CASE NO: 1
EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL EXISTENTIAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
KILLING OF AMERICANS ------------------------------------------------------------------
Counsel for The People Jason Flores-Williams, Esq.
Law Office of Jason Flores-Williams
128 Grant Avenue, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Question Presented For Review
When a Government illegally justifies the murder of
American citizens without due process,
then what is the proper response of those citizens?
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PROBABLY NOT INVOLVED
The Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides, in pertinent part: “No person
shall be . . . deprived of . . . life, liberty or property,
without due process of law. . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. V.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides, in pertinent part: “In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defense.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The United States government’s “White Paper” justifying murder of American citizens without due process relies heavily on Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). This Supreme Court landmark puts forth a three-pronged balancing test through which the fundamental due process rights of American citizens may be assessed1:
1. The importance of the individual interest involved;
2. The value of specific procedural safeguards to that interest;
3. The government interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency.
Mathews is a Social Security case where a gentleman sued the government after his benefits were terminated without a hearing. One may safely maintain that Mr. Eldridge, rest in peace, would be surprised to hear that the arguments he used to fight against the termination of his government benefits were now being used by that same government to terminate his life.
In passages eerily reminiscent of totalitarian 20th century regimes in Europe, the government balances the individual interest involved versus the government interest involved ‘in fiscal and administrative efficiency.’2 The government thus holds that providing a judicial hearing with standards of proof is too onerous a burden in such cases, in contrast to the interests of a human with regard to his life. The government may argue that this is a uniquely contemporary situation to our history, but in actuality life has been a concern of the people in general since the beginning of time and for our legal ancestors since at least 1215 A.D.3
Consider Article 39 of the Magna Carta, forerunner of our due process clause: “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [usurped of property] or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
The forfeiture of existence without due process is so abhorrently unknown to the history of our law, that to make any legal argument one must seek refuge in the nearest possible analogy, which is the forfeiture of property. This is in no way to reduce human life to the value of property, but when faced with an irrational government, a citizen must struggle to keep his reason.
When an ex parte order freezes potentially lawful assets, then due process concerns can call for a pre-trial hearing to evaluate the nature of those assets and thus the legality of the state or government action. See United States v. Monsanto, 924 F. 2d 1186, 1203 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Michelle’s Lounge I, 39 F.3d 684,701 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Michelle’s Lounge II, 125 F.3d 1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Farmer, 274 F. 3d 800, 805 (4th Cir. 2001); Krimstock v. Kelly, 306 F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2002).
Therefore, when an ex parte presidential executive order “freezes” the life of an American citizen, then somewhat heightened due process concerns would call for a hearing based upon religious beliefs and philosophical thoughts regarding existence from the dawning of civilization.4
Not only federal courts, but also state courts have attempted to address abuse and exploitation of forfeiture laws by establishing pre-trial hearings. One can see these forfeiture laws extended beyond property, but to the nature of like itself. States include: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, and Tennessee.5
STATEMENT OF FACTS
It is sometime between three and four A.M. It could be Monday or Tuesday, though I am pretty sure that it’s Monday because the new movies haven’t been released yet on DVD. I didn’t want to stay up this late because it tends to put an even darker spin on already dark situation. I tell myself that I am going to go to bed at 11 so that I can get on a normal schedule, but then I can’t because of insomnia, pain, and depression. There is this line that Cobain had: “I’m so tired I can’t sleep.”6 Wired and exhausted. Still, I would prefer not to be killed.7
As of February 28, 2013, there are many American citizens who don’t like life, but who nonetheless insist upon non-termination of their right to actively engage the world with ideas and make interesting things happen. Life is always much more interesting when there is something going on—something other than submission to the system.
LAW & ARGUMENT
For more than two centuries this nation has injured constitutional rights and destroyed millions of lives. One of the key components of this disastrous policy has been forfeiture laws. With as little as an ex parte order from a judge in the middle of a night, children have been left homeless and hungry, families torn apart, and defendants left broken and unable to defend themselves against the almost infinite war chest of the government.
Now, with as little as an order from an elected official, forfeiture laws have been extended into the realm of human life. Constitutional rights and individual liberties are always the first casualty of war by any name. Thankfully, as the efficacy of war has come under scrutiny, so have the laws supporting it. Courts across the country—supra—have become concerned about state and government exploitation of forfeiture laws. From states incentivized to fund their coffers with seized assets to the denial of due process before incarceration and death, courts have insisted upon hearings to determine the legitimacy of government action. See above: Monsanto; Michelle’s Lounge I and II; United States v. Farmer; Krimstock v. Kelly. See also: United States v. Long, 654 F.2d 911 (3d Cir. 1981); United States v. Harvey, 814 F.2d 905 (4th Cir. 1987), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.; In re Caplin & Drysdale, 837 F.2d 637 (4th Cir. 1988) (en banc); United States v. Thier, 801 F.2d 1463, 1468-69 (5th Cir. 1986), modified on other grounds, 809 F.2d 249 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Lewis, 759 F.2d 1316 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 994 (1985).
