Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Judge burns 1st Amendment on Constitution Day, reads Miranda rights to Pirate News
Saturday, September 12, 2009 11:59 AM
John Lee, executive producer of Hollywood award-winning Pirate News TV at PirateNew.org
Quote:John Lee, executive producer of Pirate News TV and Pirate News Radio and candidate for appointment as Commissioner of CTV Board of Knox County: "Your Honor, may I argue...?"
Judge Mary Beth Liebowitz: "No Sir! You are not a party at this time. In my opinion you are not an intervenor, you cannot make yourself an intervenor, and you're not arguing!"
John Lee: "May I...?"
Judge Mary Beth Liebowitz: "No Sir! Wait a minute! Let me explain something to you, Sir! You have violated the process of this Court! Now I suggest you sit down, because I can do one of two things today, and if you want to get counsel, and you want to see if you can become an intervenor, if you want to do it legally, that's fine. But what yo uhave done, with respect to our subpoenas, is major problems for you, I can tell you that right now [without reading any of the pleadings nor looking at any of the subpoenas signed by the court clerk]. You have the right to remain silent! If you say anything, whatever you say can and may be used against you! You have the right to the presence of an attorney! If you cannot afford an attorney one can be appointed to represent you, if you should be accused of an offense, I've given you your rights because you might be! Okay? You have the right to remain silent! I would strongly suggest that you do that until you have talked to counsel!"
—Knox County Criminal Court, Pretrial Hearing on Intervenor John Lee's Motion to Reconsider Motion for Media Access (aka Motion to Intervene), Motion to Intervene and Notice of Appeal, State v Clifford Clark, Docket 90821, 91484, 90252, 90618, Knoxville TN, 11 September 2001
Quote:"WBIR TV, WATE TV and WVLT TV were first provided copies of the Order of dismissal and the subpoena of the ex-deputy, with explanation of the current deputy’s alleged confession to shooting a red-light camera (which they were very interested in but failed to investigate or report). Without investigative reporting by Pirate News, no 'legitimate news media' would have reported the dismissal of charges against Defendant. 'The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he wishes before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.' IV Blackstone’s Commentaries, 151, 152. The public right of access to criminal trials is so clearly entrenched in our judicial system that, in 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court said the right was so secure that the court was “unable to find a single instance of a criminal trial conducted in camera in any federal, state, or municipal court during the history of this country.” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 268, 68 S. Ct. 499, 504 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948). 'In its nearly two centuries of existence, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint on pure speech. A prior restraint upon publication was improper absent proof that the publication will surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.' Matter of Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1348 (1st Cir. 1986). 'Where the freedom of the press is concerned, however, the status quo is to publish the news promptly that the editors decide to publish. A restraining order disturbs the status quo and impinges on the exercise of editorial discretion. Rather than having no effect, a prior restraint, by . . . definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. In the case of prior restraint on pure speech, the hurdle is substantially higher. publication must threaten an interest more fundamental than the First Amendment itself. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld a prior restraint, even faced with the competing interest of national security or the sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.' Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219-227 (6th Cir. 1996). 'Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunctions, or prior restraints. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform people. No one can read history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this nation for all time.' New York times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 714, 91 S.Ct. 2140-2144 (1971). 'That the printing presses shall be free to every person to examine the proceedings of the legislature; or of any branch or officer of the government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, right, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.' Tenn. CONST., Art. 1, § 19. 'Before a motion for closure can be granted, it must be made in writing, given an expedited hearing by the judge, be on file for a period of at least three days before the hearing, and interested members of the public and media may intervene and be heard in opposition to it.' [not complied with by assistate district attorney Zane Scarlett nor Judge Mary beth Liebowitz] State v. Drake, supra, at 608; see also State v. James, 902 S.W.2d 911 (1995). 'A judge’s personal experience with in-court media coverage, extensive publicity surrounding the case, or a conclusory finding that in-court media coverage might interfere with a defendant’s right to a fair trial, are not sufficient reasons to support a decision to exclude media coverage from the courtroom.' State v. Morrow, 1996 WL 170679 (Tenn. Crim. App.). 'A presiding judge’s decision to deny a motion to preclude or limit media coverage is not error in the absence of proof that media coverage will compromise one of the important interests set forth in Sections (A)(1) and (D)(2) of Rule 30.' State v. Pike. 978 S.W.2d 904, 917 (Tenn. 1998). From the foregoing examination of the development of the law concerning media access pursuant to Rule 30 in Tennessee, it is abundantly clear that conclusory allegations, vague concerns, generalized statements, and blanket derogation of the media generally is not sufficient, as a matter of law, to justify any prior restraint. As the authorities discussed amply demonstrate, there exists no basis in law or fact to justify the sweeping breadth of the Order opined by the Court. To grant the same would result in the Court exceeding all permissible constitutional authority."
