From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 11:58:50 -0800 (PST)
To: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Subject: Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
Message-ID: <199611091958.LAA14950@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:18 PM 11/8/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>At 1:32 PM 11/8/1996, jim bell wrote:
>>At 09:12 PM 11/7/96 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>>> ...His conviction was not reversed until 1983 in the court of one
>>> Judge Patel...
>
>> However, the fact that it took 40 years to reverse (and didn't, presumably,
>> reverse the convictions of others, and didn't compensate people for lost
>> property) is yet another reason to take a few pieces out of the hide of the
>> SC, as well as a few pounds of flesh nearest the heart.
>
>Many of us are guilty of a grave disservice to Mr. Bell.  I'm sure
>that just about every reader of this list can only cringe when
>messages such as the one above cross our screens.  ("He can't be
>a paid provocateur - it would be too obvious!")
>
>Not only is Mr. Bell apparently calling for the murder of a judge, he
>is apparently calling for the murder of every justice on the Supreme
>Court of the United States!

I'm glad to see that you seem to be catching on. (although you made the 
minor error of referring to the current roster of the SC, as opposed to the 
1943 makeup.  But that's a minor point; the 1996 group have their own set of 
offenses...)

In any case,  it's really very simple:  Kidnapping used to be a capital 
offense in the US.  What the US Government did to the Japanese Americans 
during WWII was, quite simply, kidnapping. Or, at least, it would have been 
called kidnapping if it had been done by non-governmental entities.   True, 
it was done "under color of law," but ultimately it amounted to the same 
thing.   

Lawyers, who have brought hypocrisy and double-standards to a high art form, 
are taught to accept this.  And they are also taught to fight (at least a 
bit) for their clients rights.  But ultimately, they are taught to accept 
the decision of a court even if it's wrong.  Sure, they may have appeal 
rights and will occasionally exercise them, but there's no court past the SC.

It turns out, of course, that since we now all (?) accept the idea  that 
those SC decisions were simply wrong, it isn't possible to use the "they 
said it was okay" excuse.  The most of the relocations occurred before the 
decisions, which means the governmental actions were done without them.  And 
I consider a temporary (even a 40-year) approval by a group of nine clowns 
to be no more definitive than a fresh conviction that hasn't yet been 
through its first appeal.

Please note that if it were 1943 and somebody called for the death penalty 
for the perp of a kidnapping case, he'd probably be called a fine upstanding 
citizen.    

(Interestingly enough, one of the cornerstone objections a lawyer (or judge) 
might have to my "playing hardball" on this subject is their belief that 
judges should be immune from prosecution for their decisions.  The strange 
part, however, is that judicial immunity seems to be an entirely fabricated 
concept:  It appears nowhere in the US Constitution, for example.)


However, it turns out that there is a solution to this problem, the recent 
re-emergence of the "Common-law courts."   A truly fascinating subject.  
Having competed (with varying levels of disrespect on both sides) with 
so-called "Equity courts" in England since well before the 17th century, 
they frequently represented a bulwark against the misuse of royal authority. 
 Competing court systems might be considered somewhat analogous to competing 
companies in the private sector:  Monopolies breed abuse; competition 
results in better service.  There is no reason to believe that this effect 
would be any less applicable in courts than other markets.

They might merely be a historical curiousity in America, except that the 
American Revolution had the predictable effect (supported by US court 
decision, apparently) that as a consequence of George III's loss and our 
win, all powers previously vested in the King were returned to the American 
people.  Some, but by no means all of them were delegated to the Federal 
government, as the 9th and 10th amendments show.  

The really interesting part is that the authority to form common-law courts 
was never delegated to the Federal government, and (perhaps not 
surprisingly, considering recent  governmental abuses) a number of groups 
around the country have decided to form their own such commonlaw courts.  To 
American ears this will probably sound a bit like "taking the law into your 
own hands,"  but those courts are quite real and I predict they will become 
a substantially more powerful force in the next few years.  Since selection 
of judges is part of the powers originally owned by George III and lost by 
him, this means that ordinary people have the power to run those courts and 
staff them, as odd as this will feel to those of us who were brought up on 
Perry Mason et al.

Naturally, you can expect numerous lawyers and judges (all who consider 
themselves part of the competing "equity court" system, BTW) to cry foul.   
The effect is somewhat akin to a child who initially shares a communal 
sandbox with a neighbor kid, who subsequently moves away and is replaced by 
a childless couple.  After a few years of de-facto sole ownership, the 
feelings of monopoly ownership are quite real, even if in reality sharing 
must once again happen due to the arrival of new neighbors.

Interestingly enough, the one thing the Commonlaw court system needs is an 
effective enforcement system.  One likely method is the commercial lien 
process, but even that tends to be resisted by people who are far more used 
to dealing with equity court personnel.  It turns out that my AP system 
seems to mesh almost perfectly with their needs, although obviously in 
practice it would only be used as a "last resort."











Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com