How to reform the Supreme Court

[Yurt]

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

I guess you would have preferred they anoint the loser, every objective recount in FL proved Bush won. But hey if it makes you feed better keep chewing that shit sandwich.

exactly

libs are pissed because bush won again in 2004

 

[OKTexas]

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

I guess you would have preferred they anoint the loser, every objective recount in FL proved Bush won. But hey if it makes you feel better keep chewing that shit sandwich.

exactly

libs are pissed because bush won again in 2004

Yup

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush would in 2000 and 2004 because the middle stayed with him.

That is how the GOP wins, with the middle not just the right.

 

[OKTexas]

Bush would in 2000 and 2004 because the middle stayed with him.

That is how the GOP wins, with the middle not just the right.

Hey jakey, why is it you and jones pass up direct question?

 

[KokomoJojo]

So then the inhabitants according to you simply bent over and begged for that red white and blue dick up their asses is that it?
Again cite where the inhabitants of this country relenquished their right to determine the law in which they live under.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

Incorrect, since that was clearly the intent of the 7th amendment which incorporated a long standing distinction in English law, which provided for a right to jury in suits at common law but not in suits at equity or admiralty. See, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England , Book the Third - Chapter the Fourth : Of the Public Courts of Common Law and Equity. The fact that you are ignorant of this distinction is amusing but not surprising. You think that the 7th employed the words "at common law" for the fun of it?



Sure it is... you admit that the court exercises this power over the jury, now you assert that the power is wrongfully exercised, but you admit that in fact the power is exercised. Just because you claim it is wrongful does not make it wrongful and you have cited no authority to establish otherwise. Thus, you are employing circular logic...

Well why don't you assert the phantom 13th amend, assert that the term "esquire" is a "title of nobility" and that thus all lawyers and judges can not be citizens or be employed by government. I am sure your credibility will be enhanced as everyone laughs at you



Sure you have the right to petition, but you do not have the right to relief. The fact that it is under duress is irrelevant even if true. You are not allowed to assert whacky legal arguments in court. The fact that you do not think they are whacky is also irrelevant. Want me to cite cases where sanctions for making whacky legal arguments? In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122 ("This legalistic gibberish has been so repeatedly and soundly dismissed that the courts no longer analyze each issue, unless imposing sanctions for filing such frivolous babble.") See also, In re contempt of Mittower (Ind.Supm 1998) 693 NE2d 555; Florida Bar v. Gordon (Fla.Supm 1995) 661 So.2d 295; In re Wm. Patton (ED Penn unpub 11/6/98). So why did these people not petition and receive relief? Merely because you claim a right to relief does not mean that you are entitled to relief.



Nope I did not. We can remove that power through a Constitutional amend, so you lose.




True enough but that is irrelevant to anything being discussed. Might as well say that chickens have feathers.



Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

[/COLOR][/B]


Well at least you have not swallowed the whole bs whacky legal arguments. How about reliance upon the UCC as an immutable law applicable to everything? How about "constructive treason" or the law that never was?



Easy enough, the nature of the court is generally determined by statute as constrained by the constitution.

Your statement, if correct, proves the final say so of what goes on in this country as our governing law is NOT within the jurisdiction and venue of the jury, hence NOT the WILL of the inhabitants forced to live under it.

Incorrect, since the availability of constitutional amend is always available within or Constitution and the ultimate extra constitutional remedy of revolution is available as a last resort. Want to try again?

So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

So then the inhabitants according to you simply bent over and begged for that red white and blue dick up their asses is that it?
Again cite where the inhabitants of this country relenquished their right to determine the law in which they live under.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

Dont give up your day job, in common law systems fundamental law is created by Stare Decis, court made law, which may be, but is not restricted the black robed grim reaper on the bench, unless you are ready to admit this is feudal england?

The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

Incorrect, since that was clearly the intent of the 7th amendment which incorporated a long standing distinction in English law, which provided for a right to jury in suits at common law but not in suits at equity or admiralty. See, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England , Book the Third - Chapter the Fourth : Of the Public Courts of Common Law and Equity. The fact that you are ignorant of this distinction is amusing but not surprising. You think that the 7th employed the words "at common law" for the fun of it?

Again I said:
The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

So you agree with me and paint me in error in the same sentence. How fucked is that.

