by Mike Martin
Clash Daily Contributor
Sheriff Joe Guilty?
Guilty of misdemeanor contempt of court? No jury trial!
I just finished an online article about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s being guilty of the misdemeanor contempt of court charge. His attorney alleged that he had submitted an abundance of evidence that the failure to comply with a court order was because of a misunderstanding of the requirements.
His attorney also said that finding of contempt was improper as it was not read into open court, but was a written decision and because he was not afforded a jury trial.
I have said in previous articles that a defendant should always demand a trial by jury. In Sheriff’s Joe’s case the judge who charged him with contempt of court was also the adjudicator of the charge, since apparently they let the judge be the decider. I hope that his attorney had the good sense to demand a jury trial prior to the conviction since otherwise the appeal courts will decide that he waived his right to a jury trial by entering a plea to the charges and allowing the case to be under the judge’s jurisdiction.
Know your rights!
Yes, police have been told to continue with asset forfeitures without proof or even your being charged with a criminal offense. I think that this means you must be prepared to use your 2nd amendment rights to resist unconstitutional “asset forfeitures”, or unconstitutional searches and seizures.
I wonder if Clash readers will let me “get away” with sneaking a “free” legal notice into my article?
To Whom It May Concern:
Since congress has refused to balance the budget even though the majority of American Citizens want a balanced budget, I will not be responsible for any new debt issued by congress against the wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. I will instruct my congressman or future congressmen to not honor repay of any debt above the current debt ceiling … Michael Martin, Uvalde, TX. 78801 …
Please feel free to buy an extra paper, add your names to the legal notice and forward to your congressmen, senators.
Enforced Political Morality?
Unfortunately, there don’t appear to be many moral politicians.
I hear people say what good would it do to have a balanced budget amendment when Congress doesn’t follow the limitations of spending included in the Constitution now. This is because the founders thought that the people elected would be of high moral character, instead of just being characters (many shady). The Constitution needs some teeth for its amoral politicians from all parties.
Besides term limits, all politicians that voted for a deficit budget would be banned from ever holding office again, and would receive no congressional pension. Hit them in their pocket book the way they hit the taxpayers’ pockets. Give them a dorm room to live in with meals included, but salaries would be withheld and forfeited for any deficit year.
The congress democraps and republicraps (rhinocraps?) vote to continue to spend more than they receive. There is such a thing as deficit spending. Deficit spending means to spend more money than you have. This increases your DEBT. The congress and the politicraps want you to believe the fairy tale that they are decreasing the deficit spending, but increasing the DEBT. Logic worthy of Orwell’s 1984 Double think (and double speak).
Try explaining to your husband or wife that you were planning on spending $20,000 to buy them a new car for their Birthday (anniversary, Christmas or whatever) but you have no money. Borrow $ 200 in your child’s or grandchild’s name (they are two-years-old). You use this $200 to buy your wife a $100 bicycle keeping $100 yourself as the loan origination fee. You have the power to set interest rates, which you set at .5% per annum compounded annually. You put $100 into your retirement account. You explain to your wife how frugal you are being because you had planned on a $20000 deficit this year, that you reduced the deficit by 99.99 %, thereby reducing the deficit by $19800.)
The following year I plan on buying a $2,000,000 home. I take $50 from my retirement account and prepay the interest for the next 50 years on the bike loan. The bank is happy – they have a 50-year guaranteed return on the Bike loan.
Since my grandchildren now have such a good credit history and the demonstrated ability to cut their projected spending by $19800 the previous year, the bank decides that they will give us the 2 million loan provided I put the bike up as collateral for the loan. I put $20,000 (my fee for originating the loan) into my retirement account. Since my state does not require a realtor’s license, I pocket $120,000 realtor’s fee (standard 6 %). We move into a tent and rent the home for $60,000 a year. I put the realtor’s fee of $120,000 into my retirement account.
And yet the government wonders why we consider the majority of politicians to be crooks! Go Figure!
Lord, grant us the fortitude and wisdom to put our government back on a God-fearing, righteous path. Lead us in righteousness, in Christ’s name I pray. Amen!
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….