Home >
Alerts &
Updates > Update for 6/17/2013: Courts
of InJustice versus Clark Aposhian
Courts of InJustice versus Clark
Aposhian
(Update for 6/17/13): Here we
expose how this Government subverts fair trials and the
consequences of this subversion for Clark Aposhian.
Specifically, Aposhian faces a system in which unreasonable
seizures occur, the right to Counsel is effectively denied,
the right to a public trial by an impartial jury is
obstructed, and deprivation of life, liberty, and property may
occur without authentic due process of law.
The
Living Nightmare of Government Prosecution
The recent
news coverage regarding the prosecution of Utah Shooting
Sports Council (USSC) lobbyist Clark Aposhian serves to
illustrate the injustices inherent in Utah’s court system.
Though we have faulted Aposhian for his apparent
collaboration with
the governor’s office to help veto
HB 76 S1 (Carry
Unloaded Firearms Concealed), this unsavory act is
immaterial to whether he, or any citizen, should receive fair
treatment when criminally or civilly accused.
According to news stories, Aposhian
has been charged with
domestic violence in the presence of a child and three
other class B misdemeanors:
trespass,
criminal mischief, and
threat of violence. If substantively true these acts
MAY represent unacceptable conduct. It is our persistent
observation, however, that the statutory language and
accompanying definitions behind each charge must be carefully
read and understood.
Is actual justice impacted by their
violation? Or are the statutes merely an expression of
excessive Governmental power, no matter how acceptable they
may seem from their title? (For example, consider unjust
statutes that criminalize the virtuous act of peaceably
carrying a firearm for personal and family defense.)
Apart from determining whether the
statutes themselves are just, we reasonably should consider
how easily abuse might result from:
* embellishment and distortion of
actual facts to satisfy the personal animosity of an accuser
towards the accused;
* police and prosecutorial
aggrandizement or payback;
* the ongoing “need” to justify
enormous taxpayer expenditures on courts, police, prosecutors,
attorneys, and prisons; and
* outright carelessness.
We must keep in mind that without
prosecutions there would be no “business” to quell the massive
and insatiable appetite of the “criminal justice” industry.
Within this nightmarish environment
Aposhian and all defendants may be charged with violation of
unjust statutes and must endure a system that financially
benefits from prosecutions. Much is at stake for
Aposhian as the weight of the Leviathan is stacked against
him. He faces a system that values convictions, in and of
themselves, as a measure of “justice”. His reputation,
ability to make a living, relationship with his child and
other family members, right to defend himself, and liberty may
all be subverted or destroyed by Government run amok.
In light of the inherent
tendency of governments to abuse power, certain safeguards
were instituted in American jurisprudence. These
safeguards include:
* protection against unreasonable
seizures;
* the right to Counsel;
* the right to a public trial by an
impartial jury; and
* protection against the deprivation
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
History is replete with examples of seizures absent
authentic due process. |
Unreasonable Seizure of Weapons
Let’s examine some of these safeguards
with regard to Aposhian’s prosecution. Upon presenting
himself to the court, Aposhian was
told this by judge Augustus Chin:
"If there are any weapons in your
home, I’m giving you 24 hours to remove them. That’s in
effect immediately."
At this point Aposhian has merely been
accused of certain criminal acts and there is no known
indication that he is inclined to actually be violent or has
threatened anyone with a firearm. Apparently the court
agrees that no violence is imminent or it would have detained
him without bail.
So is the judge acting on his own or
does he reflect an institutional contempt for firearms
ownership by citizens? Does he wish for Aposhian to be
subject to attack and have no means to defend himself?
At what point does the definition of a weapon end? Does
Aposhian have to remove scissors, pocket knives, baseball
bats, screwdrivers, containers of gasoline, lumber, rocks,
glass containers, motorized vehicles, pencils and pens, bows
and arrows, and similar items since all may be used as a
weapon?
Since Aposhian has been ordered to
remove weapons from his home and they are not available to
him, they have effectively been seized by judge Chin. We
believe the de facto seizure is unreasonable absent a hearing
in which Aposhian may challenge and refute any direct evidence
to be used against him to justify the pre-trial
seizure/punishment.
If Aposhian may no longer possess
weapons, he may no longer be able to make a living since he
teaches concealed carry to those seeking government licenses.
This of course probably greatly diminishes his ability to
defend himself absent income from his business, particularly
if the pre-trial motions and trial itself become long,
complicated, and expensive due to unreasonable conduct by the
judge, prosecutors, and police. (Sadly and ironically
Aposhian’s apparent
facilitation of the veto of HB 76 S1 may have been
influenced by a possible reduction of business for him absent
a Government mandate for training for those carrying concealed
firearms. Now his business may be terminated by the same
Government that provided business to him in the first place.)
The denial of adequate counsel has been tried
before. |
Government Denial of Counsel for the Accused
It was of interest to note that
Aposhian appeared without a lawyer in court. His lack of
Counsel highlights one of the most despicable abuses of
justice found in Utah’s and America’s degraded court systems.
While the
Utah and
U.S. Constitutions assure a defendant shall have the right
to assistance of Counsel for his defense, in practice the
Government has rigged the system to effectively deny Counsel
for many — or most* — defendants.
*Note:
Court-appointed counsel may be provided
if the defendant is "indigent".
This denial of Counsel results in part
from a statutory
prohibition against “practicing law without a license”.
Since Government-approved lawyers are unaffordable without
major to severe financial harm to a defendant (are you able to
afford dozens of hours for two lawyers working on your behalf
at $200 to $500 per hour each?), as a practical matter most
defendants must acquiesce to a “plea bargain” or ration and
weaken their legal assistance to avoid financial ruin.
Without the statutory prohibition
against Counsel other than Government-approved lawyers,
competition would arise and a defendant would have more
effective options at lower cost for his defense. For
example, many paralegals are well-versed in the rules of
criminal and civil procedure and could capably guide a
defendant in her own defense at a cost she might afford.
As well, there are persons who have undertaken self study
of law or have been to law school and are similarly capable as
some paralegals but do not have a Government license (i.e. are
members of the pseudo-governmental
Utah State Bar Association).
Should not a defendant be able to
determine the balance between effective representation and
cost of that representation? In Utah a typical taxpaying
defendant is denied affordable legal representation by the
Government. A defendant may have all the legal
assistance that he may require, but at a Government-inflated
cost that he most definitely cannot afford.
Secretive trials are a hallmark of
tyrannies. |
Subversion of Public Trials
Because secret trials are an inherent
methodology of tyrannies, the
Utah and
U.S. Constitutions recognize the right of the accused to
have a public trial. Obviously the public will be less
inclined to tolerate malfeasance, nonfeasance, and misfeasance
by the judiciary and its prosecutorial allies if the
proceedings in a court room are easily made known.
Not surprisingly, the observation of
public trials, just like the right of the accused to have
Counsel, has been subverted by this Government. While the
court room may be open to a limited number of in-person
observers for some trials, these observers have been banned
from recording the proceedings so that the larger public may
directly and easily see for themselves the injustices that
occur.
The courts have recognized the
de
facto concealment of their craft, in an age where virtually
everything else is disclosed, does not pass a public test for
legitimacy. As a result,
limited recording has recently been authorized.
Video recording is still not allowed by the general public and
judges may ban all recordings in any particular case.
Recording is important so the public
can see what happens, for example, when the accused seeks, but
is denied, affordable assistance of Counsel (i.e. Counsel that
is not approved by the Bar) due to
tyranny imposed by the Judicial Council.
Thus saith the Court Dictator! |
Undermining Trial by an
Impartial Jury
It is also important for the public to
see courts deny the accused trial by an impartial jury.
Jury tampering (undermining a fair and impartial jury)
effectively occurs when a court instructs a jury that its
power is limited solely to deciding the facts of the case.
It is an outrage when jurors are pressured by a court to
uphold a prosecution based on a statute that is unjust, or is
unfairly or vindictively applied.
It is a preposterous notion that
citizens are held accountable for every detail of thousands of
statutes, rules, and regulations (i.e. we’re told that
ignorance of a statute is no defense to prosecution) while
jurors are considered entirely ignorant of the law and must
enforce every statute as ordered — no matter how unjust or
unfair. The fundamental benefit of trial by an impartial
jury is subverted by any court that denies the accused and the
jury an opportunity to challenge the justice of the statutes
she is charged with violating.
Nonetheless, despite the menacing
instructions given to jurors by courts and the threat of being
jailed in defense of the innocent, some jurors do exercise
their conscience and prevent unjust convictions.
Since an
unanimous verdict is required in Utah’s criminal cases,
only one juror of conscience is required to thwart an attack
against the accused by the Government.
Since it only takes one juror of
conscience to prevent the iron fist of Government from
imprisoning and fining a defendant, the already massive
asymmetry in resources of the accused vs. GOVERNMENT is
worsened by Utah’s greatest injustice:
juries may be composed with as few as four jurors.
Plainly, in Utah a high value is placed on convicting the
accused, and the smaller the jury the more likely the accused
will be convicted. It is less likely a juror of
conscience will be found in a jury of four as compared to the
traditional jury of 12.
"But the most grievous innovation of all, is the
alarming extension of the power of courts of
admiralty. In these courts, one judge presides
alone! No juries have any concern there! The law and
the fact are both to be decided by the same single
judge." — John Adams |
And even if Aposhian escapes criminal
charges relatively unscathed, he will still again face a
veritable court dictator; this time without the benefit of a
jury. He is currently battling for custody of his
child, and in nearly all
parental rights
and
divorce cases,
NO JURY IS ALLOWED AT ALL. This injustice is why we
highlighted HB
313, which would take a small step toward reducing the
power of these court dictators and re-invigorating the right
of the people to receive trial by jury.
Think of the ramifications of juryless
trials! America’s own
Declaration of Independence levels the following
accusation against King George as a cause for separation:
"…For depriving us in many cases of
the benefits of Trial by Jury."
Yet, Utah deprives accused parents of
such a safeguard for their most treasured bond: custody of
their own children. What is life or happiness without
one’s children? Are we content to leave such matters to
one court dictator? If so, we might as well eliminate
jury trials altogether, and let all matters be decided by one
man or woman as was
practiced in the former Soviet Union.
Note: See also, “Why
are Jury Trials Crucial to Your Freedom?" by
Accountability Utah.
Deprivation of Life, Liberty,
or Property Without Due Process of Law
By careful consideration of the rules
and statutes surrounding Utah’s justice system, the fate of
Clark Aposhian may be very grim. By facilitating
unreasonable seizures, denying the accused affordable Counsel,
obstructing a public trial, seating only jurors who agree to
convictions under unjust statutes, and limiting jury size to
as few as four, the Government has subverted authentic due
process of law that may result in Aposhian being deprived of
liberty and property, or even his life.
The final nail in the coffin of most
defendants is the virtually unlimited resources the Government
may apply to achieve a political objective or to send a
political message in a court case. In contrast, Aposhian
may face the elimination of his income due to the judge’s
order that he dispossess himself of all weapons prior to
trial; thereby denying him his livelihood and means of
affording some defense.
His case is emblematic of the horrific
asymmetry in the battle waged against any accused citizen, in
which massive Government resources are available to destroy
defendants through brute attrition, and in which authentic
safeguards for the accused have effectively been diminished or
eliminated.
Forget all this talk
about safeguards, comrade! The State is
never wrong! |
Reliance Upon Law To Correct Injustice
Because citizens own firearms to
protect their natural right to life, liberty, and property,
how should we then view the subversion of almost all
procedural safeguards of the accused by Government to attack
these rights? UT Gun Rights considers it a usurpation
comparable to, or worse than, those committed by the King of
England.
Thankfully we enjoy the advantage of a
Constitution that establishes of Justice as one of its
fundamental purposes. It is our purpose to expose abuses
and usurpations and to correct them in accordance with natural
and immutable Law.
We assert that Clark Aposhian, and any
accused person, is entitled to fairness and Justice in any
prosecution. We stand for his right to authentic due
process of law.
Protection of, and respect for, the
right to keep and bear arms extends to all aspects of Justice
as Aposhian’s case demonstrates, and the “single issue” focus
of most other organizations leaves gun owners vulnerable to
attack.
This is why we highlighted desirable
bills like
HB
313 (provide jury trials prior to terminating parental
rights). And this is why, in some instances uniquely, we
warned you against bad bills like:
*
HB 50, the
“gun owner victimization act” that creates new “dating
violence protective orders” empowering court dictators to
issue edicts like the seizure order Aposhian now suffers
under;
*
HB 121,
which legalizes the outright theft of firearms from innocent
parties;
*
HB 256,
empowering bureaucrats to implement gun control through
statute;
*
HB 287 S1,
allowing prosecutors to keep seized guns indefinitely from
innocent parties (which Aposhian may also be forced to deal
with); and
*
SB 80, which
perpetuates the injustice of juryless Kangaroo Courts.
We intend to comprehensively expose
the failure of the monarchial legislature to address and
correct injustice by its accommodation and fomentation of
abuse in the judicial branch of government. We hope you
will join us in our efforts and work tirelessly with us to
educate those around you.
Appropriate Action
1) Network with local gun
owners. Let people know what happened this
session, and what is happening to Aposhian. Get them
connected with sites like UT Gun Rights so they can receive
critical information and form their own, independent opinions.
Sign up for our free email alerts and updates at
info@utgunrights.com and "Like" us on Facebook at
http://www.facebook.com/UtGunRights
Encourage others to read, analyze,
question, confront, challenge, and understand what is going on
around them. A highly informed citizen community is required
to resist manipulation, deception, and fraud. Here are
two pages they should familiarize themselves with:
2013 Bill Tracking
Page: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and our
Free
Ammo Page.
2) Organize into smaller
working groups for your area. Each of your
local politicians should receive political direction from a
group of local, determined, solidly-educated gun rights
activists. This group can consider political action such
as establishing local email/phone political action networks,
literature distribution, holding town meetings, recruiting
alternative candidates, and election monitoring and
participation.
Sign
up for Free E-mail Alerts & Updates!
