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

[Mad Scientist]

We should be arguing the Applicability of the Law NOT the Merits of the Law. Merits= Argue whether a Law is good in and of itself. That's what Juries do.

The minute you go in there and say something like "I'm not guilty because it was a Speed Trap!" or "Everyone else was speeding too, why did the Officer single ME out?" you've just admitted you did something and are PLACING yourself at the mercy OF and IN the Courts Jurisdiction.

I do no such thing and recommend no one else should do that either.

 

[Tresha91203]

Do government agents following their non-Christian religion get to exercise their religious rights on you?

all the time, all one need do is read the statutes, ordinances and by laws for 1 day and you can find at least 10.

People often make the grievous mistake of dependency on their illogic rather than thinking for themselves. The gubmint inflicts their religion upon you along with many other atrocities against your rights because they dont put a label on it and you have to figure it out for yourself what it all means. No one is going to teach you and dont think for a new york second attorneys and judges are going to give away their gravy train.

Please give an example of the goverment practicing its non Christian religion on you. That means the government imposing a different religion than Christianity on you against your will.

Jobs change all the time. Government jobs have to follow the law. Kim sought a government job and ran for that office. Do you think district court judges can ignore laws and penalties enacted after their elections?

When a job description changes and the employee is notified, if the employee shows up for even 1 day after the change, the employee is considered to have accepted the new terms. That is employment law.

Gay is not a religion. The government may have an agenda, but it does not have a religion and cannot have a religion.

Please go back and answer whether you are OK with the DMV, inspector, fireman scenarios. They have been posted at least twice. You should be careful giving government agents this power. The US can be majority non Christian in your lifetime (if you're around my age or younger) and you would be subject to their religion. Will you just quietly accept that or will you change your position to one where the government cannot endorse (or enforce) religion?

 

[danielpalos]

Mine is, there are the laws of the land. There are also laws that affect the US government, specifically the US Constitution. If you can't handle the US constitution, then don't work for the US govt.

So then how do you reconcile this [the part in red]:

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.

since it is part of the US constitution, it would seem like you are now agreeing with me.

That Only happens when the People cede their natural rights on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis in Commerce well regulated (like Good capitalists), for access to markets via public accommodations.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the Right going to stop wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Can you post something with a solid point? People pay the courts except in the case of the kliens where agencies made the decisions circumventing due process.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

yes subordinate rules constructed under the organic supreme law of the land, where the freedom to exercise your religion is expressly reserved.

all States have an implied or express equivalent to Article 4, Section 2 as Part of their Organic law.

 

[danielpalos]

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Sure it can, you can have with very few exceptions any kind of gubmint you want in a republic.

not with our Organic laws that Constitute, via our Constitution, the Organ and instrument of our Body politic.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You challenged the courts ability to hear the claim?

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

This is meaningless gibberish.

It's also all over the legal map, confusing various doctrines of law, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Kim Davis case has nothing to do with the First Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause, the 14th Amendment, or religious liberty.

Obergefell concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence, having nothing to do with the First.

And public accommodations laws with regard to sexual orientation concern Commerce Clause jurisprudence and the regulatory policy it authorizes, having nothing to do with the First and 14th Amendments.

So in your opinion davis has no right to exercise her religion.

I was not discussing the case, the OP makes it perfectly clear this is about 'jurisdiction' for a court created under a commercial venue 'the united states' to try a religious matter, of which they have no authority.

No, it is not the issue.
There are no First Amendment issues at stake, Davis is not being 'forced' to 'violate' her religion.

First you say that ^^^^

There is no 'government religion,' and nothing is being 'forced' on Davis.

She's at liberty to resign her position if she's unable to obey the rule of law, as she promised to do when she became an officer of the state, subject to Article VI of the Constitution.

then this^^^^

So you are another one who rather than mete out equitable justice instead tell her to STFU and quit? Even a corrupt court is better than that attitude.

How does a matter that has been classified as religious since the beginning of time somehow magically become not religious just because gays want to marry?

How does any of your posts answer the question in law, the OP,

"Where does the court get the jurisdiction to adjudicate religious matters?"

Oh and btw dont blame me for being all over the map just because I refuse to write 100 page briefs on each point in my monumental efforts trying to help another poster sort out a plethora of frivolous arguments.

When the gubmint decides moral matters no different than any church on the planet they in fact do create a gubmint religion, which is the point.

religion is a no gubmint zone and supreme god of the united states is smack in the middle of it.

