RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Termyn8or -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/6/2011 3:33:59 AM)

Why RO ?

OK

"
Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Note : shall not be diminished. The deck was stacked from the beginning. The usurpation of the power of the People was planned from the beginning.
 
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
 
The above is really nothing but a structural design. It simply states that one may be tried by a jury. It does not state whether that is mandatory or not. It also does not enumerate the right of nullification, or actual revenge by a jury of one's "peers".
 
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Leaving the door open again, to be bastardised by those who follow, or actuallt don't follow.
 
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Says nothing about a separate branch, a common law court, or the rights of jurers.
 
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And anyone with a working brain knows two things. One is that the PATRIOT act is in clear violation and therefore null and void which was established by Marbury v Madison, a very long time ago. But we have legislators who don't even know what the three branches of government are. Some think they can take a bus from LA to Hawaii, no shit. If they had brains they would all be culpable for treason, of that there is no doubt. But who is to hold their feet to the fire ? You, me ?
 
Look Man, the paper means jack shit without the spirit. You got say twelve cops beating Rodney King's ass, and all the sudden they are all called for jury duty when he is on trial. No problem, they can do it. We can't and we can't even see it when they do it. And I'll tell you what, if I had to stand trial by jury, I would argue that since I am not a resistered voter, my jury must be selected from among the non registered voters. How do you think that would fly ? How would they find them unless they had tabs on everyone ?

I might be able to get that off ONCE, and I am not very optimistic about it. Plus most people who go to court have contracts with the state and can't do shit. In fact when I accepted title to my property I (supposedly) unwittingly agreed to certain covenents. One of them is to not disturb the community, or something like that. This is enforced by statute. Now I know I can, ONE TIME, claim that I was defrauded because the title deed did not mention these covenents. This only works a cetain way, you don't do this in housing or tax court.

You need to charge them with fraud. Their failure to respond is your teeth if you ever see a court. If you do it right, which includes the whole thing, you want all your taxes back, your SS all of it, and you are suing them for it. Their nonresponse is youe evidence.

Don't think you are transported to the planet of Eden either. You will not get your money back, but they will leave you alone. I'm only guessing that the same approach could work on property. You can have all the allodial titles you want, but when they come with the guns and handcuffs, those titles mean nothing.

If you persue fucking with these people, it's best just to concentrate on the feds, get them off your ass. Property taxes are more direct, and you really do owe something to keep up the roads and shit. Choose your enemies well. To the feds you are a mosquito, they will send you a form, you are not a taxpayer. You are totally exempt foraver unless you do certain things.

No more Pell grants to say the least. You know, if the government really did work for us, if they did give a shit and acted like it instead of just talked like it, I would not be here, in this stance. A society such as this needs taxes to survive. When the money is not squa.. err stolen, people don't have a problem paying, and neither would I. But the way it is, I am out for blood, their's. Wish me luck. If they did what they were supposed to do I would volunteer to pay my fair share. But they don't so I don't.

I don't care what the fuck anyone thinks, I am secure morally in my decision. Termy say you get nothin, you get nothin. And I am right here.

And their courts ? Just don't go.

T^T



Moonhead -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/6/2011 5:13:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
On that note I completely agree.  Pot is the CIA/MI6's baby (monopoly) and they want have total control over it.


MI6's bag is internal security. Customs and Excise tend to be the people who seize all the dope imports they can find, along with the drug squad within the constabulary, who take it off the users and distributors.
I know you aren't British and don't understand the Magna Carta, but try researching stuff before you post, eh?



MrRodgers -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/6/2011 5:51:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Termy I was wondering if Real would reply, since he seemed to be making the claim.

In short juries here can decide to ignore a Judges instructions, without fear of punishment. IE...If they think a case has been brought for political reasons, they can dismiss it. They can also do that if they feel a law isnt just.

What can be discerned from recent verdicts and I still have hope, is that juries are not always fooled by the govt. An example is the 200+ charges brought on a so-called terrorist 'conspirator' where the 'conviction' on a single charge of that was all the govt. could make stick.

I think we all know why...or we certainly should.



Politesub53 -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/6/2011 3:43:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
On that note I completely agree.  Pot is the CIA/MI6's baby (monopoly) and they want have total control over it.


MI6's bag is internal security. Customs and Excise tend to be the people who seize all the dope imports they can find, along with the drug squad within the constabulary, who take it off the users and distributors.
I know you aren't British and don't understand the Magna Carta, but try researching stuff before you post, eh?


He does research, its just that when he finds he is wrong, he switches tack. Thats what he has done with me here. Note how he made two claims about British Law and didnt argue when I picked him up.  



Termyn8or -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/6/2011 5:44:34 PM)

"where the 'conviction' on a single charge of that was all the govt. could make stick. "

Did you ever find out just what Saddam Heussein was convicted for ? Of all the shit they said he did, it boils down to a few deaths. Not thousands, not millions, not even hundreds.

