Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

Yelp Review for My Father's Law Office

     The following was written as a review, on Yelp.com, for my father's law office, the Law Offices of Richard S. Kopsick, P.C. (based in Waukegan, Illinois). It was written as a warning for those who are considering becoming his clients.



      Richard Kopsick is my father. When I was 28 years old I recovered memories of him molesting me at age 8 and 9. This year I found out that in 1993 my father defended a child molester named Kenneth Hasty.

     My father emotionally and psychologically tortured me every week of my life; by screaming at me, mocking me for seeming affectionate and emotional, making gay jokes about me, and refusing to talk to me when I needed his help most, until I was a drug addicted homeless person. Richard Kopsick would rather make me - his own first born son - into a silent homeless drug addict, and try to put me on sedatives and send him to a mental institution, than admit what he did to me.

     He would rather see me kill myself than admit that he committed at least 3 aggravated counts of criminal sexual abuse, punishable by up to 6 years in prison each. He subjected me to overwhelming tickling, including tickling on the genitalia, and told me we were just playing.

     Richard Kopsick is an alcoholic who drinks and drives and tailgates and speeds, uses the fact that he's a lawyer to get away with it, and lets minors drink in his presence.

     He tried to put me on a sedative "antipsychotic" before I had been diagnosed with anything and without anyone telling me what the drug would do to me. I could have become paralyzed or mute or unable to remember the abuse he inflicted on me as a child. I knew this man had no morals when I was 8 years old, when he told me it wasn't unethical to defend someone you know is guilty.

     Richard Kopsick is a narcissist who pretends he is friendly and affable, it is all an act. This is a facade he puts on because he can't admit who he really is. He hates children and he hates seeing joy in the faces of people he should love. Richard Kopsick is a severely disturbed individual.

     He has destroyed the cohesion of the family he built with my mother, after my mother's side of the family was already affected by the tragedy of childhood sexual abuse.

     My father inflicted horrible emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse on me, and did it privately and subtly enough to get away with it but also openly enough to desensitize his wife and his other son to my abuse.

     His former partner Scott Gibson also pinched kids' asses at his pool parties, he [Gibson] and his ex-wife are severe alcoholics, and Gibson used to do heroin in the 70s. Richard Kopsick exposed me to this child molester and nobody stopped his ass grabbing.

     Richard Kopsick helped me find attorneys to defend me on some nonviolent marijuana possession charges, but never admitted that anti[-]pot laws can be challenged in court through jury nullification, and never admitted to anyone that [I] started smoking pot to fix the dissociative and antisocial states that [he] put me in as a child.

     Would rate zero stars if I could.



Written and Posted to Yelp on March 15th, 2021

Published to This Blog on March 16th, 2021

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Challenging Licensed Attorney Requirements for Elected Positions on 6th and 9th Amendment Grounds

      According to page 56 of the Illinois State Board of Elections's 2020 Candidates' Guide, candidates for State's Attorney for counties in Illinois are required to be licensed attorneys.

     However, I believe that it's possible that that requirement could be challenged; on the grounds that it violates either the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States, the Ninth Amendment, or both.

     I believe that the state doesn't have the authority to require a license in order to run for, or be seated as, the position of state's attorney, because the state doesn't have the authority to require a license in order to practice law in the first place.


     The Sixth Amendment recognizes a right to self-representation; i.e., the right to defend oneself in court. However, that right is not unlimited (in the eyes of the law), as the right applies only at trial, for criminal suspects, and not on appeal.

     Still, in civil proceedings, you are required to represent yourself. A state's attorney or district attorney would be representing the state, the public, and alleged victims of criminal misdeeds, rather than himself, of course.

     But my hope is that the legitimacy of licenses for attorneys (and professional licensing monopolies), in the first place, is what matters here, rather than the legal venue or the type of law being practiced.


     If there's any precedent that supports the idea that defending yourself in court – and exercising your right to self-representation - in any way counts as "practicing law", then it's possible that it could be successfully be argued that courts should find that nobody can be prevented from practicing law on account of lack of a license.

     Especially considering that, if a person cannot be prohibited from acting as his own attorney in criminal proceedings, there should be no reason why the same person should be prohibited from representing himself in any venue.


     Moreover, the 9th Amendment says that "the enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny nor disparage certain rights retained by the people". This has been interpreted to mean that the mere fact that a right isn't listed in the Constitution, doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't one of our rights.

     If something can't be done without a permit, then it's not a real right or a freedom; instead, it's being done by permission and privilege. The 9th Amendment recognizes our freedom to retain our freedoms, despite the state's efforts to turn those freedoms into paid privileges, which it sells for profit, and from whose sale it has the exclusive right to profit.


     Because of this problem – the turning of freedoms into privileges - the people should (and do) have a right and a responsibility to limit the state's authority to require a license or permit, in order to exercise a certain right, or to work in a certain profession.

     Because our limited right to represent ourselves in court without a lawyer is recognized, the idea that the state can or should require anyone to have a license in order to practice law, should be thought of as ridiculous, and as an obvious violation of the natural right to defend oneself in court.


     Requirements that a person must be a licensed attorney in order to run for, or be seated as, a state's attorney or district attorney, should be challenged on 6th and 9th Amendment grounds.
     The ability and skill which is necessary to determine whether a person should be charged with a crime, and whether a grand jury should be convened, results from the same types of learning, education, research, and training, which any person with a functioning brain are capable of doing from the time they become able to read; including persons who may be charged with crimes in the future.

     According to my interpretation, the 9th Amendment implicitly recognizes a pre-existing natural right to enter any profession (or, at least, to attempt to; so non-attorneys should at least not be precluded from running), and the 6th Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right of criminal suspects to defend themselves in court.


     There is no particular reason why anyone – criminal suspect or prosecutor alike - should not be able to act as legal counsel, provided that they comprehend the law of the relevant jurisdiction well enough. States can decide that the matter of how well they comprehend the law should be decided through a bar examination, but states could just as well decide that the people should be free to make that determination on their own, through an election.

     As long as the position is publicly elected, in an election that is transparent enough to allow voters to make a thoughtful judgment about whether the person is qualified to charge criminal suspects, the people should have the right to make that decision, instead of implementing attorney licensing systems. After all, the governor is not required to be a licensed attorney. So, then, why should the state's attorneys – whom are in lower executive positions than the governor – be required to do the same?
     It is each state's decision how (or whether) to regulate the licensure of attorneys, if they choose to require them to be licensed. But no state is obligated to license attorneys, because of the contents of the 9th Amendment (rights found in Constitution may not disparage other rights retained by the people) and 10th Amendment (“states' rights”).




Inspired by the ideas of a candidate for State's Attorney of Lake County, Illinois,

who wishes to remain anonymous




Written on September 24th, 2020

Edited and Expanded on September 29th, 2020

Published on September 29th, 2020

Sunday, August 18, 2019

How to Simplify and Streamline the United States Code

     The following is a set of recommendations regarding how to best reorganize the U.S. Code. The U.S. Code currently contains 48 titles; Title 6 and Title 34 have been removed and are no longer active. A list of the sections of the U.S. Code is available at the following link: http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

     I have made these recommendations as a way to: 1) decrease the number of titles in the Code; 2) simplify the law in general; 3) remove eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus transferring those duties to the states or to the people, and restoring the set of federal powers to within (or closer to) the confines established in the Enumerated Powers; 4) re-organize the Code in a manner which flows more logically; and 5) re-structure the Code in a way that reflects the order of federal authorities listed in the Enumerated Powers, in the order in which they appear.

     My hope is that these recommendations could help guide federal legislative policy, going forward, regarding the continuation of a federal government power shrinking policy. For example, if ever a law were to be passed which would provide that all proposed federal laws must contain a specific explanation of why they are constitutional – which I hope would include which passage in the Constitution authorizes federal power in that policy area – then I hope that the following recommendations help set up the order in which federal authorities appear in the Enumerated Powers as a sort of “backbone” upon which a new re-ordering of the titles of the U.S. Code can be built.
     From that point, those seeking to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, should compare the Enumerated Powers (and the main enabling powers in the Constitution) side by side with the list of 30 titles found at the end of this article, determine whether the Enumerated Powers justify the exercise of federal power in those policy areas, and use their findings to determine which fields of federal purview should be eliminated next. My first recommendation would be to look at which powers the government has under “public health” (in Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare), since health is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but welfare is.
     Next, I would recommend examining which types of laws on "Transportation" (if any) are specifically authorized under the only presumable clause which could possibly authorize federal involvement in transportation; namely, the clause authorizing the establishment of Post Roads (Clause 7 of the Enumerated Powers). And so on, should that idea and method be applied, to the other titles, until the contents of the U.S. Code reflect only those federal powers which were specifically authorized in the U.S. Constitution. I would suggest that the title on "Labor" be reviewed before it is removed, so that whichever portions of that title pertain to labor by federal workers can be retained (and, I would suggest, incorporated into Title 8 (Government Organization and Employees) and/or Title 9 (Public Contracts).
     I also hope that this article will help educate the populace as to precisely where in our immense federal code of law, some of the laws we like and don't like, can be found. If the following 31 proposals can ever be passed into law, then I hope that that popular education will become even easier, given the new simplification and streamlining of the Code which I have proposed.
     Here are my proposals about how to reform the order of titles in the U.S. Code:

