 2nd is an individual right

-Gene

PS - And don't forget that Alito has had an interesting effect of being able to get larger majorities signed on in places where no one expected such a broad agreement.

mblat
09-09-2006, 9:23 PM
mblat,

We've done an edit war so I'll respond to your edits if you respond to mine.

If the weapon is a common infantry arm somewhere in the world it is going to be covered by the 2A. AKs, .50 cal, grenade launchers...

We have 4 easy:
Thomas
Scalia
Alito
Roberts

I expect we can get one of:
Stephens
Souter
Kennedy

I think those are pretty good odds - especially when there is plenty of comment at SCOTUS that clearly the 2nd is an individual right

-Gene

PS - And don't forget that Alito has had an interesting effect of being able to get larger majorities signed on in places where no one expected such a broad agreement.


See the problem is that you are saying common infantry arm. Second amendment doesn’t say that. It says “Arms”.
As for me if definition would be “less that .510 DTS” that would be just fine. But even this wouldn’t work – what about Revolutionary War muskets with calibers up to .750?
Now how exactly would this opinion be written? “If black powder then….. if center fire then…. If grandee launcher then…. If fully automatic, then…”
It is impossible. Supreme Court decision shouldn’t be written like that. Ideally from point of view of “pure law” it has to say “Second amendment is individual right.” But that is unworkable without defining what “Arms” are. And that where it will get tricky. One can easily argue that word “militia” at the time meant
”all able man”, but how you can argue that would “Arms” means .50 Barret rifle, but not 24 mm anti-aircraft gun? But declaring that 2nd amendment is an individual right SCOTUS will be FORCED to draw the line. I find thinking that they would be willing to do so wishful. By doing so they would be subjecting themselves by JUSTIFIABLE criticism. Why would full auto .308 be fine and full auto .50 not? What about full auto .30-06? What about 7.62x54R? Same goes for semi. Why would semi .50 OK and single shot 72 mm (main anti-tank gun of Soviet military during WW2 – it even qualifies for C&R  ) not OK?

As far as you judges enumeration I REALLY would like to know out of Stephens, Souter, Kennedy would go pro-gun? None of their records are inspiring.

We shall not think that supreme court operates in vacuum. Their decisions are often political. I am not sure that they would be willing to take all hit that would come as the result of pro-2nd ruling.


EDIT: I am going to say something heretic here – I DON”T WANT pro-2nd amendment ruling if it also makes damn sure that some people on this board don’t get their hands on M1 Abrams…..

M. Sage
09-09-2006, 9:48 PM
EDIT: I am going to say something heretic here – I DON”T WANT pro-2nd amendment ruling if it also makes damn sure that some people on this board don’t get their hands on M1 Abrams…..

Fine, crush my MBT owning dreams...

hoffmang
09-09-2006, 9:54 PM
Just as the court understands that the 1st amendment doesn't only protect pamphlets, but protects blogging and forums, the most likely outcome of a second amendment ruling is that it would apply to those arms that the average infantryman carries today - not in 1780.

A far more interesting question is can the government ban an MP-5 while it allows a select fire M4?

I think there is going to be a lot of strict scrutiny applied to gun laws in about 3 years.

-Gene

tenpercentfirearms
09-09-2006, 10:14 PM
I still don't think I understand what the author thinks is going to happen as a result of his court case. :confused:

hoffmang
09-09-2006, 10:24 PM
10 - back on topic - not much is going to happen based on this thread's case.

Now there is another thread that may be a whole different ball game.

-Gene

donhamrick
09-10-2006, 10:30 AM
I still don't think I understand what the author thinks is going to happen as a result of his court case. :confused:

This is the trouble with you people! You believe your own skepticism as proof of your own reality. You will Google my name just to find bullcrap to support your skepticism. You should not believe everything you find on the Internet.

One of ya's apparently found lunatic Liz Michael's rant calling me all sorts of names and believed what she said about me without doing any digging on her! Such an idiot ya'll can be. For the record I will fill you in.

