• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

anty506, what is your side of the story?

G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Courrèges wrote:
La Confed,

There is a correlation insofar as the drug war involves organized crime, and organized crime is depraved and violent and commits all manner of violent felonies. This is why we have laws against money laundering and other crimes that have no immediate victim, but clearly contribute to other crimes.
Click to expand...
If I may interject here...

... and this is why our servants have become our masters!! It is why we CANNOT tolerate victimless crime enforcement. It is "ends justifies the means" logic. The more victimless crimes created, the more need for victimless crime statutes.

You see... "paper money" is illegal. There was no need for "money laundering" type of statutes when gold and silver was used as legal tender. Now that we have "illegal" money, and things such as counterfeiting and such became an issue, instead of removing the obvious illegal statutes, more were legislated to cover the new illegal activity. Oh what a tangled web...

US Constitution Article 1 Section 10

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Ladies and gentlemen... this is STILL the supreme law of the land. It has NOT been changed by amendment.

Courreges, thanks for using money laundering as an example of "necessary" victimless crime as it is PROOF of what happens when you go down that path. You get an overbearing government with authority to mutilate your RIGHT to privacy almost at will. Victimless crime in as ENEMY of a free society.

Now to somehow tie this to the original point of the thread... whatever Anty506's activities were prior to and during the incident is irrelevant UNLESS he was an "aggressor". The only thing that can trump his right to self-defense is the self-defense of the one he shot. This is settled by determining who the aggressor was. Any statute codifying otherwise is subject to constitutional review and this is where Anty's defense lies in court.
 
C

Courrèges

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

georg,

"No state shall . . . make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."

That's a restriction on the states, not the federal government.

Likewise, the Legal Tender Cases held that paper money is constitutional. Also, the federal government has the express authority to coin money and to regulate the value of currency.

The prevailing thought among originalists today is that while many of the Founders privately intended to ban paper money, they failed secure an express prohibition. Those favoring paper money at the time of the convention also failed to secure an express authorization, so the Constitution is simply silent on the issue. Left with this, the Supreme Court ultimately held that paper money is perfectly legal.

In any event, this has little to do with money laundering. Congress is expressly authorized to coin money, and that authorization includes no caveats. Even if that weren't the case, criminals have always needed to hide the source of their funds from the authorities, whether the money is gold coinage, paper or even electronic. The impetus for criminalizing money laundering may have been organized crime, but it didn't simply arise out of paper money.
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Courrèges wrote:
georg,

"No state shall . . . make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."

That's a restriction on the states, not the federal government.

Likewise, the Legal Tender Cases held that paper money is constitutional. Also, the federal government has the express authority to coin money and to regulate the value of currency.

The prevailing thought among originalists today is that while many of the Founders privately intended to ban paper money, they failed secure an express prohibition. Those favoring paper money at the time of the convention also failed to secure an express authorization, so the Constitution is simply silent on the issue. Left with this, the Supreme Court ultimately held that paper money is perfectly legal.

In any event, this has little to do with money laundering. Congress is expressly authorized to coin money, and that authorization includes no caveats. Even if that weren't the case, criminals have always needed to hide the source of their funds from the authorities, whether the money is gold coinage, paper or even electronic. The impetus for criminalizing money laundering may have been organized crime, but it didn't simply arise out of paper money.
Click to expand...
Art1 Sec 10 is a restriction on the federal government becasue the federal government does not have the authority to override the Const except by ammendment. In other words, the states cannot make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts EVEN if directed to by federal statute.

Secondly,
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
The best I can tell from my own research, the definition of "coin" here is excludes paper.

I have not found(been looking for a long time) any legal tender appellant cases. Do you know of any?

This has to do with money laundering because one of the original "justifications" for money laundering legislation was counterfeit prevention. It's much more difficult to counterfeit gold and silver than it is paper money. It is this "justification" which allows insidious legislation to become law.

The whole point of this discussion is that victimless crime is essentially unconstitutional. It requires that the citizen give up rights(by statute) in order to enforce said crimes. It's a slippery slope. If we have a Republic of free citizens then we can't tolerate victimless crime legislation. If we disagree with a Republican form of government, then there is myriad of other forms of government out there with which we may enslave ourselves. Let's pick one and be done with it.
 
C

Courrèges

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

georg,

Here's the wikipedia article on the Legal Tender Cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases

All that provision says is that the states cannot pay their *own* debts except in gold or silver. The Courts interpreted this provision to be reciprocal to the exclusive power of the federal government to coin money, not a special requirement that the states could not employ legal tender.

As for the meaning of the word "coin," there's significant evidence that it was a rather ambiguous term that could be read to include the creation of paper money. See: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf

Money laundering laws were mainly created to combat organized crime, not counterfeiting in particular. The term actually comes from the old story that Al Capone used legitimate laundry businesses to filter the money from his criminal enterprises.

As for "victimless crimes," there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them, and most are, in my mind, quite justifiable. The idea that you could filter blood money for the mob without consequence strikes me as wrong. The same goes for the notion that you could know of a felony, reap the benefit from it, and then fail to report it. There's no reason for that kind of behavior to be legal, and a great many reasons to prohibit it.
 
S

sandman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
114
Location
St.Amant, Louisiana, USA
imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
If you would have READ my typed words, you would have LEARNED I stated the REASON there IS such violence related to the drug trade is due to the fact YOU, and people LIKE you, have this "whatever" mentality about controlling other people's lives and property, just can't STAND to leave others to live their lives as they see fit. I have a name for such folk, I call them STATIST, the very opposite of persons who truly understand "freedom."

It is for THIS VERY REASON this country is awash in two-bit thugs who can't read or write, yet make more money than either of us, probably.
Click to expand...
come on now you make enough money to buy new bike after payingall the lawyer fees
 
D

derf

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
131
Location
, ,
imported post

Dustin wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
"You people" will never learn. Let me try this approach.

YOU, not someone else, walks into a CVS or Walgreen's to conduct business.
While waiting for your state-approved and regulated prescription to be filled, the pharmacist emerges from the back, armed with an "assault" weapon and strikes YOU in the head.
YOU, rightfully fearing for your life, pull a weapon and defend yourself, killing the pharmacist in the process. No problem, even man's law(which I personally hold in the utmost contempt) recognizes your NATURAL right to self defense. You walk.

The ONLY real difference with Anthony's situation is HIS transaction was NOT state-approved.

"You people" have NO problem cheering on the horribly misguided "War On Drugs," since the abuses of the state don't affect you, yet, but fail to recognize it's a war on PEOPLE.

God save what's left of the Republic and all the ignorant persons it contains.
Click to expand...

sigh ....
Click to expand...
Hunh?
HUNH?
I somewhat agree the "War on Drugs" is flawed. Alcohol is probably worse then some other drugs and it is legal.
I feel for anty, too. I think it is a shame his young life is ruined by events. BUT, from what I understand he was admittedly living the gangsta life and killed someone.
If we're going to speculate we should look from the dead guy's point of view:
"A wannabe substance purchaser alleges he was stuck in the head with a gun so he killed someone in their home."

A few posts about what is or isn't a "good kill" may speak toward premeditation, too, if presented at trial.

Also, if weed is your thing aren't there places you can move to and legally possess in the US?
 
S

sandman

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
114
Location
St.Amant, Louisiana, USA
imported post

derf wrote:
Dustin wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
"You people" will never learn. Let me try this approach.

YOU, not someone else, walks into a CVS or Walgreen's to conduct business.
While waiting for your state-approved and regulated prescription to be filled, the pharmacist emerges from the back, armed with an "assault" weapon and strikes YOU in the head.
YOU, rightfully fearing for your life, pull a weapon and defend yourself, killing the pharmacist in the process. No problem, even man's law(which I personally hold in the utmost contempt) recognizes your NATURAL right to self defense. You walk.

The ONLY real difference with Anthony's situation is HIS transaction was NOT state-approved.

"You people" have NO problem cheering on the horribly misguided "War On Drugs," since the abuses of the state don't affect you, yet, but fail to recognize it's a war on PEOPLE.

God save what's left of the Republic and all the ignorant persons it contains.
Click to expand...

sigh ....
Click to expand...
Hunh?
HUNH?
I somewhat agree the "War on Drugs" is flawed. Alcohol is probably worse then some other drugs and it is legal.
I feel for anty, too. I think it is a shame his young life is ruined by events. BUT, from what I understand he was admittedly living the gangsta life and killed someone.
If we're going to speculate we should look from the dead guy's point of view:
"A wannabe substance purchaser alleges he was stuck in the head with a gun so he killed someone in their home."

A few posts about what is or isn't a "good kill" may speak toward premeditation, too, if presented at trial.

