Re: Guilt By Silence
Sat Sep 30, 2006 16:31

 
RE:
NO ONE HAS IMMUNITY FOR FELONY CRIMINAL ACTS. —Ruth D. Bundy,
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=104897;title=APFN;pagemark=20

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Guilt By Silence
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:09:49 +0000
From: Legal Reality legal_reality@earthlink.net 
To: Ruth D. Bundy or Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.CC: apfn@apfn.org

30 September A.D. 2006

You've got a lot of time, “money,” and energy invested in this matter.
This is obviously a sensitive time in this matter for you, so I didn't
say a lot the first time, and I’m not going to say a lot, now, either.

I've reviewed, again, that petition, and I'm not sure I have any better
idea what the core problem is than when I read through it the first
time. I see the accusations of corruption in the bench and bar, but it's
difficult to read through this far enough to determine what sort of
matter is at the core of the proceeding. It may be that with time, I
could uncover the contract or tort basis of the litigation that has
triggered all the animosity. What would have been nice to have been able
to determine from the petition are answers to such questions as these:
What is the foundational claim based on? What are the facts behind that
claim? What (besides the alleged corruption) happened at the trial and
on appeal? For example, I can’t tell from the petition what the
difference is between the state case and the federal case.

Regarding the declaration made to the apfn list, which most definitely
compels a response, “guilt by silence" and "guilty until proven
innocent" are the same idea, and both are repugnant under the historic
notions of individual rights.

GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=380&invol=609

ANDERSON v. NELSON, 390 U.S. 523 (1968)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/390/523.html

DOYLE v. OHIO, 426 U.S. 610 (1976)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/426/610.html


What this petition for cert reads like is an Information or an
Indictment. Maybe they deserve it; maybe they don’t. What the law “is”
and what either you or the jurists see it as may be very different
things. Since the language you’re talking and the language they’re
talking are foreign languages to each other, it’s an uphill
communications effort, at best.

As for the thought that pro se’s don’t make arguments before the Supreme
Court, it probably is rare, but we have at least one rather recent
example to the contrary.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/anna-nicole-smith/anna-nicole-smith-proceeds-pro-se-in-the-supreme-court-157505.php

The judicial process is frustrating most of the time, almost no matter
what the outcome, and all the more so for all the time we think we know
what the outcome should be, and it doesn’t turn out that way.

What can apply for all who grace the courtroom floor with their shadow
is a thought well phrased by Will Rogers: “It’s not what a man doesn’t
know that tends to create problems for him in life; it’s what he knows
that just ain’t so.”

The “constitutions” asserted in the petition are not what they are made
out to be. The “oaths” may be what they are made out to be, and it’ll be
interesting to see what, if anything, happens with that argument.

What isn’t here are the several hours in reviewing some additional 5th
Amendment discussions by which to address the note posted on the apfn
page. As best as I can tell, that discussion is responsive to the note,
not the case, so the cases included above will suffice to make that point.

After cogitating your matter for quite some time this morning, I’ve had
to accept the fact that there just isn’t enough information to address
your question. The risk of saying that is that you may feel that I’m
asking you to send me more information so that I can make a more
informed decision, and that’s not what I’m thinking or suggesting. I’m
satisfied that the Supreme Court will communicate all that needs to be
communicated on that matter.

The “judges” who have no “oaths” recorded may very well be imposters, as
described in your petition. I guess we’ll find out whether that matter
is sufficient to have the Court look further into the matter.

Whatever happens there, this has certainly helped remind me of what sort
of presentation the pro se's in the "community" typically make and why
it's so difficult to expect much from the jurists in pro se litigation.
It's amazing just exactly how far apart these two worlds are.

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
(Dallas, Texas)




Ruth D. Bundy or Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr. wrote:

> *On 092806 you wrote:*
> **
> *28 September A.D. 2006
>
> This is a rather dangerous sentiment, isn't it! Guilt by silence? What
> happened to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?!
>
> Very dangerous idea, here! Very dangerous.
>
> Harmon
> *
> *Mr. Harmon:*
> **
> *Thank you for a response on my post!*
> **
> *What about US V. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297*
> **
> *The Prudden court also stated that:*
>
> *Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or
> moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
> intentionally misleading.*
>
> **
>
> *[United States v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), cert.
> denied, 400 U.S. 831, 91 S. Ct. 62, 27 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1970). ]*
>
> *Supra, p. 1032.*
> **
> *Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court Case 06-382 exposed the Supreme Court
> of Florida, Second District Court of Appeal of Florida, Judge Herbert
> John Baumann, Jr. with Violating the Constitution of Florida PLUS
> aiding and abetting Felony Perjury by doing nothing! SILENCE involved
> the 092206 Waiver to Respond filed by the Florida Attorney General in
> answer to the Petition where the State Attorney General has a legal
> and moral duty to speak OR where an inquiry left unanswered would be
> intentionally misleading IMHO.*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> .
> From:
> *Ralph Charles Whitley, Sr.*
> a decorated Veteran of One
> 4532 W. Kennedy Blvd. PMB-276
> Tampa, Florida 33609-2042
> Member of APFN
> 092806
 

Main Page - Wednesday, 10/04/06

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)