Proposal #1. Keep Title 1 where it is.
Proposal #2. Make Title 4 into Title 2.
Proposal #3. Make Title 36 into Title 3.
Proposal #4. Make Title 2 into Title 4.
Proposal #5. Make Title 3 into Title 5.
Proposal #6. Make Title 28 into Title 6.
Proposal #7. Make Title 9 into Title 7.
Proposal #8. Make Title 5 into Title 8.
Proposal #9. Make Title 41 into Title 9.
Proposal #10. Make Title 13 into Title 10. Proposal #11. Make Title 42 into Title 11. Proposal #12. Make Title 26 into Title 12.
Proposal #13. Make Title 19 into Title 13.
Proposal #14. Combine Titles 11 and 12 into a single title; Title 14.
Proposal #15. Make Title 15 into Title 15.
Proposal #16. Make Title 22 into Title 16.
Proposal #17. Make Title 25 into Title 17.
Proposal #18. Make Title 31 into Title 18.
Proposal #19. Make Title 39 into Title 19.
Proposal #20. Make Title 23 into Title 20.
Proposal #21. Make Title 49 into Title 21. Proposal #22. Combine Titles 17 and 35 into a single title; Title 22.
Proposal #23. Make Title 18 into Title 23.
Proposal #24. Make Title 10 into Title 24.
Proposal #25. Make Title 14 into Title 25.
Proposal #26. Make Title 32 into Title 26.
Proposal #27. Make Title 33 into Title 27.
Proposal #28. Combine Titles 37 and 38 into a single title; Title 28.
Proposal #29. Make Title 40 into Title 29.
Proposal #30. Make Title 43 into Title 30.
 
Proposal #31. Eliminate Titles 16, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 45, and 47.


     Proposal #31 would eliminate eight titles of the U.S. Code, thus “devolving” (or returning) those policy areas to the states or to the people, where they rightfully belong.

     Those policy areas are, respectively: Conservation (Title 16), Education (Title 20), Food and Drugs (Title 21), Hospitals and Asylums (Title 24), Labor (Title 29), Mineral Lands and Mining (Title 30), Railroads (Title 25). and Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs (Title 47).



     Proposals #1-30 would cause the now 50- (or 48-) title U.S. Code to have only 30 titles, causing the list of titles to appear the way it does below:



(Arguably Authorized Under Various Basic Enabling Clauses of Government)
     Title 1. General Provisions
     Title 2. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
     Title 3. Patriotic Societies and Observances
     Title 4. The Congress
     Title 5. The President
     Title 6. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
     Title 7. Arbitration
     Title 8. Government Organization and Employees

     Title 9. Public Contracts
     Title 10. Census

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-3)
     Title 11. The Public Health and Welfare
     Title 12. Internal Revenue Code
     Title 13. Customs Duties
     Title 14. Bankruptcy, Banks, and Banking
     Title 15. Commerce and Trade
     Title 16. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
     Title 17. Indians
     Title 18. Money and Finance

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7)
     Title 19. Postal Service
     Title 20. Highways
     Title 21. Transportation

(Arguably Authorized Under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8)
     Title 22. Copyrights and Patents

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 10)
     Title 23. Crimes and Criminal Procedures

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clauses 11 through 16)
     Title 24. Armed Forces
     Title 25. Coast Guard
     Title 26. National Guard
     Title 27. Navigation and Navigable Waters
     Title 28. Pay and Allowances of Uniformed Services, and Veterans' Benefits

(Arguably Authorized Under Article I Section 8 Clause 17)
     Title 29. Public Buildings, Property, and Works
     Title 30. Public Lands






Written on August 18th, 2019
Originally Published on August 18th, 2019
Edited on August 18th and 19th, 2019

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Agorist Protection Agencies and Syndicates Thereof

Written in May 2013,
edited in May 2014



     One of the ways [Samuel E.] Konkin [III] wrote that Agorist protection agencies (if all were threatened by invasion by the State) could defend themselves against the State, would be for the counter-economy to form “larger syndicates than the ones they form [if] a local protection company [goes] renegade” – and to “[generate] the syndicates of protection agencies sufficiently large to defend against the remnant of the State” – by means of “policy holders of all the insurance and protection companies… throw[ing] all their combined resources… on defense of the common ground”.

     “Large syndicates of market protection agencies are containing the State by defending those who have signed up for protection-insurance.”

     “…actual physical confrontation with the State’s enforcers must await the market’s generation of protection agency syndicates of sufficient strength; all else is premature.”

     “The most motivated New Libertarians will move into the research and development supply for the budding agorist protection and arbitration agencies and lastly as directors of the protection company syndicates.”

     “The collapse of the State leaves only mopping up operations. Since the insurance and protection companies see no State to defend against, the syndicate of allied protectors collapses into competition and the NLA [New Libertarian Alliance] - its support gone - dissolves. Statists apprehended pay restoration and if they live long enough to discharge their debts, are re-integrated as productive entrepreneurs (Their “training” comes automatically as they work off their debt.)”



For more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Sunday, April 20, 2014

John Locke, Roderick Long, and Voluntary Taxation

Written on October 6th, 2012
as an e-mail to Panarchist John Zube



   The following was written in regard to Roderick Long's criticism of John Locke's justification for the Leviathan as an endorsement of monopoly government.

   Long uses a three-person desert island scenario to show that it is unfair for one person to wield the ability to always resolve the disputes of others, because that one person might be given too much leeway to resolve potential disputes which concern him in his own favor.

   This leads me to wonder whether voluntary governance can only occur if individuals are required to submit disputes which they cannot resolve among themselves to some - although not necessarily (and preferably not) always the same - neutral, fair, independent, and uninterested arbiter.

   I think it is choice - minimally restrained; restrained to selection from among the existing set of alternatives - that makes government voluntary, more than it is freedom to self-govern which does so.

   This is because an ungoverned person is free to intervene in disputes which do not involve him without others asking, and free to act in a way that affects others without their knowledge and / or consent (anarchy = tyranny / Statism; panarchy is neither anarchist nor Statist).

   This is the argument I make to defend the notion that my taxation plan is truly voluntary, because to create perfect competition requires that persons become insured against harm to personal and property harm, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that most public goods provision would be linked to - and resemble (as in the Agorist formulation) - insurance.


   My understanding of Konkin's and / or Robert Murphy's views on the topic is that self-governance should not be prohibited, but that society would boycott uninsured / ungoverned individuals due to the risks involved.




For more entries on justice, crime, and punishment, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Viewing Legislation Through the Economic Lens

Written November 19th, 2010


   We must view all political issues as inherently economic in nature. Besides asking if a bill is constitutional, we must also ask how we will fund it and whether the methods and means by which we fund it are also constitutional. Besides requiring all future bills to cite in them the specific clauses which explicitly grant the congress the authority to pass such laws, I would support a federal balanced-budget amendment, which would prevent deficits and debt increases, requiring the government to either cut spending, raise taxes, borrow more, and / or print more money (the latter only as a last resort, however!).

   In that all political issues are inherently economic in nature, we must view government itself through the lens of economics. Government apparati are little other than contract-enforcement agencies; organizations which provide us security and justice for a fee, obligated to hold up their end of the bargain. The federal government behaves as a corporation that desires to become a monopoly. It sees states, local communities, and private security firms, and offers them legitimacy if only they will consent to take orders from, and become integrated into, the overarching, monolithic centralized power.

   The federal government is not at the top of the power structure. The people are. Just as the states can take back the powers which they have vested in the federal government, the people can take back the powers which they have vested in the state governments, and therefore the people can compel the states and congress to reclaim for they the people the powers which states and the congress have vested in the executive branch and in the president, especially those powers illegitimately and wrongfully appropriated to those who hold such positions.




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/debt-and-federal-budget.html

For more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...