Sure it is... you admit that the court exercises this power over the jury, now you assert that the power is wrongfully exercised, but you admit that in fact the power is exercised. Just because you claim it is wrongful does not make it wrongful and you have cited no authority to establish otherwise. Thus, you are employing circular logic...

More straw from you!
The judges do not have the power, never admitted any such thing.

Neither are they REQUIRED BY LAW to inform jurors of the extent of their powers as jurors. Hence judges instructing jurys by only disclosing half their duties are operating in bad faith and giving bad legal advice on the bench.

The tools of usurpation are obfuscation and deceit by failure to provide full disclosure. know what I mean.

Legal circular reasoning:

Well why don't you assert the phantom 13th amend, assert that the term "esquire" is a "title of nobility" and that thus all lawyers and judges can not be citizens or be employed by government. I am sure your credibility will be enhanced as everyone laughs at you

Sure I would be more than happy to assert the fact the "ORIGINAL" 13th vanished after the war of 1812 so everyone can have a great laugh at you.

So you are claiming not only the GPO but all the states legislatures that printed the original 13th are all misinformed dumb asses.

Further amendments are not printed without official validation of/from the government printing office. I suppose you now want to feign they too are a bunch of retarded dumb asses or that the information transmitted to the GPO was fucked up.

That shit does not fly in the legal world and governments do not operate the way you govern your personal life.

Most states of the union at that time printed the original 13th. They cannot ratify an amendment then turn around and unratify it.

Once ratified the process requires it to be repealed.





claims of nonratification are non sequitor.
The british won the war of 1812 as well since america is after all a british interest.

and esquire IS a title of nobility as previously shown.

Union of 13 colonies of great britain?

Could that be "The United States of America"?

Which created "The United States"?

Under/by "its" jurisdiction.....

Tell me its not twu!

Sure you have the right to petition, but you do not have the right to relief. The fact that it is under duress is irrelevant even if true. You are not allowed to assert whacky legal arguments in court. The fact that you do not think they are whacky is also irrelevant. Want me to cite cases where sanctions for making whacky legal arguments? So why did these people not petition and receive relief? Merely because you claim a right to relief does not mean that you are entitled to relief.

You are entitled to relief, unless you can empiracally prove that the constitution applies to the inhabitants of this nation generally.

Simply stating the defacto is not dispositive of the dejure.


Nope I did not. We can remove that power through a Constitutional amend, so you lose.

NO we cant that is bullshit of the highest order.

I already informed you the legislatures/congress either state or federal is NOT obligated to vote in accordance with the will of their constituents.

HENCE THE [ONGOING] DISCONNECT between the governing and the government. ONGOING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

The power of the people resides in a properly "INFORMED" Jury! Again usurped by the Just-Us BAR club and friends. RICO


True enough but that is irrelevant to anything being discussed. Might as well say that chickens have feathers.

I have been saying that for the most part but for some reason you choose to challenge it.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

Is it necessary to "enter into evidence" what is woefully obvious?

Well at least you have not swallowed the whole bs whacky legal arguments. How about reliance upon the UCC as an immutable law applicable to everything? How about "constructive treason" or the law that never was?

Immutable law?????? Who the hell ever said all that? Not me??? I do not know what you are talking about

Easy enough, the nature of the court is generally determined by statute as constrained by the constitution.

Whos court? A court of the inhabitants? or does it have "officers"?

Your statement, if correct, proves the final say so of what goes on in this country as our governing law is NOT within the jurisdiction and venue of the jury, hence NOT the WILL of the inhabitants forced to live under it.

Incorrect, since the availability of constitutional amend is always available within or Constitution and the ultimate extra constitutional remedy of revolution is available as a last resort. Want to try again?

The people presumably created the federal constitution but only the states can amend the federal constitution not the inhabitants that live under it. How fucked is that?

So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

Does any inhabitant have any right not recognized by the state? yes? or no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush would in 2000 and 2004 because the middle stayed with him.

That is how the GOP wins, with the middle not just the right.

Hey jakey, why is it you and jones pass up direct question?

I just answered HOW the GOP won in 2000 and 2004. The same way they won in 1952 and1956 and 1968 and 1972 and 1980 and 1984 and 1988.

With the middle as well as the conservatives.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I just answered HOW the GOP won

oh there are winners alrightee, it is neither the democrats nor the republicans if you are paying attention.

