Hello all:

The First Amendment covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and
freedom "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Despite apparent bias in a strange fashion, I'd like to argue for
these freedoms, and I wonder if they abound. From rejections of court
cases to questionable responses to contact with a church, it does
indeed appear our First Amendment rights get violated with impunity.

Fred Rogers claimed it OK to speak the first thing that comes to mind
like a child. Blocks appear here, and I border on defensiveness, and
I probably could get boring, but other more-well-known-adult authors
such as Henry D. Thoreau in _Walden; or, Life in the Woods_ claim that
people take interest in every life story.

The lack of response I get from the church reminds me of a union
hearing I attended in a dispute with my former employer, Safeway. The
union's only human, and hopefully people manage human matters
correctly. Ironically, today, I saw stuff on Jimmy Hoffa's remains in
a story on AOL, but my faculty advisor and Ameican Political Thought
professor claims union membership's not that high, less than 20% of
the work force belong to unions or something to that effect. Anyway,
the union made me wait to meet with an "executive session" regarding
the dispute.

I waited and read a rather interesting article in I think _Smitsonian_
regarding the real "gangs of New York," and the true story's different
than the movie. The movie toned things down for audiences, etc., but
anyway, at least I used the time productively. If I'd have just sat
there, like just sitting there with being ignored a bit by others, it
could get frustrating or worse.

To conclude here, many claim that proper interpretation of facts,
including the First Amendment, requires a good feeling about it. Many
have cited and cite from Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave Is
the Fourth of July?" (1852) speech how Douglass takes the position
that he claims Ex-Vice President Dallas does, that "the constitution
is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred,
unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens." Certainly, it
claims there is a First Amendment, but (LOL) many interpret it
otherwise...

Vincent H. Bartning
San Jose, CA, USA

bartning@aol.com (Vincent Henry Bartning) wrote in message news:<d4507f46.0307161452.2f4e6d44@posting.google.com>...

Hi Vincent,

Sounds like a good day!

Love,

Nancy

Hello all: The First Amendment covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Despite apparent bias in a strange fashion, I'd like to argue for these freedoms, and I wonder if they abound. From rejections of court cases to questionable responses to contact with a church, it does indeed appear our First Amendment rights get violated with impunity. Fred Rogers claimed it OK to speak the first thing that comes to mind like a child. Blocks appear here, and I border on defensiveness, and I probably could get boring, but other more-well-known-adult authors such as Henry D. Thoreau in _Walden; or, Life in the Woods_ claim that people take interest in every life story. The lack of response I get from the church reminds me of a union hearing I attended in a dispute with my former employer, Safeway. The union's only human, and hopefully people manage human matters correctly. Ironically, today, I saw stuff on Jimmy Hoffa's remains in a story on AOL, but my faculty advisor and Ameican Political Thought professor claims union membership's not that high, less than 20% of the work force belong to unions or something to that effect. Anyway, the union made me wait to meet with an "executive session" regarding the dispute. I waited and read a rather interesting article in I think _Smitsonian_ regarding the real "gangs of New York," and the true story's different than the movie. The movie toned things down for audiences, etc., but anyway, at least I used the time productively. If I'd have just sat there, like just sitting there with being ignored a bit by others, it could get frustrating or worse. To conclude here, many claim that proper interpretation of facts, including the First Amendment, requires a good feeling about it. Many have cited and cite from Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" (1852) speech how Douglass takes the position that he claims Ex-Vice President Dallas does, that "the constitution is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens." Certainly, it claims there is a First Amendment, but (LOL) many interpret it otherwise... Vincent H. Bartning San Jose, CA, USA

>Subject: Ever a First Amendment in the U.S.?From: bartning@aol.com (Vincent Henry Bartning)Date: 7/16/03 3:52 PM Pacific Daylight TimeMessage-id: <d4507f46.0307161452.2f4e6d44@posting.google.com>Hello all:The First Amendment covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, andfreedom "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Despite apparent bias in a strange fashion, I'd like to argue forthese freedoms, and I wonder if they abound. From rejections of courtcases to questionable responses to contact with a church, it doesindeed appear our First Amendment rights get violated with impunity.Fred Rogers claimed it OK to speak the first thing that comes to mindlike a child. Blocks appear here, and I border on defensiveness, andI probably could get boring, but other more-well-known-adult authorssuch as Henry D. Thoreau in _Walden; or, Life in the Woods_ claim thatpeople take interest in every life story.The lack of response I get from the church reminds me of a unionhearing I attended in a dispute with my former employer, Safeway. Theunion's only human, and hopefully people manage human matterscorrectly. Ironically, today, I saw stuff on Jimmy Hoffa's remains ina story on AOL, but my faculty advisor and Ameican Political Thoughtprofessor claims union membership's not that high, less than 20% ofthe work force belong to unions or something to that effect. Anyway,the union made me wait to meet with an "executive session" regardingthe dispute.I waited and read a rather interesting article in I think _Smitsonian_regarding the real "gangs of New York," and the true story's differentthan the movie. The movie toned things down for audiences, etc., butanyway, at least I used the time productively. If I'd have just satthere, like just sitting there with being ignored a bit by others, itcould get frustrating or worse.To conclude here, many claim that proper interpretation of facts,including the First Amendment, requires a good feeling about it. Manyhave cited and cite from Frederick Douglass's "What to the Slave Isthe Fourth of July?" (1852) speech how Douglass takes the positionthat he claims Ex-Vice President Dallas does, that "the constitutionis plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred,unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens." Certainly, itclaims there is a First Amendment, but (LOL) many interpret itotherwise...Vincent H. BartningSan Jose, CA, USA

You bring up several valid points about the first amendment. I will simply
bring up two points that I will add. From my study of history, it has been my
observation that:

1) TThe first amendment is one of the bills of rights. The bill of rights are
actually the first ten amendments of the constitution.
The constitution was originally drafted in 1781, debated about starting in 1783
and it was finally ratified by all states in 1789. It is the basis of the way
the federal government is run today with the exception of the amendments
including the first ten (the bill of rights).

