Dad April 8 2012
Dad, April 8, 2012
I wanted to get this out to you. Let me know your thoughts on the “criminal” section that follows.
It’s Easter. Not much different today than yesterday. On Friday I spread out a bag of corn across your area and over at the chair. Today I checked it. It seems the herd has found it. I was stunned at all of the tracks in both places. More than I’ve ever seen.
I have put together an affidavit for the sheriff. The person in possession may retain possession by giving the sheriff an affidavit that the person is entitled to possession, specifying the facts on which his claim is based.
According to the process, the sheriff must desist from enforcing the writ. The person causing the writ to be issued may then move for an order directing the sheriff to complete execution of the writ. The person in possession is not required to serve a response to the motion because the affidavit and record of the action raise the issues to be determined. A hearing is held to determine the issues. If any defense is upheld, the motion must be denied and the participants left to their remedy in another action. If the defenses are not sustained or none are offered, the court should enter an order directing the sheriff to complete execution of the writ. We’ll see what happens.
I still have not received a call or email from your attorney. In person she seems on top of her game, but she definitely is not one to return calls. I’m going to press her real hard this week for a detention hearing. If the weight you are being charged with has dropped, then based on what the judge said at your last hearing, you ought to be able to come home. I also recall him saying that he’d be open for another detention hearing at any time. If the attorney doesn’t act promptly on this, then you may consider finding new counsel. I’m not going to stand here with her on board any longer if you are not her priority. It may also be helpful for you to call her yourself and rattle her chain. Her # is 850-215-2524. Make certain you tell her
#1 about the video cameras
#2 that gun ownership s not gun possession. It is very clear that you were not in possession of them and all you admitted to was ownership.
#3That if they have in fact dropped the weight, then you want a new detention hearing
#4 The car titles
#5That none of the phone records will tie you in with the “cartel” folks
#6 And about the FBI for whatever it’s worth
#7 You might mention also Mexico Beach. If they are interested, I’m certain that #@$%@!& would be able and willing to assist
I planted a garden in my back yard. Only about 5’X12’ but it should do nicely. Lisa’s friend Ray gave me the idea. I buried 8 bales of hay flush with ground and raised it with potting soil and peat moss. Also added a bag of chicken manure and 5 bags of cow. Planted a few tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers and a squash. We’ll see.
I love and miss you.
"In criminal matters the jurisdiction of the Court of Star Chamber grew up side by side with that of the chancellor, in civil. "^ "As the Chancery had the praetorian power for equity, so the Star Chamber had the censorian power for offences under the degree of capital."^ In an age when juries were corrupt, judges often venal, and the ordinary administration of criminal justice perverted by influence, the Star Chamber not merely exercised a control over great nobles, which checked ppression, "but supplied some of the defects of a system which practically left unpunished, forgery, perjury, attempts and conspiracies to commit crimes, and ipany forms of fraud and force." "The tyrannical proceedings for political offences, which ultimately caused the. abolition of the court, ought not to make us forget the great service it rendered, not only to the cause of good order, but to the law of the country.'" § 162. i^quity and criminal justice. Both in theory and practice, the early criminal code of England habitually violated almost every principle of justice now recognized as fundamental. For a series of centuries, what my Lord Coke calls the "perfection of reason,"* hunted witches, roasted heretics, mangled traitors, absolved intelligent crime by benefit of clergy, and punished ignorance with death, refused counsel to prisoners, refused the oath to their witnesses, crushed them to death if they did not plead,- and badgered them from the bench if they did. Says Lord Macaulay: "The earlier volumes of the State Trials are the most frightful record of baseness and depravity in the world. Our hatred is altogether turned away from the crimes and the criminals, and directed against the law and its ministers. We see villanies as black as ever were imputed to any prisoner at any bar, daily committed on the bench and in the jury box.'*5 With all this, equity found itself unable to interfere directly. In fact, it must be admitted, that sometimes chancellors, like Thurlow and Eldon, were the most formidable obstacles to reform. At length, however, the spirit of the age, catching the spirit of equity, enforced legislative reforms, which have in this country been embodied in our Constitutions and Bills of Rights. By these provisions, and by statutes like that enabling parties to testify, the rigors of the criminal code have been corrected and its defects measureably supplied. '§ 163. Their present relations. Trial by jury. the principle that the jury judge law as well as fact/ and that verdicts have not the slightest binding force as precedents, the wide margin of discretion in the court in the scale of punishments/ and the pardoning power in the Executive, have given ample scope for the equitable consideration of "special circumstances." (TRUSTS!) The presumption that every man is innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the principle that there can be no conviction of crime where there is not found the evil intent, and that ignorance or mistake in point of fact, is generally, in criminal cas-'S, a suflScient defence,' concur in giving an equitable complexion to the whole criminal code.j There is also here, as in equity jurisprudence, no lack of appropriate specific remedies and preventive appliances. Habeas corpus is in effect a specific performance of the absolute right of personal liberty, and "security to keep the peace," or for "good behavior,"^ is in effect a process of injunction to restrain the commission of crime. issues, moreover, in criminal cases, are invariably simple, requiring no technical pleading to evolve them. There are but two parties to the proceeding; the state on one side, and the accused (whether in the singular or plural) on the other. As was anciently the practice in civil cases, the only pleading, after the indictment, is delivered orally, in open court, and in proper person. No complicated interests are to be nicely adjusted, and no relief is to be granted in successive stages, or adapted to varying conditions.^ The laws affecting life and liberty are, and ought to be, so "plain, erspicuous, and easily apprehended by the common intelligence,"^ that there is no room here, and should be none, for the "one man power" of adjudication.^ In criminal jurisprudence, therefore, the fusion of law and equity may be said to be approximately complete. § 164. Quasi Equitable Jurisdiction. Among the classes of civil cases not usually referred to equity jurisprudence, but which are to a great extent within its province, may be mentioned: 1. Cases at law in certain stages where motions are pending to strike out judgments, quash executions, to amend, to postpone, &c. These motions are addressed to the equitable discretion of the court, are governed equitable principles/ and are granted on equitable terms. And when the principles of law and equity conflict, courts of law will in such cases follow equity in preference.' Motions for new trials are also governed in great measure by equitable considerations, and are frequently granted on equitable terms.^ Their comparatively modern introduction or development in courts of law has practically superseded resort to courts of equity for relief against judgments in a large class of cases formerly relieved only by injunction.^ 2. Cases where a common law court has power by statute to compel discovery, production of documents and perpetuation of testimony.