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

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/English/2008/hearings133eng.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/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.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

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/English/2008/hearings133eng.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/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

^^^:cuss:What he said:banghead: ^^^

imported post

Since 5 dummies started quoting them over the founding fathers. :cuss:

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


[align=center]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"[/align]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

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."

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.

imported post

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



Never give up the fight for freedom.



Never back down.

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

imported post

donhamrick wrote:

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

Click to expand...

You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

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

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

donhamrick wrote:

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

Click to expand...

You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

Click to expand...

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

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

donhamrick wrote:

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

Click to expand...

You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

Click to expand...

[align=center]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 [/align]
[align=center]Abstract:[/align]
[align=left]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.
[/align]

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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!

Click to expand...

You, Sir, are a moron, with no apparent grasp of the meaning of the words "Second Amendment" and "international".

Click to expand...

KBCraig,

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.