SUPREME COURT NOMINATION
http://rexcurry.net/lawyer-supreme-court.html

Due to requests for information the following is provided about Attorney Rex Curry and his career in law.
Due to his high grade point average, Rex Curry was honored with a prestigious invitation to join the Law Review at Florida State University.  Curry also served as law clerk to the United States Judge Everett P. Anderson.   
Case victories in court for libertarianism http://rexcurry.net/law-re-cases.htm

PERSONAL FREEDOMS

Curry's court cases before the United States Supreme Court include a current case from June 9, 2005 in which a Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed by the Attorney General of the state of Florida seeking to overturn a decision at http://rexcurry.net/drugdogs2dca.pdf that suppressed evidence in the search of a car due to the improper use of a sniffer dog, and in which high requirements were set for the continued use of dogs to search people and their cars. No. 04-1668 Florida v. Gary Alan Matheson. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/04-1668.htm  The case received nationwide news coverage and Curry received widespread praise  for conceiving the new analysis of “drug dogs” and for arguing the original motion to suppress that set new standards for the use of dogs in law enforcement. Curry still receives communications from all over the country from lawyers and others seeking his “expertise” on narcotic detection dogs.

Another recent case before the United States Supreme Court was Frank Herbert Wonschik v. United States - exposing the Pledge of Allegiance and government schools. http://rexcurry.net/pledgewonschik.html    In the process of this litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, I made some remarkable discoveries about the Pledge and its history.

MOLL v. FLORIDA - you've got to FIGHT for your RIGHT to paaaaarrrrrrty NAKED. http://rexcurry.net/lawmoll.html
U.S. SUPREME COURT - petition for jury nullification and to declare vice laws unconstitutional. http://rexcurry.net/fijawrit2.html

In private practice Curry gained experience in a large complex trials of up to 16 parties at one time in the courtroom, lasting 6 months in court daily for an entire trial
(with a lengthy appeal thereafter).  Curry handled appeals to State Courts of Appeal and to United States Circuit Courts of Appeal.  His practice involved corporations, real estate and business of all types.  He has experience in the areas of administrative law, contract law and constitutional law. He has drafted
and reviewed hundreds of contracts, coordinated responses to hundreds of subpoenas/court orders and public records and other requests, answered many legal questions daily, and helped to train and educate clients of all types while representing them in judicial and administrative forums.

As a sixth-generation Floridian and a life-long resident, Curry's predecessors helped settle and develop Key West when Florida’s government was nearly non-existent. The Curry Mansion (home of Florida’s first millionaire capitalist) is on the local tour and you can stay there when you visit http://currymansion.com/curry/index.html

The law is a learning and teaching experience that Curry loves, and he wants to share that with all Americans. Some examples of his learning and teaching experience occurred during litigation concerning the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States in the case of Frank Herbert Wonschik v. United States  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-10249.htm . The legal research led to important historical discoveries about the Pledge. Curry is considered an expert on the Pledge of Allegiance and related constitutional issues, and he is often asked to speak publicly about the Pledge’s history and legal topics. Curry is the historian who uncovered the fact that the original Pledge to the USA's flag used a straight-armed salute and that it was the origin of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). Curry helped to prove that the straight-arm gesture was not an ancient Roman salute. He showed that the Nazi salute evolved from the military salute. In the first publication of the Pledge (in the 09-08-1892 Youth’s Companion Magazine) the Pledge began with a military salute that then extended outward toward the flag. Due to the way that Francis Bellamy (the Pledge's creator) used the gestures, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. Bellamy was a self-proclaimed socialist in the nationalism movement and his ideology influenced socialists in Germany, and his pledge was the origin of their salute. Many people forget that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party."  A mnemonic device is the swastika (Hakenkreuz in German). Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes to represent "S" letters joined for "socialism" under the German National Socialists (another one of my historical discoveries).

For Curry, the subject of law has become vivid history, discovery, archaeology, philosophy, politics, and life. It is more than statutes and casebooks.  He is writing a book about the Pledge of Allegiance and constitutional issues.

The following website ( http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/11th/0011505opn.html ) contains Curry's victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Romano which received news coverage after a winning brief from a cold file in which Curry had not even participated in the lower courts. The decision vacated the defendant’s sentence after finding that a federal prosecutor violated the defendant’s plea agreement.

TREE LAWS KILL TREES - socialism kills trees and makes free people chop, chip & chill. http://rexcurry.net/trees.html

TREE ORDINANCES - capitalism save trees and promotes harmony among people. http://rexcurry.net/commentary/woodman.html

LAWN WATERING LAWS - government creates water shortages and police state tactics. http://rexcurry.net/waterlaws.html

A MOTION TO DISMISS A LAWN-WATERING CITATION http://rexcurry.net/waterdismiss.html

SELL THE EVERGLADES -save it from socialism, and expand it with private property rights. http://rexcurry.net/commentary/everglades.html

FARMING SEA TURTLES - the U.S. destroys capitalism, destroys sea turtles & exports socialism. http://rexcurry.net/ecoturtles.html

SOCIALISM KILLS CONCHS - & kills the conch republic, and a Conch lawyer explains how. http://rexcurry.net/ecoconch.html

HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS ARE WRONG -for the same reasons as tree-preservation laws. http://rexcurry.net/commentary/historic.html

LAWS AGAINST PRICE GOUGING - cause shortages, poverty, misery and even starvation & slaughter. see http://rexcurry.net/gouging.html and see
http://rexcurry.net/gouginglaws.html and http://rexcurry.net/Ruth.html

IMMIGRATION, TRADE IMBALANCES & JOBS - Leave new pilgrims alone. Instead, fire the government, sell its assets, and then deport it. http://rexcurry.net/immigration.html

SOCIALIST SLAVE NUMBERS - the social security scam is unconstitutional and a disgrace. http://rexcurry.net/ssnunconstitutional.html

JURY NULLIFICATION - http://rexcurry.net/fijalawyer.html

SHOW YOUR PAPERS - Federal courts should eschew police state tactics. http://rexcurry.net/fedcourts.html

SAY NO TO SEARCHES & TO THE USA's POLICE STATE - stand up for your own dignity and safety. http://rexcurry.net/sntsmain.html

DRUG DOGS - are libertarians and need to be liberated from the drug war police state. http://rexcurry.net/sntsmain.html
http://rexcurry.net/drugdogslib.html

DRUG LAWS - http://rexcurry.net/drugswrit.html

VICES ARE NOT CRIMES - http://rexcurry.net/commentary/vices.html

HOW TO SERVE MANATEE - http://rexcurry.net/commentary/manatee.html

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS VIOLATE FREE PRESS - http://rexcurry.net/schoolsmedia.html

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL - or should be. http://rexcurry.net/schoolspeech.html

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS PROMOTED RACISM - and segregation by making them mandatory. http://rexcurry.net/schoolbrown.html    
 
DO YOU HAVE TO SALUTE THE FLAG -and say the pledge of allegiance in government schools? http://rexcurry.net/pledge_lawyer.html

MUST JURORS SAY THE PLEDGE ? - hotter news than Newdow's Pledge of Allegiance case. http://rexcurry.net/pledgelaws.html

AN IMPROVED PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - for the government to pledge to you. http://rexcurry.net/pledge.html

Pro Bono educational outreach in Mock Trial http://rexcurry.net/law-mock-trial.html

SOME OF MY CASES, COURT DOCUMENTS, APPELLATE OPINIONS

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

WONSCHIK v. U.S. - exposing the Pledge of Allegiance and government schools. http://rexcurry.net/pledgewonschik.html   
In the process of this litigation involving the Pledge of Allegiance, I made some remarkable discoveries about the Pledge and its history.

MOLL v. FLORIDA - you've got to FIGHT for your RIGHT to paaaaarrrrrrty NAKED. http://rexcurry.net/lawmoll.html
U.S. SUPREME COURT - petition for jury nullification and to declare vice laws unconstitutional. http://rexcurry.net/fijawrit2.html

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FOR THE UNITED STATES

U.S. v. ROMANO - defendant wins over prosecutor violating his plea agreement.  http://rexcurry.net/romanoappeal.html
U.S. v. CUNNINGHAM - victory for another person accused of peaceful activity between consenting adults. http://rexcurry.net/lawcunningham.html

STATE COURT

DRUG SNIFFING DOGS - he said "NO" to searches (SNTS). And he won! Bow-wow !  http://rexcurry.net/drugdogs.html
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2005/sc04-490.pdf

MORE ON DRUG DOGS - Dogs used in ruse to violate constitutional rights of humans? http://rexcurry.net/drugdogsb.html
DRUG DOGS ARE LIBERTARIANS - they require constant indoctrination to change them. http://rexcurry.net/drugdogslib.html
LAWYERS, GUNS (& MONEY) - gun returned after illegal carry charge is defeated. http://rexcurry.net/gunbeeson.html
 DRUGS, GUNS & BAD POLICE SEARCHES - another victory for liberty & peacful conduct. http://rexcurry.net/lawWhite.html
 ORJALES v. FLORIDA - a 3 year minimum mandatory gun sentence is overturned. http://rexcurry.net/laworjales.html
BALDWIN v. FLORIDA - another 3 year minimum mandatory gun sentence is stricken. http://rexcurry.net/lawbaldwin.html

PEACEFUL COCAINE SALE WITH BAD PURSE SEARCH - lady is free to go. http://rexcurry.net/law%20graphics/tara.html
COPS: THEIR OWN ANONYMOUS TIP SOURCES? - not in this cocaine case. http://rexcurry.net/lawJohnson.html

 SELF-REPRESENTATION IN COURT - a lawyer preserves the right to be lawyerless. http://rexcurry.net/lawNeeld.htm

LAWN WATERING CITATION DISMISSED - but not because of this motion. http://rexcurry.net/waterdismiss.html

Rex Curry is more qualified than Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. http://rexcurry.net/lawyer-supreme-court.html  A quick WestLaw search suggests that Harriet Miers has never argued before the Supreme Court (nor has her name appeared on brief there), and she has argued three cases before the Fifth Circuit (with her name appearing as additional counsel on a handful of others) over the last 30 years -- two of them pro bono or by appointment of the court.   Her argued cases are:  Thanksgiving Tower Partners v. Arnos Thanksgiving Partners, 64 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1995) (commerical real estate dispute); Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981) (volunteer pro bono counsel for Social Security disability applicant, through legal aid program); Popeko v US, 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975) (sec 2255 appeal for federal prisoner, by appt of court).  She lost all three of the appeals she argued, for which she wins my sympathy.

William Rehnquist also had never served as a judge.

(Review Earl Warren)

"Lifeless, Dull, and Eminently Forgettable” is how one law professor describes Elena Kagan’s lame publication record that supposedly got her: 1) tenure at the University of Chicago Law School; and 2) the job of Dean of Harvard Law School.  Her entire “scholarly” output consists of “three law review articles, a few short essays, and two short book reviews.”  (Law Reviews are usually edited by 24-year-old law students, not accomplished legal scholars, as in the case of more scholarly journals such as the Journal of Legal Studies). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/concerns-about-kagan/


The Worst of the Supreme Court     - by Stephan Kinsella September 8, 2008

Huebert has, in the latest Liberty, an excellent review of Robert Levy and William Mellor's recent book The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom. Choice excerpt:

"It’s nothing short of bizarre to think that courts would start protecting liberty because of brilliant libertarian legal arguments. To believe this, one would have to take the naive view ­ which, incidentally, animates much of the Cato Institute’s work ­ that government officials are really reasonable, serious people who are just waiting to have the right ideas put in front of them. But how silly is it to think you can make the government want liberty before many or most of the people want it?

Granted, all the federal judges I’ve known have been genuinely nice people on a personal level ­ so perhaps our D.C.-based lawyers’ views have been skewed by exchanging pleasantries at a few too many beltway cocktail parties.

They may be hopelessly deluded, but the rest of us should keep in mind that the important work to be done is in the realm of education, not the halls of government. When people understand and want liberty’s benefits, they’ll cast off their government entirely, or at least elect representatives who will respect their rights. When that happens, no bad Supreme Court precedent will stand in their way."

Until then, “The Dirty Dozen” offers a mostly decent education on the harm the Supreme Court can do ­ but shouldn’t lead us into thinking the Court could somehow become an equivalent force for good.

Writes Huebert: "In each of these cases, liberty lost and the government won in some precedent-setting way. (Except, arguably, in the affirmative-action case, as Richard Epstein points out in his foreword.)" Huebert tells me that Epstein's view seems to be that there's no reason why government schools should have to do something different from private schools with their admission policies (similar to my argument in my LRC article "Supreme Confusion, Or, A Libertarian Defense of Affirmative Action").

Huebert also notes that the authors "seem to think that restoring liberty is really only a matter of overturning a handful of bad court precedents. If we can just get in front of judges and do that ­ apparently through the irresistible power of our arguments and our lawyers’ outstanding legal skills ­ we can finally achieve liberty across the land." This reminds me a bit of the fascinating Reason article by Brian Doherty, "It's So Simple, It's Ridiculous", about the income tax protestor types who seem not to realize that the state is just a band of thieves, and who believe that if you only pronounce the right incantation or spell to a tax-paid government judge, you can avoid prison or taxes. (See also Doherty's Five Reasons You Don't Owe Income Tax, Dammit!)

******************

The Worst of the Supreme Court     - by J.H. Huebert

Thanks to Mr. Kinsella for his comments on my review of The Dirty Dozen.

Since reading and reviewing that book, I've read the new book by Thomas Woods and Kevin Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution?. Coincidentally, it too uses a "dirty dozen" format (including that very phrase), although it discusses offenses by all three branches of the federal government, not just the Supreme Court.

One thing (among many) that makes the Woods and Gutzman book so much better than the Levy/Mellor book is that Woods and Gutzman don't believe we can fix our problems by just putting the right ideas in front of federal government officials. And they even acknowledge that any constitution -- under which the government gets to decide the limits of its own power -- will lead eventually to an essentially unlimited government such as ours.

Woods and Gutzman understand that the key is for the people to understand and demand liberty. The Constitution itself won't save us.

So if you read one popular book on the Constitution this year, read theirs.



Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018

To the Editor:

Re David Brooks's concern with Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's lifelong refusal to publicly express any substantive opinions about law or public policy ("What It Takes," May 11):

Like most modern folk, I reject the notion that a couple should wait to be married before having sex with each other.  It's unwise for either party to take the nuptial vows without having some idea of what to expect of the other in that crucially important aspect of marriage.  Discovering that your partner is a bedroom dud - or that he or she is gripped by some distasteful, or even dangerous, fetish - is best done before sealing that serious obligation.  Learning such unfortunate facts only after the wedding ceremony promises a lifetime of misery.

And so it is with judicial appointments.  Ms. Kagan's coy refusals to open-up to the public about legal matters makes her a virtual jurisprudential virgin.  We have no sense of her preferred positions.  So I hope that, given her courtship with one of the most important posts in the land, Ms. Kagan will finally treat us to satisfying intellectual intercourse.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux, Professor of Economics
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030
http://www.cafehayek.com/      11 May 2010







SITEMETER