The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Okay

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: We will win (see in situ)


One last time. I will spend a few minutes debunking your crap. Not because anyone cares, but what the heck, I just got to the office after court, I have a few minutes, and it gets me warmed up for more difficult challenges during the day. Kind of like a 25-yard dash or two before running a 10k. I also find it a little offensive that someone without any knowledge or understanding holds himself out to have that and give advice on such an important subject as the law or legal procedure.

But it does take some time, so don't expect this each time from me, k? See, your errors in logic and legal knowledge are often piled 3 or 4 deep on top of each other, and frankly not all of them could even be addressed without spending a couple of hours. But I'll spend a few minutes and kill it dead.

Here goes nothing:

The Judge Entering a Plea:

Judges enter pleas in criminal cases, that is what they do. It is not "practicing law from the bench" or else it would be impossible to arraign anyone. By him assuming that, in the absence of Kokesh vocalizing a plea, that he was "not guilty" is actually protective of Mr. Kokesh'es freedom. Your position is supposed outrage at this. It is a non-issue.

I'm not sure what to make of Kokesh playing silent. Sure, it'll get fans on the internet. But he is an experienced provocateur and while I can understand how someone new to the system might prefer to say nothing until their atty is present, in his case, he knows better and should have been aware that he wasn't giving up any rights by saying "not guilty." But for showboating it has some effect.

Your various other statements on the subject, e.g, "silence would be within common law" make no sense to anyone with a legal education.


Ok, so "you" (source noted) "challenge jurisdiction" first thing. A frivolous challenge gets you nowhere and makes you look like a dipshit. Saying codes don't provide jurisdiction, is well, wrong. That is where jurisdiction is defined and delineated. And while you may disagree, that Court will look at the Code. So, if "Adam knows what he is doing" (as you put it) he won't argue nonsense.

Now, why is it that you believe this Court doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction? It clearly does. You and I may dislike that certain laws exist, that Adam was arrested, or that there are any restrictions at all on the first and second amendments. In fact, we both do dislike those things, apparently. But this court clearly is the correct court to deal with it. If it weren't, some other court would have jurisdiction, as it isn't like there are criminal statutes without courts to enforce them; never seen that one. To me, your argument here falls into the "needless and ineffective babbling at the beginning of the case" type of strategy. Not a very wise one.

Informing Court Personnel of their Crimes:

To state the obvious, a mere finding of not guilty doesn't mean that everyone in the courthouse is corrupt or criminal or anything else (other than fellow carbon-based life forms). They are there doing a job. Whether you are guilty or not of a charge, that doesn't make the court clerk, the vice janitor, or the bailiff a "criminal" or give them any specific intent with regard to you. Surely you can understand that.

And even if that could be "criminal" that criminality would turn on the issue of whether or not you did the crime accused of. And at the point you first appear in court, none of that has been decided. It is really bad form to tick off the clerk, bailiff, judge, etc., especially if you are there on any kind of violence-related, or disturbance themed issue or if your sanity is at all in issue (and from your prior descriptions of your cases, that applies to most of your ventures into court).

Your speculation that "they never want to deal with it" because "they have already admitted the exact code defined felonies" is a real gas.

Consent vs. No Consent:

You don't have to consent to being charged with a crime. In fact, I think the presumption is that most aren't consenting, or they would just plead guilty and show up at the prison with their toothbrushes. Your statement that "consent is very tricky" is nonsensical.

As to Whether Adam Knows What He is Doing:

Well, if he does, I assume he'll make you plenty unhappy.

Your Personal Attacks/ Worked Explicitly to Subvert Our Laws:

No, I've studied and practiced law, including reading more case law from pre-and post-civil war cases, in more subjects, than you will ever read and I love liberty. In particular, I fancy Constitutional law, having scored second in my class on that subject and to this day have copies of current editions of leading Constitutional Law hornbooks which I read for enjoyment, and for brushing up on issues that are in the news. I hate fakes.

Legal Personhood After the Civil War:

Remained the same. No evidence for anything to the contrary. The civil war amendments did make state citizens national citizens, but it created no mumbo jumbo straw man nor did anything else create that, ever, nor do you have any reason to think such a thing exists.

What is Real Law:

Yes, Natural Law is a wonderful thing. However, when you are playing in their league, which Adam is, you can't pretend that there aren't codes and statutes that - though you may disagree with them - still are on the books and can be enforced. If you want to change the law, work to change the law. Breaking the laws that exist then showing up and arguing some form of "I disagree with the law" is a losing proposition, every single time. I've never seen any form of that argument prevail in a court, anywhere. So, if "Adam knows what he is doing" he will not argue that, at least not outside the realm of a Supreme Court appellate argument where high concepts can be decided.

What You Don't Even Realize

His case presents what could be something of an issue of first impression - does an act of free speech and protest, that happens to violate a gun ordinance, remain criminal or does the first amendment trump it? (Along with the obvious second, fourth, and fifth amendment due process issues here?). Is there even a case precedent on that? I do remember the "naked guy" case where a nude protestor was found not gulty of violating an anti-nudity ordinance because he was engaged in a protest by his nudity, and therefore it was considered protected political speech under first amendment jurisprudence. But I suspect the current court will apply a different test when it comes to violating a gun ordinance. I do not like that, but intellectually, it will be interesting.

Where You Would Go Wrong

If you were handling this case, instead of arguing the interesting meritorious reasons why this should not be a crime, you would instead focus on your idiotic fake world of fake legal procedures that don't exist in any law book anywhere. I rather assumed you'd do the following:

1. You would show up and angrily call all of the workers in the courthouse fascists/statists and conspirators in a criminal enterprise against you. Even the dude working on the vending machines is in on it. Not to mention the intern from the high school honors class, or the court reporter. Everyone is guilty at first blush to the man named Phreedom!

2. You would then tell the Court that it was an admiralty court, and look furtively around the room for some fringe on a flag or some illuminati symbolism to confirm your heartfelt suspicions. The Court would inform you of the code section which gives it jurisdiction. You will by now be well on your way to having the Court think you are just plain guilty and are here playing games.

3. You would continue with antics involving your imaginary friend, i.e. straw man/corporate personage. A few minutes of babbling and you will have now disposed the Court to believe you might be insane, or at least seriously stupid. And, you will have done nothing to either impress the Court with your demeanor, establish yourself as someone who is intelligent and worth listening to, or to controvert the charges against you.

4. It would just go downhill from there, as you miss arguing any of the actual salient issues, and instead focus on your fruitless attempt to impose your imaginary "sovereign citizen" (yeah, I know you don't like that term) views on the Court. It won't work.

5. Finally, like a fish on a wire, you'll either run out of steam, or get hauled into the "Boat" i.e., lock-up residential housing facility.

6. You'll have lost.

7. Your appellate attorney will realize that because you didn't say anything that made any sense during your trial, there is nothing he can do to help you on appeal. You had your chance, even could have had a free lawyer, but nooooo...., you're too smart for them. Or so you thought.

Then, when you got out a few months later, you'd post up here about how you had a multimillion dollar lawsuit against everyone in the courthouse, that you won but they "changed the rules" and that everyone was "corrupt" and "out to get you."

I will assume Kokesh isn't that stupid.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein