Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: OCT 16 NEWS FLASH: JESSICA GONZALES HUMAN RIGHTS HEARING IS TODAY: LIVE VIDEO

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) challenges US Supreme Court's "No individual right to police protection doctrine." She filed her human rights complaint against the US at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2005. I filed mine in 2006. My complaint is not scheduled for this session - will be carried over to March 2009.

    INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

    SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS FOR 133th PERIOD OF SESSIONS
    http://www.iachr.org/Comunicados/Eng...ings133eng.htm

    Wednesday, October 22, 2008 – Room A
    3:15 – 4:15PM.
    Case 12.626 – Jessica Gonzales, United States

    Case History: http://www.iachr.org/annualrep/2007e...1490.05eng.htm

    Public hearings held in this room will be webcast live on the OAS Web site, http://www.oas.org/OASpage/Live/OASlive.asp

    The videos will also be available for viewing later on the OAS and IACHR Web sites.

    The audio recordings will be posted on the IACHR site, http://www.iachr.org.

    Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School

    (AGAINST) Government of the United States

    -----------------

    4:30 – 5:30 PM
    Border Wall in Texas, United States

    University of Texas Working Group on Human Rights and the Border Wall

    (AGAINST) Government of the United States



  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    donhamrick wrote:
    Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) challenges US Supreme Court's "No individual right to police protection doctrine." She filed her human rights complaint against the US at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2005. I filed mine in 2006. My complaint is not scheduled for this session - will be carried over to March 2009.

    INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

    SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS FOR 133th PERIOD OF SESSIONS
    http://www.iachr.org/Comunicados/Eng...ings133eng.htm

    Wednesday, October 22, 2008 – Room A

    Public hearings held in this room will be webcast live on the OAS Web site, http://www.oas.org/OASpage/Live/OASlive.asp

    The videos will also be available for viewing later on the OAS and IACHR Web sites.

    The audio recordings will be posted on the IACHR site, http://www.iachr.org.

    3:15 – 4:15 (TODAY! OCT 16)

    Case 12.626 – Jessica Gonzales, United States
    http://www.iachr.org/annualrep/2007e...1490.05eng.htm

    Human Rights Institute, Columbia Law School

    (AGAINST) Government of the United States

    4:30 – 5:30

    Border Wall in Texas, United States

    University of Texas Working Group on Human Rights and the Border Wall

    (AGAINST) Government of the United States
    I am totally against this.

    Since when does some "Coalition Court" outside the jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hold any authority over the decisions ofthe Supreme Court of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    If Heller hadn'tpassed, would he have taken it tothis supposedly "higher court".

    This is a blatant attempt at the "One World Government" concept to force the U.S. Government tobe the "people's protector".

    If this case goes in favor of the plaintiff, just WTF does the IACHR plan to do to enforce its verdict? The only way for the police to have a responsibility to protect individuals is to have every individual under 24 hour survailance by the police.

    What ever happened to INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

    Every single one of these extra-national courts can go pound sand. We don't fall under their supposed authority.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    I am totally against this.

    Since when does some "Coalition Court" outside the jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hold any authority over the decisions ofthe Supreme Court of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    If Heller hadn'tpassed, would he have taken it tothis supposedly "higher court".

    This is a blatant attempt at the "One World Government" concept to force the U.S. Government tobe the "people's protector".

    If this case goes in favor of the plaintiff, just WTF does the IACHR plan to do to enforce its verdict? The only way for the police to have a responsibility to protect individuals is to have every individual under 24 hour survailance by the police.

    What ever happened to INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

    Every single one of these extra-national courts can go pound sand. We don't fall under their supposed authority.
    ^^^What he said ^^^
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Since 5 dummies started quoting them over the founding fathers.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    I am fighting for the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense at the international human rights level!

    MY LETTER TO THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS:

    You can view my letter and the IACHR reply on pages 1-4 of my lawsuit. Download it at:


    http://geekteck.com/external_host/hamrick.pdf


    Friday, July 4th, 2008

    Don Hamrick
    5860 Wilburn Road,
    Wilburn, Arkansas 72179,
    Email:
    4donhamrick@gmail.com


    U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Second Amendment as
    Being an Individual Right has Become "jus cogens" For A
    New Peremptory Norm of General International Law

    "Petition No. 1142-06"
    Paolo G. Carozza
    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
    1889 F Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C., 20006

    Dear Mr. Carozza,

    Please let the attached U.S. Supreme Court’s District of Columbia, et al v. Heller opinion be entered into the record as evidence vindicating my human rights complaint against the United States in Petition No. 1142-06. The Heller opinion also affects Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) human rights complaint against the United States, Petition No. 1490-05.

    Citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations 1986 it is my claim that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller opinion on the Second Amendment includes and protects the right of armed self-defense as part of the "right to life" provision in international human rights treaties and presents a "fundamental change of circumstances" (Article 62 of both Vienna Conventions) for the "emergence of a new peremptory norm of general international law" ("jus cogens"), (Article 64 of both Vienna Conventions) for the "right to life" provisions in international human rights treaties through the treaty clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

    The Heller opinion also impacts the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man under Articles I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, gun culture under Articles XIII, XV, XVII, XVIII, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, and duties to society under Article XXIX to which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights have jurisdiction.

    The Heller opinion has two quotable points:

    Page 9:

    "Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else." [Footnote 7: . . . J. Ayliffe, A New Pandect of Roman Civil Law 195 (1734) ("Yet a Person might keep Arms in his House, or on his Estate, on the Account of Hunting, Navigation, Travelling, and on the Score of Selling them in the way of Trade or Commerce, or such Arms as accrued to him by way of Inheritance"); . . .]

    Page 46:

    "As the Constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of several of the states, in terms more or less comprehensive, declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it has been a subject of grave discussion, in some of the state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question." 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law *340, n. 2 (O. Holmes ed., 12th ed. 1873).

    In the Page 9 quotation I construe the term "everyone else" to include merchant seamen in interstate and maritime travel as supported by the terms "Navigation" and "Traveling" in Scalia’s Footnote 7.

    Scalia’s Page 46 quotation implies that "open carry in interstate and maritime travel" is an "absolute or near-absolute right" not subject to any regulation at all. This inference needs clarification by judicial challenge.

    The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 926A - Interstate Transportation of Firearms, (nearly identical in effect to the strickened DC gun control law), is now ready for such a judicial challenge.

    <Pages 2 and 3 of my letter omitted here: Listing affected treaties>

    REPLY LETTER:

    Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
    Organization of American States
    Washington, DC 20006

    July 25, 2008

    I am please to address you on behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in order to acknowledge receipt of your communication dated July 4th 2008, received by this Executive Secretariat on July 9th 2008, in which you provided additional information regarding the petition referred to above.

    Due note has been taken of that information, and it has been incorporated into the case file for the relevant purposes.

    Sincerely yours,

    Santiago A. Canton
    Executive Secretary


  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    If this is important to you thenplease contact the NRA and demand that they help my Second Amendment case:

    Hamrick v. President George W. Bush, U.S. District Court for DC, No. 08-1698-EGS

    Attached to this reply is a 2002 letter from NRA Attorney Robert Dowlut refusing the NRA's involvement in my Second Amendment case for "National Open Carry Handgun."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    If typing a post in large letters makes it more effective, well here goes:

    I think this has about as much chance of success as appealing to the United Nations to intervene by ordering the U.S.A to allow Open Carry of Handguns.

    These extra-national courts have no interest in arming citizens. They have more interest in disarming the populace in order to further their leftist agendas.

    Let's keep American legal proceedings in the American legal system.


  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    All the more reason to fight them at the international level!



    Never give up the fight for freedom.



    Never back down.



  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Post imported post

    We can fight them by removing our (U.S) funding.

    You will find little to no support here for any juristiction outside our own legal system based on the United States Constitution even if some say it benefits us.

    I draw the line in the sand there!

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    donhamrick wrote:
    I am fighting for the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense at the international human rights level!
    You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".



