Reply to Death Penalty for Abortion Thread HERE

Preview

Tulio_Hermil said:
well i graduated as a lawyer both in a "continental law" system school and a good US (the top 10 law schools is good enough over there right?) school, and the very system of the old common law quite solves that shortage by means of the bar examination..at that time, anyone who was smart enough and willing to study could just take the bar and pass it without even attending to formal classes...(SNIP)
Click to expand...
I have never graduated from a law school or university and will never. I do not consider any U.S. law school or university honorable enough to associate with.  I have a wholly unique damaged but highly advanced human mind. I have studied at many "schools".

The bar exam and the LSAT are humorous, frivolous attempts to prohibit less adequate minds from paid practice of law. The U.S. legal system is broken and can't be repaired without recognition of the fundamental human right to protect the complete self missing from the "Bill of Rights". America allows for self-defense to an extent but does not allow self-defense of personal reputation, honor, or dignity.

Liberty v Dignity(website discussion by Andreas Kluth)
Liberty v Dignity(Paper by Yale prof James Q. Whitman Esq.)

American culture wholly ignores protection of honor while our dishonorable common law system requires usage of "Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren" when addressing a judge. Asked by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren to explain why I called his reasoning incompetent in a filing; I described Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren as perhaps suffering from an early onset of senility and not just an obvious addiction to anonymous access to pornography. Jimm is no longer an active judge and announced retirement 59 days later.

Why does EU generally accept colour and honour versus U.S. color and honor? The bare fact explaining this and the Liberty v Dignity split in culture is because of a intentional misspelling made on May 31, 1790 before ratification of the "Bill of Rights". Both writers above recognize this cultural split and when in history this occurred but do not see the reason. The clear rational is obvious to me and will be now to all readers of this part of this thread and both authors above.

I am the ONLY USMC corporal (E4) with a good conduct medal and Top Secret security clearance discharged as a conscientious objector to war. Benjamin Huntington was the first conscientious objector in the United States and signed the declaration of independence. This lawyer/legislator/judge felt the American Revolution was caused by failure to litigate honorably.

Benjamin Huntington and Noah Webster wrote the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 and intentionally took the United States backward eighty years in IP law by copying the 1710 Statute of Anne rite almost verbatim to monopolize the printing rite or ritual for printing elementary school textbooks and prevent wealthy colonists from simply reprinting imported English school books. Noah Webster was the noted lexicographer who created the first authoritative American English dictionary in 1828. Noah Webster challenged the orthography of Samuel Johnson who wrote the 1755 dictionary used for the 1787 Constitution and hoped to make the American word for tongue become [sic] "tung".

Noah Webster's "tung" did not get accepted but copy[rite] came to be accepted as the Americanism [sic]"copyright" or U.S. ritual for controlling printing without addressing the human right to control the impact original communications had on dignity or honor. This was first protected in England with the 1734 Engravers Act and 1766 Hogarth's Act and already WIDELY recognized in England before the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

This personal human right (still missing in America) was the first human "property" right exceeding the life of the artist by allowing the surviving spouse to control the reuse of original artwork or control original communications. See copy-right joined first by Sir William Blackstone and used as copyright in Vol. 2 "Rights of Things" in chapter 26 on page 406. This was done in around 1766 in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. with footnotes "l" and "m". This book series is still studied in ALL law schools on Earth and yet is not recognized as coining a word for the human right protected first in Europe but never protected in America except with the slander, defamation, libel, and various privacy torts indirectly.

This long treatise is relative to ONE coming petition for certiorari for Arkansas' Act 301 that will be filed and will probably be ignored to protect the status quo.

1) The recent Affordable Care Act ruling would have been easy to resolve if the President could assert protecting dignity of the legal intention sought and then passed. Congress would have been sanctioned for intentional use of the ambiguous term "individual State" for establishment of insurance exchanges. The federal government of the US is an "individual State". California is an "individual State" roughly the size of the "individual State" of Italy.

2) The recent gay marriage ruling would have been less contentious if the dignity of the self was protected. Homosexuals could and should cite the dignity pf the self being improved with marriage since monogamy is implied by marriage furthering dignity. I might be gay but I do not sleep around.

3) The egregious recent en banc Ninth Circuit Doe v Google Inc copy[rite] mistake would not have been made if the original speaker's dignity to control communications would have been protected. The performer will not seek certiorari because Google Inc is respecting the speakers dignity despite the Ninth Circuit Doe v Google Inc copy[rite] mistake.

4) Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)
would have resulted in the FCC being ordered to treat the web as a common carrier of communications and GOOG and MSFT would both being ordered to comply completely with U.S. law(s) if human dignity was protected in America. The FCC professed to intend to treat the web as a common carrier of communications and GOOG and MSFT mostly volunteered to obey U.S. law(s) although MSFT did and GOOG almost did but refuse complete compliance like Goliath. A citizen's dignity is not protected by U.S. communications law(s) but judicial dignity apparently is protected. GOOG could not develop in Europe where dignity (or right to be forgotten) is protected.

5) The AR Act 301 12-week limitation on abortion of gestation allows protection of the dignity of a human heartbeat (protection of life) yet allows the female to protect the dignity of the self for any rational whatsoever before 12-weeksand punishes doctors who do not recognize the dignity of the human heartbeat by loss of medical license. The female is not punished and there are exceptions for the health of the mother and for rape or incest. These last two exceptions address only the "choice" aspect for pregnancy but are illogical and will be removed after public funding of abortion of gestation is no longer an issue because the human right to protect personal dignity will be controlling for 12-weeks.

The dignity of a human life should be protected from the time a heartbeat can be heard till this heartbeat stops naturally. Abortion of an unborn heartbeat violates the dignity of human life exactly like a death penalty violates the dignity of human life.

This is archived at www.CurtisNeeley.com/Abortion/thread-links.html too.