 

[legaleagle_45]

in common law systems fundamental law is created by Stare Decis, court made law, which may be, but is not restricted the black robed grim reaper on the bench,

Incorrect. The UK employs what is known as “parliamentary supremacy” which allows Parliament to override any right otherwise established by law or custom or common law. Indeed, even the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are subject to the express intervention of Parliament. See, Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, [2003] QB 151 (Div Ct). This is why the UK can legally convict you of a crime without providing a jury or try you twice for the same offense. Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c.44) §75, §43, §44(UK). Further "stare decis and the system of precedent necessarily is that black robed grim reaper (or reapers) on the bench , since it is based upon court opinions written by judges. Decisions of juries are not relied upon as precedent or stare decisis. If you disagree, please cite a jury decision which has been relied upon in subsequent cases.. Want to try again?

[Again I said:
The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

No, what it proves is that the Constituion does not support your position and you wish to excise those portions which do not comport to your whacky legal theories. You rely upon the the law of England to establish the right to jury trial in the first place, but willfully chose to ignore the extent of the right as known by the framers and as expressly adopted by the framers when they restricted the right to "suits at common law" .. Which only goes to prove you are a legal ignoramous who is totally unfamiliar with the 7th Amend.

So you agree with me and paint me in error in the same sentence. How fucked is that.

Pretty fucked that you can not even understand what I said, let alone what I meant, LOL

Neither are they REQUIRED BY LAW to inform jurors of the extent of their powers as jurors.

Correct., it is not required by law. Glad we agree. The idea is that jurors should disobey the law only when their conscience demands it not whenever the mood suits them. Did you know that cops do not have to inform suspects that they can refuse a requested search? Perfectly legit.

Hence judges instructing jurys by only disclosing half their duties are operating in bad faith and giving bad legal advice on the bench.

Again you are using one term then accusing a fault based upon another term, A power is not a duty. And judges are in fact empowered and required to give legal advice from the bench. Just because you think it is in "bad faith" that a total rendition of all their rights and responsibilities is not provided does not mean it is in bad faith. The Judge also does not inform them of their power to call for a potty break when necessary and thereby interrupt deliberations, is that bad faith as well? Now, regarding the failure to inform them of the power of jury nullification... if you wish to change that, you can have a law passed to provide for same, you do not even have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

Sure I would be more than happy to assert the fact the "ORIGINAL" 13th vanished after the war of 1812 so everyone can have a great laugh at you.[/B]

Please do, since it was never ratified. The proposed amendment had accumulated only 12 state ratifications, the last in December 1812 by which time it would have required 14 to be adopted. The "mistake" first occured with the publication of the "Laws of the United States", by Bioren & Duane in 1815 and which printed the proposal as "Article 13" however in the volume's introduction, the editors had cautioned (on page ix), "There had been some difficulty in ascertaining whether the amendment proposed, which is stated as the thirteenth, has or has not been adopted by a sufficient number of the state legislatures.... It has been considered best, however, to publish the proposed amendment in its proper place, as if it had been adopted, with this explanation, to prevent misconception." Other publications mistakenly employed the work of Bioren & Duane without taking notice of the cautionary statement cotained in the introduction, this included several publishers of state laws. . The story is detailed in "The Case of the Phantom Thirteenth Amendment: A historical and bibliographic nightmare" by Curt E. Conklin, 88 Law Library Journal 121 (winter 1996). In 1813, the Secretary of State, James Monroe, sent a circular letter to all the governors inquiring about further ratifications of this proposed amendment, without result. However, in 1817, the House of Representatives arranged to have a pocket edition of the Constitution printed up for distribution and when these copies arrived containing the so-called Thirteenth Amendment, the House on the last day of 1817 formally asked the President for verification of whether this was validly part of the Constitution. The President, James Monroe, presented the House with two reports of his Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, which confirmed that there had been only twelve state ratifications, an insufficient number for adoption, and these were published as Messages from the President on February 6, and March 2, 1818. The Congress was apparently satisfied with these reports and thereafter the phantom 13th never again appears as part of the Constitution in any edition published by any part of the federal government. As a result of this confusion, a law was passed in 1818 specifically designating the Secretary of State as the official repository for ratifications of amendments and this remained the law until 1951. The phantom amendment is not known to have appeared in more than two or three dozen books, out of literally thousands, that purport to reprint the Constitution, and these dropped off very sharply after 1845 when the Statutes at Large first appeared. Since then, the US Supreme Court very explicitly described the 1810 proposal as unadopted in several cases... Waring v. Clarke (1847) 46 US (5 How.) 441 at 493;Dillon v. Gloss (1921) 256 US 368 at 375; Coleman v. Miller (1939) 307 US 433 at 472; Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) 387 US 253 at 277-278.

However, prove me wrong name all of the states which adopted the phantom 13th and the dates they were adopted... I will even get you started:

1.Maryland (December 25, 1810)
2.Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
3.Ohio (January 31, 1811)
4.Delaware (February 2, 1811)
5.Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
6.New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
7.Vermont (October 24, 1811)
8.Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
9.North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
10.Georgia (December 31, 1811)[1]
11.Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
12.New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)

The amendment was rejected by three state legislatures:
1.New York (March 12, 1812)
2.Connecticut (May 13, 1813)
3.Rhode Island (September 15, 1814)

So you are claiming not only the GPO but all the states legislatures that printed the original 13th are all misinformed dumb asses.

Yep, they repeated the publication of the phantom 13th found in the Bioren & Duane publication. Are you claiming that the literally thousands of volumes which did not contain the phantom 13th were printed by dumbasses?

claims of nonratification are non sequitor.

Then it should be quite easy for you to name the states which rataified same and the dates that they ratified it.

Even the modern originator of this whacky legal argument (David Dodge and Alfred Adask) could not do that. So you know what they claimed? They had nerve to claim that a mistaken inclusion the publication of the state laws in itself ACTED as a de facto (as opposed to a de jure) ratification... absurd, I know, but that is what is expected from whacky legal nit wits

The british won the war of 1812 as well since america is after all a british interest.

You get whackier with every minute, LOL

and esquire IS a title of nobility as previously shown.

You have shown nothing, LOL

Blackstone's Commentaries & Stephen's Commentaries state that Esquire is a title of commonalty and not of nobility and carries none of the characteristics or privileges of nobility, and the statement in Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary that "In the United States, the title ... is bestowed on any person at pleasure, and contains no definite description. It is merely an expression of respect." See also the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary for its entries on "esquire" and especially "esquiress". For the past three centuries (at least) there is no instance of the British monarch "bestowing" an Esquire on anyone, and the British courts have held that the title is altogether unregulated and anyone can adopt it at whim. Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England ranks it, emulating Blackstone's editors, between "gentleman" and "doctor", neither of those being either nobility nor bestowed by royalty. Apparently it became a mark of distinction for lawyers at a time when, and because, the lawyers had no academic titles or degrees to put either in front or after their names, and the Oxford English Dictionary notes that it is used only with the full name and without any other embellishments (e.g., Mr., Dr., Hon., Rev., LL.B., J.D., Ph.D.).

Court opinions re the phantom 13th: D.A. Anderson v. US (ND IL 4/27/98)("These arguments may be amusing to some but are meritless and must be rejected"); See also and to the same effect: Smith v. US President (D. Conn 11/6/96) ; Wright v. Leasecomm Corp. (MD Fla 1993) 817 F.Supp 106; Goode v. Sumner County Commissioners (D.Kan 2/17/95); In re contempt of Mittower (Ind.Supm 1998) 693 NE2d 555; Florida Bar v. Gordon (Fla.Supm 1995) 661 So.2d 295; In re Wm. Patton (ED Penn 11/6/98). See these are what is known as stare decis... you know fundamental law in common law, right?

Union of 13 colonies of great britain? [/B]

Could that be "The United States of America"?
Which created "The United States"?Under/by "its" jurisdiction.....Tell me its not twu!

Its not true... because the reference is made to the date 1777... they are referring to the the Articles of Confederation which created a union out of the 13 former colonies of Great Britan and was adopted in 1781. The distinction being the creation by the confederation of sovereingn states which was the Articles of Confederation as opposed to a creation by We The People The present government was established by the people of the United States in 1787 and ratified in 1789. You are not too good at history are you, LOL So tell us how we became a vassal of Great Britain following the War of 1812?

You are entitled to relief, unless you can empiracally prove that the constitution applies to the inhabitants of this nation generally.

Who says you are entitled to relief and who says that the constitution does not apply to to the inhabitants of the this nation generally? Got any authority to establish that the right of petitition means you get the relief for which you petition? If that was the case, I would petition for a a billion bucks... LOL You can demonstrate your correctness by citing stare decis as the fundamental law of our country, LOL

Simply stating the defacto is not dispositive of the dejure.

And simply stating that it is de facto is not dispositive of the de facto.

NO we cant that is bullshit of the highest order.

The bullshit of the hiigest order has been accomplished 27 times... 28 if you believe your bullshit of the hiigest order, LOL

I already informed you the legislatures/congress either state or federal is NOT obligated to vote in accordance with the will of their constituents.

Correct, and the constituants can vote them out, so your point is what? Now if we did not vote for tham, you would have a point... but otherwise your assertion is absurd.

HENCE THE [ONGOING] DISCONNECT between the governing and the government. ONGOING TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

LOL, we do have representation, your claim is that our representatives have the capacity to ignore us, what you fail to address is that if we do not like what they are doing we have the capacity to remove them at an election.... so we do have representation. and you are a loon

Immutable law?????? Who the hell ever said all that? Not me??? I do not know what you are talking about

There are plenty of whacky legal theories being advocated by loons such as yourself. Here is a partial list:

Refusing legal process
Submitting court pleadings titled "Refusal for fraud"
Renouncing or denying US citizenship
Pretending to be "sovereign"
Quibbling about 14th Amendment or Preamble Citizenship
Pretending to be from a "sovereign" state or outside the US
Pretending to be a diplomat or some other official with immunity
Cannot compel recusal of judge
Accusing judge (or other official) of "constructive treason"
Accusing or suing judge (or other official) for "perjury of oath"
In general, suing judge or prosecutor for unfavorable outcome
Trying to force policeman or other govt employee to fill out questionnaire
Objections to name typed in block letters (all-capitals)
Insisting on having name typed with strange punctuation
Arguments based on fringe on courtroom flag
Similarly, on eagle on flagpole
Similarly, on so-called "American Flag of Peace"
Jury nullification
Nuisance IRS Form 1099
Counterfeit or altered IRS Form 1040
Unsigned or uninformative Form 1040
Constitutional rights related to tax evasion
Argument that tax laws apply only to "federal" areas such as D.C.
- - mention of the Buck Act
That tax laws apply only to govt employees
That taxes are voluntary
That income tax is an excise or reciprocal to a govt benefit
That income tax is contractual
That the Sixteenth Amendment (income tax) was not adopted ("The Law that Never Was")
That Ohio was not a state for ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment
That the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is not "positive" law
That disagreement with the tax laws is a good defense for tax evasion
That the IRS is not really a govt agency or is not authorized to enforce the tax laws
That the tables and index of the Code of Federal Regulations interprets the laws
That wages are not taxable income
That Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are not taxable as money
- - relying on the Coinage Act of 1792
- - quibbling about the meaning of the dollar sign ($)
- - that payments received in paper money are not taxable as income
- - that the amount received in paper money could be recalculated for tax purposes
Funny money; "Leroy checks" and the like
Allodial or allodium deeds to property
Land patents to property
Moorish Science Temple argument that black people are tax exempt
Talk about so-called Emergency War Powers Act
Various idiot demands, including ....
- - trying to enforce the order of a make-believe court
- - that judges, IRS agents, and other govt officials are foreign agents
- - that citizenship or legal responsibilities, including taxes, can be unilaterally revoked
- - the Phantom 13th Amendment (about titles of nobility)
- - that IRS forms are invalid without an OMB number
- - claiming "nonstatutory abatement"
--attempting to impose UCC provisions
- - relating to "unconstitutional" laws

You would be amazed what some of these loons come up with. Some even believe that the 11th US Congress was responsible for sending an amendment to the states which would have stripped the US citizenship of all lawyers and judges and insured that they could not have a government job even though the 11th US Congress was 78% composed of lawyers. Whacky to the nth degree, huh?

Your statement, if correct, proves the final say so of what goes on in this country as our governing law is NOT within the jurisdiction and venue of the jury.

Since it is my position that the jury does not have the final say so on all aspects of our government, the creation and enforcement of our laws, etc you would be correct. The jury has the final word in criminal cases in which they acquit the accused. The do not have the final say on anything else. The fact that you think that my opinion is incorrect is quite funny and establishes you as a whacky loon.

The people presumably created the federal constitution but only the states can amend the federal constitution not the inhabitants that live under it. How fucked is that?

Well since the states are required to have a republican form of government, and since the legislators of the state are elected by the people of the state it seems not fucked at all. What you want a jury to pass a constitutinal amendment or sumpin?

Does any inhabitant have any right not recognized by the state? yes? or no?

Sure, a recent example was displayed in McDonald vs Chicago in 2010, where some laws in Illinois were found to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Anything else?

 

[dcraelin]

US courts, the whole judicial system, in collusion with legislative agencies today are not much more than rubber stamp RICO extortion rackets.

Like cancer they gnaw away at their victims (the inhabitants) over a long period of time.

You are free to seek to change that. The methodology is found in Article V of the Constitution. First you must convince 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate. to propose such an amendment to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify the proposal. Rather simple procedure actually. Good luck

DC is probably un-reformable without a convention called by the states. The idea that it has to be an open-ended convention is a myth however. Narrowly defined amendments could be called for by the states, a process that can bypass the corruption in DC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I just answered HOW the GOP won

oh there are winners alrightee, it is neither the democrats nor the republicans if you are paying attention.

You as a n00b don't know the rules yet, so I will repost what you cut out. You can only cut out what does not pertain to a reply.

I just answered HOW the GOP won in 2000 and 2004. The same way they won in 1952 and1956 and 1968 and 1972 and 1980 and 1984 and 1988.

With the middle as well as the conservatives.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I would very much like to see the impeachment of justices who do not follow the constitution.

 

[legaleagle_45]

DC is probably un-reformable without a convention called by the states. The idea that it has to be an open-ended convention is a myth however. Narrowly defined amendments could be called for by the states, a process that can bypass the corruption in DC.

The idea that it "has to be" open ended is based upon precedent. The original Constitutional Convention back in 1787 was in fact limited to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They exceeded their express authority and threw out the Articles of Confederation and proposed a totally new Constitution.

That this occured is extremely important to the creation of what is the US Constitution-- as it would have never got out of convention in the form proposed if the convention had been given authority to propose a wholly new form of government.

The thing is, we can put all the limits on it that we wish, but they can ignore those limitations and propose anything they want. The only issue then is whether the states would then ratify the proposals made by the runaway convention. If they don't... no harm no foul. If they do, we are SOL.

 

[KokomoJojo]

in common law systems fundamental law is created by Stare Decis, court made law, which may be, but is not restricted the black robed grim reaper on the bench,

since it is based upon court opinions written by judges. Decisions of juries are not relied upon as precedent or stare decisis. If you disagree, please cite a jury decision which has been relied upon in subsequent cases.. Want to try again?

Again you make my case in point!
This is not and never has been a government by the inhabitants. LOL

[Again I said:
The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

No, what it proves is that the Constituion does not support your position

It proves no such thing what so ever, it proves once again judicial construction can create anything they want from that fucking piece of paper.


and you wish to excise those portions which do not comport to your whacky legal theories. You rely upon the the law of England to establish the right to jury trial in the first place,

yep thats where it came from

but willfully chose to ignore the extent of the right as known by the framers and as expressly adopted by the framers when they restricted the right to "suits at common law" ..

Again you are incapable of distinguishing between educated criticism and your programming.

Which only goes to prove you are a legal ignoramous who is totally unfamiliar with the 7th Amend.

Yeh thats why I paraphrased part of it LOL

Pretty fucked that you can not even understand what I said, let alone what I meant, LOL

Again on the contrary you are incapable of going outside the constraints of your programming.

Correct., it is not required by law. Glad we agree. The idea is that jurors should disobey the law only when their conscience demands it not whenever the mood suits them. Did you know that cops do not have to inform suspects that they can refuse a requested search? Perfectly legit.

Disobey the law? huh? So they are naughty children spanky spank? That goes far beyond cops I will have you know.

Again you are using one term then accusing a fault based upon another term, A power is not a duty. And judges are in fact empowered and required to give legal advice from the bench.

That is correct however anyone with a bar card gives legal advice has an obligation to correctly advise the party. Failure to do so is fraud upon the court, you seem to think that power is granted without an associated set of duties, how fucked is that.

Just because you think it is in "bad faith" that a total rendition of all their rights and responsibilities is not provided does not mean it is in bad faith.

DUH! Did I say that every judge that opens his yap is giving advice in bad faith? NO More of your stawmanning drama, In fact some states are considering making that a statutory requirement to fully inform jurors.

The Judge also does not inform them of their power to call for a potty break when necessary and thereby interrupt deliberations, is that bad faith as well?

So you think a potty break has anything to do with legal advice. really stretching it!

Now, regarding the failure to inform them of the power of jury nullification... if you wish to change that, you can have a law passed to provide for same, you do not even have to amend the Constitution. Good luck.

ahem LMAO

Please do, since it was never ratified. Since then, the US Supreme Court very explicitly described the 1810 proposal as unadopted in several cases... Waring v. Clarke (1847) 46 US (5 How.) 441 at 493;Dillon v. Gloss (1921) 256 US 368 at 375; Coleman v. Miller (1939) 307 US 433 at 472; Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) 387 US 253 at 277-278.

My understanding is that virginia ratified it then reversed their decision, which is not possible for them to do.

Are you claiming that the literally thousands of volumes which did not contain the phantom 13th were printed by dumbasses?

What volumes?

You get whackier with every minute, LOL

Feel free to prove that britain (the crown) divested itself of all right title and interest in this continent. 1783 did nothing of the sort so dont waste my time please. Until then you have nothing what so ever.

Its not true... because the reference is made to the date 1777... they are referring to the the Articles of Confederation which created a union out of the 13 former colonies of Great Britan and was adopted in 1781.

No it didnt, it simply was a reconstruction of the government, an overlay placed over the previous overlay, , nearly as it existed, the style changed to support the political long arm version of government and was an agreement between them to come to each others aid and do commerce amicably between them. They were already a union prior to the AOC.

The distinction being the creation by the confederation of sovereingn states which was the Articles of Confederation as opposed to a creation by We The People The present government was established by the people of the United States in 1787 and ratified in 1789. You are not too good at history are you, LOL So tell us how we became a vassal of Great Britain following the War of 1812?

Fuck history, try reading the AOC, the united states is created under the AOC and runs concurrent with it. In other words if you destroy the aoc you destroy the authorizing document that created the federal US with equal footing to the USA. Not real good at law you.

and who is "We The People"? Prove that "People" includes me.

Who says you are entitled to relief and who says that the constitution does not apply to to the inhabitants of the this nation generally?

Really? I already gave you the opportunity to show that the constitution applies to the inhabitants and you failed to do so.

And simply stating that it is de facto is not dispositive of the de facto.

are you losing it again? yes very

Correct, and the constituants can vote them out, so your point is what? Now if we did not vote for tham, you would have a point... but otherwise your assertion is absurd.

and the new boss does the same shit as the old boss, repeat, repeat, repeat hence the total disconnect in a republican form of government.

and yours has the insight of a fucking mole


LOL, we do have representation, your claim is that our representatives have the capacity to ignore us, what you fail to address is that if we do not like what they are doing we have the capacity to remove them at an election.... so we do have representation. and you are a loon

Voting in your new ruler who has not obligation to vote according to the will of the people then standing on your soapbox spouting the people have representation is next best thing to insanity.

Hows that vote the bum out shit been workin for ya LMAO?

There are plenty of whacky legal theories being advocated by loons such as yourself.

Does not take a whole lot of talent to parrot court decisions now does it.

Since it is my position that the jury does not have the final say so on all aspects of our government, the creation and enforcement of our laws, etc you would be correct. The jury has the final word in criminal cases in which they acquit the accused. The do not have the final say on anything else. The fact that you think that my opinion is incorrect is quite funny and establishes you as a whacky loon.

More strawmanning drama. The least you could do is get my position correct.

Parroting the very corruption that I condemn as status quo only validates my claims thank you very much.

The people presumably created the federal constitution but only the states can amend the federal constitution not the inhabitants that live under it. How fucked is that?

Well since the states are required to have a republican form of government,

Yeh colonies cant have a monarchy and compete with the king.

and since the legislators of the state are elected by the people of the state it seems not fucked at all.

Yeh that disassociation and huge canyon between those who make the laws and those who have to live under them must be maintained at all times.

No better way to preserve that than having corrupt middlemen and convincing everyone they are represented. OMFG!

What you want a jury to pass a constitutinal amendment or sumpin?

Jurys make case decisions, representing their own conscience, and THEIR NOT the will of the highest bidder.

Does any inhabitant have any right not recognized by the state? yes? or no?

Sure, a recent example was displayed in McDonald vs Chicago in 2010, where some laws in Illinois were found to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Anything else?

So they only have rights that are recognized by the state.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I just answered HOW the GOP won

oh there are winners alrightee, it is neither the democrats nor the republicans if you are paying attention.

You as a n00b don't know the rules yet, so I will repost what you cut out. You can only cut out what does not pertain to a reply.

