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

[danielpalos]

yes, there is a public trust in public accommodation: an implied covenant of Good faith and fair dealing.

 

[KokomoJojo]

yes, there is a public trust in public accommodation: an implied covenant of Good faith and fair dealing.

'public trust' refers to government agencies, officials, etc not private parties or their businesses.

The public trust doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some resources such as shoreline between the high and low tide lines, regardless of private property ownership.

good faith and fair dealing refers to equity.

There is no such thing as implied good faith covenant.

I cant fathom where you dig up so much trash.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Has anyone told him that all rights are limited?

Has anyone told him that you can do whatever you like as long as it doesn't INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

They have to lie to justify unconstitutional actions that they approve of.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, there is a public trust in public accommodation: an implied covenant of Good faith and fair dealing.

'public trust' refers to government agencies, officials, etc not private parties or their businesses.

The public trust doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some resources such as shoreline between the high and low tide lines, regardless of private property ownership.

good faith and fair dealing refers to equity.

There is no such thing as implied good faith covenant.

I cant fathom where you dig up so much trash.

that is special pleading; it applies to citizens in the several States. Only incompetent shills cannot fathom.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So what laws wouldn't religion exempt you from....in your estimation?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So what laws wouldn't religion exempt you from....in your estimation?

it depends on whether or not Persons of religion declaim their Religious laws in favor of our secular and temporal laws; in public venues.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So what laws wouldn't religion exempt you from....in your estimation?

it depends on whether or not Persons of religion declaim their Religious laws in favor of our secular and temporal laws; in public venues.

If the individual determines when a secular law violates their religious freedom.....what secular law could stand in the face of religious law?

If for example, you determined that it was against your religion to pay taxes, and your determination established a constitutional violation, then you don't have to pay taxes.

Its a religious based sovereign citizen argument. Where all secular law is subordinate to religious law. With each individual being the sole valid arbiter.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I wonder what the kokomojojO author of the OP would say if he had the ability to communicate?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

So what laws wouldn't religion exempt you from....in your estimation?

it depends on whether or not Persons of religion declaim their Religious laws in favor of our secular and temporal laws; in public venues.

If the individual determines when a secular law violates their religious freedom.....what secular law could stand in the face of religious law?

If for example, you determined that it was against your religion to pay taxes, and your determination established a constitutional violation, then you don't have to pay taxes.

Its a religious based sovereign citizen argument. Where all secular law is subordinate to religious law. With each individual being the sole valid arbiter.

from one perspective, if Persons feel the way you proclaim; they should go not for profit.