NAIRA Ashcroft Interview: Patriot Act & Terrorism

John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States, speaks with with Nalini Raja from TV ASIA previous to the National Asian Indian Republican Association's 8th Annual Dinner on August 9th, 2009. In this clip, Mr. Ashcroft discusses the Patriot Act and the effect of Terrorism on US policy. 1/6

Immigration Attorney Asylum Lawyer Family Petitions LegalizationLawyer.com Kurt Hermanni #12

USImmigration Lawyer Kurt A. Hermanni US Immigration Attorney Kurt A. Hermanni Please visit my website at: www.legalizationlawyer.com Kurt A. Hermanni is an experienced US immigration lawyer dedicated to serving individuals and businesses with the practice of immigration law. With offices in Miami, New York, and Washington DC, Kurt Hermanni is equipped to successfully handle immigration cases throughout the United States and the world. US immigration laws are highly complex, there are often ...

Immigration Attorney Asylum Lawyer Family Petitions LegalizationLawyer.com Kurt Hermanni #48

USImmigration Lawyer Kurt A. Hermanni US Immigration Attorney Kurt A. Hermanni Please visit my website at: www.legalizationlawyer.com Kurt A. Hermanni is an experienced US immigration lawyer dedicated to serving individuals and businesses with the practice of immigration law. With offices in Miami, New York, and Washington DC, Kurt Hermanni is equipped to successfully handle immigration cases throughout the United States and the world. US immigration laws are highly complex, there are often ...

Writing the New Texas Constitution - the avoidance of inherent flaws

I hear a lot these days about the constitutionality of secession. In this article I will show that the Constitution is without authority and that the issue of secession of the Constitution is linked entirely irrelevant, and that all States must not address the constitutionality of secession.

A constitution or a charter to organize a government that has authority and validity. But the U.S. Constitution has no independent authority or the validity andnot before. When we learn what the U.S. Constitution and what is not, we can understand the flaws in the old constitution and then to craft a new Texas Constitution with authority and validity.

I believe that one of the main reasons that Washington is able to work with than is the case, outside the strictures of the Constitution, is that these people know the power that the Constitution is not legally enforceable. In the absence of interim legal document, they do exactly what they wantand what they can get away with.

The U.S. Constitution has the following words in its preamble, the intention of the framers:

We, the people of the United States to form a perfect union, justice, ensure domestic tranquility that for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do not prescribe and establish this Constitution for the United Statesof America.

What exactly is the Constitution?

I think it was only a "loose agreement" between certain people at the time that it was written and ratified. It is not a ratified treaty between sovereign states, would have the weight of the law. It can not be legally binding as a contract because the legal contract characteristics that do not have the old Constitution.

It has been ratified by votes in individual states. But the ratification in any formnot turned it into a document relating to the enforceability and authority.

The old constitution is to secure atmosphere blessing for themselves and their offspring, which means that future generations of citizens. But even an informal agreement can not be binding by law or reason, all future person, to its details. Contracts can not be committed people who will live in the future, either. You can only persons who are obliged to present live and get the signs and the contract.

The old constitution is not alegal contract. The Constitution never committed two or more parties in a legal way, nor has anyone ever pretend to tie. A timeless principle in contract law is that the contract is not valid until the contract signed by all parties and forwarded to the parties or signatories to the representative of a party. Either party may refuse to sign or deliver a written document, and thus the contract invalid. The U.S. Constitution was signed by anyone or anyone's legal representative. It wasnot be delivered for each or their representatives. Nobody in the U.S., whether alive or dead, has ever signed, the constitution as a legal contract between the parties. How can it be a legal document with binding authority and validity?

The contracts are on a voluntary basis. The parties come together for a particular purpose, but are free to dissolve the contract on the terms of the contract is based. Even if they leave contrary to the contract, it may follow, but they can stillleave.

Lincoln was absolutely right in this matter. His position was that once you leave the Union, no state ever. And if the U.S. Constitution was a contract between the parties, enforceable, would have rejected his position immediately and laughed by a court in the land. But given the unenforceable nature of the Constitution Lincoln was free to do what he, as it enjoys the Confederate States of America and the war in context. But the Confederate States werealso right to withdraw from a Union which does not bind himself. Constitutionality was irrelevant.

Even if the old constitution is a blessing and give freedom to their offspring, it has no power to achieve this goal. Moreover, he never showed the intention to provide for future generations as other useful recommendations to their posterity the blessings of liberty. If they tie it in any way future generations of the Constitution, they would notgiven freedom, but slavery to their offspring, as their children, it would be bound from birth, as it is or not.

The Constitution is not a permanent company. The continuance of a company would require that new members agree voluntarily from their laws and statutes as old members die. New members must log on, it would be without their legal signatures, they are not members and could not vote on corporate matters. There is no evidence that the authors intended toU.S. Constitution as an enterprise organizational document.

Thus we can see that the Constitution is a contract. It does not bind one, and never commit the people. We see that all those who claim to operate under its supervision exercised without legal and legitimate authority to operate.

