Your friend is largely correct, but there are some important
exceptions to his general principles that may be troublesome.
For instance, "every man has an obligation to give his
evidence." It's one of those "citizenship" things, but it
applies to mere residents as well. Granted, nationwide
subpoena reach (rare, but sometimes permitted) does make
compliance with this obligation a good deal more inconvenient
than anticipated at common law--or does it? Can't one get
from Seattle to Boston today a lot faster than one could get
from Boston to New York two hundred years ago? And much more
comfortably?
Be that as it may, your friend seems to want my taxes to put
him up at the Ritz and fly him first class and limo him fro
the airport, if not send a Lear for him. My personal view is
that your friend's demands are rather unreasonable, and I'll
bet my personal views are shared by most taxpayers.
I appreciate your friend's view about hiring expensive lawyers,
or hiring lawyers in general. I'm a relatively inexpensive
lawyer, but cheap or dear, most lawyers sincerely do appreciate
folks like your friend. It's the Framm oil filter thing: Pay
me now, or pay me later. And it's more later.
Good guy, that friend of yours.
MacN
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Tim May wrote:
> >
>
> I know someone whose view is that to spend good money on shysters to
> defend the obvious is foolish. His view is that spending $300 an hour
> for at least a dozen hours overall so that a "Speaker-to-Burrowcrats"
> can draft response letters in the proper lingo is a waste of his money.
> Some of his friends think he is foolish for thinking he can avoid hiring
> shysters.
>
> His view is that he is under no obligation to explain his First
> Amendment exercise, nor his he obligated to spend his time and money
> travelling from his isolated home to a regional airport, getting on a
> plane with his own money, checking into some court-approved fleabag
> motel, not being able to have his guns with him during this travel
> process (if he flies), and then (maybe) being reimbursed some fraction
> of his expenses. HIs view, so I understand, is that if they want his
> views on his First Amendment exercise they can come and pick him up at
> his house and handle _all_ travel issues, in a manner to which he is
> accustomed, and of course reimburse him for his lost time at his usual
> rates, plus a bonus for the hassles of dealing with burrowcrats.
>
> My friend says that he is not the government's bank, and that he does
> not advance them money to cover incurred expenses. He also points out
> that the justice system was not until recently used to have casual
> witnesses to minor things travel 3000 miles or more to answer a few
> questions.
>
> But I don't always agree with him on all points.
>
> And so far he has only been "served with papers" once in his lifetime.
> He told the process server to get the fuck off his property, that he was
> tresspassing. This trespasser declared angrily that he some "right" to
> be the on my friend's property. My friend disagreed and shouted louder.
> The process server declared that he "felt threatened" and would be
> contacting the local cops. My friend slammed the door and made sure his
> usual precautions were ready, but the Gestapo did not arrive.
>
> Alas, this person tell me, the process server had already handed him the
> papers. My friend complied with the served process in the most minimal
> and useless fashion he could imagine. So he told me.
>
> My friend now knows to look through the peephole before ever opening the
> door. (My friend has also twice--that he knows of-- received "mail
> subpoenas," which he did not think were possible. After all, he knows
> the State-Monopoly Postal Scam is not reliable, and he often doesn't
> even look through all of his mail for days or weeks, sometimes
> misplacing letters and spam and advertising completely. So he knows that
> such "mail subpoenas" clearly are not legally enforceable, so he ignores
> them. Those he finds in his flood of incoming mail, that is. He expects
> these mail subpoenas to be replaced with FedEx or Certified Mail
> subpoenas; if this happens he expects he'll have to be "not home" when
> suspiciously-small packages for things he did not order are delivered.)
>
> My friend believes the signs are abundant that state fascism is out of
> control. I agree with him, of course.
>
>
> --Tim May
