RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (Full Version)

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



Message


JVoV -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/14/2015 6:19:45 PM)

Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.




NorthernGent -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/15/2015 1:30:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.



How are the civil courts funded in the United States?






joether -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/15/2015 2:26:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.

How are the civil courts funded in the United States?


Depends on the circumstances. In many cases the taxpayer picks up a portion of the court's costs while the loser of the case picks up the remainder. This not a 'hard and fast' rule; there are plenty of exceptions to the general rule.





NorthernGent -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/15/2015 2:49:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.

How are the civil courts funded in the United States?


Depends on the circumstances. In many cases the taxpayer picks up a portion of the court's costs while the loser of the case picks up the remainder. This not a 'hard and fast' rule; there are plenty of exceptions to the general rule.




Similar here, and I find it a waste of good money.

In the event there is a spare few million quid floating around then health and education would be a more worthy cause than an isolated squabble over a cake and Christian beliefs.

As a society, in terms of where public funds are invested I don't find it acceptable that someone who could go next door to get a cake instead chooses to call upon public funds to fight his/her personal battle.





MercTech -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/15/2015 7:40:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.



How are the civil courts funded in the United States?






"Court Costs" payable to the clerk of the court. Often a settlement stipulates the losing party to pay all court costs; otherwise each party to the legal arbitration has to pay costs. The concept is that legal arbitration os a private squabble is not to frivolously cost the taxpayers. Now when a government agency is one of the parties; taxpayers have to pay the costs.




Real0ne -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/15/2015 8:19:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Civil court is kinda designed to handle this sort of spat though. And it can be necessary to eliminate further spats over similar issues by other parties.



How are the civil courts funded in the United States?





I stole this rather than type it all out.


CRIS Accounts: Every Court Case Makes Money for the Federal Reserve

Subject: Every Court case makes money for the court through Federal Reserve


Is there no end to the unjust enrichment? New concepts: "To the credit of the court" and "deposit into the court's registry" made through "depositories authorized to accept deposits on behalf of the Treasury Department of the United States." Each case has its own account! And the clerk is the "custodian of the account!" Gives new meaning to the phrase "the business of the court!" It ain't justice that's for sure.

Here you go! Columns and tables tell the story of the "CRIS" - Court Registry Investment System! It's a cash cow that never dries up!


See attachment and search results below. It is frighteningly real!

Legalized plunder! And this isn't a conflict of interest and a financial interest how? Do you think they are paying any taxes on the "total aggregate income received" or the "income earned?" Rhetorical question.


"court registry investment system" 42,800 results!


http://www.google.com/search?q=court+registry+investment+system&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNWI_en#hl=en&expIds=17259,21007,25907,26637,26992,27095&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=%22court+registry+investment+system%22&cp=1&pf=p&sclient=psy&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7RNWI_en&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22court+registry+investment+system%22&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=cac716aade6fa416


Text from first link from New Hampshire US District Court Local Rules!


67.2 Deposit of Registry Funds Into Interest-Bearing Account

Receipt of Funds.


Unless an applicable statute requires the deposit of funds without leave of court, no funds governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 67 shall be tendered to the court or the clerk's office for deposit into the court's registry absent court order signed by a judge.

All funds received by the court or the clerk's office for any case pending or in the process of adjudication shall be deposited with the Treasurer of the United States, in the name and to the credit of this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2041. Such deposits shall be made through depositories authorized to accept deposits on behalf of the Treasury Department of the United States.

The party making the deposit or transferring funds to the court's registry shall serve the order permitting the deposit or transfer on the clerk of court or, in the clerk's absence, upon the chief deputy clerk or financial administrator.

The procedures for the receipt and handling by the clerk of any funds deposited with the court shall not be waived except by order of the court. Any such order submitted for the court's consideration must reflect the clerk's signature.

Investment of Registry Funds. A motion and a proposed order setting forth the manner in which the funds will be deposited in an interest-bearing account or invested in an interest-bearing instrument must be submitted prior to the tender of such funds to the court.
Court Registry Investment System.

Unless otherwise ordered, the Court Registry Investment System (CRIS), administered through the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, shall be the investment mechanism authorized.

Under CRIS, monies deposited in each case under subsection (a)(1) will be "pooled" together with those on deposit with the Treasury to the credit of other courts in CRIS and used to purchase Treasury securities which will be held at the Federal Reserve Bank of the Dallas/Houston Branch in a safekeeping account in the name and to the credit of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, hereby designated custodian for the CRIS.

