quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Notthing RO posts is relevant to anything. He fails to use credible sources and indeed makes stuff up as he goes along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
What happened to the ORIGINAL 13th amendment? There is nothing on any of the books showing it was repealed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
BTW, what is the purpose of the bill of rights if [it] isn't the 'law of the land ?'

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw.....

Please show me the case or cases that tells me we can have our slaves back...I can't wait and I can force you to testify against yourself and I can take away all of your guns.

BTW, what is the purpose of the bill of rights if [it] isn't the 'law of the land ?'


...and as I've suggested with this OP, THE two g r e a t e s t conspiracy 'theories' in history, elaborate as they needed to be, turned out to be...true, absolute fact.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw.....

Please show me the case or cases that tells me we can have our slaves back...I can't wait and I can force you to testify against yourself and I can take away all of your guns.

BTW, what is the purpose of the bill of rights if [it] isn't the 'law of the land ?'


...and as I've suggested with this OP, THE two g r e a t e s t conspiracy 'theories' in history, elaborate as they needed to be, turned out to be...true, absolute fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw.....

Please show me the case or cases that tells me we can have our slaves back...I can't wait and I can force you to testify against yourself and I can take away all of your guns.

BTW, what is the purpose of the bill of rights if [it] isn't the 'law of the land ?'


...and as I've suggested with this OP, THE two g r e a t e s t conspiracy 'theories' in history, elaborate as they needed to be, turned out to be...true, absolute fact.

quote:

A vassal was a person who had gone into a mutual obligation with a monarch or feudal lord. The monarch or lord got the vassal's allegiance and homage. In exchange the vassal got land and protection. This was essentially an agreement of mutual support, and was very important from a military perspective.
the state is sovereign and you pledged to the flag of the sovereign LOLOL small fucking world it tis!
The with the evolution of the Middle Ages, the vassals were divided between a higher group, whose titles and lands became inherited estates, and a lower group, whose holdings were not inherited. The higher group became the titled nobility, and the lower, which was more numerous, remained as vassal knights. These people were required to maintain groups of trained fighting men who could be mustered in times of conflict. The greater members of the nobility had the equivalent of small armies. A simple knight might have only himself and a few followers and servants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Barron v. Baltimore
United States v. Cruikshank

proof is that you DO NOT get (by any state that I am aware of)

Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury (for any crime, crime is rubber stamped penalties now days and HUGE profit center to municipalities completely repugnant to the constitution)
or
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits. (In wisconsin hearsay is allowed in court and the fucking attorneys will come in and say any damn thing they want and lie their teeth off with near impunity unless you understand how to kick their ass. now average joe go in for speeding and let me know how you do with the judge and prosecutor drinking buddys.

quote:

REESE v. IBEW LOCAL 82 PENSION PLAN (S.D.Ohio 3-12-2012)
POWERS F. REESE, III, Plaintiff, vs. IBEW LOCAL 82 PENSION PLAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:11-cv-242.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
March 12, 2012.
In determining whether a party is entitled to a jury trial on any claim, the court should consider:
(1) whether the claim was a legal or equitable claim before the 1938 merger of law and equity in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) the remedy sought, and;
(3) the practical abilities and limitations of juries. Ross v. Bernard, 396 U.S. 531, 538, fn. 10 (1974).

In considering the issue of entitlement to a jury trial in ERISA actions, [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] the majority of the courts, including the Sixth Circuit, have held that no such right exists. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Health Care Sys., Inc., 150 F. 3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998) ("Because [Plaintiff] has no cause of action for which money damages are a recognized remedy, we view his appeal as one from the denial of benefits and conclude that the district court properly denied his motion for a jury trial.").[fn7]

[fn7] See also Crews v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 788 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1986) (action seeking return of funds essentially an action for restitution, and equitable remedy); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (no right to jury trial in action for recovery of benefits); Bair v. General Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir. 1990) (employee's claim for early retirement benefits not subject to trial by jury); Turner v. CF&I Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 43 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058 (1986) (only equitable relief available under Section 502(a)(1)(beer) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, no right to jury trial); Blau v. DelMonte Corp., 748 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985) (no independent constitutional or statutory right to jury trial in ERISA actions); Smith v. ABS Indus., Inc., 653 F.Supp. 94 (N.D. Ohio 1986) (no right to trial by jury for ERISA breach of fiduciary cases); Wardle v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 627 F.2d 820 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112 (1981) (suit for benefits by disappointed applicant are equitable in nature and no right to jury trial exists).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I think the greatest is the 911 theory the government propagates (20 bearded men from caves ...).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

ONe need not do that as it is clearly spelled out what that right is,  in the amendment. And it is contingent upon criminal prosecutions, having nothing in common with civil cases.

The constitution is standing on its feet, the tinfoily, inaccurate, worthless, irrelevant,  meaningless codswallows worth of asswipe prior notwithstanding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Barron v. Baltimore
United States v. Cruikshank

proof is that you DO NOT get (by any state that I am aware of)

Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury (for any crime, crime is rubber stamped penalties now days and HUGE profit center to municipalities completely repugnant to the constitution)
or
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits. (In wisconsin hearsay is allowed in court and the fucking attorneys will come in and say any damn thing they want and lie their teeth off with near impunity unless you understand how to kick their ass. now average joe go in for speeding and let me know how you do with the judge and prosecutor drinking buddys.

Didnt this subject just happen to come up elsewhere

More

quote:

REESE v. IBEW LOCAL 82 PENSION PLAN (S.D.Ohio 3-12-2012)
POWERS F. REESE, III, Plaintiff, vs. IBEW LOCAL 82 PENSION PLAN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:11-cv-242.
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
March 12, 2012.
In determining whether a party is entitled to a jury trial on any claim, the court should consider:
(1) whether the claim was a legal or equitable claim before the 1938 merger of law and equity in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
(2) the remedy sought, and;
(3) the practical abilities and limitations of juries. Ross v. Bernard, 396 U.S. 531, 538, fn. 10 (1974).

In considering the issue of entitlement to a jury trial in ERISA actions, [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] the majority of the courts, including the Sixth Circuit, have held that no such right exists. See, e.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Health Care Sys., Inc., 150 F. 3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998) ("Because [Plaintiff] has no cause of action for which money damages are a recognized remedy, we view his appeal as one from the denial of benefits and conclude that the district court properly denied his motion for a jury trial.").[fn7]

[fn7] See also Crews v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 788 F.2d 332 (6th Cir. 1986) (action seeking return of funds essentially an action for restitution, and equitable remedy); Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263 (6th Cir. 1988) (no right to jury trial in action for recovery of benefits); Bair v. General Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir. 1990) (employee's claim for early retirement benefits not subject to trial by jury); Turner v. CF&I Steel Corp., 770 F.2d 43 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1058 (1986) (only equitable relief available under Section 502(a)(1)(beer) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, no right to jury trial); Blau v. DelMonte Corp., 748 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985) (no independent constitutional or statutory right to jury trial in ERISA actions); Smith v. ABS Indus., Inc., 653 F.Supp. 94 (N.D. Ohio 1986) (no right to trial by jury for ERISA breach of fiduciary cases); Wardle v. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 627 F.2d 820 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112 (1981) (suit for benefits by disappointed applicant are equitable in nature and no right to jury trial exists).

They flipped the constitution on its head where our rights (man or woman in the singular) are seen to have the requirement of enumeration when the exact opposite is true, enumeration is for the purpose of limiting the extent of government power not our rights, how fucked is that?

Its in our face everywhere we look, like stepping in shit no matter which way you turn because the yard wasnt maintained

so the government can promise you any fucking benefit they want and not a jury but the government is the judge jury and prosecutor.

Its not about reprobates or dimocraps, the only way the people truly have a say in government is through a FULLY EMPOWERED jury, not the typical advisory jurys most courts.


I am serious man I do not believe anyone can top the judicial system and its creation et al as the top shelf conspiracy (ongoing no less) that has ever been known to man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
What are yours ? Which of the many of 1000's of conspiracy theories throughout history are your favorites.

I have two I think that have to rank at the very top.

FIRST...The world is not the center of the universe ?