Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [tips_and_tricks] FW: FROM THE NETWORK

Expand Messages
  • Scott Bodley
    Hi all. First response here. Been watching your posts and enjoying the discourse. Lots of good positions (and a few mistakes by others) stated here. One
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 29, 2007
      Hi all. First response here.

      Been watching your posts and enjoying the discourse. Lots of good positions
      (and a few mistakes by others) stated here.

      One thing I always kept in my arsenal is "is the ordinance, statute or
      Federal Law Constitutionally compliant?"

      We know that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI).
      By Supreme Court decisions..."any law that is repugnant to the Constitution
      is null and void."

      Well, my question to our "public servants" is this:

      Can you cite the Article or Amendment that this ordinance, statute or
      Federal Law is compliant with the Constitution? If so, then please show me.

      Obviously they can't since those ordinances, statutes and Federal Laws only
      apply to the "jurisdiction intended and only for the employees of that
      jurisdiction" i.e. "public servants" or The Patriot Act is only for Federal
      jurisdiction and Federal employees.....and not ME since I am not in that
      jurisdiction or an employee of the govt.

      They seem to crawl away every time.

      Best, Mr. Haplo





      >From: "Frog Farmer" <frogfrmr@...>
      >Reply-To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: [tips_and_tricks] FW: FROM THE NETWORK
      >Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:44:52 -0700
      >
      >Another in the nature of my last forwarded post:
      >
      >-----Original Message-----
      >From: James Alan Daum [mailto:JamesAlanDaum@...]
      >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 7:47 AM
      >To: James Alan Daum
      >Subject: Re: FROM THE NETWORK
      >
      >I'm glad you mailed me. You and a few of the others are in my "Citizens
      >is BAD" category so I'm surprised that you read what I sent you.
      >
      >**If you don't let the judge make any decisions, then it doesn't make
      >any difference what the judge thinks.**
      >
      >Unless what the judge thinks is that he can make the decisions.
      >
      >This is why I like to enter the statutes upon the record and challenge
      >the magistrate to show otherwise. SOMETIMES they do come up with some
      >oblique arguments based upon what is a purposeful misrepresentation of
      >the statutes!
      >
      >ONCE a judge came up with a local rule that allowed the judge to replace
      >a magistrate that failed to perform their duty but this presumes that
      >the magistrate entered the court with consent. Watch out for agreements
      >pursuant to legal practice!
      >
      >MOSTLY the liberties that the attorneys take is under the constitutional
      >provision for "assistance of counsel" where "counsel" is ill-defined.
      >
      >
      >
      >

      _________________________________________________________________
      More photos, more messages, more storage�get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail.
      http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.