Saturday, June 14, 2008

"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

Good stuff from a law professor, as well as a follow-up confirmation from a police officer. Basically, keep your mouth shut. The truth is irrelevant. The facts are subjective. Your liberty is up for grabs. Bottom-line, you cannot trust the police so why waste your breath?





Follow-up by George Bruch - from the horses mouth.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Illinois Gun Laws Pamphlet. Marxist Malapropisms, or How to Beat a Concealed Carry Rap.

Control! The govt. oozes lies and misleading propaganda to make you believe they control you. I saw a link to the Illinois Gun Laws pamphlet, and decided to take a look at the usual pap disseminated by "Common questions and answers" publications. Let's take a look at this:

First. we are directed to CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.
We must look to the definitions section to understand what, and whom, we are seeking to regulate or punish:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑0.5) (was 720 ILCS 5/2‑.5)
Sec. 2‑0.5. For the purposes of this Code, the words and phrases described in this Article have the meanings designated in this Article, except when a particular context clearly requires a different meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/2‑7.1)
Sec. 2‑7.1. "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition". "Firearm" and "firearm ammunition" have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.
(Source: P.A. 91‑544, eff. 1‑1‑00.)

The Firearm Owners Identification Act is limited in scope, and falls within the authority of the "Police Power" of the State. I discuss police power in one of my previous posts, but keep in mind that it is NOT constitutionally derived power, but rather assumed power for the state to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the citizens as such may pertain to "commercial activities". For instance, looking at the FOID act, we see that all of the objects of the regulation pertain to the commercial acts of selling or buying firearms. Look at the wording carefully. I'll emphasize with CAPS:

(430 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1)
Sec. 1. It is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination that in order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those persons who are prohibited by Section 24‑3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", as amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
(Source: P.A. 94‑6, eff. 1‑1‑06.) --- ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE FOR A SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING, BUT DOES MAKE IMPOSE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR LICENSING OR REGISTERING.
So, who are they addressing?
"Federally licensed firearm dealer" means a person who is licensed as a federal firearms dealer under Section 923 of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 923). COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show" includes the entire premises provided for an

event or function, including parking areas for the event or function, that is sponsored to facilitate the purchase, sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms as described in this Section. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY

"Gun show vendor" means a person who exhibits, sells,

offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges any firearms at a gun show, regardless of whether the person arranges with a gun show promoter for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange any firearm. AGAIN, COMMECIAL ACTIVITY

The FOID Act does not identify or define OFFENSES commited pursuant to the act, aside from a petty offense.

So, it is clear that the FOID card is a Commercial Firearms License for use within the State of Illinois, and does not apply to private Citizens who possess their own firearms for personal use and protection. Moving on to the criminal statute.

(720 ILCS 5/1‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑2)
Sec. 1‑2. General purposes. The provisions of this Code shall be construed in accordance with the general purposes hereof, to:
(a) Forbid and prevent the commission of offenses; THE FOID ACT DOES NOT LIST ANY OFFENSES OTHER THAN A PETTY OFFENSE, WHICH IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE AND INAPPLICABALE TO THIS STATUTE.
(b) Define adequately the act and mental state which constitute each offense, and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it is without fault;
(c) Prescribe penalties which are proportionate to the seriousness of offenses and which permit recognition of differences in rehabilitation possibilities among individual offenders;
(d) Prevent arbitrary or oppressive treatment of persons accused or convicted of offenses.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/1‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 1‑3)
Sec. 1‑3. Applicability of common law. No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is described as an offense in this Code or in another statute of this State. However, this provision does not affect the power of a court to punish for contempt or to employ any sanction authorized by law for the enforcement of an order or civil judgment.
(Source: P.A. 79‑1360.) AGAIN, THE FOID ACT DOES NOT DEFINE ANY OFFENSES, AND THE COMMON LAW DOES NOT APPLY DUE TO THE LACK THEREOF.

Looking further to the definitions of (720 ILCS 5/Art. 2 heading)
ARTICLE 2. GENERAL DEFINITIONS

(720 ILCS 5/2‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑4)
Sec. 2‑4. "Conduct".
"Conduct" means an act or a series of acts, and the accompanying mental state.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) SO YOU HAD A CONCEALED WEAPON. WHAT WAS YOUR MENTAL STATE AT THE TIME? TO COMMIT A CRIME, OR EXERCISE A CONSTITUTIONAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT? EXERCISING A RIGHT IS NOT A STATE OF MIND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.

(720 ILCS 5/2‑15) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑15)
Sec. 2‑15. "Person".
"Person" means an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. ARE YOU A PERSON? GENERALLY THE WORD INDIVIDUAL WOULD MEAN A REAL PERSON, OR PEOPLE, BUT USED WITH THE OTHER WORDS GIVES IT THE MEANING OF BEING AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, SUCH AS A CORPORATION OR OTHER GOVERNMENT-CREATED ENTITY. PERSON DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN PEOPLE.

So, what constitutes a "crime"?

(720 ILCS 5/4‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑2)
Sec. 4‑2. Possession as voluntary act.
Possession is a voluntary act if the offender knowingly procured or received the thing possessed, or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient time to have been able to terminate his possession.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑3)
Sec. 4‑3. Mental state. THIS MUST BE PROVEN IN COURT!!!
(a) A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense which involves absolute liability, unless, with respect to each element described by the statute defining the offense, he acts while having one of the mental states described in Sections 4‑‑4 through 4‑‑7.
(b) If the statute defining an offense prescribed a particular mental state with respect to the offense as a whole, without distinguishing among the elements thereof, the prescribed mental state applies to each such element. If the statute does not prescribe a particular mental state applicable to an element of an offense (other than an offense which involves absolute liability), any mental state defined in Sections 4‑‑4, 4‑‑5 or 4‑‑6 is applicable. WE WILL LOOK AT THESE SECTIONS.
(c) Knowledge that certain conduct constitutes an offense, or knowledge of the existence, meaning, or application of the statute defining an offense, is not an element of the offense unless the statute clearly defines it as such.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑4)
Sec. 4‑4. Intent. NOPE, INTENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OFFENSE SECTION.
A person intends, or acts intentionally or with intent, to accomplish a result or engage in conduct described by the statute defining the offense, when his conscious objective or purpose is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.) OKAY, SO YOU INTEND TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPPON UNDER THE EXERCISE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

(720 ILCS 5/4‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑5)
Sec. 4‑5. Knowledge. THE CRIMINAL ACT STATES "KNOWINGLY". LET'S LOOK AT "KNOWINGLY".
A person knows, or acts knowingly or with knowledge of:
(a) The nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. Knowledge of a material fact includes awareness of the substantial probability that such fact exists.
(b) The result of his conduct, described by the statute defining the offense, when he is consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct.
Conduct performed knowingly or with knowledge is performed wilfully, within the meaning of a statute using the latter term, unless the statute clearly requires another meaning.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/4‑ (from Ch. 38, par. 4‑
Sec. 4‑8. Ignorance or mistake. (a) A person's ignorance or mistake as to a matter of either fact or law, except as provided in Section 4‑3(c) above, is a defense if it negatives the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense.
(b) A person's reasonable belief that his conduct does not constitute an offense is a defense if:
(1) The offense is defined by an administrative regulation or order which is not known to him and has not been published or otherwise made reasonably available to him, and he could not have acquired such knowledge by the exercise of due diligence pursuant to facts known to him; or
(2) He acts in reliance upon a statute which later is determined to be invalid; or
(3) He acts in reliance upon an order or opinion of an Illinois Appellate or Supreme Court, or a United States appellate court later overruled or reversed;
(4) He acts in reliance upon an official interpretation of the statute, regulation or order defining the offense, made by a public officer or agency legally authorized to interpret such statute.
(c) Although a person's ignorance or mistake of fact or law, or reasonable belief, described in this Section 4‑‑8 is a defense to the offense charged, he may be convicted of an included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact or law were as he believed it to be.
(d) A defense based upon this Section 4‑‑8 is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
IGNORANCE OR MISTAKE IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, BASED ON THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. HOWEVER, BELIEF THAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CARRYING OR POSSESSING OF A FIREARM, EXCEPT WHERE THE POLICE POWER, WHICH APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY RELATING TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND MORALS, APPLIES.

