Any US law experts here that are willing to lend a hand with quick research?

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
63,240
10,015
126
twitter.com
Asking for a friend.... no, really!

I need the following:

1.) Examples of successful petitio(n?) certiorari to the US Supreme Court (PDFs, images, screenshots, etc)
2.) Law articles on how to successfully write petitio certiorari to the US Supreme Court (Law School/Law Review articles from Google Scholar, etc)

Ideally in paper/text form, videos won't work.

Anyone remember Kai the Hitchhiker? Yeah, it's for him. Long story but I ended up in contact with him and I'm trying to help him out with legal stuff as he's in no position to do it.

I can google this myself but I feel someone that knows more than me about that stuff will be able to actually find something better than I would find, knowing what it all means. Thanks in advance!

I found these:

 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,959
1,654
126
Might take you 6 months to a year for your sleep deprived ass to get a full law school's worth of education to hammer out all the logic involved.....America is a lawyer's paradise because the framer's made it that way.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
63,240
10,015
126
twitter.com
Might take you 6 months to a year for your sleep deprived ass to get a full law school's worth of education to hammer out all the logic involved.....America is a lawyer's paradise because the framer's made it that way.
Yeah it's pretty crazy how convoluted it all is. Probably why you need like 7 years of university to be a lawyer. He's been studying everything he has access to day in and day out pretty much and actually making some progress. He does have a decent amount of outside help too as far as money goes since lot of stuff he has to pay for like access to the library etc. Long story short he got drugged, raped then woke up and killed his rapist while still semi under influence and that's why he's in jail for like 50+ years, so he's trying to fight it. The rapist happened to have connection with the system so his buddies made sure he gets the worse possible sentence. The guy has a good heart, but put too much trust in people and got bit hard. Years back when it had just happened I felt bad for him after hearing the whole story and just reached out to support him and it kind of went from there. I have not really done anything major or anything like no money sent or anything like that, most just someone there for support. I just put myself in his shoes, and I'd be counting on people on the outside to at least reach out and listen to me and support me, if anything.

If it's quiet at work tomorrow I'll probably research this more. Just thought someone here would actually have more info that just whatever I end up finding on google.
 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,959
1,654
126
Yeah it's pretty crazy how convoluted it all is. Probably why you need like 7 years of university to be a lawyer. He's been studying everything he has access to day in and day out pretty much and actually making some progress. He does have a decent amount of outside help too as far as money goes since lot of stuff he has to pay for like access to the library etc. Long story short he got drugged, raped then woke up and killed his rapist while still semi under influence and that's why he's in jail for like 50+ years, so he's trying to fight it. The rapist happened to have connection with the system so his buddies made sure he gets the worse possible sentence. The guy has a good heart, but put too much trust in people and got bit hard. Years back when it had just happened I felt bad for him after hearing the whole story and just reached out to support him and it kind of went from there. I have not really done anything major or anything like no money sent or anything like that, most just someone there for support. I just put myself in his shoes, and I'd be counting on people on the outside to at least reach out and listen to me and support me, if anything.

If it's quiet at work tomorrow I'll probably research this more. Just thought someone here would actually have more info that just whatever I end up finding on google.
Law is actually both simple yet complicated. The syllogism and logic part is surprising easy reading and accessible.

The reason law is difficult is that people are not wired to think in terms of the axiom alone and not any fucking "goodness or heart" or foolish intangibles when the law is applied. People will take what's given from them. If you wish to commit murder, especially of an attorney, you damn better know how to cover tracks. Part of where this Kai screwed up, was inconsistent statements. That's the logical end of most people in a case.

Plus, there are legal rules, and each locality has specific rules, and it is here where lawyers have the experience of a professional.

The there's the behind-the-scenes 4D chess. The party is aiming for a particular end, and there are hundreds of verbal conversation that are lost forever once the result is established. The "educated public" is trained to discount conspiracy. The professional lawyer welcomes suckering the ignorant educated public into thinking these conversations matter.

The fact is that the jury of 12 voted to convict, and thus if there is no

In addition, the actual legal system is in it for the money and thus many judges and states attorneys allow cases to be buried, go on probation. Contrary to the narrative lay people think, many cases die nolle prosequi and then the defendant expunges it, clear the record both for himself and the state, as if nothing ever had happened. Thus, historical legal analysis will intrinsically have a bias because cases that actually go nowhere no longer have their records.

Me personally? I cannot relate to someone "blacking out" during heightened and tense encounters. Nor can I comprehend the fear of calling police to report a rape yet going out to social media and literally leaving traceable tracks, possibly hinting at a profit-making publicity stunt.

