‘Friend of the Court’ — Trying to Protect Us From Our Enemies
by Mike Martin
Clash Daily Contributor
Amicus Curiae means friend of the court . It is a legal term that may allow a uninvolved entity to file a brief in a court case that they are not a party to, ie they don’t really have a dog in the hunt on/in that particular case .
A woman’s house was invaded by police without a search warrant and her weapons confiscated because her psychiatrist thought that she might be a threat to herself or to others and so advised the police . The court found that when a reasonable person ( the police ) decided that prompt action was necessary to protect/prevent harm to the officers or other persons that a search warrant may not be needed . The ID ten T court ( id 10 t ) court sided with the police that a search warrant was not needed.
If any of the justices involved happen to be of sound mind ( doubtful ), perhaps they would like to explain how it might be in the woman’s best interests to be shot or killed while shooting as many armed intruders as possible before she is taken down or out . A policeman without a search warrant is just like any other armed home invader according to the 4th amendment and the 2nd amendment gives her the right to armed resistance to the illegal acts of the government . How is it to the policemen’s advantage to be shot at by someone defending their constitutional rights ? You have both the right and the responsibility to defend your home against armed intruders
As a friend of the court I might ask them to address these questions in their decision ( they didn’t address these concerns ), but as the courts don’t do their job of protecting the rights of the people , they become enemies of the citizens and would probably ignore answering the question in any event .
How many of you would fault a homeowner from defending their residence from armed intruders ? That’s why they could have arrested her for a mental evaluation ( arrest warrant needed ) and did not need to either search her home or confiscate her weapons. If the mental evaluation showed that she was a threat ( menace ) to herself or to others she could be involuntarily committed until she was no longer a threat . If she is not a threat then she should be able to go back to her weapons . In either event her weapons were illegally confiscated .
There is a court case in another state that found that the police could not return an individuals weapons because there was no provision in the law that allowed them to do that . That in itself would be sufficient reason to resist both illegal searches and illegal seizures .
Perhaps one of these “unsound mind “ justices would care to further explain how their unconstitutional decision is supposed to “help” the woman if she exercises her rights ? Any takers ? This case should be appealed to SCROTUM ( Supreme Court Of The United States ), but their record indicates that they would abdicate their responsibilities to protect our individual Constitutional Rights and again hold it’s Citizens in contempt in their ruling .
Any wagers ?
(I can’t even draw a good stick man . If I could draw, I’d send a drawing of a supreme court justice shaking hands with a citizen with one hand while stabbing him in the back with the other hand . If you follow any of my articles you should know by now that my acronyms are indicative of the respect that I feel that the government entity deserves in a particular case . My upcoming about Convention of the States is waiting for a suitable substitute acronym for POTUS.)
Mike Martin thanks you for the opportunity to express “different points of views”, and if you were to ask his family they would probably tell you that he’s as different as they come….
Image: Modified from: http://
allencentre.wikispaces.com/Young+Lawyers