I would go into more detail, but this would make for a very lengthy post. All I can say is, read the law. All of the law. Definitions and intent as well. The law does not provide penalties for open carry, only concealed carry, and then under specific circumstances. I think a weapons charge under this statute, based on open carry, is able to be beaten, with the proper attorney who actually looks at the law and challenges the system based on what the law says, and uses proper case law and precedent, avoiding any mention of United States citizenship or alluding to having engaged in a commercial activity. Once you possess the FOID card, and then violate the statute, you are nailed because possessing the FOID card is the nexus that lends the presumption that you are, in fact, requred to have one and therefore engaged in a commercial activity. Once you place yourself under the autority of the police power, your constitutional rights are gone, and the U.S. citizenship priviledges apply, which do not include the second amendment. If anyone is interested in learning how U.S. citizenship means waiving your second amendment rights just let me know and I'll show you a PowerPoint presentation detailing this fact. You can also look up 14th Amendment and Incorporation Doctrine. The Incorporation Doctrine says that courts do not consider all of the Bill of Rights to be "fundamental rights", and have not considered the second amendment to be a right of U.S. citizenship.
Is anyone ready to take up arms yet? It's about time!

State Sponsored Terrorism, Kidnapping, and Child Abuse

Like a master of illusion, the bureaucratic jack-booted do-gooders in Texas have commandeered the media, your reason, and some 416 children under the pretense that they are saving the more nubile young ladies from the ravishing clutches of perverted older men. To justify this assault upon a private culture that considers itself outside the pestilential creature that is government, words such as “statutory rape, polygamy, and cult” have been capriciously tossed about. Television shows have sought the counsel of experts in human behavior, linguistics, and body language to impugn the outward appearance, mannerisms, inflections, and thoughts of the women. The only indictment borne from the witch hunt is they don’t appear “normal”; hardly a justification for invading a private society on unfound accusations and terrorizing children and parents.

Despite the personal feelings of any of you, or of an assemblage of criminals, otherwise known as a legislature, it is not within the purview of the state to inspect, question, assess, or approve the behavior of private people or their cultures. I am not defending the act of having sex with 14 year old girls, as the unfounded accusations assert, but then again I have not had sex with girls of such age. However, if it had not been for “underage” girls having had sex in the past I can assure you all that humanity would not have progressed to this day. Yet, one has to ask themselves what is the issue which makes that act objectionable? Is it our perception that a dirty-old-man is gratifying himself at the expense of an unknowing and exploited child? Is it that such a precious treasure should not be exposed to such a vile and immoral act as sex? Is it possibly because the government has not given its approval to such unconscionable behavior, such as it has with legalized murder through warfare, capital punishment, rendition, torture…. etc.? If government lowered the legal age of consent to 14 years there is nothing you or your indignant self-righteousness could do about it. It would be “legal”.

When an “older man” has relations with a “young girl”, where is the state? The state does not prevent the act from taking place despite the law which rests on the books. Yet, where are the parents when the state violates young women? We have government mandated vaccinations which expose children to things more immediate and injurious by way of the compounds in the vaccine than the possible harm arising from contracting the illness to begin with. I comment on one sadistic jurist named C. Phillip Nichols from Prince George’s County, Maryland. My commentary can be found on my blog at http://markmccoy.com/blogspot. It is not hard to find. The Justice Department visits regularly. Malfeasant Nichols threatened parents with jail time if they failed to inoculate their children, despite the parent’s objections to introducing pathogens and agents to their children’s bloodstream. Nichols’ behavior smacks of bio-terrorism and disregard for liberty and parental autonomy. Likewise, the gumma which are confiscating children in Texas are on par with Nichols, sans bio-terrorism. Who is there to save children and parents from the abuse of government?

Why does the state not raid the homes of parents who allow or assist in their children joining the military to be used for imperialistic or corporate aggression? Are parents who place their children before the canon’s mouth for glory and political mischief any less culpable for the resulting harm than those who permit a young woman to take an older husband? How many of these allegedly “abused” girls have died as a result of their “illicit” union compared to the number of children sent to their deaths by the contrived and fallacious wars created by government?

Look at it like this. If sex with children was a priority for government then they would have raided the Catholic Church and the priests possessing priapic adolescent proclivities. If the state were concerned with polygamy it would look at itself and the “spousal” relationships it keeps with despots, tyrants, and dictators abroad. As a matter of fact, worse than polygamy is bigamy wherein one has many marriages. Every licensed marriage is a three-party contract between the two parties and the state. Talk about a slut, to use a vulgar colloquialism. If government gave a damn about morality it would immediately crawl into a hole and proceed to pull kitty litter over itself in order to spare us the stench. If people really cared about liberty, tolerance, privacy, and justice they would train their sights on usurpers and tyrants who deem to act on behalf of the consenting governed.

