U.S. Courts Lack Jurisdiction, Violates Constitutionally Reserved Rights!

For what purpose would one want to review any discourse of either Hume or Kant other than to totally reject either one and be thankful for the philosophers of reason. It was Hume and Kant that was the causation of that most atrocious effect called Hitler and Nazism. From a period of pure reason of the industrial age to the age of denying reason with the resultant war that claimed the lives of millions.

But this very discussion of this thread should so well illustrate that we are there again, so much easier this time as reason has never reentered the picture. But alas, the result will again be the same but much more deadly that the last. The last was millions, this time it will be billions.

- - - Updated - - -

Oooh, his contention is much, much worse than that.

 

I am not at the moment so attached to my boundaries of what exercise means and what an exemption might include and exclude, if ANYONE would try to draw any remotely realistic ones beyond only discussing how same sex marriage is within this religious exclusion. That's when discussion ends. It does not talk about what this means when defendants try to get sharia law applied to all sorts of situations, contrary to state, municipal or federal law. No one wants to discuss when all sorts of cults or sects we have not even heard of or which have not even been invented, seek to use a 'religious exemption' to dodge civil, tort, environmental, labor or tax law or how a jurist is going to figure out what is sincere, what is a fraud and what is too absurd an interpretation of which religious texts or sermons to justify admitting this defense into the record.

All anyone wants to do is talk about Paul's letter, and Leviticus and homosexuality and then extend it to cake baking and floral arrangements and this woman. Like a certain stripe of Christian will be the only folks using this and only when gays are on the other end. If you aren't trying to blow a canyon all through the enforcement of law not having a direct victim of violence or theft, tell me how you intend to avoid it.

 

In many cases now they have sealed indictments. That means the indictment proceedings take place in secret and neither the defendant nor the lawyer is allowed to attend. The transcripts of the proceedings are never released, and the identities of the grand jury are kept confidential, so no one can really be entirely sure if there even was actually a fair indictment held in the first place. But so long as that indictment took place, by law the defendant can be held in prison for a fairly lengthy period of time.

In many cases the evidence that the defense lawyer needs to review to prepare for a defense is not submitted by the prosecutor until just days before the preemptively scheduled trial. This means a suspect being held in custody is likely to lose the case if they demand their "quick and speedy trial" they are entitled to by law. What this effectively means is that they will be sitting in jail 4 or 5 months if they cannot afford the bail amount, or if the judge decides not to grant bail. And that's if there are no motions that the defense wants to file for maximum chance of winning their case. Receiving a fair trial can come at a cost, and that cost is the defendant being in jail for many months while preparations are under way for the trial. The court system moves very slowly, papers have to go back and forth between the defense and prosecution, and the judges have to find room to fit hearings into their busy schedules, and their can be delays. It's not uncommon for people to be in jail for 14 months before the trial is finally held. Knowing this, many defendants accused of lesser crimes simply take a plea bargain from the prosecutor and agree to plead guilty.

But it gets worse. During the trial, the judge may refuse to admit certain evidence—that means the defense might not be allowed to present it in front of the jury. If they attempt to defy the judge and present it anyway, they can be physically hauled out of the court room, and held in contempt of court and given a separate sentence without right to trial. Most people do not realize this. (U.S. federal law, Title 18, § 401 and § 3691)
In other cases the prosecutor may be able to introduce "secret witnesses" in some situations, where the witness gives testimony in front of the jury, but the defense is not allowed to be present, to know the identity of the witness or what was said. This brings up the issue of whether such secret testimony constitutes a violation of the defendant's right to a public trial. This is rare, but it has happened.

During the trial of Slobodan Milošević by the U.N. International Tribunal, a disguised witness appeared on a televised screen in the courtroom, and while cross-examining the witness the presiding judge refused to allow Milošević to ask certain questions (even very broad generalized ones) that had any potential to be used by outsiders to compromise the identity of the anonymous witness.

 

Secret Witnesses used to Prosecute Americans:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-go...ecret-evidence-to-prosecute-americans/5439138

 

That was a lot of words to you, my, my, my.

 

From a legal perspective it has nothing to do with religion itself. Religion is but one of but many rights that are inherent and unalienable (or inalienable if you like) that all beings are endowed by their creator, as either religious or nonreligious connotation as per one's personal preference. As a right, each individual may define the term to include whatever they may wish so long as it does not impede or trespass upon the rights of another.

No right may ever be used to dodge a law, but the problem therein is what is a law. Many somehow think statutes, codes and ordinances are not laws but the prohibitions of man. Laws are those actions that are inherently evil unto themselves, actions that cause harm unto another. Tort:

Tort is the proper method to assert action against another that has done harm, violated another's right, either accidental or intentional. But that action is not valid if the responsible party has offered restitution in such a manner to make things again whole.