Where I see possibly defects in the investigation and prosecution is that he wasn't checked for date rape or the like. However, if he cleaned himself up afterwards, and it had been a few days, such a kit would have likely been useless.

I've come to the realization that all three classes of folks who wind up in the criminal courtroom usually are manipulative lying pieces of shit. Cops, lawyers, the alleged criminal all are in an intellectual class above the "virgin public" and the "virgin public's morality" and have much persuasive power of the educated-yet-not-understanding "virgin public". The lawyer, through his/her brilliant oratory, professional demeanor(hotness/dress also counts for female lawyers), and learned education, establishes his false nobility. The cop, through the foolish presumption that a state's agent can ever be truly moral(they certainly aren't learning what monks learn), convinces many fools that they are the "good guys" and are doing it for morality and not a paycheck+intangible benefits. The alleged criminal is often lacking in paper credentials but not lacking in a "street smart" understanding of the legal system equivalent to the above "professionals" and that most lay people are suckers who will bite on a good sob story(framed in an extremely biased manner) and some puppy eyes and the exploitation of social norms/cues.
See the similarities in all three? They all can speak well and speak in bad faith without believing a single word they say, using their words to achieve their tangible end regardless of he actual(often unverifiable at the time) facts.


Furthermore, there is a large gradient of intermediates between self-defense and murder. Self-defense usually applies only when there is an imminent danger and its allowance is gone when that danger has passed; that is the axiom. Thus, how much was enough to stop Galfy remains the critical question. Stopping a 73-year old from sexual assault doesn't require the extent of damage Galfy actually incurred. Self-defense is not an excuse of a furious tantrum and assault. Even if 1st degree murder is excessive, lower degrees of murder or manslaughter seems far too easy to prove Kai did something "against the law". Or there would be some form of "civil commitment", which is something Katherine Hoggle likely did not realize would keep her locked up without a criminal conviction when she wanted to "relieve" the "burden" of her children.
Having come across the writings of Marc "Animal" MacYoung, his no-nonsense self-defense teaches that self-defense starts with trying to avoid a battle in the first place and fighting is only done if one is cornered. De-escalation must be done. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/seminarEW.htm

His claim to fame was "noble violence". In which, due to the confluence of circumstance, a violation of the legal axiom allowed him to get off. I cannot discount he wanted to one-up himself and get a second wave with another "noble violence" story. But his lack of professional legal education led to the consequence he didn't want or expect for his attempt to gain publicity once more.

Furthermore again, he has been studying law during his prison time, so he's come closer to being a POS lawyer than just the manipulative layman he was years ago.
 

Jeeebus

Diamond Member
Aug 29, 2006
9,161
859
126
I'm trying to help him out with legal stuff as he's in no position to do it.
As the saying goes... "no good deed goes unpunished."

It is a crime in all 50 states to practice law without a license. What it means to "practice law" is a gray area, but I'd be hesitant to start writing legal briefs on someone else's behalf. While I doubt any government authority would take interest (as opposed to the idiots that actually advertise themselves as lawyers and it turns out they are not), but I'm a no-gray-area type of lawyer.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
63,240
10,015
126
twitter.com
Oh yeah not doing anything crazy like writing briefs or anything like that. Though had no idea it was actually illegal. Honestly he knows 100x more than me about law at this point but what he needs he can't find without access to google. I'll probably just send him those forms I found as they are right from the supreme court, technically whoever made those would be the one practicing law and not me right? Like if a doctor writes a research paper and I just send it to someone, that would not count as me practicing medicine right?
 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,959
1,654
126
As the saying goes... "no good deed goes unpunished."

It is a crime in all 50 states to practice law without a license. What it means to "practice law" is a gray area, but I'd be hesitant to start writing legal briefs on someone else's behalf. While I doubt any government authority would take interest (as opposed to the idiots that actually advertise themselves as lawyers and it turns out they are not), but I'm a no-gray-area type of lawyer.
That just means he can't retain the Red Squirrely as his attorney nor can the Squirrel have representative powers. Offering informational assistance, books etc is not enforceable nor is it practicing law. Discussing law on an "intangible level" is not enforceable because the proof cannot exist.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,891
4,613
136
lol

Got reminded of this gem
 
  • Wow
Reactions: waffleironhead

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,959
1,654
126
Oh yeah not doing anything crazy like writing briefs or anything like that. Though had no idea it was actually illegal. Honestly he knows 100x more than me about law at this point but what he needs he can't find without access to google. I'll probably just send him those forms I found as they are right from the supreme court, technically whoever made those would be the one practicing law and not me right? Like if a doctor writes a research paper and I just send it to someone, that would not count as me practicing medicine right?
Send him the consultant in for Marc MacYoung and I'll be 99% certain everyone will tell Mr. Bodysmasher Kai that he can shove his defense of self-defense up his own ass. If you want to help him, be my guest, but it's going to be for your own edification.

