Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

"Deadrat" <a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:U%ESj.2186$506.1158@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:481ab22c$0$7075$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:x-945535.22512401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <481a7aea$0$30169$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:x-81CE27.22051501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> > In article <481a7540$0$30239$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:x-31A95D.21395901052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> > In article <481a6f07$0$30192$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> news:x-B6C7F7.21142501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> >> .
>>>> >> >> > In article <481a69cb$0$30157$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> >> >> > "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> news:x-D9389F.19241701052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> >> >> t...
>>>> >> >> >> > In article <Ap-dnTAhj-cdzYfVnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>> >> >> >> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> >> news:x-5F8C5E.18550401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> >> >> >> .net...
>>>> >> >> >> >> > In article
>>>> >> >> >> >> > <56634f83-2a6b-40a1-9169-b7462535f992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> >> >> >> >> > egroups.c om>
>>>> >> >> >> >> > ,
>>>> >> >> >> >> > RichD <r_delaney2001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> When was the last time the 9th was
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> cited in any court decision?
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> I'm thinking of the recent DofC v. Heller
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> case, not yet decided.  Both sides split
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> hairs over the meaning of 'well regulated
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> militia', for the 10000th time.
>>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> Why not make an appeal to the Ninth,
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> arguing 'right to life' implies 'right to self
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> defense', inalienably?  Is this not bulletproof,
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> is anyone honestly going to argue the
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> contrary?  It's certainly more solid than
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> dickering over the 2nd Amenment.
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> > There is a right to self-defense.  However,
>>>> >> >> >> >> > self-defense only
>>>> >> >> >> >> > applies
>>>> >> >> >> >> > to
>>>> >> >> >> >> > the use of force in a given situation; it doesn't
>>>> >> >> >> >> > apply to the
>>>> >> >> >> >> > possession of weapons.
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> >> And how do you defend yourself without the appropriate
>>>> >> >> >> >> tools ?
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you what the
>>>> >> >> >> > law says.
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> > The Bernie Goetz case was the perfect example.  He was
>>>> >> >> >> > found not
>>>> >> >> >> > guilty
>>>> >> >> >> > of shooting people because they jury believed he was
>>>> >> >> >> > acting in self-defense.  He was, however, convicted of
>>>> >> >> >> > illegally possessing
>>>> >> >> >> > a
>>>> >> >> >> > gun,
>>>> >> >> >> > because self-defense wasn't applicable to that count.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> Not exactly since his attorney or him never brought up
>>>> >> >> >> right to bear
>>>> >> >> >> arms
>>>> >> >> >> in this case as a defense.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Because it was (and is) well-established law that that
>>>> >> >> > wouldn't succeed
>>>> >> >> > for him.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > I love how the armchair quarterbacks online seem to
>>>> >> >> > recognize the obvious, winning arguments as clear as day
>>>> >> >> > that the experienced, trained
>>>> >> >> > attorneys and parties to the case didn't see in all their
>>>> >> >> > hours and
>>>> >> >> > days
>>>> >> >> > and weeks working on the case.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Opps...forgot this..
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Acutally funny you mention that. Seems most attorneys try to
>>>> >> >> only fight
>>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> evidence against their client rather than attack
>>>> >> >> unconstitutional laws.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > From what sources have you drawn this conclusion?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From my own source. Myself.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> I have shown many attorneys what the law reads. They never
>>>> >> >> bothered to
>>>> >> >> read
>>>> >> >> them and surprised ("wow! I never knew that!") about the
>>>> >> >> content. Seems
>>>> >> >> to
>>>> >> >> me spending too time paying attention to what the courts are
>>>> >> >> doing.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Paying too much time paying attention to what courts do?
>>>> >> > Lawyers should
>>>> >> > spend LESS time paying attention to what courts do?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Keep talking - you're quite entertaining.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No, pay attention to all, just just one thing.
>>>> >> I recall on incident were a person in CA was arrested on a
>>>> >> charge. The law
>>>> >> stated an offense, but does not define what the offense is. Which
>>>> >> this person brought before their attorney. Attorney refuses to
>>>> >> hear it stating
>>>> >> "Well the courts have 'defined' it for us thus I am not touching
>>>> >> it". Well,
>>>> >> ghee, since when do CA courts have the authority to make
>>>> >> legislation?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Of course this person found another attorney.
>>>> >
>>>> > And of course you don't have a cite for this far-fetched anecdote,
>>>> > right?
>>>>
>>>> Hardly far fetched. I have to look it up, but I can give you an
>>>> example of
>>>> how the PC reads, not how it is worded.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>> PC Code 10000000:
>>>>
>>>> (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to commit robbery.
>>>>
>>>>     (a) Any person  found guilty of robbery shall be confined to
>>>>     jail for
>>>> a
>>>> term not to exceed one year.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Again this is a made up of code to show you how it reads. In this
>>>> example as
>>>> in comparison, there would be no defintion of robbery in the whole
>>>> CA Penal
>>>> Code. I need to take the time to find it what PC it exactly is.
>>>>
>>>> So then the court says something like, "Any reasonble reasonable
>>>> person would know what robbery is."
>>>
>>> So you're sup****ting your anecdotal, unsourced story with a
>>> hypothetical law?  Like I said before, please continue.... you're
>>> providing me with some entertainment this evening.
>>>
>>> And FYI, the real California robbery statute, 211-215, states in part
>>> "Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
>>> possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
>>> against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear."
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think you'll find that all statutes have a definitions section such
>>> as this one either in another subsection of the statute, or for a
>>> phrase of general usage, elsewhere in the criminal/penal code.
>>> Otherwise, they'd be constitutionally void for vagueness.
>>
>>
>> Yes I realize that, but in this case the law has no definition..I did
>> a search myself of the entire Cal PC. I am trying to recall the words
>> of the Cal Supreme Court, as I don't have the time right now to dig up
>> that case law or that PC at this moment.
>>
>> Well I can't recall now so I wil have to find it this weekend
>
> Maybe I can help.
>
> <USC Title="18" Section="371">
> Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
>
> If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the
> United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in
> any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any
act
> to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this
> title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
> </USC>
>
> A conspiracy is two or more persons conspiring.
>

Not quite. Try looking a little harder. There are elements of that offense

that are defined to make it a conspiracy. Keep looking. It is there.