|
Real0ne -> RE: Breastfeeding In Court? (11/17/2011 11:06:51 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ishtarr
And yes, considering that there is nothing that states that breastfeeding in court is illegal, and it's solely up to the judge, they could hang up a sign to state that it wouldn't be allowed.
The judge DOES NOT OWN that property!
He has no LEGITIMATE authority to make any such claim!
I could put up a sign right over the top of his that says breastfeeding allowed. Now what?
If I paid one cent of taxes ever in my life I am now by the contract am an equal SHAREHOLDER in the ownership of that property, hence it now requires a statute or that judge is in violation of his office and subject to tort and criminal proceedings as such.
Do you advocate judges creating law from the bench which is outside their granted authority or didnt you realize that is what that would be?
(when people act and think like slaves trust me THEY WILL BE treated like slaves!!!)
I'm by NO MEANS saying that a judge should be allowed to decide over such things. I don't think they should.
But then again, I also think that most of the times I've seen somebody be held in contempt was purely criminal behavior on the judge's part.
I agree that is should be a woman's right to breastfeed in court -if breastfeeding in public is legal- but I at the same time realize that it doesn't work that way.
What should and shouldn't be the case rarely applies when a judge decides to play god in his own courtroom.
I would therefore always go from the assumption that he'll take things in a worst case scenario, and wouldn't breastfeed in court myself.
ok but there is something critical that needs be understood here.
it is NOT the judges courtroom and it is NOT the judges court.
People, (judges et al included) have been programmed so effectively its very hard to wrap ones mind around this.
The plaintiff sets up "HIS" court, it is the "plaintiff's" court, unless a jury is involved and then it is the Jury's court!
It originate in the King with his retinue (bondholders) and the courtiers.
quote:
court:
5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor.
6. The persons or judges assembled for hearing and deciding causes, civil, criminal, military, naval or ecclesiastical; as a court of law; a court of chancery; a court martial; a court of admiralty; an ecclesiastical court; court baron; &c. Hence,
7. Any jurisdiction, civil, military, or ecclesiastical.
commercial is generically admiralty, chancery, maritime etc.
The king who was always the plaintiff, would hear the cases as the court and judge originally, then he gave special privileges to a group of people who studied law and the group would decide cases for the king, at least making it "appear" to be more legitimate.
Judges under the United States are commercial, you will note in the 7th that:
quote:
"In Suits at common law, (which has been abolished by statute as a so called right of the state, except for narrow circumstances) where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
all courts on public property are courts of the united states, note they all have a us flag and a state flag flying in them.
note that they do not say they are the final arbiter of the law! It is unsaid but that also belongs to the jury!
I posted several times where supreme courts justices said that the law IS in the hands of the people, which is true but they have put up the gaurd dogs and you will never get past it and there is no way to enforce it because the only one who enforces law is the united states and it is their corporate commercial law that gets enforced under the name policy.
|
|
|
|