And that would be their right as that is their belief. They may extend it to whatever they want. What is being ignored is the real question, whose rights are actually being violated, who is the real victim? Actually it is not the one doing the refusing but the one doing the demanding.

The bakery owner or the florist have a right to earn a living using any means they see fit that does not violate the rights of others. They also have a right to their moral and religious beliefs which includes the right to not have to compromise them for the sake of another.

Likewise the gay couple have a right to be gay, form a union, buy a cake or flowers, and so much more. They do not have a right to demand that another forsake their rights in favor of theirs. If the baker or florist doesn't want to serve them, then they need to go elsewhere where one will serve them. This has been the problem with this issue for some time where the government has somehow become god-like and deem others must forsake their rights and do as the government demands or the government will use force to enforce those demands.

The whole problem lies in the fact this republic has been mistakenly thought of as a democracy. There is nor ever has been a democracy in this country except by politicians that have discovered they may steal whatever they want by promising a share of the bounty for their vote and enforcing that promise by the use of coercion with the guns they own.

 

22 words and nothing said, yeah that was a lot of words.

 

Oh they said something, you are just not capable of grasping their meaning.

 

Pssst. Here's the dirty little secret. You don't have a 'right' to own or operate a business . You only get to run a business if you do so, consistent with state interests as defined by statutory and regulatory authority. That why the state has provided various agencies the power to shut your doors, revoke you license or certification and fine you into bankruptcy. You may claim you do till the cows come home, but you actually don't

 

They, did you have some mice in your pockets? Fully grasped that there was nothing there that had any meaning worth grasping.

 

Pssssst. You are absolutely wrong, only slaves must beg to be able to support themselves. I ran my business for many years while refusing to have any licenses right up to my retirement. And they have no authority at all to do anything and can't revoke what you have not begged for. They have no jurisdiction unless someone consents to it. They huff and they puff but nothing they can do without a grant of jurisdiction. Statutes only apply to slaves.

I bet you probably even have a drivers license and register your automobiles without anyone paying you a dime, don't you?

 

It does not turn you into a slave , because your business doors are closed. It turns into a potential employee, or bum. Assuming your set of facts as truthful, that mere fact that your libertarian lifestyle was tolerated, does not mean they had to tolerate it, just that they decided you weren't worth the trouble or expense. Lawbreakers are often deemed not worth the trouble to pursue. Its basically the same dynamic that leads to bratty demanding kids sitting in Mom's grocery cart. You like extremist hyperbole, don't you?

 

"They" meant the words I posted, as I can see you still have trouble keeping up, oh well...........

 

Sorry, but the basis that this thread is started on is complete crap.

The individual this is intended to cover is not a private citizen, they are a public servant, sworn to uphold the laws in the performance of their duty. Therefore, there is no law that applies to them other then that of the city-county-state-nation. If they are unable to conduct their office because they believe it is against "religious law", then they are not able to do their duty and should resign.

Otherwise they are breaking their oath to follow the corporeal laws.

In fact, let me throw out a quote right from "The Man", ok?



The issuing of a marriage license is a civil function, not religious. Therefore, even from Joshua bar Joseph, this does not apply.

Now myself, I am rather ambivilent on the subject of "Gay Marriage". I have no real personal opinion in it one way or another. However, the Supreme Court has made a decision, and that is the law of the land. I look upon an individual who refuses to follow these laws no different then I view George Wallace, or those who tried to prohibit the Little Rock Nine from attending school. And for those old enough to know of this, a lot of the people who tried to keep blacks out of school also tried to use religion as their excuse.

Now as to the cake makers, I believe that is a crime to force them to do things against their wills. As a private business, they should have the right to refuse service to anybody. However, I am also a capitalist, and think doing so is very-very stupid. The idea of a business is to make money, not to push a religious or personal belief upon others. But if they want to throw away business then I am sure there are dozens of other businesses in the area that will welcome that.

And in this it has nothing to do with this issue. I also do not believe that a Kosher store should be forced to cater a Halal dinner, nor should a Muslim store be forced to cater a Kosher dinner. If they do not want to do so, then they should be allowed to refuse. And I also have no problems with a personal boycot of such a business, but ultimately each individual should have the right to decide if they want to go to that business or not, based upon their own choices.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

I agree that licensing requirements (extremely few exceptions accepted) and enforcement do in fact make you a slave to the state. There is no need for them and if a certain level of expertise is required to insure safety certificates can be issued to acknowledge someone expertise that are strictly voluntary and do not carry any enforcement elements.

Licensing with the idea that some mafia gubmint overlord nazi agent can come in and demand you prove you that you paid your union dues to the state, take it away or fine you is completely unconstitutional.

Statutes unfortunately create false political presumptions and like the gay wedding cake are used by da gubmint to stomp upon da gubmints political enemies.

 

Some parts of what you said I agree with.

The red is where you are either wrong or I disagree.

Sorry, but the basis that this thread is started on is complete crap.

Then you missed the point of the the thread entirely.

