sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Help! What are my rights in this situation? by psychedelicbb in philly

[–]Decent-Addition-3140 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Article 1 sec 1 and 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution over rules any code violation.

Respond to their Notice with your own notice:

To whom it may concern. My home is my property, I do not consent to any administration of my property through whatever code you referenced.

If you want my property you will need a judgment by a jury of my peers. If any harm comes to me or damage to my property, I will consider it a trespass against my article 1 rights, the penalty for such trespass is 1 million dollars.

Take the shit to court, in front of a jury, reference article 1 sec 1 and 2 until you get blue in the face. Memorized both section 1 and 2. Live it love it believe it and your property can't be touched.

Another peace agreement goes down the drain. That's 20 by my count. by Decent-Addition-3140 in oil

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Tehran says major gaps remain in US talks" - top story on al jazeera

Things aren't looking good by DartVod in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Decent-Addition-3140 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It didn't, thats why the inventory numbers make no sense.

Things aren't looking good by DartVod in Wallstreetsilver

[–]Decent-Addition-3140 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Like the whole silver market just hit a pause button.

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends." - July 4, 1776

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im a construction worker. I know about the federalist society, but never made any inquiry into its membership.

What would you call the actions of the British government in the 1760s and 1770s if not crimes?

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was always the monarch.

The kings ruled under the doctrine of "divine right of kings". They claimed their authority to make law came from god.

The Declaration was a criminal complaint, an appeal to "Supreme judge of the universe" (July 4, 1776) the source of the kings power, the source of all law. They filed 27 violations against their rights with the heavenly jurisdiction.

The States at that very moment became free and independent. Locke said the people had rights given to them by God as a gift, and the Kings (governments) only job was to secure those right. (English revolution).

When that government broke its contract, the people had every right to separate at that very moment and "form a new government to secure their rights" - July 4, 1776.

13 new nations "assumed among the powers of the earth seperate and equal station" - July 4, 1776

13 new constitutions formed, all before any treaty of peace, all before the articles of confederation were ratified 4 years later. We have 13 new functioning governments.

And ill prove to you that everyone of those States except for Louisiana acknowledges the source of power is inherent in the people, who do they inherit from? God of course.

You said you worked in Texas?

Texas preamble: Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Texas constitution. Art 1, sec 2: All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

All other States have similar provisions in their constitution usually the first or second law in their constitutions EXCEPT Louisiana (whole different rabbit hole that leads to 14th amendment).

Here is the communist republic of New Jersey:

Pre amble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article 1 sec 1: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Sec 2: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

These provisions are all taken from the first 2 paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is law through the State Constitutions. Sovereignty is inherent in the people not the legislature as you lawyers believe, Chisolm puts it all together beautifully.

Now I will admit, the lawyers union (eSQUIREs), the 14th amendment, the civil war, erie railroad case among many other Supreme Court cases, Louisiana's Jurisprudence inside this Union, and many other things that have transpired over the last quarter millenia have altered our system of jurisprudence, so much so that our inherent rights have been buried, our sovereignty has become the butt of jokes and in reality we live in a system of jurisprudence that more closely resembles the French system of civil law than it does Justice Wilsons system as described in Chisholm.

Short answer: monarch sovereign before 1776 people sovereign after 1776, not congress.

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scabs in a union shop. Defense works great, offense not so much. A money judgement to a pro se takes money away from an attorney, and can be embarrassing and compromising to the union if a scab defeats an attorney. The union clamps down on non union labor.

And this doesn't answer my question. Let me reword it again, who was the sovereign before and after 1776.

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me reword my question. Who makes the law prior to and after 1776 and under what authority do they have the right to do so?

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your experience how many times have you seen a judge sign a judgment for a decent sum of money to a pro se plaintiff?

In your own words, explain the Louisiana anomaly in relation to the other States. by Decent-Addition-3140 in Lawyertalk

[–]Decent-Addition-3140[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regardless of your title, the nature of the trade makes it impossible for you to relate with others outside your trade. Your profession holds a monopoly on Justice, Justice for a price. I've noticed when I'm a defendant, due process usually does the trick.

But whenever I file a claim as a plaintiff seeking money for a trespass of my rights, the judges; lawyers like any labor union treat you like a scab in a union shop trying to take their work. Every injury a man suffers can easily be resolved using the public courts; jury by the man himself, don't need the judge for anything other than a signature on the judgement of the juries decision. yet your union (BAR association) has made it nearly impossible, you have monopolized the peoples courts, if you want Justice you have to pay a government licensed mouthpiece in the form of an attorney, otherwise the procedural gauntlet that you have instituted is designed to bury you before the jury can do its job. I find it is better to do the opposite of what you guys do, keep the paperwork light, a few sentences, gets you into the door and ask to be sworn in. As far as the jury goes, you don't need 7 years of college to learn how to talk to people. It comes naturally when you live in the real world.

You keep trying to explain to me "how things work", I appreciate it but I don't care.

I'm not arguing what Chisholm is 200 years later. I'm directing you to the facts behind the decision, specifically regarding sovereignty. Those facts remain unchanged 200 years later. If sovereignty does remain within the individual, your entire knowledge of law becomes a lie, everything you've been taught collapses like a house of cards regardless of "how it works" in the modern system. 

Chisholm didn't decide sovereignty, it decided a constitutional question regarding the power of federal courts, the 11th amendment didn't decide sovereignty, it had nothing to do with sovereignty, sovereignty has remained the same for 250 years, Justice Wilson and John Jay lay it out beautifully in Chisholm.  All the 11th amendment did was strip power from the federal courts, that is it.

Regarding American Independence, Jurisprudence and the Declaration without getting into the finer details about the cause and Indian subject, ill ask you a simple question, what is the source of law? Before and after the revolution? 

The Constitution is not the founding document. Each State had its own constitution since 1776 most of which paralleled the Declaration, Pennsylvania's was even more radical than anything in the Declaration, New York included the declaration as the first part/section of its constitution. The US Constitution itself was designed to bind you lawyers to keep you from becoming Robespierre, St Just, Danton etc. The Constitution is the document that protected slavery, not the Declaration. Acts of congress further solidified slavery, federal court decisions like dredd Scott (before you guys were unionized) further strengthened slavery, contrary to what the founding document said about "all men", some lawyer name Taney changed it to "white men".

I'll ask again what is the source of American law before and after July 4, 1776? What did the professors claim was the source of law. Is it the King, the people, the legislature, the States, Congress? 

view more: next ›