Also, if weed is your thing aren't there places you can move to and legally possess in the US?
Click to expand...
please mark find out where that is and move there. just think of all the new peps to sue.
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

Courrèges wrote:
As for "victimless crimes," there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them, and most are, in my mind, quite justifiable. The idea that you could filter blood money for the mob without consequence strikes me as wrong. The same goes for the notion that you could know of a felony, reap the benefit from it, and then fail to report it. There's no reason for that kind of behavior to be legal, and a great many reasons to prohibit it.
Click to expand...
Yes there is... because there is nothing in Constitution that ALLOWS it. In particular, there has been a very good argument that it directly conflicts with the 9th ammendment. If you look at the intent of those involved with creating the union, you will see that government was only intended to be a minimum, empowered only to the extent as to keep someone else's rights from superceding mine. Enforcement of a victimless crime subjugates my RIGHTS beneath the "will and good of the people" and this becomes state before individual. The line must be clear and immovable. Victimless crimes smear that line and is the leak in the dam that is the Constitution. Justification of a crime is achieved ONLY if it conforms to the spirit, intent and letter of the Constitution.
 
C

Courrèges

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
43
Location
, ,
imported post

georg,

That's arguable for federal law (although crimes such as money laundering argaubly implicate interstate commerce and would thus be justified under the necessary and proper clause). However, there is no basis for claiming that the Constitution restrains the powers of the states beyond what it plainly states and through the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Applying the 9th Amendment against the states is downright silly. First of all, the 9th Amendment was intended as a companion to the enumerated powers given to the federal government, and thus cannot logically be applied against the states. It essentially states a rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of certain rights does not imply additional powers. Secondly, the Congressman who proposed the 14th Amendment expressly stated that its text was only intended to incorporate the first eight amendments, presumably for this reason.

Rather, what you're trying to push is reading some modified "harm principle" into the Constitution, and there's scant evidence that the ratifiers ever intended that.
 
V

VORiaSOI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
72
Location
, ,
imported post

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/80246297.html?showAll=y&c=y

CLINTON — A state district judge has ruled two Hammond men may claim they were justified in killing a Clinton man during an alleged drug deal this summer.

Twentieth Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. said the state will have the burden at a trial of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the slaying of Jeral Wayne Matthews Jr., 21, was not justified.

An East Feliciana Parish grand jury indicted Anthony Manzella, 19, for first-degree murder and Andrew Robertson, 23, for principal to second-degree murder in Matthews’ July 24 death.

A third man, Johnny Barnes, 27, of Jackson, also was indicted for principal to second-degree murder.

Clinton police said in July that Manzella and Robertson came to a house in Clinton to buy drugs from Matthews and Barnes, but during the transaction Matthews allegedly struck Manzella in the head with a rifle butt.

Manzella responded by pulling a .40-caliber handgun and shooting Matthews, Clinton Police Chief Eddie Stewart said.

District Attorney Sam D’Aquilla argued earlier this month a section of the law dealing with justifiable homicide precludes its use as a defense when a drug deal results in a person’s death.

Ware’s opinion says a homicide is justified in four situations: in self-defense; to prevent a violent or forcible felony; to defend against the threat of unlawful force in a dwelling, business or vehicle; or to defend against unlawful entry into a house, business or vehicle.

Only the fourth reason — the so-called “shoot the burglar/carjacker” provision — is not valid as a defense if a drug transaction is involved, the judge’s ruling said.

Manzella and Robertson are invoking the reasons of self-defense and preventing a violent felony — an armed robbery — to justify the homicide, the opinion said.

The ruling means self-defense will be a viable response to the state’s claim that Matthews was murdered, said J. Garrison Jordan, Manzella’s attorney.

“It’s clearly a self-defense situation,” Jordan said Monday.

D’Aquilla said he has not seen the ruling, but said he likely will ask the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal to review the decision.

Although he did not join Manzella and Robertson’s attorney in a written motion to challenge D’Aquilla’s interpretation of the statute, attorney Benn Hamilton, representing Barnes, argued in court earlier this month that Matthews was shot in self-defense and Barnes therefore cannot be a principal to second-degree murder.
Click to expand...
 
D

DannyAbear

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
65
Location
, ,
imported post

Not useless; most here wouldn't know that anty would still be in jail if not for MEMs hard work promoting OCing
 
W

WWMD

Banned
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
24
Location
, , Andorra
imported post

Smoking45auto wrote:
Not useless; most here wouldn't know that anty would still be in jail if not for MEMs hard work promoting OCing
Click to expand...

I know he works hard, but did he get Anty out of jail?:shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top