I want someone to show me in the constitution where they gubmint or the courts created by the gubmint gets the authority to adjudicate in the do not enter zone? Religion.

I religion is reserved to the people then they have no authority to make any ruling what so ever in that regard. (or if you believe they do please cite where this authority is granted to them by the people)

That is what this thread is about. Citing one of the examples and using it as an umbrella for the whole thread is an error.

Therefore, there is no law that applies to them [government officials] other then that of the city-county-state-nation.

If that is universally true then what justified the state hangings resulting from the nurmenburg trials where "I was only following orders" is NOT a legal defense?

It would seem we have a contradiction in the understanding of what we wish to call law.

I provided several examples, and one that you chose is the county recorder, where according to your analysis this county recorder is expected to relinquish her reserved rights, in this case the right to exercise her religion which is an explicitly expressed reservation in the very constitution she swore to uphold.

That [according to your analysis] once elected she is no longer allowed and denied to have and hold any religion.

I dont see that rule in any constitution either?

Do you see that 800 pound gorilla in there?

 

No, I do not.

I am also not a paranoid conspiracy theory nut, who thinks that "the gubmint" wants to take over everything and turn me into a slave either.

To those types of people, what you said makes perfect sense. To bad it has nothing to do with reality, or the thread itself.

 

You are joking right?

I never said one word about 'conspiracy', this is purely about law.

Ok lets take the next case then. The Kliens.

Where do the courts or gubmint get the jurisdiction to conduct a religious tribunal and judge and favor one persons religion over another?

they decided in favor of those practicing the gay religion at the same time trampling the rights of those who practice the christian religion.

I am looking for part where the people have consented to grant that authority to gubmint in any constitution in any of the states or federal gubmint.

 

Again you have absolutely no clue but just make things up to fit your "vision" of what you want to be. So what name do you use for slavery or are you unsure? Let's start with the basics:

How does it not turn you into a slave? Before the state was here man performed whatever act he needed to feed, clothe, and house himself and his family. Then along comes the government and man now needed permission to be able to feed, clothe, and house his family, slavery.

Employees, another word for a slave, on both sides of the equation. But I quit having employees just had others looking to making a living on an equal basis. What or how they handled their personal affairs was no concern of mine.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, you do do a lot of assuming. But let's look at it this way, I care less whether you believe me or not, no skin off my nose either way. So let's look at the real picture, you're fear is that I may be right but that fear is nothing compared to the fear of the unknown and the comfort provided by the protection of slavery.

Libertarian, another assumption on your part where you are again wrong. Libertarians believe that less slavery is better than more slavery but it's still slavery just the same. I accept no part of it, I have no fear. If I were to die in the next minute, I will go peacably knowing I died a free man. Those psychopaths that pretend they are government tolerate nothing, they cower in fear.

While this country is fast approaching tyranny, at present there is still some glimmer of light that shows. And slowly but surely, that light gets a little brighter and a little brighter, not for the likes of the slimeballs that need to be slaves but for the men that need to be free.

And what can they do? They've tried taking me to court but without one of their brother lawyers they can't handle the results. All they do is present a lot of threats of contempt which I surely have but... Now I believe those lawbreakers are worth pursuing but all they keep denying me standing to pursue the matter. I almost had a prosecutor but the judge interceded and quickly dismissed me. But who knows, she acted too ignorant to let matters go, so I may still have an opportunity.

"Extremist hyperbole", you really should stop assuming things as you have yet to be right, even in the example of the bratty kids, trying the old "you know" fallacy when in reality you don't know.

 

And I can see by your answer that what you believe is truly so.

 

There is something wrong on your end of the line, sorry I cannot help your issues, seek a professional.

 

There should be no exceptions. Private transactions can handle matters much better that a bureaucrat. While you did not list what you thought should be exceptions, I would take you would be referring to extremes. But then I would ask how would a bureaucrat exceed that of top experts?

In my of my lives, I achieved the top level certification for that field by an independent testing company based on the requirements of the industries standards agencies. Absolutely no government involvement, instant worldwide acceptance of the certification which was easily verified by the standards site.

Outside of an occupational license which I refused on numerous occasions, the most feared license one can not live without is the driver's license. Why? I will not argue the absolute validity of such a thing if you drive as driving is a privilege. Where the confusion lies is in the definition of a driver, that is the scam. But still, I stick by my previous statement, what right does the state have in licensing? A private concern would do a much better job of qualifying a person to drive in commerce.

From there everything is handled by conflict resolution by the injured parties.

 

Incorrect tense!!!!

So you pay no attention to what goes on around you but somehow feel you have a higher moral ground to denigrate those not in agreement that one should ignore reality?

As to the thread, you were responding to the OP, it's his thread, so again you are totally incorrect.

 

You are too far gone if you compare regulation of business conduct with enslavement. If I want to learn what a license or a permit is, Mark Passio is not who I will consult.