—John Lee, executive producer of Pirate News TV and Pirate News Radio and candidate for appointment as Commissioner of CTV Board of Knox County, First Amendment Brief for Media Access, INFORMAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT, OFFER OF PROOF AND OPPOSITION TO ORDER BANNING MEDIA BROADCAST, Knox County Criminal Court, State v Clark, Docket 90821, 91484, 90252, 90618, August 2009
"It is the Court's opinion, as it stated to Mr. Lee in open court, that anyone can make a business card, with at-home equipment as well as a press badge, and bring a hand-held video camera into a courtroom, and declare themselves media. That does not make 'legitimate media' under Rule 30. Any citizen may use the community television stations in any community to broadcast their personal opinions. The use of euquipment by other than legitimate media who directly or indirectly feeds news to the general public and is in business for the purpose of giving news to the general public and is so chartered, is what the Supreme Court intended to be legitimate media. The state opposes Mr. Lee's as the state has opined that Mr. Lee has a specific agenda and is not a legitimate news organization. Thus the motion of Mr. Lee to present himself as media and to be permitted to use a camera or other recording device under Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, is hereby respectfully denied."
—Judge Mary Beth Liebowitz, Knox County Criminal Court, Order Regarding Media Request, State v Clifford Clark, Docket 90821, 91484, 90252, 90618, 22 July 2001 (four previous judges ordered in this case that Pirate News TV is "legitimate news media")
"I don't know what the definition of the appellate courts or supreme court when they made that Rule mean by 'legitmate media'. It may very well be that they mean this to be legitimate media. I don't know. But at this juncture I'm not prepared to declare you 'legitimate media'. But we need to clarify, Mr. Lee, what we mean. Okay? And you are welcome anytime in this courtroom. You may report all you want on whatever you want to report on. My concern is the video. And it's an open courtroom and you are welcome. But at this point I'm not gonna let you video. But I will tell you that because you have made this request, I would like to do a little further research on it and and make a complete ruling at the time that we start for trial, if you wish to prepare an appeal on what you wish to do and not wish to do. Im not... I think that's fair to you right now. I need to figure out what they meant. It's not just a can of worms for me, but a can of worms for a lot of people. Whatever you do with your media work is not my business, basically. I don't care. If you wish me to put down a written order, so you can go through the process of appeal, then I'll put down a written order denying your right to video. I don't want everybody in town videotaping everything. What happens is they splice and dice the tape."
—Judge Mary Beth Liebowitz, Knox County Criminal Court, Transcript of Motion Hearing on Media Request (aka Motion to Intervene per Rule 30 TN Supreme Court Rules and Rule 24 TN Rules of Civil Procedure), State v Clifford Clark, Docket 90821, 91484, 90252, 90618, 1 July 2001
Leslie Nassios, public defender (now a prosecutor): "John Lee's photograph on WBIR TV made my client go insane! I move to ban him from this courtroom, and ban everyone from the courtroom!"
Judge Mary Beth Liebowitz: "I will not ban John Lee from the courtroom. This is the People's court, not the defendant's court."
—Knox County Criminal Court, How to Catch a Government Hitman, State v Charles Daniel Gray, 1995
Saturday, September 12, 2009 2:10 PM
Saturday, September 12, 2009 2:43 PM
Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Quote:TN Code 29-9-106. Bail.
(a) Upon an attachment to answer for a contempt, except in not performing a decree, the officer executing the process shall take bail from the defendant as in other cases.