I criticized Angel Shamaya over his arrest in Michigan for possessing unregistered handguns. Liz Michael took acception to the criticism defending Angel Shamaya sliding into the rant of a hysterical female.

Liz Michael, of Russian origin, advocates assassination and lynching of government officials!
http://www.lizmichael.com/shooting.htm
http://www.lizmichael.com/treason.htm

DO NOT BE SO GULLIBLE TO BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ ON THE INTERNET. I AM PERFECTLY SANE, A NORMAL AVERAGE AMERICAN MALE WHO HAS TAKEN UP A FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT PISSES ALOT OF PEOPLE OFF. AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

I have been criminally investigated by the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Marshals Service for exercising First Amendment rights in the pursuit of Second Amendment rights. The U.S. DOT twice issued a "Bar Notice" (once in 2004 and again on August 11 in response to my August 10 attempted visit at the U.S. Coast Guard headquarters) prohibiting me from entering any DOT, FAA, or U.S. Coast Guard headquarters building in Washington DC just to prevent me for pushing my case through the courts. I have filed a motion for a permanent injunction to squash that Bar Notice.

My fight is with the U.S. Government NOT with you people. I don't need this crap from you skeptics. I know exactly what I am doing. I have had face to face confrontations (criminal interrogations/interviews) with the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service and came close to being arrested. But because EVERYTHING I did was within the law and within my rights as an unrepresented civil plaintiff they couldn't touch me.

I am a protaganist for Second Amendment rights. And that means putting myself at risk of arrest in the name of "Actual Freedom." Go look up Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation for his use of "Actual Freedom" and then compare that with the definition of slavery in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case of 1856.

Yes! I need an attorney. And yes I filed a motion for a court appointed attorney profficient with the RICO Act and Second Amendment jurisprudence BECAUSE on August 7-8 the American Bar Association issued thier recommendation for "Civil Gideon" representation for those civil plaintiffs who cannot afford an attorney.

Everyone of you people have told me and made recommendations to me on matters that I have already taken care of. Ya'll are just blowing smoke in my face just to make yourselves think you are giving me good advise. What a bunch of bullcrap.

"Oh! Him again!"

Damn right! Four years and I am still pushing my case. Such persistence ought to be rewarded with acknowledgement and praise! But all get is kicks in the balls from idiots.

Adios.

PanzerAce
09-10-2006, 11:15 AM
"I know exactly what I am doing"

Apparently not, since you said yourself that you were doing this the wrong way for 4 years.

"I don't need this crap from you skeptics"

Honestly, it sounds more like "I don't need skeptics". If you dont want to hear what other people are saying, you are free to leave the boards at any time, nobody is making you stay.

And I will reiterate a request made earlier: Would you care to explain to people that have very little legal knowledge (outside of OLLs), what, EXACTLY you hope to accomplish?

Matt C
09-10-2006, 11:57 AM
Such an idiot ya'll can be.....But all get is kicks in the balls from idiots.

Maybe the problem is your attitude and your insults.

CALI-gula
09-10-2006, 12:17 PM
....You will Google my name just to find bullcrap to support your skepticism. You should not believe everything you find on the Internet....

Actually, no. Your thread here says a lot about your blatant misguided obsessive disorder, much more than that which could be found on the internet. Only after realizing what a mistake-laden empty effort you have been propagating by shooting blanks for the past 4 years, and didn't listen to anyone else during those 4 years, all along as you posted threads like this around the internet, here you are again calling everyone else "skeptics".

No, not "skeptics" - people knowledgeable enough to know that your filing under RICO against the US Government is more ridiculous and ludicrous than anything you have ever dreamt up before. And now you are setting off into another 4 years of pointless and fruitless behavior.

I have a good bet you will be here 4 years from now, spouting, touting and seething about how nobody respects your lawsuit against the next President of the US, because you see your failures not as they are, but actually as part of a personal plot against you supported by infractions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Clayton Act.

...Adios.

If only. Pretty please with sugar on top? For real this time???


.

M. Sage
09-10-2006, 12:19 PM
And I will reiterate a request made earlier: Would you care to explain to people that have very little legal knowledge (outside of OLLs), what, EXACTLY you hope to accomplish?

From what little I can make sense of this:

He's hoping to charge the Supreme Court of USA under RICO laws because they refuse to hear 2A cases, which apparently is some form of raceteering...

THEN he can get his 2A case heard by SCOTUS (after convicting them of RICO???).

There are a lot of little problems, like if one part of the gov't is qualifies under RICO, the whole damn thing does. Soon you get taxes = protection money, etc etc etc.

Oh, and the lack of involvment by any pro-2A groups... If their experts are looking at it and saying "dude.....", then what do you expect from the rest of us?

Skeptics? Yeah. Guess what, anytime I try taking on any big, ambitious project (hell, most small ones, for that matter), I try to step back and introduce some skepticism on myself (or ask someone to for me.) It helps me anticipate any problems that could crop up and plan contingencies for them. Attacking something like this without a measure of skepticism to balance your optimistic outlook (hahahahaaha) is just foolish.

It's been summed up as: "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst."

PanzerAce
09-10-2006, 12:21 PM
ok, I got that Sage, my problem is that:
1) he never said what his 2A case would do in non lawyer speak
2) I dont know what RICO is :/

Fjold
09-10-2006, 12:23 PM
So, in four years all you've managed to do is: write 2,100 pages of your opinions about how the overnment conspired to illegally to keep pilots from having guns and get your case dismissed.

Oh yeah and now you're trying to get a government supplied lawyer?

That's sounds like a productive four years of your life.

M. Sage
09-10-2006, 12:25 PM
ok, I got that Sage, my problem is that:
1) he never said what his 2A case would do in non lawyer speak
2) I dont know what RICO is :/

RICO is the anti-organized crime laws. It's mostly for going after mobsters you can't get any real dirt on, real dirt being stuff like murder, kidnapping, etc. It's for those you know are involved, but can't prove involvment, so you just have to prove they're involved with the people who are involved.

If that makes sense.

RICO has always struck me as being a bit on the edge of what's a "just" law.

Frank: LOL @ the gov't supplied lawyer. That part kills me, too.

donhamrick
09-10-2006, 1:07 PM
"I know exactly what I am doing"

Apparently not, since you said yourself that you were doing this the wrong way for 4 years.

"I don't need this crap from you skeptics"

Honestly, it sounds more like "I don't need skeptics". If you dont want to hear what other people are saying, you are free to leave the boards at any time, nobody is making you stay.

And I will reiterate a request made earlier: Would you care to explain to people that have very little legal knowledge (outside of OLLs), what, EXACTLY you hope to accomplish?

Haven't you heard about the "Learning Curve?" Yes. I didn't know crap about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

NRA's Agenda: National Reciprocity for Concealed Carry.

MY Agenda: National Open Carry.

donhamrick
09-10-2006, 1:11 PM
F*u*c*k it! I'm done here. I'm deleting this site from my favorites.

Adios to you idiots.

PanzerAce
09-10-2006, 1:12 PM
F*u*c*k it! I'm done here. I'm deleting this site from my favorites.

Adios to you idiots.

just to make sure I dont have to deal with these kinds of threads again, IL+1

PressCheck
09-10-2006, 1:28 PM
Why not just delete this whole thread?

donhamrick
09-10-2006, 1:40 PM
Why not just delete this whole thread?

I agree!

I attempted to educate the ingnorant only to get beaten up for it.

Kestryll
09-10-2006, 1:49 PM
Works for me.
I asked for courtesy and civility and got rudeness and cutesy attempts around the word filter.
This thread is done as are you.
Good luck in your case and perhaps you'd garner more support if you learned how to interact with people in a more friendly manner.

Goodbye