Feinstein Amendment Further Entrenches Power of Military Indefinite Detention

[CuteOldGuy]

Where are you getting this, LL? Certainly the 5th Amendment applies in civil court and before Congress, to prevent you from incriminating yourself IN A CRIME! And there may be states that have a right to counsel in child support cases, but not Kansas. And not in Federal Court. In fact, Federal Court does not hear child support cases.

There is NO right to counsel in a civil case that I know of. Some states may be different, but I do not know of any, and it certainly isn't nationwide.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

There is NO right to counsel in a civil case that I know of. Some states may be different, but I do not know of any, and it certainly isn't nationwide.

The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are "nationwide" ....

.... except Kansas? I guess.

With all due respect COG ... the key phrase in your reaction is ...

...... "that I know of" ....

[CuteOldGuy]

Please cite the case, LL. I'd be interested to know.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And there may be states that have a right to counsel in child support cases, but not Kansas.

Kansas: KAN. STAT. ANN. § 38-1505: (a) On good cause
shown, the court may appoint a second attorney for a
child, in child-in-need-of-care proceedings, in addition to a
guardian ad litem. “(b) … If at any stage of the proceedings
[alleging that a child is in need of care] a parent desires but
is financially unable to employ an attorney, the court shall
appoint an attorney for the parent.”… (e) attorneys
appointed under this section “shall be allowed a reasonable
fee for their services, which may be assessed as an expense
in the proceedings….”

Id. § 38-1582(d): “Prior to a hearing on a petition or a
motion requesting termination of parental rights, the
court shall appoint an attorney to represent any parent
who fails to appear and may award a reasonable fee to
the attorney for services. The fee may be assessed as an
expense in the proceedings.”

Id. § 59-2136: “(c) In stepparent adoptions …, the court
may appoint an attorney to represent any father who is
unknown or whose whereabouts are unknown. In all
other cases, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent
any father who is unknown or whose whereabouts
are unknown…. (h) If a father [who appears and
asserts parental rights] desires but is financially unable to
employ an attorney, the court shall appoint an attorney
for the father.”

That took me about 5 minutes .... those are court appointed lawyers in civil cases!


Your statement was: "There is NO right to counsel in a civil case that I know of."

And your earlier statement was: " In a civil court, they can't take away your liberty."

Of course the civil court can ... contempt

.... and the civil court can terminate parental rights ..

.... sometimes more precious than freedom ... and more difficult to regain than freedom.

Now, do I have to look up child support contempt cases in Kansas?

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually, here is a compendium of state laws concerning rights to counsel in civil cases. They pertain mainly to indigent defendents and family law situations.

None of these apply to cases which could arise under the NDAA. That's what I was talking about. Hell, I was an appointed attorney in civil juvenile court. I know what goes on there.

What we are talking about here are people indefinitely detained under the NDAA. There is no right to counsel in those cases. Just as there is no right to counsel if CitiBank sues you, or other such cases.

Try to stay in context, LL. You're smarter than this.

http://www.nyls.edu/user_files/1/3/4...tone070804.pdf

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1051985928]Please cite the case, LL.[QUOTE]

I recall "In re Gault" .. and forward ... but ...

Turner vs. Rogers, U.S. Supreme Court, 564 U. S. ____ (2011).
“Cases directly concerning a right to counsel in civil cases have found a presumption of such a right “only” in cases involving incarceration, but have not heldthat a right to counsel exists in all such cases. See In re Gault, 387
U. S. 1; Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480; and Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., 452 U. S. 18. Pp. 7–10.”

“This decision does not address civil contempt proceedings where the underlying support payment is owed to the State, e.g., for reimbursement of welfare funds paid to the custodial parent, or the question what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant “can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate,” Gagnon, supra, at 788. Pp. 10–16.”

The bottom line is ..

..... your statement is incorrect, as I stated.

Even in Kansas ... Dorothy.

[CuteOldGuy]

Wow. So you want to play that "gotcha" game, huh? Funny, I never associated you with the likes of Assup, CBJ7, Ekim, BigTurd and the usual gang of morons. But I was wrong. If that's what makes it fun for you here, fine. Everybody knew I was talking about cases that might arise under the NDAA. Yes, I knew there were certain circumstances where an individual has a right to counsel in a civil case. I've been appointed in some of those cases. But those are clearly defined, and do not apply in this context.

If you are detained under the NDAA, you DO NOT have a right to counsel. Criminal or civil, you do not have a right. Even if you're indigent, which triggers the right to counsel in some states under some circumstances, you have to prove your indigence to a judge, to which you would have no access.

So, you got me. Or so you think. It doesn't change the point of the thread, or the threat that we're under. Happy now? You've wasted everyone's time proving a point that doesn't matter. I guess you are in the usual gang of morons.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

Notice that our fellow liberals don't address the issue but rather point out other issues, such as their old "he did it too" or "a Republican did it too"? Typical liberals, they NEVER face the issue at hand but try to avoid it by bringing up something else.

No I am not going to waste my time trying to make sense to you fucking Neanderthals. I gave that up a couple of years ago. I am here only for the sheer pleasure of pointing out your stupidity, xenophobia and utter disregard for the country in which you live and the people who also live here.

I am sure that on the other side of the computer, I'd find a lot of guys who were playground bullies in school but never knew why the smart kids made them crazy. Or why you were taught to hate and envy others the way your rhetoric obviously indicates you do.

Oh well. Im sure Rush has a term for it.

I don't think a Teabagger said this first, but FUCK YOUSELF!

Man up and join the human race.

Oh, and in case you didn't hear me the first time, FUCK YOURSELF!

Dipshits.

[CuteOldGuy]

Thank you for being the role model for civility and thoughtfulness, Assup. We appreciate your efforts to bring us up to your level.

<<< Assup // COG >>>

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Wow. So you want to play that "gotcha" game, huh?

Actually, you "gotcha" yourself ... I merely said your statement was "incorrect" ... you could have left it there and agreed ... then moved on .... but in your internet-persona... you wanted to champion your incorrect statement by challenging me as to my source of saying your statement was incorrect .... you asked me for my source ... and you were the one who brought up Kansas .. not me.

Rather than attack people and start name calling when you get cornered from your own bullshit .... it is more intellectually honest to simply admit that you were incorrect and then move on .... you are the one who wasted time by challenging "my source" with the question ...

"Where are you getting this, LL?"

If you don't want to know or don't care ... then don't ask. Otherwise take your lumps and move on ...

As for lumping me in to the other name-calling chldren on here ... you just joined them.

Now to what section of the NDAA in what year are you referring when you say ....

"If you are detained under the NDAA, you DO NOT have a right to counsel. Criminal or civil, you do not have a right. Even if you're indigent, which triggers the right to counsel in some states under some circumstances, you have to prove your indigence to a judge, to which you would have no access."

And before you take another leap into some murky waters, you might revisit your "evaluation" of the journalistic interpretations of the legislation and make sure that YOUR analysis is clear about the distinction between:

"civilian courts" vs. military tribunals and
"civil courts" vs. criminal courts.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt479.pdf

[markroxny]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Rather than attack people and start name calling when you get cornered from your own bullshit .... it is more intellectually honest to simply admit that you were incorrect and then move on ....

As for lumping me in to the other name-calling chldren on here ... you just joined them.

Finally one of the rightys is seeing COF for what he really is.

[CuteOldGuy]

You didn't post the law, LL. It was sections 1021 and 1022 in the 2012 act. The new act contains the language in the 1030's, I believe, but will need the law to be sure.

Btw, how does the Kool-Aid taste?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now to what section of the NDAA in what year are you referring when you say ....

"If you are detained under the NDAA, you DO NOT have a right to counsel. Criminal or civil, you do not have a right. Even if you're indigent, which triggers the right to counsel in some states under some circumstances, you have to prove your indigence to a judge, to which you would have no access."

Koolaid?

I thought you knew about that which you opined.

Where's the section that says it, please?

Again, if you are not familiar with "the law" ////

..... then I would refrain from posting about it.

And right now you have shown you don't ... even about Kansas.

[Guest040616]

StupidOldFart, anyone will tell you that I am no fan of LL but you are trying to win this argument on his home turf. LL clearly has the home field advantage here. You're the Kansas City Chiefs at 2-10 and he's the Houston Texans at 11-1. To make matters worse, the game is being played in Houston's Reliant Stadium!

I really do not have a dog in this pissing match. Hell, I do not care for either of you! With that said, this is yet another loser on your part. Just as you lost when you failed to provide proof to the statement that JFK, Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey would all be modern day Republican's in today's political climate.

Just pick your StupidOldFart ass up off of the ground, dust it off and try to find a sandlot football squad to play your lousy team in Arrowhead Stadium.

You're really not having a very good day, are you?

[CuteOldGuy]

I'm always having a good day, BigTurdLittleMan. LL has chosen to be an idiot statist. That's his problem, not mine. You guys seem to like total government control. I don't.