Those who support the constitution falls into three classes:

1st parasites that to see the government as an instrument that can use them to increase their own wishes, or their ownWealth.
2nd Credulous duplicates. Credulity is the willingness to believe, defined, especially on easy or uncertain evidence. Dupes believe that they are "free men" living in a "democracy" in the greatest country on earth. Dupes vote for the agents to be very enslave, rob and kill themselves and their fellow citizens.
3rd viewers who are aware of the evils of government, but not willing to put their own interests in jeopardy to find a job.

But we votedand elected these delegates and senators. They are our duly elected officials, is not it?

Are our elected representatives of our personal agent with legal authority to bind each of us individually and collectively? No, they are not. You have a legal representative, you will need your full name to act in a document that the agent transmits the power in your name to sign it. This document is generally known as a "proxy" known. You must also provide the document the agent.

Did you ever sign a power of attorney so that all elected office holders could legally binding decisions on your behalf to be done? Did you authorize a person to commit you to any law, regulation, or the payment of taxes, no government agencies? I know that I have not yet done.

And the secret ballot makes the concept of an elected representative as your agent is still ridiculous. How secret could vote to hire an agent? How secret could vote to enter into a power> Advocate agreement?

Thus we see that these people as our elected representatives to act illegally, and we have both the right and the duty to act to treat them as usurpers and fraud.

Then, on what authority the federal government operate? Who has it the power to enact laws, taxes, confiscate property and kill people other people who resist their machinations?

You could say that the voters choose their representatives through elections, and so confer authority upon them.But in matter of law and reason, that's not true. It would not be maintained in a court of common law. If you agreed, and three of your friends for a proposal which shall contain a fourth friend, it would be on to take me from my property or my life, he would become a robber and / or a murderer. When he presented himself at my door to do his job, he would not be able to identify any legal authority to fulfill its duty to produce. Absent legal authority, I would treat him like a robber and murderer, and resisthis efforts also to deadly violence.

Would in a courtroom, a judge ask your agent written authorization to act on your behalf to see. They would not be able to produce such written authority.

Neither agree a contract nor a power of attorney. And secret ballots should never legally binding, as there is no signed contract between the parties has ever been. Further, if voters approve another person to act as their representative if they do so in an open way toResponsibility for the actions of the agent. This is called "liability" and that's what happened here in the "real world." But the U.S. Constitution, in Article I, Sec. 6, says that ") for any speech or debate (or vote in either house, they may not) (senators and representatives are made in any other place in question." Thus, your agent can not be held liable for any laws that make it ... and neither do you. So if no one is responsible, who is responsible?

NO ONE.

And let us return toSubject of legal authority. The Constitution has no legal authority to two or more persons. If it were so, you have a copy on which you would find your own handwriting, and at least one other person's signature. But the document does not exist in some form and has been in over 235 years. Since not even the authority of the vote is only theater. It is an exercise in preparation of citizens feel that he is participating in a legitimate government.

The federal governmentWashington was of his illegitimate origin. There are no applicable law in order to discourage any action. It was only the morality and ethics in the first founders reserve, that it from tyranny. Unfortunately for the Americans, that the moral and ethical restraint is a quaint memory.

Ok. Convinced that the old constitution is a cruel joke? Then can be found as the new constitution to guarantee the legitimacy and legality? If the authors of the new Constitution, you write a simple as thatold, they will suffer the same issues as illegitimacy of the old.

Here's a suggestion on how to write a new Texas Constitution.

Form of the new Texas as a Non-Profit Corporation ... Texas, Inc. The constitution may its laws and statutes. Everyone will be given the opportunity to subscribe to Texas, Inc. and its citizens. This person would need a copy of the Constitution will be presented. Each person had the choice to accept the constitution in writing. SupposeEvery citizen would, in essence, a shareholder of the company, because a person signs a citizen without shareholder approval. That would also mean that the rejection of the constitution could not be citizens of Texas. Minors can not Texas citizens, until they be of age to a contract, usually eighteen years in power.

The founders of Texas, Inc. would have the right to the offer of citizenship to persons who are everywhere on the planet. You could choose cherrythe world for the best and brightest talent! It would be a part of immigration policy.

Voting could be done through proxies, and the citizens could call their elected representatives in writing as his authority. Or he could vote on any issue.

Think that is not practical? The largest company in the world have been running this way for more than a hundred years. GM (pre-nationization), Exxon, Standard Oil, all in the Dow Jones Top-30 ... they all work this way just fine. Many haveMillions of shareholders, as would have Texas Inc..

There are many details that it is out that is not listed here must be used in this article. But this article was not written to form a new government. It was written to you to think about constitutions and how it directly to YOU.

Thomas Jefferson's shining jewel, the Declaration of Independence, states that a government that shows when a long train of abuses, the people are to reduce under absolute Despotism, it is thepeople's right and duty to throw off such Government, and new guards for their future security. Texas Incorporated may be that new guard, that secures the future of a new nation, Texas.

Texas, Incorporated. An idea whose time has come.

Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. All rights reserved.

For a more comprehensive analysis of this constitutional issue, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner, 1870.

Immigration Attorney Asylum Lawyer Family Petitions LegalizationLawyer.com Kurt Hermanni 8

USImmigration Lawyer Kurt A. Hermanni US Immigration Attorney Kurt A. Hermanni Please visit my website at: www.legalizationlawyer.com Kurt A. Hermanni is an experienced US immigration lawyer dedicated to serving individuals and businesses with the practice of immigration law. With offices in Miami, New York, and Washington DC, Kurt Hermanni is equipped to successfully handle immigration cases throughout the United States and the world. US immigration laws are highly complex, there are often ...

The Workers Compensation Lawyer - A Brief History

Workers' compensation lawyers, as we know it today, there was not more than 100 years. The history of the worker's compensation goes back thousands of years ago, around the time of Hammurabi and his code. But the rise of compensation, which the worker's lawyer did not come until the development of a common law in the late Middle Ages.

The common law created a legal framework that sets the stage for the workers' compensation attorneys set to enter the scene during the IndustrialRevolution.

At the beginning of the industrial revolution, workers' compensation attorneys were not known by that name. As a rule they have been grouped together with all other lawyers, they are a workers compensation lawyer specifically or not. Strict principles governing workers' compensation attorneys during the industrial revolution and it was difficult to obtain for the workers who file complaints or compensation, even with the help of their workers compensationLawyer.

Compensation for injuries or illness was not awarded, if there is contributory negligence, violations by colleagues, or if the affected workers, the assumption of risk in the adoption of the work created in the first place. These restrictions made it extremely difficult for worker's compensation lawyers with itself, let alone win a case.

The extremely high cost of a workers' compensation case, aprons left most workers with no choice but to pay their injuriesand try to steady job, less likely to find them at risk.

To help combat the exorbitant cost of a case, companies were formed to the more affluent workers, by providing them with the workers compensation attorneys, which could help to support acquisition of a variety of different types of insurance. Such protection was minimal, but better than nothing. In rare cases, a worker compensation lawyer prevailed in court and won his client for damages, was it a greatStep forward for all workers compensation attorneys.

Toward the end of the compensation of the 19 Century worker "started to become more popular by the adoption of worker compensation laws in Europe. The workmen were now in a position to a lawyer who specializes in this area of the law and file cases and rental appeal by the government for redress. It is important Please note that while the worker was able to "compensate lawyers file a suit with the government, was a lawyer be prohibited from filinga worker to adjust compensation in civil court because the government was court considered the only valid court for workers' comp cases. This helped to secure the employer against false claims and fraud.

Workers' compensation does not begin to become popular in the United States until after the turn of the 19th Century. In line with Europe, American worker's compensation lawyers worked hard to implement a system to protect workers in the workplace. In the early 19th Centuryseveral states with extensive worker's compensation laws passed.

Within the next one hundred years, workers compensation attorneys throughout the country work hard to ensure their services to the hundreds of thousands of workers in the labor market and brought into the process, workers' compensation attorneys at the head of the legal world.

Thomas More - Saint, lawyer, politician

Chances are, if you activate on the back cover of each telephone directory yellow pages, you can see pictures of personal injury claim lawyers are bound by the law and their profession. Apart from the long history of courtroom success and memberships in bar and trial lawyer groups, they will most likely be free hospital appointments for injured clients, providing the further expense and without charge, without a favorable verdict or settlement. This level of commitment is easy to see what it- is self-serving in nature. A lawyer, however, is indisputably a very committed to the letter and spirit of the law. His name was Thomas More and his devotion to the law resulted not only in him that canonized a saint, but led to the creation of a national association of lawyers appointed for him.

Born In 1477, more was set at a young age under the care of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is so impressed with the archbishop with his brilliant intellect and good nature,He made sure to participate more Oxford. Alongside the classics, more studied French, history, mathematics, and played the flute and violin.

After studying law at the New Inn, more was a member of Parliament. As a result of his courageous resistance against large and unjust taxes imposed by King Henry VII imposed on the amounts were reduced.

Thomas More was a free thinker, who, contrary to the Reformation. More also refused to the Act of Supremacy in 1534, which wouldexplains his friend King Henry VII to the head of the Church of England.

The result was more in the infamous Tower of England imprisoned to await his trial and execution.

At that time, more than the Lord Chancellor, will be served the equivalent of the United States Attorney General. In addition to being a lawyer, politician, philosopher and saint, Thomas More was a prolific writer. His book "Utopia" was administered a novel about an ideal form of government agencies areon an imaginary island. It is reported not only before his execution, he announced more died as a "good servant of the king and God's first." 1935 was spoken by holy Pope Pius XI and is now regarded as the patron saint of lawyers recognized.

The St. Thomas More Society of America is a national organization of lawyers dedicated to honor the life and career of his namesake. The Tomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, also supported litigated and court for violation of the personaland religious freedoms.

Thomas More and I were both born on February 7. In these times in which lawyers, judges and state bar associations seem more by political correctness, camaraderie, and outdated systems guided faith, I find myself finding solace and inspiration in reading the many books and writings by and about this great man. His diverse interests and talents earned him the nickname "A Man for All Seasons" by his friends. In 1966, a biographical film about him with the same namewas also published. It earned seven Oscar nominations and won Best Film and Best Actor awards.