I just answered HOW the GOP won in 2000 and 2004. The same way they won in 1952 and1956 and 1968 and 1972 and 1980 and 1984 and 1988.

With the middle as well as the conservatives.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

I left in the portion that applied to "my" response.

 

[MarcATL]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

One word....

Term. Limits.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The idea that it "has to be" open ended is based upon precedent. The original Constitutional Convention back in 1787 was in fact limited to proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They exceeded their express authority and threw out the Articles of Confederation and proposed a totally new Constitution.

That this occured is extremely important to the creation of what is the US Constitution-- as it would have never got out of convention in the form proposed if the convention had been given authority to propose a wholly new form of government.

The thing is, we can put all the limits on it that we wish, but they can ignore those limitations and propose anything they want. The only issue then is whether the states would then ratify the proposals made by the runaway convention. If they don't... no harm no foul. If they do, we are SOL.

agreed, they exceeded the express implied and even fantasized authority.

the aoc was not "tossed out", it was overlaid and the government RECONSTRUCTED", from a league of friendship to a contractual union, and again in the 1860's and again in 1930's and again with 911, and so forth, though the latter was far less noticeable.


the last thing this country would want is a convention, the people would fall for the advertisement with no clue what they were really getting, just like ohaha care. It would be surprise this is what you really got!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

One word....

Term. Limits.

nothing will work along those lines, the system is not balanced, never was, pulling out a weed and planting one in its place will not provide you with what you hope to achieve.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I would very much like to see the impeachment of justices who do not follow the constitution.

There is no manual on how to interpret the constitution (only general guidelines) and they have so much discretion in their decisions they can literally determine its constitutional to wipe everyone out on the planet by the manner in which they construct their decisions.

 

[KokomoJojo]

US courts, the whole judicial system, in collusion with legislative agencies today are not much more than rubber stamp RICO extortion rackets.

Like cancer they gnaw away at their victims (the inhabitants) over a long period of time.

You are free to seek to change that. The methodology is found in Article V of the Constitution. First you must convince 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate. to propose such an amendment to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify the proposal. Rather simple procedure actually. Good luck

DC is probably un-reformable without a convention called by the states. The idea that it has to be an open-ended convention is a myth however. Narrowly defined amendments could be called for by the states, a process that can bypass the corruption in DC.

amendments wont work, unless they change a few structural core elements of government, the actual structure has to change.

who the hell needs a sovereign piece of paper overlord in todays world?

You have one giant RICO corporate conglomerate. Separation of powers? Yeh sure and personnel and sales and accounting have separation of powers in 3m corporation too. More asswipe. They are all under the same roof and they all get their paychecks from the same place and we are fools to believe they are all separate.

In fact the legislators and courts work together behind the scenes to get law through so their shit will pass judicial muster. offices across the hall and the ability to collect money as a source of their income creates collusive bed buddies NOT separation.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CjO_hooO6hk#t=198[/ame]








This is not isolated to one state or office, it is business as usual!

fine they want corporate citizens then fucking pay them, make sure they get free legal services of THEIR choice so when they throw shit legislation at the wall that violates rights so the citizen has equal money under the law too to fight them in court.

How about opt out?

Since when does anyone or thing or group or mob have the right to tell me I have to buy a service at the end of the barrel of their gun, or how to live my life, who to marry, what to ingest, what color my fence has to be or how long my lawn has to be? Get the picture?

Wipe out my long standing business because a bunch of tards do not like the noise and dust after with full knowledge built their fucking home beside my gravel pit. Take my home or property so they can build a new walmart. Now they can do that under british law in britain because they have jurisdiction, ever ask yourselves how they have jurisdiction here?

Ever see an old city charter? They have long since claimed more rights than you or I could dream up or even conceptualize for ourselves in 3 lifetimes.

The problem is that we can wipe our asses with constitutions and pretty paper. Dubya dickweed that he was nailed it and sadly he was bang on target. Its nothing more than a fucking piece of paper.

I am still waiting for anyone to supply me with the empirical evidence that it applies to me in the first place. That includes the states version.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Does any inhabitant have any right not recognized by the state? yes? or no?

Sure, a recent example was displayed in McDonald vs Chicago in 2010, where some laws in Illinois were found to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Anything else?

So they only have rights that are recognized by the state.

You obviously have comprehension issues, huh? Did you get struck on the head with a big rock when you were young?