Feel free to defend a position proving legitimate jurisdiction venue.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Sure it can, you can have with very few exceptions any kind of gubmint you want in a republic.

not with our Organic laws that Constitute, via our Constitution, the Organ and instrument of our Body politic.

the constitution does not come with an army or guns attached to shoot anyone who violates it, so I really dont need to hear that the constitution protects the contract principles. Furthermore it sets up a democracy which violates the rights of 49% of its constituents. Not that the public at large was ever able to vote on any amendment in the first place in their imagined and so called 'constitutional rights'.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

 

[KokomoJojo]

What they do is make you plead Guilty or not Guilty thus skipping over a large part of your Due Process Rights and violate the very agreement they made you sign in the first place!

So when I go in I say "I make a special Appearance before the Court to challenge it's Subject Matter Jurisdiction". The Judge, if he's smart, will hold a Hearing to determine if the Court has Jurisdiction. That's called Due Process. He does this BEFORE he holds the Trial. If he doesn't, I then have one more thing (and a big thing) to bring up at the Appeal Level. It's good to make it clear during the proceedings that you know of this and are willing to use that process too!

So far you seem to be the only one here who understands the basis of the argument in the OP. The rest seem to be making the same fatal mistake of assuming legitimacy 'just because'. Of course just because is a frivolous argument.

Take note that none have cited with specificity how the courts get legitimate jurisdiction over reserved religious matters that reside strictly in the gubmint do not trespass zone. Now if we were back in jolly ole england where the king was considered both state and religion, that would be a different matter entirely. I would add its delusional to watch the state decide religious matters [by any other name] and claim there is separation between church and state when the state is in fact fulfilling the shoes of church and religion in substance.

 

[danielpalos]

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Sure it can, you can have with very few exceptions any kind of gubmint you want in a republic.

not with our Organic laws that Constitute, via our Constitution, the Organ and instrument of our Body politic.

the constitution does not come with an army or guns attached to shoot anyone who violates it, so I really dont need to hear that the constitution protects the contract principles. Furthermore it sets up a democracy which violates the rights of 49% of its constituents. Not that the public at large was ever able to vote on any amendment in the first place in their imagined and so called 'constitutional rights'.

dear; it is why we have a federal doctrine of separation of powers. Not all laws are made by the same Body politic.

 

[KokomoJojo]

How does that work this:

Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

Sure it can, you can have with very few exceptions any kind of gubmint you want in a republic.

not with our Organic laws that Constitute, via our Constitution, the Organ and instrument of our Body politic.

the constitution does not come with an army or guns attached to shoot anyone who violates it, so I really dont need to hear that the constitution protects the contract principles. Furthermore it sets up a democracy which violates the rights of 49% of its constituents. Not that the public at large was ever able to vote on any amendment in the first place in their imagined and so called 'constitutional rights'.

dear; it is why we have a federal doctrine of separation of powers. Not all laws are made by the same Body politic.

are you referring to the other body politic? 'Of the gubmint' 'by the gubmint' 'for the gubmint'? That body politic?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

How would this not work for Persons of religion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

How would this not work for Persons of religion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Only if Both parties of Religion agree to not cede their natural and god given rights; and the public sector decides not to contest Jurisdiction for domestic Tranquillity and security of a free State purposes.

In my opinion, any Religious punishment should be executed in front of Religious witnesses and all Parties involved must claim they are doing it for the Cause of their Faith in their god, most merciful and most high.

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

How would this not work for Persons of religion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.

Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

I do not mention the word god in that scenario.

 

[KokomoJojo]

On this note I would have to agree with you in part. The public sector should be able to get remedy by petitiioning a religious tribunal with a jury of the litigants peers to conduct a hearing within the laws of whatever religion concerns the issues at hand, hence a 'real' separation of church and state. The state can contest or protest all they want, since religion is a no go zone reserved to the men and women, not the state.

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

How would this not work for Persons of religion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.

Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

I do not mention the word god in that scenario.

no, you arent taking into account the scope of what the elements of a religion are. The only person who does not have a religion that I can think of is a dead or brain dead person since everyone has some kind of moral compass do they not? Hence the 1st amendment applies to everyone.

The gubmint has made vast religious determinations and call it secular only because they did not label or consider its origin. When one takes into account the origins of matters adjudicated most go back to religion of one sort or another.

 

[danielpalos]

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.

Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.

How would this not work for Persons of religion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.

Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?

In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.

I do not mention the word god in that scenario.

no, you arent taking into account the scope of what the elements of a religion are. The only person who does not have a religion that I can think of is a dead or brain dead person since everyone has some kind of moral compass do they not? Hence the 1st amendment applies to everyone.

The gubmint has made vast religious determinations and call it secular only because they did not label or consider its origin. When one takes into account the origins of matters adjudicated most go back to religion of one sort or another.

dear; since our First Amendment applies, the public sector can only assert Jurisdiction if a Person of alleged Religion, is infidel, protestant, and renegade to It, and complains to the public sector; otherwise, it is a private problem among private Individuals of morals.