2) It has not been government that has actually called for a "redress of
grievances": when this country has had its share of conflicts, problems,
oppression, unfairness. or mistreatment of humankind, but it has been the very
people who have suffered through these circumstances who have brought these
issues to light to the government. It is important that we remember the people
who have redressed these grievances and the fact that it was the constitutiion
that has simply confirmed that every person has the freedom to do it without
receiving undue retaliation from the government in a democracy that is "for the
people." It also means that the government to a greater degree relies on the
people to start and to make these reforms both past and present in which to
better the human condition and to make laws the both make things easier and
more difficult.

In closing, while we don't live in a perfect government, our system of
government and laws is based on the Greek and Roman ancient ways of running
things. It isn't perfect, it's very corrupt at times, but it is still regarded
as the best on earth and it is certianly the best we've got. The best we can do
is to find people to help facilitate government in such a way that there is no
thought or act of corruption but a dedication to the service of the people. In
short, we need to elect people who will stop always catering to the rich for
favors and getting elected, but who will stand for the common ordinary person
and place the needs of the working man even more so, if not equal to that of
the rich man without having to continually screw the poor man in order to give
to the rich man again. People who run government also must desire to run it
efficiently and with the interest of justic for all in mind.

Charles Lucas
"In order to obtain maximum sensory enjoyment from the auditory representations
contained herein, it is necessary to minimize load resistance through the
potentiometer in one's preamplifier section... In other Words, Play it Loud,
Mutha!"

"Shrek" <shrek7890@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d09f032e.0307170648.6d90c4ec@posting.google.c om... Hi Vincent I must admit that I did not understand what you were saying

That's because Vincent doesn't know what he's saying.

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Evidently troll Scott Hedrick is again infesting newsgroups
with his foulmouthing and attacks. He was persuaded by his
then-employer, a New Mexico Realtor, two years ago to get
off the newsgroups. Now he claims to be self-employed.
What a putz. (That's yiddish for the information of my
christian/episcopalian friends.)

As anyone with Usenet experience can attest, one of the primary signs of
trolldom is reposting the same thing repeatedly.

Wonder why The Disbarred Wonder (tm) keeps trying to avoid explaining why he
had to run from the law? Must be all those clients he scammed suing him. The
story of his disbarrment is public record.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Scott Hedrick wrote:
As anyone with Usenet experience can attest, one of the primary signs of trolldom is reposting the same thing repeatedly.

Or Netkooks.

"Scott Hedrick" <troll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<B21Ta.2187$3I1.838@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com>... As anyone with Usenet experience can attest, one of the primary signs of trolldom is reposting the same thing repeatedly.

An inspection of the 44,000 Troll Hedrick Usenet posts, up to 1999,
plus the recent infestation, clearly reveals that Hedrick
fits his own description of trolldom.

Wonder why The Disbarred Wonder (tm) keeps trying to avoid explaining why he had to run from the law? Must be all those clients he scammed suing him. The story of his disbarrment is public record.

More abject lying by Troll Hedrick. My complete story has continuously
been published by me (see http://www.nolawyer.com/badjudge/index.html
)
No client is suing me, in part because I did not "scam" anyone,
and in part because I assisted them in receiving compensation from the
Client Security Fund of the AZ State Bar. This was fair, because the
Bar Cronies
wrongfully rendered me unable to fulfill any remaining courtroom
duties, and it
was appropriate that the Bar had to pay for hiring new lawyers for my
clients.

Bob Hirschfeld, JD
----------------------------------------------------

Learn how to fight the legal system without a lawyer:

Video #1 Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure $23.80 postpaid
Video #2 The Appeal Process - Representing Yourself $23.80 postpaid
Video #3 Power and Pitfalls of Federal Court $23.80 postpaid
Video #4 Preparing for Trial $23.80 postpaid
Video #5 The Buck Stops Here - U.S. Supreme Court $23.80 postpaid

All Five Videos, including Priority Mail Postage $99.00 postpaid

To purchase, go to http://www.nolawyer.com/ntsecure/securecc.html

Lecturer on the Tapes: Bob Hirschfeld, JD
A well-known Arizona opponent of Child Protective Services

My AZ landmark Juvenile cases include:

Maria Child v. Lowenburg: Abolished racial discrimination in adoption
USDC AZ, CIV 92-403 PHX EHC (Federal, 1992)

Montoya v. Superior Ct.: Psychologist questions cannot be used to
defeat Fifth Amendment Privilege of father
173 AZ 129; 840 P.2d 305 (AZ App. 1992)

Nat.Mother v. Superior Court: Prohibited Penile Plethysmograph
on juvenile boys in AZ
AZ Ct of App. #1-SA-92-155

Matter of Anonymous Child "KDL": Unwed father has first right to
child when mother kills herself, shoots
the child non-fatally. Maricopa AZ
Juvenile Court #JD 006791

My helpful web site: http://www.nolawyer.com
nolawyer@nolawyer.com
Bob Hirschfeld, JD, PO Box 696, Lukeville AZ 85341