I do not believe it is within the purview of anyone to judge any people, culture, society, or behavior when their reason has been corrupted and replaced with the arbitrary and violent conscience of absolute power. If we are about ridding the world of evil then let’s start where evil is readily identified, known, and abundant; in the halls and offices of people serving that presumed master, government.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Fat, dumb, and happy in Amerika.

Let’s not mince words. The “Great American Democratic Experiment” has failed. “In what way?” you ask, shifting your gaze from your wide-screen plasma ejaculating NASCAR, football, and “So You Think You Can Dance” to address your tattooed, belligerent, corporate-branded, entitlement-minded children. You look about your overpriced, oversized, over-mortgaged home and entertain escaping in your fuel-hungry, overpriced vehicle. You inventory your legal plastic tender and contemplate the looming interest rate that will soon engulf more of your overtaxed income that serves to further bloat the swollen bellies of voracious malfeasants, traitors, terrorists, thieves, murderers, and vermin posing as legislators and law-makers lying greased and prone for their corporate sodomites.

The American Experiment that began with our founding traitors, terrorists, and landed-white-males standing on a Declaration of Independence and finally settling for a Constitution that embraced slavery, protected the privileged, and favored the mercantile, has accomplished exactly what it intended; that is, to feed the multitude a steady diet of propaganda, compensate them with fiat currency, commercially satiate their prurient desires, fatten them from the trough of government benefits, exact their allegiance, commandeer their children, and superficially educate them in preparation for corporate conscription.

The only involvement the so-called “We the People” have had in this experiment is to serve as lab rats for government to expose to war, deceit, division, and illusory wealth. And as sure as the carcinogenic fare was placed in front of their noses the rats consumed all their bellies could hold. What hath this experiment wrought for a so-called free people? It has produced evidentiary testament that speaks to blissful ignorance, voluntary servitude, moral abdication, spiritual prostitution, and cultural degradation. It is virtually impossible to live, work, eat, trade, associate, reproduce, or travel without the licenses, permits, or regulations of government sapping your common sense and free-will.

It would serve most of you well to forget these words and absorb the messages emblazoned onto your psyche by the corporate media, courtesy of your keepers. So-called “cults” who promote polygamy or “underage sex” are impugned, attacked, and their children confiscated; yet, parents proudly decorate their sons and daughters in the military regalia of an imperialistic despotism and allow them to be marched into foreign lands to die as glorious corporate mercenaries in not-quite-so-conquered foreign lands whose indigenous peoples exhibit more courage, temerity, and resolve than our morally exsanguinated and conscience bereft conquerors could ever hope for. Police routinely electrocute, shoot, or beat people, yet nary an indignant word is uttered by the masses because it was claimed to have been done “within established policy”. It is deemed unpatriotic to not tithe what the government commands. Never before has a society so immersed in technology, opportunity, and apparent capability been rendered so “fat, dumb, and happy” by relinquishing all that is theirs into the hands of arbitrary, corrupt, co-opted, and self-serving oligarchs.

As long as the din of platitudes flows past the Botox lips of the catatonic consumers inhabiting Gomorrah, Inc. by the incessant stream of National Anthems, Pledges of Allegiance, Oaths of Office, and Star Spangled Banners then the truth will lie as it has for eons; consistently and obviously etched upon the redacted words of history, ignored or re-written by those with power to perpetually subjugate those without.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

King for a day.

I intended to write on this topic sooner, but wanted to see how Martin Luther King, Jr. was remembered over “his” holiday. For one day a year, we take time to recognize, acknowledge, honor, dismiss, forget, and deny a man that was murdered for standing up for what he believed. Decades after the dust has settled from King’s “rabble rousing”, we have relative equality, since people do not prosper under liberty, but ignorantly suffer under sophistic rights. Moreover, in a consummate act of patronization, we recognize a government holiday named after one of its victims. We give one day to recognize a struggle that took a lifetime, and a life.

King was not the first to posit civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau were both progenitors of that doctrine. After each generation of peaceful strides, government responded with more legal and institutionalized tyranny and oppression. Of course, King is lauded for making great strides in achieving racial, political, and societal equality, but is it that blacks are elevated to the same level as whites; or were whites lowered to the same level as blacks? If you have two glasses; one filled to the brim with rights, and the other half-filled with rights, and you wish to make them equal in volume, you don't necessarily need fill the lowest one, but may instead opt to empty the fullest one. This is the equality King achieved; or more accurately, the equality the government created.