Quote:TN Code 29-9-105. Performance of forbidden act.
If the contempt consists in the performance of a forbidden act, the person may be imprisoned until the act is rectified by placing matters and person in status quo, or by the payment of damages.
Quote:29-9-102. Scope of power.
The power of the several courts to issue attachments, and inflict punishments for contempts of court, shall not be construed to extend to any except the following cases:
(1) The willful misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) The willful misbehavior of any of the officers of such courts, in their official transactions;
Quote:TN Code 17-5-302. Judicial offenses.
Offenses of which the court may take cognizance shall include the following:
(1) Willful misconduct relating to the official duties of the office;
(2) Willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of the office;
(3) Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as set out in the rules of the supreme court of Tennessee;
(4) The commission of any act constituting a violation of so much of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct as set out in the rules of the supreme court of Tennessee as is applicable to judges;
(5) A persistent pattern of intemperate, irresponsible or injudicious conduct;
(6) A persistent pattern of discourtesy to litigants, witnesses, jurors, court personnel or lawyers;
(7) A persistent pattern of delay in disposing of pending litigation; and
(8) Any other conduct calculated to bring the judiciary into public disrepute or to adversely affect the administration of justice.
Quote:TN Code 10-7-505. Denial of access — Procedures for obtaining access — Court orders — Injunctions — Appeals — Liability for nondisclosure.
(a) Any citizen of Tennessee who shall request the right of personal inspection of any state, county or municipal record as provided in § 10-7-503, and whose request has been in whole or in part denied by the official and/or designee of the official or through any act or regulation of any official or designee of any official, shall be entitled to petition for access to any such record and to obtain judicial review of the actions taken to deny the access.
(b) Such petition shall be filed in the chancery court or circuit court for the county in which the county or municipal records sought are situated.... Upon filing of the petition, the court shall, upon request of the petitioning party, issue an order requiring the defendant or respondent party or parties to immediately appear and show cause, if they have any, why the petition should not be granted.
(c) The burden of proof for justification of nondisclosure of records sought shall be upon the official and/or designee of the official of those records and the justification for the nondisclosure must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.
(d) The court, in ruling upon the petition of any party proceeding hereunder, shall render written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(e) Upon a judgment in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order that the records be made available to the petitioner.
(g) If the court finds that the governmental entity, or agent thereof, refusing to disclose a record, knew that such record was public and willfully refused to disclose it, such court may, in its discretion, assess all reasonable costs involved in obtaining the record, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against the nondisclosing governmental entity.
Saturday, September 12, 2009 4:38 PM
Saturday, September 12, 2009 5:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmmmm... That's handy to know.
EDIT: This wasn't intended to be sarcastic. Pretend the evil emoticon is not laughing, because that was not the tone I meant to convey.
Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:20 PM
Monday, September 14, 2009 2:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by piratenews:
My Writ of Habeas Corpus and Power of Attorney are ready in case I get arrested today or this week.
Monday, September 14, 2009 3:41 AM
Quote:I'm laughing at you, they're laughing at you, the police are lauging at you
Monday, September 14, 2009 4:56 AM
Monday, September 14, 2009 4:57 AM
Monday, September 14, 2009 5:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
But really, it's all bullshit, and Zero here knows it every bit as much as I do, hinting at it while never quite having the balls to admit it.
Monday, September 14, 2009 6:23 AM
Monday, September 14, 2009 9:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You'd get cut to ribbons by my lawyer if it ever came to the other side, we'd give you nothing, encourage you to let your temper run wild with you, yanno
- like it did right here to the point where you didn't even notice which SIDE of the case I was on
do we have to put a sign up so you know which seat to sit in ?
Honestly you're just mostly pissed cause if the public ever sees through the shell game, public trough slop feeders like you will have to get a REAL job.
Monday, September 14, 2009 10:44 AM
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Its not some giant conspiracy. I win because I went to lawschool and learned my trade. I research and write as good as anybody.
Monday, September 14, 2009 10:47 AM
Quote:Come on...rant for a Bananna?