A separate account for each case will be established in CRIS titled in the name of the case giving rise to the investment. All income received from each investment will be distributed on a pro-rata basis based upon the ratio of each account's principal to the total aggregate income received. Weekly reports indicating the amount of principal contributed and the income earned will be prepared and distributed to each court participating in CRIS and shall also be made available to the parties to the action or their counsel.

Other Investments and Instruments. Should an investment mechanism other than CRIS be utilized, the written stipulation filed by counsel must contain the following information:
the amount to be invested;

the form of interest-bearing account or instrument;

the name and address of the federally insured local institution where the deposit is to be made or by whom the interest-bearing instrument is to be issued;

the name, address, social security number or taxpayer identification number of the party or parties with a real or potential interest in the deposit or instrument;

the form of additional collateral to be posted by the private institution in the event that standard FDIC or FSLIC coverage is insufficient to insure the total deposit;

a direction to the clerk to deduct from the income earned on the investment a fee not exceeding that authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office as published in the Federal Register; and

such other appropriate information that may be deemed applicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

Upon court order to deposit and invest registry funds locally, the clerk shall serve as custodian of the account or financial instrument and shall keep such account, certificate of deposit, or financial instrument in a secure and safe place subject to further order of the court.

Registry Investment Fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1913 and this rule, the custodian is authorized and directed to deduct the registry fee. The proper registry fee shall be determined on the basis of the rates authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office as published in the Federal Register. The authorized custodian of an investment account shall deposit such fee with the Treasury Department to the credit of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. In cases where funds are ultimately disbursed to the United States or to agencies or officials thereof, the clerk shall refund the registry fee to those agencies or officials upon application filed with the court.

Cash Bail. If cash bail in an amount in excess of $10,000 is deposited with the court, it may be placed in an interest-bearing account upon motion of the submitting party. The deposit shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this rule except that there shall be no administration fee assessed.


28 USC § 2041. Deposit of moneys in pending or adjudicated cases

All moneys paid into any court of the United States, or received by the officers thereof, in any case pending or adjudicated in such court, shall be forthwith deposited with the Treasurer of the United States or a designated depositary, in the name and to the credit of such court.


This section shall not prevent the delivery of any such money to the rightful owners upon security, according to agreement of parties, under the direction of the court.



Fucked up is fucked up, NO?




Aylee -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 12:04:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

And you know that is not part of anyone's religion, strawman.


Ya know. . . being 3/5's of a person is 3/5's better than not being counted as a person at all. Why do folks keep forgetting that?




JVoV -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 12:38:03 AM)

That may have been true if slaves were actually allowed to vote at the time. But instead, they were only counted to give the southern states a higher population, for more seats in Congress, and the electoral college.




MrRodgers -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 2:31:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

And you know that is not part of anyone's religion, strawman.


Ya know. . . being 3/5's of a person is 3/5's better than not being counted as a person at all. Why do folks keep forgetting that?

Except that those counted as 3/5's of a person were only counted as such to establish the enumeration required for the election of reps to congress and were legally only property.

I am not aware of any situation where any person who is a citizen now or since the appropriate amend to the constitution, is ever...not counted as a person.




thishereboi -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:18:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Thank god for equality in who you can love and marry. Another step forward for equality.
AT LAST



Yes, thank god for that. It's just too bad that they have to shit on others rights to get there.




thishereboi -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:20:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

In other news:

A federal judge has ordered the Rowan County clerk, Kim Davis, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ms. Davis was one of a handful of local elected officials nationwide who stopped issuing marriage licenses after the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June. She said issuing a license to a gay couple would violate her Christian beliefs and argued that the United States Constitution protected her religious freedoms. Four couples sued her. Judge David Bunning of Federal District Court ruled Wednesday the couples should not be forced to travel to another county to get a marriage licenses and said Ms. Davis should perform her assigned duties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/kentucky-clerk-ordered-to-issue-wedding-licenses-to-same-sex-couples.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0


She took a job working for the state so yes, she should have to perform all the duties that the job entails. But this thread was about a baker who owned his own business so the two really have nothing to do with each other.




Lucylastic -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:25:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Thank god for equality in who you can love and marry. Another step forward for equality.
AT LAST



Yes, thank god for that. It's just too bad that they have to shit on others rights to get there.

they dont have the right to discriminate.
CADAis clear on that..and no not even for a "belief" masked as discrimination




Lucylastic -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:27:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

In other news:

A federal judge has ordered the Rowan County clerk, Kim Davis, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ms. Davis was one of a handful of local elected officials nationwide who stopped issuing marriage licenses after the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June. She said issuing a license to a gay couple would violate her Christian beliefs and argued that the United States Constitution protected her religious freedoms. Four couples sued her. Judge David Bunning of Federal District Court ruled Wednesday the couples should not be forced to travel to another county to get a marriage licenses and said Ms. Davis should perform her assigned duties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/kentucky-clerk-ordered-to-issue-wedding-licenses-to-same-sex-couples.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0


She took a job working for the state so yes, she should have to perform all the duties that the job entails. But this thread was about a baker who owned his own business so the two really have nothing to do with each other.