When a significant right is threatened it is strange to think that our Supreme Court would suddenly abandon its ideals. Even the uber-right Justice Scalia, in Gonzalez-Lopez8, holds to the right to counsel of choice to be a structural right upon which—if the right is violated—verdicts must be automatically reversed. “[W]e hold that the error violated respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and that the violation is not subject to harmless-error analysis.” Gonzalez-Lopez at 12.
Whether the right to exist is a more profound right than the right to counsel of choice is not the subject matter of this brief, but being that deprivation of the right to exist is sui generis in that once deprived there is no remedy, one would be almost sure that our courts would give such deprivation the highest level of concern and scrutiny.9
The government will provide the public with the usual bromides, clichés, and pat responses masquerading as law. We know the tricks, the cleverness, the way in which they make it seem that they know what’s going on. All of these things have left us with nothing but more emptiness. We are inundated with the lies and destructive behavior of these people who would tell us that they understand the workings of society. Yet, they are nothing but shells in which echoes of a dying world can be heard, then tossed out into the polluted ocean, or perhaps stepped on like crack vials in the burnt-out ghettoes of the mind.
When a citizen challenges the government’s deprivation of her assets, then state, federal, and constitutional law clearly require that there be a hearing before said deprivation. Being that life is the ultimate deprivation, however, we would expect the highest levels to be applied to before that deprivation is effectuated. Yet, being that the government has effected that deprivation in an extra-legal and an unconstitutional fashion, then we have a government that’s gone off the fucking rails. When this occurs, historically, the people are faced with two old options and one semi-new one:
1. Accept that they have lost complete control of government and simply pray that the government doesn’t turn on them individually.
2. Violently revolt against the government at the great risk, historically, of replacing it with something stupider.
3. Urgently review, on a case-by-case basis, the foundations of western civilization, so that we may change the legal and ethical concepts that have enabled those in power to turn us into a murderous, sleeping totalitarian society.
Jason Flores-Williams, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
1 We must have the courage to take a dark view of not only American life, but of our lives themselves. We are not inherently good, what we produce is not inherently good and we do not grace the universe by the mere virtue of our existence. Piece by piece, brick by brick, we must again step out in the world and rebuild our lives with the notion first and foremost that our lives may not be worth rebuilding.
2 See Page 6 of “Department of Justice’s White Paper.”
3 It’s been a straight up asskicking since then—there is no regaining the systems of power. No modification of the matrix that will result in the utopian ideal. But what I yearn for is something deeper than the occasional rebellion against the vibe. I seek a reason to endure that goes to the heart of existence. I don’t care about Anglo-American conceptions of justice or meaning. They are dead upon arrival, faded before we can even know them. I want a change in the human condition based on the idea that we have thus far failed in our ability to even basically understand what it is to be a human being. I want to tear down the walls of existence and start over.
4 The truth is that there is much more darkness than there is light. This experience of the good life is a modern illusion limited, percentage-wise, to an almost non-existent sample of humanity. We are living in a detour that has spun so far out of control that the main road no longer even exists. There is nothing for us there anymore. To go forward is to further a delusion into inevitable destruction and to go backwards in order to reclaim some kind of philosophical high road is an impossibility. All the GPS in the world can’t help us now—we are stuck in a place with a map that neither corresponds to reality nor allows me to dream. We have burnt ideals that no one was worshipping, so are left with ruins that no one recognizes.
5 These are statutorily authorized. Respectively: Ariz. Rev. Stat §4310B; Cal. Health & Saf. Code §11488. 4 (h); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 932.703 (2)(a); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-13-49(q)(4); Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 712A-11(2); Iowa Code Ann. §809A, 12 3; Kan, Stat. Ann. §60-4112©; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40: 26111.C; Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.4705; Mo. Ann. Stat. §513.645.4; Ore. Rev. Stat.§ 475A.045(8); Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-709(d).
6 Listen to Nirvana, “Penny Royal Tea.”
7 I have become haunted by the question of whether life is worth living. There is not an hour that goes by where I don’t think about suicide. I am not what I once was. I have looked hard and determined that my best days are behind me. There is a part of me that does not want to live. Nonetheless, I do insist that the choice be mine. Seriously.
8 United States v. Gonzales-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006).
9 Life is cheap in America, but the American way of life is fucking awesome. See: Ronald Reagan tossing the coin at the Super Bowl, George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch at the World Series, Obama hitting a jumper on 60 Minutes.
JASON FLORES-WILLIAMS is a lawyer in New Mexico.