Initial consultation/Video review -
No charge (limit 1 hour)
Contact me to set up a phone inteview
marcmacyoung@earthlink.net
Report: $1,000 (including second-by-second analysis of the video and/or report review)
Oral or written reports available.
Deposition/Consulting: $200 an hour
Testimony: $300 an hour, plus travel expenses.
An example of my ability to explain in layman's terms



Let's start with the fact that the self defense defense is an affirmative defense.
Go back and read that again, it's important. An affirmative defense means, by claiming self-defense, you are coming out and saying "I did it."
Specifically, you are admitting to actions that are normally a crime.
Read that again, you're admitting to what is 99% of the time, a crime. But, you are saying that you did those actions in order to stop the same criminal act from being unjustly done to you.
Once you claim 'self-defense' you can't go back and say "Well, I didn't mean that" when -- and if -- things start going badly for you. You've confessed already. Even if it started as self-defense, if you crossed the line, you've just plead guilty to it.
Let's add another term to your legal repertoire: Burden of Proof
By using the self-defense defense, the responsibility of proof is on you! You're no longer innocent proven guilty! By confessing, you're guilty until YOU can demonstrate differently! YOU have to PROVE that what you did was not only self-defense, but justified. It isn't self-defense just because you say it was (Remember both sides in a fight claiming it was 'self defense?'). So right off the bat, you're going to have some explaining to do.
This is why it is important to know where your actions stop being self-defense and turn you into an aggressor. If, upon investigation, it is found that you crossed the line from self-defense into assault, you've confessed to that too.
The Four Boundaries of Self-Defense
What makes self-defense complicated is that most people are not actually defending their bodies. Usually they're trying to protect their emotions and pride. When you're scared, excited or angry, it's really hard to tell the difference. But there are differences ... BIG ones.
The two most important standards for what IS self-defense are
1) The danger to you is physical
2) It's not a maybe, could be, or 'he might...,' it's happening.
The two biggest reasons for self-defense to turn into something else are
3) You participated in the creation and escalation of the situation
4) You didn't stop after the threat to you was past.
If it helps think of these four points as sides of a square painted on the ground. As long as you stay inside that square, it's self-defense.
But if FOR ANY REASON you step outside of square, you're not defending yourself anymore, you are fighting or assaulting someone.
Now, let's look at the points one by one
It's Not A Maybe, Could Be, Or 'He Might...,' The Danger Is NOW
Here's where a lot of people mess up. Putting it simply, 'he might do something' is NOT the same thing as 'he IS doing something'
He has to be doing it -- or to be more precise, on his way to doing it, before you can physically react. Your imagination about what he might do, he could do and what maybe is going on will get you in deep, deep trouble.
Let's use the example we'll be talking about later: Not stopping after the threat is past. Someone physically attacks you and you knock him down. That is self-defense. You've used force to stop an attack that would cause physical injury. So far, so good.
HOWEVER, here is where your excitable monkey brain can get you into deep, deep trouble. The guy is down on the ground and your monkey brain whispers to you "He might get up and attack again!" So what do you do? You kick him to make sure he stays down.
Except, you didn't kick him in response to what is actually happening. Your imagination is what prompted you to kick a downed person. And you kicked him regardless of what he was actually doing.
1) Was he even trying to get up at all?
a) if he wasn't, the threat to you is past
b) you've now crossed the line into being the aggressor
2) Did YOU close the distance to re-engage?
a) instead of running away, you step up and kick him
b) if so now you aren't defending, you're attacking him
c) usually in punishment for having dared to attack you
d) you are now no longer defending yourself, but assaulting a helpless
victim
3) Even if he was trying to get up was it to flee?
a) if he was trying to flee, he was no longer a threat
b) the direction he is facing is critical to determine if he's fleeing
4) He might be getting up expecting YOU to attack him
a) but even so, why didn't you run when you had the chance?
b) hanging around and standing over him
1) gives him reason to believe you're about to attack him
2) convinces him that he's in physical danger
3) makes him believe he is now defending himself
5) He really is trying to get back up to attack you.
a) he is not only trying to get back up facing you
b) HE'S closing the distance -- not you

The very incomplete media reports, though incomplete it may be, said that the victim was badly damaged, with a freaking earlobe torn off. It's easy to a accuse one arbiter of bias. Not so easy to say 12 independent people are biased.
 

Pohemi420

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
5,025
2,571
146
Where's the HumblePie dipshittery at? He enjoys putting his Cracker Jack law "degree" word salad on display. Just ask him.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brainonska511

ASK THE COMMUNITY