Well, I have to disagree with you, because it is about certain courts are overstepping their boundaries, when its actually religion overstepping their "rights" to discriminate.
so court cases seem to be relevant




Real0ne -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 11:11:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

In other news:

A federal judge has ordered the Rowan County clerk, Kim Davis, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Ms. Davis was one of a handful of local elected officials nationwide who stopped issuing marriage licenses after the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June. She said issuing a license to a gay couple would violate her Christian beliefs and argued that the United States Constitution protected her religious freedoms. Four couples sued her. Judge David Bunning of Federal District Court ruled Wednesday the couples should not be forced to travel to another county to get a marriage licenses and said Ms. Davis should perform her assigned duties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/kentucky-clerk-ordered-to-issue-wedding-licenses-to-same-sex-couples.html?mabReward=CTM&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0


She took a job working for the state so yes, she should have to perform all the duties that the job entails. But this thread was about a baker who owned his own business so the two really have nothing to do with each other.


Well, I have to disagree with you, because it is about certain courts are overstepping their boundaries, when its actually religion overstepping their "rights" to discriminate.
so court cases seem to be relevant




So you admit it is about religion. good, I agree. The court has no jurisdiction regarding religion and congress does not have the authority to pass ANY legislation that violates a parties right to freely exercise their religion, provided they do not injure another, endanger them, or damage property. If congress does not have that authority it goes without saying that the bureaucracy thereunder certainly does not have the authority.

Anytime we see a court decision in favor of one while stomping on the rights of another it is neither supported in law or equity. In other words the court decision was purely political and has no standing in law or equity.

What I find interesting is listening to a few people who dont give a shit that the courts are becoming a menace to our society by fostering and promoting INEQUALITY rather than making decisions where the rights of BOTH are duly considered in a 'best compromise'.


The question I have is how can any administration have higher standing than the law that created it?






RottenJohnny -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 11:58:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
...provided they do not injure another, endanger them, or damage property.

...and a bruised ego does not qualify. From my perspective, that's the only thing this whole issue about.




BamaD -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:00:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

And you know that is not part of anyone's religion, strawman.


Ya know. . . being 3/5's of a person is 3/5's better than not being counted as a person at all. Why do folks keep forgetting that?

And that isn't what the Constitution said.




BamaD -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:02:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

That may have been true if slaves were actually allowed to vote at the time. But instead, they were only counted to give the southern states a higher population, for more seats in Congress, and the electoral college.

And rather than being considered 3/5 of a person salve owners could only count 3/5 of them for purposes of representation.




BamaD -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/16/2015 4:04:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I wonder if a bakery could deny to make a cake...for a black-white marriage ?

I recall that once upon a time, all men were created equal...except blacks. I think they were actually codified as 3/5 of equal.

And you know that is not part of anyone's religion, strawman.


Ya know. . . being 3/5's of a person is 3/5's better than not being counted as a person at all. Why do folks keep forgetting that?

Except that those counted as 3/5's of a person were only counted as such to establish the enumeration required for the election of reps to congress and were legally only property.

I am not aware of any situation where any person who is a citizen now or since the appropriate amend to the constitution, is ever...not counted as a person.

This was done to reduce representation for slave holding states. If for this purpose they were fully counted SC would have had over 20% more representation.




Thegunnysez -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/18/2015 7:28:44 AM)

quote:

Again the Soviet solution, deny you religion or close your business.


The Soviets were not supportive of religion and state ownership of the means of production would seem to preclude having a business to close.




Thegunnysez -> RE: Court Oversteps Its Bounds Again! (8/18/2015 7:36:29 AM)

quote:

What was the purpose of the lawsuit, if not the one cited in #3? Was the couple unable to find another bakery to make their cake? If that were the case, I would support a lawsuit; otherwise, I'm not so sure.


One would imagine that the lawsuit follows in the same theory of those who "sat in" at all white lunch counters and sat in "whites only" seats on buses. In the U.S. one may have a personal religious beliefs and practice them but one may not impose those religious beliefs on others.
Since a baker cannot legally refuse to make a cake for a mixed race couple based on a religious prohibition how can they refuse a gay couple?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02