  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    donhamrick,

    First, thank you for your service to this country in the Merchant Marine. Many do not realize either the critical importance of the U.S. Merchant Marine to our National Defense or the sacrifice and dedication that this service entails.

    Second, thank you for sticking up for the rights of Merchant Seamen. I too have a Z card. The Coast Guard rule making demand for a small arms qualification endorsement is genius!

    Fighting for our RKBA on the high seas is extremely important. Gaining recognition of the RKBA in international tribunals will go a very long way towards ensuring the U.N., foreign Navies and Coast Guards do respect our rights on the high seas.

    You have rightly picked up on the Scalia comment on page 47 of Heller v. DC. It does give lots of hope to the Federal Judiciary guarding our RKBA on interstate and high seas maritime travel. Today my right to sail up the Chesapeake Bay and up the Potomac River with my AR 15 and 1911A1 is not protected, and I could be prosecuted for a felony in Maryland or D.C.

    Your lawsuits do seem a little bit over the top. I would recommend that you prepare streamlined lawsuits addressing specific issues. Your legal theories on holding the government boot licking cowards in black robes accountable are entertaining, but in the end only detract from your basically sound legal arguments. I understand your right to put forward new and innovative legal theories, but many will label this as a crackpots filing and dismiss your other well designed pleadings.

    Again, thank you for your service and thank you for your efforts in the defense of the RKBA.

    Live Free or Die,

    Thundar






    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    donhamrick wrote:
    I am fighting for the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense at the international human rights level!
    You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

    KBCraig,

    Are you saying that a belief that the RKBA is universal is only held by morons? While our ability to fight the tyrannical efforts to disarm people in other countries is nigh impossible, our ability to defend our god given RKBA on the high seas is a very important and just endeavor which stands a good chance of succeeding. It seems to me that you are insulting that which is too complex for you to understand. Maybe look in the mirror next time you feel like hurling moron insults.

    Live Free or Die,

    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Let's keep American legal proceedings in the American legal system.
    The battle for the RKBA on the high seas is not something that can be won in only the U.S. Courts.This isn't about an international court overruling a U.S Court. This is about gaining legitimate recognition from an international commission for an individuals RKBA on the high seas. Big difference.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    We can fight them by removing our (U.S) funding.

    You will find little to no support here for any jurisdiction outside our own legal system based on the United States Constitution even if some say it benefits us.

    I draw the line in the sand there!

    Yata hey
    Grapeshot,

    Who is the "them" that we are we trying to fight? Unfortunately there is no sand on the high seas upon which to draw a line.

    Do not get put off by the "jurisdiction" word. It DOES NOT mean that the commission has any right to rule on US law in the US.

    If we believe that the RKBA is a universal human right,thengaining recognition by an internationalhuman rights commission is a very huge gain. dohamricks use of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is very smart for two reasons. 1) a much higher chance for success than in other commissions. 2) A more rapid decision that other commissions will be hesitant to disagree with. In short he has found the right commission and asked for the right ruling from them.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    donhamrick wrote:
    I am fighting for the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense at the international human rights level!
    You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".



    The Human Right of Self-Defense
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1022097

    David B. Kopel
    Independence Institute

    Joanne D. Eisen
    Independence Institute

    Paul Gallant
    Independence Institute

    BYU Journal of Public Law, Vol. 22, 2008

    Abstract:

    Does a woman have a human right to resist rape or murder? Do people have a human right to resist tyranny? The United Nations Human Rights Council has said no - that international law recognizes no human right of self-defense. To the contrary, the Human Rights Council declares that very severe gun control - more restrictive than even the laws of New York City - is a human right.

    Surveying international law from its earliest days to the present, this Article demonstrates that self-defense is a widely-recognized human right which no government and no international body have the authority to abrogate. The issue is especially important today, as many international advocates of international gun prohibition are using the United Nations to deny and then eliminate the right of self-defense. For example, the General Assembly is creating an Arms Trade Treaty which would define arms sales to citizens in the United States as a human rights violation, because American law guarantees the right to use lethal force, when no lesser force will suffice, against a non-homicidal violent felony attack.

    The article analyzes in detail the Founders of international law - the great scholars in the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries who created the system of international law. The Article then looks at the major legal systems which have contributed to international law, such as Greek law, Roman law, Spanish law, Jewish law, Islamic law, Canon law, and Anglo-American law.

    In addition, the article covers the full scope of contemporary international law sources, including treaties, the United Nations, constitutions from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and much more.

    The Article shows that international law - particularly its restraints on the conduct of warfare - is founded on the personal right of self-defense.


  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,623

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Grapeshot wrote:
    We can fight them by removing our (U.S) funding.

    You will find little to no support here for any jurisdiction outside our own legal system based on the United States Constitution even if some say it benefits us.

    I draw the line in the sand there!

    Yata hey
    Grapeshot,

    Who is the "them" that we are we trying to fight? Unfortunately there is no sand on the high seas upon which to draw a line.

    Do not get put off by the "jurisdiction" word. It DOES NOT mean that the commission has any right to rule on US law in the US.

    If we believe that the RKBA is a universal human right,thengaining recognition by an internationalhuman rights commission is a very huge gain. dohamricks use of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is very smart for two reasons. 1) a much higher chance for success than in other commissions. 2) A more rapid decision that other commissions will be hesitant to disagree with. In short he has found the right commission and asked for the right ruling from them.
    For the most part, I will let my orginal comment stand, though it may be limited in it application to what you say. I am not versed in maritime or international law. Originally, I took this as being outside interference in our rights, not as an extension of the universal right to self-defense. Lack of knowledge is no excuse though.

    Also I will seriously look at and consider the implications of these references.

    Yata hey

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    Welcome aboard Grapeshot!(in the world of the maritime)You are about to depart on an eye-opening experience.



    Freeflight








    "Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
    - John Adams
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    BUMP!

    DON'T MISS THIS LIVE VIDEO ON JESSICA GONZALES (LENAHAN) HUMAN RIGHTS HEARING ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S "NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POLICE PROTECTION DOCTRINE"

    Police did not respond to her 911 call against her ex-hubby when she had a court restraining order. ex-hubby kidnapped her 3 young girls, drove to the police station and shot the 3 little girls dead and shot himself dead. Details are linked in my first posting above.



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    donhamrick wrote:
    I am fighting for the Second Amendment right to armed self-defense at the international human rights level!
    You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

    KBCraig,

    Are you saying that a belief that the RKBA is universal is only held by morons?
    Not at all.RKBA is universal, but the Second Amendment is not. It is a part of theAmerican constitution, and does not apply in any other jurisdiction. Arguing it before an international court is just silly.

    Although the Right to KBA is universal, recognition of that right is not. It's not even recognized in America, despite our 2A guarantee.



  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    QUESTION TO KBCraig:

    "Are you saying that a belief that the RKBA is universal is only held by morons?

    KBCraig's ANSWER:

    Not at all.*RKBA is universal, but the Second Amendment is not. It is a part of the*American constitution, and does not apply in any other jurisdiction. Arguing it before an international court is just silly.

    Although the Right to KBA is universal, recognition of that right is not. It's not even recognized in America, despite our 2A guarantee.
    The Second Amendment "is" universal under the U.N. Genocide Convention and other human rights treaties. Arguing this point at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is NOT silly but an inevitability of the Heller opinion. I just happen to be the first to pick up on this fact and pushed it to the international human rights level.

    I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says but I made history. It may be an ignoreable history at this point in time deserving only a footnote but it is history nevertheless.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    donhamrick wrote:
    I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says but I made history.
    ....???

    Dude, you filed a lawsuit! There's nothing historical about that; people do it every single day.

    You know, even though I'm coming across as a detractor, that's more a critique of your style, and an observation about your likelihood of success. I really do wish you luck in this.



  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    The lawsuit in federal court was not what I meant. I am the first to apply Heller as evidence for a new internationl norm for human rights law. Read pages 1 thrugh 4 of the lawsuit unless you prefer to remain ignorant as you have demonstrated so successly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •