CDZ U.S. Courts Lack Jurisdiction, Violates Constitutionally Reserved Rights!

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,180
185
85
Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.

The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.

The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.

These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.

The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.

The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.

Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.



First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html

Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.


Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.

Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.

Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”


BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.

The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.



Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.


The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.

Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:

Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.


Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
 
Last edited:
My religion forbids unrealistic idiots making dishonest posts about state and federal laws and government offices.

Admin must delete this thread now!!!!
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?
 
My religion forbids unrealistic idiots making dishonest posts about state and federal laws and government offices.

Admin must delete this thread now!!!!


Oh? well by all means lets see the your citation in the constitution that authorizes the commercially based gubmint to adjudicate religious matters.
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.
 
Last edited:
Good luck getting anyone here to understand yer thread OP. I got my wifes speeding ticket dismissed by arguing that the Court lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction but I can guarantee you that 90% of this board has NO IDEA what that is.
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


So you are promoting the Nuremberg Defense?

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

they hung all those nazis you know, how do you think it will work here?

No, I'm not.

What I'm saying is that when she works for the government she is working on behalf of the govt. If she does something, she does it on behalf of the govt. Therefore she can't do ANYTHING as a government employee which is strictly forbidden to the US govt. Namely she can't put her religion onto other people while at work.

You want smaller govt out of the lives of the people. Yet you're supporting some woman who is advocating her job imposing her views upon other people, on behalf of the government.

If I do a job, I have to do (more or less) what my bosses say I should do. Why is this woman different just because she works for the government.
 
"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him

Now to address this part.

Your religion encompasses a large basket of your rights AND like any other right ends where the next persons rights begin.

First again in the davis case the gubmint was negligent because they did not take into account an alternative means by which these certs could be signed, or inform these people that the county executive 3 doors down had the authority to sign them as well, but instead to demand that davis in the flesh sign them.

So if your God needs a sacrificial killing, that would violate anothers rights and we call that murder in which you would wind up in jail.

Now that was a really slick quip but as you can see is nothing more than a frivolous well hilarious argument frankly. Do you have a serious argument you would like make, something along the lines of the op's intended course of debate?
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?
 
Good luck getting anyone here to understand yer thread OP. I got my wifes speeding ticket dismissed by arguing that the Court lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction but I can guarantee you that 90% of this board has NO IDEA what that is.

That is very difficult to do on that premise, if you want to shoot an email on the other side I'd be interested in hearing the elements. Sounds like you might be familiar with Mark Stevens :)
 
First again in the davis case the gubmint was negligent because they did not take into account an alternative means by which these certs could be signed, or inform these people that the county executive 3 doors down had the authority to sign them as well, but instead to demand that davis in the flesh sign them.


Kentucky law provides that the County Clerk OR Deputy County Clerks can sign Civil Marriage licenses. Not only did Ms. Davis refuse to issue the document, she ordered her Deputy Clerks not to issue the document also.

BTW - Ms. Davis's own Civil Marriage license issued in 2009 is not signed by a County Clerk, it is "signed" (actually initialed) by the Deputy Clerk. That clerks name was Pam Logan and it was initialed with "PL".


>>>>
 
"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him

Now to address this part.

Your religion encompasses a large basket of your rights AND like any other right ends where the next persons rights begin.

First again in the davis case the gubmint was negligent because they did not take into account an alternative means by which these certs could be signed, or inform these people that the county executive 3 doors down had the authority to sign them as well, but instead to demand that davis in the flesh sign them.

So if your God needs a sacrificial killing, that would violate anothers rights and we call that murder in which you would wind up in jail.

Now that was a really slick quip but as you can see is nothing more than a frivolous well hilarious argument frankly. Do you have a serious argument you would like make, something along the lines of the op's intended course of debate?

Oh good. Getting to the point three posts in.

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

Yes, it would violate other people's rights to have sacrificial killings. Davis has a job to do. Her job is give a license to marry. She's not giving licenses to marry because of her supposed religious beliefs and therefore imposing her religious belief on people who want a marriage certificate from her office.

You argument appears to be this, in terms of sacrificial killings.

Mr A who requires sacrificial killings and works for the government can only have sacrificial killings in his own county. Therefore people who don't want to be the victim of a sacrificial killing can go elsewhere and not get killed for sacrifice.

Seems rather silly, don't you think?
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?


Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?


Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.

I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".

You see how silly that is?
 
First again in the davis case the gubmint was negligent because they did not take into account an alternative means by which these certs could be signed, or inform these people that the county executive 3 doors down had the authority to sign them as well, but instead to demand that davis in the flesh sign them.


Kentucky law provides that the County Clerk OR Deputy County Clerks can sign Civil Marriage licenses. Not only did Ms. Davis refuse to issue the document, she ordered her Deputy Clerks not to issue the document also.

BTW - Ms. Davis's own Civil Marriage license issued in 2009 is not signed by a County Clerk, it is "signed" (actually initialed) by the Deputy Clerk. That clerks name was Pam Logan and it was initialed with "PL".


>>>>


short sweet and simply she can refuse to personally sign the certs however she cannot within the scope of her rights (if she in fact did that, her attorney did not present it that way). She cannot extend her religious beliefs to force the deputies not to sign the certs any more than the gubmint has the authority to extend their religion or choose the gays religion over the kliens religion violating the kliens, worse destroying their lives in the process.
 
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?


If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?


Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.

I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".

You see how silly that is?


why dont you put that in perspective and apply to the above quotes instead of using some completely detached example and I will see what I can do.
 
First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?


.
 
They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top