I am not here to disparage King's work, his message, or the man himself. I greatly admire and respect what he stood for and accomplished. I've heard people refer to King as a failure for black people still not having true racial equality. I believe King was a success, as evidenced by his untimely murder. If there is failure to be assigned, then let it rest on the heads of all who have settled for the watered-down, diluted, manufactured, prescribed, defined, and regulated "privileges and benefits" the government dispenses to placate the otherwise restless rabble so as to keep them fat, dumb, and happy. We have failed. We have failed to protect that which we possess, individual sovereignty. We failed to remain vigilant over encroaching power. We have submitted to servitude, and self-delusion.

What did King accomplish, exactly? He stood defiant against institutionalized legal power. He stood defiant against the state. He was assaulted, stabbed, beaten, reviled, hated, and ultimately murdered. King did not die for what he believed. He died because he was shot. Let it be said that he was murdered for what he believed. He did not wish to die. If someone had said to him, "Dr. King, believing such things will cause your life to flee your body." I presume he would have given it a second thought, and then probably proceed nevertheless. However, his beliefs affected his opponents to such a degree that they moved to permanently silence him. His message was infectious and dangerous. What kind of world would this be if ALL men were treated as equals? Where would government get its power to soothe the pain of injustice it creates? What if all we had to do to defeat tyranny is to simply disobey?

Where King and I part ways is where he advocated passive civil disobedience. I fall more along the lines of the Black Panthers or Malcolm X. I agree with taking a passive, disobedient stand against tyranny, but I find when government or authority fails to honor that peaceful overture and instead compel allegiance, obedience, or action; then righteous, violent self-defense is warranted, by any means necessary. As Malcolm X said, "It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself." I understand why King took the tact he did. His foe is was, and still is, impressive, ruthless, violent, and pervasive. Violence turns many away from what would otherwise be a just battle. Yet, when one comes upon a battle and sees only carnage, if is hard to identify with the struggle when the reason for the bloodbath unknown to the observer. King needed to win minds more so than kill tyrants.

The government's response to "uppity black-folk" was the Civil Rights act of 1966. What were the "equal rights" Uncle Sam so generously gave to his subjects? If you look to Title 42 United States Code, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1981, it will tell you that "Equal Rights" include, in part, "… full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." Where, in that legislation, do the words “rights” or “liberties” appear? Moreover, in order to achieve this equality, without acknowledging Creator-derived unalienable rights belong to blacks as well as whites, the government created the subordinate "white citizen" class and elevated, or laterally moved, the blacks to that subjugated group.

Instead of blacks being acknowledged to have unalienable rights, like the Declaration of Independence states belong to “all men”, prescriptive and diluted privileges were created, called "Civil Rights”, and offered to the People in exchange for their unalienable rights, and their allegiance. Government slyly created a slave class and tricked the blacks into staying right where they were, along with the ignorant and newly-subjugated "white folks". Honestly, I don't know why blacks wanted the same rights as whites. Blacks had to be forced into subjection, and whites hurriedly marched headlong into it.

After all the strife, struggle, battles, and deaths ,we have a legal pacifier shoved into the gaping mouths of the infantile masses. Subjects gladly trade what their Creator bestowed for what government creates. The government did not set a day aside to honor Dr. King's accomplishments and promote his message. The message they wish to convey is, if you exhibit audacity, arrogance, fearlessness, righteousness, and independence, then you too will suffer beatings, oppression, insult, and most likely death. This is what we are to remember on this government-made holiday. It is the reminder that Dr. King stood for something more important than life. He did not willingly succumb. For his petulance he was killed, and it would serve us well to not follow in his footsteps, and instead, accept the scraps off master's table and obey.

So, we have Martin Luther King for a day, and servitude for the rest. Pay obligatory homage to fallen heroes, but don't dare emulate them or suffer like-fate. Ignore what you possess by right of your birth. The government claims to be able to provide for your comfort and security. Surely you don't believe your Creator blessed you with anything comparable to the power of that malignancy called government. I urge you all to exhibit audacity and independence. Step outside your comfort zone. Venture off of the plantation. When "master" comes-a-stalking to get you back in line turn that passive disobedience into righteous self-defense. Why be King for a day when you can rule yourself for life?

Mark McCoy

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Judge C. Philip Nichols, Jr. Found Brain Dead Behind the Bench

It saddens me greatly to inform you all that my harshly worded metaphors involving the too-long-for-this-world Judge Nichols may have contributed to his synaptic demise. Reports of his death have been greatly under exaggerated. View the body here.