Monday, September 14, 2009 5:31 PM
Monday, September 14, 2009 6:40 PM
Quote:The Case Of The Redlight Camera Sniper
1. A Knox County deputy sheriff was subpoenaed to testify that another Knox deputy confessed to shooting a redlight camera (case dismissed IMMEDIATELY 1 week before trial)
2. KPD, Redflex and prosecutors destroyed all ballistic evidence in this case, threw away 3 bullets, threw away camera housing with bullet holes (no way to test caliber or gun for a match)
3. KPD and KCSO destroyed all audiotape "confessions" and "consent to search" in this case, no written consent to search car nor house
4. There was no redligth camera ticket, nor any other traffic ticket entered into evidence
5. UTPD used forged affidavit for a home invasion by undercover cops in Metallica t-shirts, as testified by UTPD's star witness who denied saying the allegations in the forged affidavit fo complaint
6. When the homeowner pointed a loaded shotgun at an unidentified man with a gun on the 2nd floor of his home, the Metallica t-shirt guy "ran screaming out of the house having flashbacks to Afghanistan"
7. Deputy in Metallica t-shirt and no badge perjured himself in court that the gun safe in the attic was unlocked, when KCSO photos showed the door locked ($10,000 in guns stolen by KCSO)
8. Knoxville News Sentinel newspaper was given $20-million grant by City of Knoxville taxpayers for propaganda services (city attorney subpoenaed for violation of TN Open Records Act for lying that no contracts exist with media corporations)
9. "News" corporations in Kville lie that Redlex is not Australian, and Lasercraft is not Commie Chinese, that have replaced KPD, City Court and City of KVille Govt (that export 90% of ticket revenue)
10. 4 previous judges in this case ordered that Pirate News TV is "legitimate news media" and allowed me to broadcast this trial on TV
11. Judge, court clerk, city attorney and media lawyers refuse to serve process on me for court orders and motions, which makes those motions and orders invalid under TN Rules of Procedure and constitutional due process
Quote:"The process used by ALJ in arriving at his decision that the plaintiff is not disabled is most troubling. The vocational specialist's comments to which the ALJ refers in his decision [are] largely indecipherable. The Court has absolutely no inkling of the qualificiations of the vocational specialist. It is recommended that Plaintiff's motion be granted for remanding the case."
-United States Magistrate Dennis Inmam, John Lee v Commissioner of Social Security
Monday, September 14, 2009 7:01 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Ninety minutes on the stand, and the ONLY thing the poor bloody bastards got to work with is me underestimating the height of one perp, by two inches, several yards away, in the dark, while he was carryin someone elses television and WAS positively identified complete with physical description and outfit...
(not to mention his frikkin prints all over the TV, helll-O?)
Monday, September 14, 2009 7:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero:
For example, I deal with freeman cases about once or twice/year. They love the Uniform Commercial Code...but hate the Traffic and Criminal Codes. So they ignore the Traffic and/or Criminal Code and then apply the UCC to Criminal and Traffic offenses (ignoring the part of the UCC that limits the UCC to commercial issues). They then make lots of noise and lose badly.
Is the system fixed? Yes. They lose because they have bad arguments that are simply not supported by law or precedent. They also lose because I am able to present evidence that proves each and every element of the offense against them. They lose because they fail to cross examine witnesses or present their own witnesses in an effective manner. Finally they lose because the Jury or the Judge (for bench trials) finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In short they lack legal foundation, facts, witnesses, and the ability to make a clear and coherant presentation to the court.
Quote:Tennessee Code §47-1-308 (UCC)
Performance or acceptance under reservation of rights
Title 47. Commercial Instruments And Transactions
Chapter 1. Uniform Commercial Code - General Provisions
(1) "A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice,' 'under protest' or the like are sufficient."
Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by piratenews:
I agree. Mostly.
Rules of Procedure, Rules of Evidence, Constitutions, caselaw, discovery and trial tactics are vital. And big balls.
I suspect many callers to patriot radio shows are govt operatives sowing psyops like "patriot mythology" (loser legal arguments). But patriot arguments are a great way to get folks interested in learning more about the law.
Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:08 AM
Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:11 PM
NEW POSTS TODAY
All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.