During this case, at anytime was Mr. Davis informed of his full rights under the constitution, was he ever informed of the facts stated in the decision below, which applie to Troy Davis.

This statement presented in the case of HERSHAL HALE, Defendant/Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent. District Court Number CR-99-0132MJJ. In this case it is stated that…

At the onset, “flimsy criminal indictment.” cf. id., is in question marks to show that Defendant Hale’s supporting evidence of proof, in connection with the underlying fictitious, “flimsy criminal indictment,” rests upon the strength and the dignity of the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America, cf. id., because proof of “massive” flimsy criminal indictment[s,]” is furnished on this record by the President of the United States of America. See The Final Days, 1, 261-62 (citation omitted) (1974; 2006) (quoting Oval Office interview that the U.S. Department of Justice, by the President’s own admission, prosecutes “blind” “pawns” with flimsy criminal indictment[s]

Put cogently, the criminal indictment upon which the court haled the defendant into court is the very beginning, as discussed, supra, is a “flimsy criminal indictment.” Id. Thus, the Court was utterly devoid of subject-matter or in personam jurisdiction in this matter from the very beginning. See Midland Asphalt v. United States, 499 U.S. 794, 802, 109 S. Ct, 1494, 103 L. Ed. 2d 879 (1989) (“Only a defect so fundamental that it causes a grand jury to no longer be a grand jury, or the indictment to no longer be an indictment, gives rise to the constitutional right not to be tried.”).

The case of See Schlup v. Delo, supra, 513 U.S., at __, 130 L.Ed. 2d, at 834 protects Mr. Davis’s “newly discovered” and newly asserted” claim of “actual and factual innocence.” Id.

Pawn, v. To deliver personal property in pledge to another in pledge, or as security for a debt or sum borrowed.

Pawn, n. A bailment of goods to a creditor, as security for some debt or engagement; pledge; deposit of personal property made to a pawnbroker as security for a loan. That sort of bailment where goods or chattels are delivered to another as security to him for money borrowed of him by the bailor. Also the specific chattel delivered to the creditor as a pledge.

Is Mr. Davis a ward of the court? If so, how and when was he made a ward of the court? Did Mr. Davis enter into every situation, every signed document, willingly, knowingly, intentionally, voluntarily, intelligently. Was Mr. Davis ever advised of his rights as a member of the national citizenry of this country?

Has this court overridden any U.S. Supreme Court decisions? If yes, does it have the right to do so? Under what jurisdiction is this court operating?

Remember ~ The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. The “certificate” from the State Supreme Court only authorizes: To practice Law, “in Courts” as a member of the State Judicial Branch of Government. A bar card holder can only represent “wards of the Court”. The state bar card is not a license; it is a Union Dues Card of a Professional Association. There is nothing in this decision that states attorneys are working for the good of the public, the national citizenry of this nation.

It is of the greatest importance that those of us who are actively seeking alternatives to lawyers and the legal system in the U.S., America, federal as well as for the national citizenry of this nation, as it currently exist, are active at putting the entire legal system itself on trial every time the doors of any court are open. Remember, the law is only to be an extension of what each person is allowed to do. “When the law can do what the individual cannot, without that individual being charged with a crime, then we are living in a state of un-lawful law.” ~ Frederic Bastiat

Accept it no more. Seek alternatives to lawyers, those alternatives are here, have been here, are not taught, are active, and truly work to make law as it should be, easily accessible and applicable to and for everyone, equally.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/comments/…

I never met Troy Anthony Davis and likely never will. But the fact that the law obstructed the presentation of new evidence that could save a possibly innocent man's life horrified me and several of my friends. We've been blogging about this case for over a year, and a number of us have been sending in emails. I'm sure our part in this effort was very small, but I am very, very glad we were able to do our very small part.

What is wrong with a system where seven of nine witnesses recanted, some of them saying they were coerced into testifying by the police; several people identified one of the two remaining witnesses as the killer; no physical evidence was found; yet a man was still set to be executed?

A big part of the problem is the so-called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It makes it much more difficult for the court to see evidence that a man may have been wrongly convicted.

I hope that the international attention paid to this case will not only save a probably innocent man's life, but also get this law and similar laws re-examined. Any American could have, and could be, in the same situation as Troy Davis. The law has to be changed.

You can see our blog at http://www.loveshade.org/blog