That's justice today, just pile up the charges, forget the evidence. The sheeple will take the best deal we offer. Well they never had a real fucking lawyer, I have.

T^T



brokedickdog -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/7/2011 11:48:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

The concepts of due process and juries have been around for a long time. But I don't really recognize how this should affect our law here and now. There is one jurisdictional challenge nobody would ever make, that is that of the Constitution. What it says goes. What is outlined there supersedes all precedent. I'm in total denial of the influence of foreign law, and I don't mean that in the common sense. I mean that in the sense that, our Constitution was written, ratified and is supposedly in effect now.

You can go back to the code of Hamuabi if you want, but it simply does not apply here. If we don't stand on our Law, we have nothing. The tenets of our Constitution are not welcome in courtrooms here, and I imagine the same of the Magna Carta in England. They don't want to hear it.

We have our problems and they have their's.

Fuck the dawg - he can stop reading right now. The judge back in 1982 who my lawyer convinced not to throw the book at me was exercising sane judgement despite his personal loss. Can the average Citizen do that ? When you get charged with that, and there actually WAS a wreck, you don't usually want a jury. I was glad I didn't hurt anyone, I acted remorseful, actually I was. I also had the guy's truck half paid off by the time I walked in there for sentencing. That sentence would enrage MADD to the nth degree. They were not present - by design.

The reason I bring this up is because justice is not served very well. Even if a jury is cognizant of their power, they still have their own viewpoints, which may be radical, and I don't mean the good way. There is also the problem of evidence exclusion, which is still up to the judge. There have been a couple of pushes over the years for "fully informed juries". A nice concept, but even if it flew, how to implement it ? Allow all evidence no matter how inconclusive ? Each trial would last months.

Simply having a jury does not guarantee justice will be served, especially these days. Old western shows where someone runs in the court and saves someone from the hangman in the nick of time are largely fiction, and even though it probably did happen at one time or another, it probably wasn't the norm. The norm was more likely people relying on their personal opinion of the defendant for direction rather than the facts.

Of course there is always filing for a change of venue, but that is done very rarely, not only is it rarely appropriate alot of people don't even think about it. Meeting the required grounds is not all that easy either. Prejudice must be proven, try that sometime.

So the thing is, just how much would juries empowered by the right of nullification do in the name of justice ? Most people don't have the authoritative stance when it comes to law. In other words they do not believe that the People should direct the law, they believe that the law should direct the people. They think the law is some sort of higher power, ala God. "They" pass a seatbelt law, the sheeple will start wearing seatbelts. "They" pass a helmet law, sheeple will start wearing helmets.

Not this one guy in CA. He killed himself over it. I don't think that was quite effective, or smart, but he did it. My problem with it is that the law should never have been passed. When the legislators do not understand what form the law should take in this country, we are pretty fucked.

Others are not like me. If on a jury I would vote to acquit on any law I deem unconstitutional, period. Caught with tons of pot ? Dead to rights. Right there, video of the deal and eveything. I would hang the jury if necessary.

T^T


Many of your concerns in re are reasonbly handled via the rules of evidence. Clearly not all evidence, or that which is purported to be evidence, is admissible. The Federal Rules of Evidence are available at the following link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

You should also check your local rules. Most states have modeled their own evidentiary rules on the Federal rules, some even adopting them verbatim. Still, there are differences and if the need arises not knowing the rules will likely cause you to lose your case.



Termyn8or -> RE: 4th Branch of Government, you knew right? (2/7/2011 10:06:43 PM)

"if the need arises not knowing the rules will likely cause you to lose your case."

You can say that again. Lawyers do have their uses. Some people go and beg for help "Oh dear, I have no idea what's happening here". Not me. While I wouldn't tell a lawyer how to do his job per se, I would, and have. We discuss the risks of a certain approach, as well as the benefits. In only one case did we even consider pulling a jury.

There is at least one normal thing about me. When it is my ass on the line, I don't care what works, only that it does work. Maybe I didffer though, because I will admit it. I don't care if I did it or not, I want to get away with it.

I think dealing with a severe felony, I would have to adjust. I have not yet faced a felony charge, and I don't plan to. I really don't do anything to "warrant" it. I've been bitten here and there, but not bad. In jail, all there is to do is talk, and in doing so I found that so many people are ignorant when it comes to legal matters. At one time I went with the "Sure you were framed, like everyone else in here" crowd, but no more. People are that uninformed. I now think there are many innocent people in jail or prison.

I am not saying I am innocent. In fact if they gave me five years for jaywalking we would be about even. Well not quite. I also know how, and disagree with the way they handle investigations. They pick their target and build a case against one person, ignoring all contradictory evidence, no matter how compelling. A motion of discovery doesn't mean shit when the judge has lunch with the prosecutor either.

Administering justice is very difficult for the most well intentioned and competent. Where would I find those people ?

T^T



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02