Thursday, October 27, 2005
Habeas Corpus Extraterrestrial & US Senators
From Bryant v. Cheney, 924 F.2d 525 (4th Circ. 1991):
Compare that with Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254, note (7th Circ. 1994):
The Gammon court was indeed wise to leave that question unanswered, but posed that "The 'least sophisticated consumers' actually believe that 12 Senators are from other planets."
Apparently, CUAS still has an axe to grind over the Air Force hiding the bodies of these senators, because they list a link in their favorites on the web site (but, it appears that the CIA cut the ties on the link because it doesn't work).
They are now worried about cover-ups of "flying-triangles" and have 9th Circuit opinions online.
All I want to know is: Who is fighting the Klingons found near Hiannis?
Bryant is convinced that the government has concealed evidence of UFO visits. He is the director of the Washington, D.C., office of "Citizens Against UFO Secrecy" (CAUS). In 1983, Bryant, on behalf of CAUS, filed a civil action in district court in the District of Columbia styled "Writ of Habeas Corpus Extraterrestrial." In this suit, he sought to compel the Air Force to produce the bodies of space creatures retrieved from crashed flying saucers. This suit was eventually dismissed, but not until it had generated a good deal of publicity.
[...]He sought information from the papers' military audience about the government's alleged coverup of the UFO menace. The advertisements did not use Bryant's name (CAUS was listed), but did give his home address for replies. Some of the advertisements were printed, but others were rejected by the publishers.
Compare that with Gammon v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 27 F.3d 1254, note (7th Circ. 1994):
See Nick Mann, "12 Senators Are From Outer Space," Weekly World News 1, 23-25 (June 7, 1994). The article quotes Senator Gramm: "It's all true. We are space aliens. I'm amazed that it has taken you so long to find out." The article poses an interesting constitutional problem: are non-humans eligible to sit in the Senate? Art. I § 3 cl. 3 provides: "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Mann's sources were concerned about this. Nathaniel Dean, an "expert" on extraterrestrial lawmakers, is quoted as saying: "The first question that came to my mind was whether the senators are U.S. citizens and eligible to serve in the U.S. Senate ... From what I understand, they were born in the U.S. and are U.S. citizens. It just so happens that their parents were from another world." But are non-humans "persons" for purposes of the Constitution, and therefore eligible to be citizens of the United States? Professor Ackerman would answer yes, to the extent they have demonstrated "dialogic competence." Bruce A. Ackerman, Social Justice in the Liberal State (1980). Corporations are "persons," although they are not homo sapiens. See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R., 118 U.S. 394, 396, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 1140, 30 L.Ed. 118 (1886); cf. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 778 n. 14, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1416 n. 14, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). But see Miles v. Augusta City Council, 710 F.2d 1542, 1544 n. 5 (11th Cir.1983) (a talking cat is not a "person"). If sentient non-humans are citizens, should "years" be measured from the perspective of Earth or from the perspective of the Senator's native planet? Cf. Richard A. Posner, The Problems of Jurisprudence 265-69 (1990). Perhaps these are political questions. Compare Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), with McIntyre v. Fallahay, 766 F.2d 1078 (7th Cir.1985). Fortunately, it is not necessary to wrestle these issues to the ground in order to resolve a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Gammon court was indeed wise to leave that question unanswered, but posed that "The 'least sophisticated consumers' actually believe that 12 Senators are from other planets."
Apparently, CUAS still has an axe to grind over the Air Force hiding the bodies of these senators, because they list a link in their favorites on the web site (but, it appears that the CIA cut the ties on the link because it doesn't work).
They are now worried about cover-ups of "flying-triangles" and have 9th Circuit opinions online.
All I want to know is: Who is fighting the Klingons found near Hiannis?
// posted by John B. Manos @ 10/27/2005 02:26:00 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
You know why the Air Force wears metal insignia on our hats? It keeps the alien signals from beaming into our brains.
Some guy on a Chicago streetcorner told me to rub Pepto-bismol over certain parts of myself to get the same effect, but I think the Air Force method is much cleaner.
Some guy on a Chicago streetcorner told me to rub Pepto-bismol over certain parts of myself to get the same effect, but I think the Air Force method is much cleaner.
# posted by 
: Thu Oct 27, 03:28:00 PM CDT
: Thu Oct 27, 03:28:00 PM CDT
Rather amused I am to see that only some fat cats are considered persons while talking cats are not...
I wonder if an insistantly rude and domineering talking cat who ordered a person (because the talking cat is not a person) to commit a crime, and the perpetrator believed that he could not disobey the order would qualify the perpetrator for the deific degree defense.
Or, would the defendant need first to establish that this was no ordinary domineering and talkative cat, but a divine one to boot?
It was applied to persons who acted on the advice and consent of aliens to perpetrate crimes, State v. Crenshaw, 659
P.2d 488, 494 (Wash. 1983), so perhaps cats are not that much harder to apply.
The real question is whether it works when someone claims to be speaking on God's behalf... i.e.-the Prophetic Decree behalf. An example would be, "but the Blessed Mother told me to do it".
Post a Comment
I wonder if an insistantly rude and domineering talking cat who ordered a person (because the talking cat is not a person) to commit a crime, and the perpetrator believed that he could not disobey the order would qualify the perpetrator for the deific degree defense.
Or, would the defendant need first to establish that this was no ordinary domineering and talkative cat, but a divine one to boot?
It was applied to persons who acted on the advice and consent of aliens to perpetrate crimes, State v. Crenshaw, 659
P.2d 488, 494 (Wash. 1983), so perhaps cats are not that much harder to apply.
The real question is whether it works when someone claims to be speaking on God's behalf... i.e.-the Prophetic Decree behalf. An example would be, "but the Blessed Mother told me to do it".
<< Home
Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved
