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

Please sign this petition to the Supreme Court

Expand Messages
  • Sean Freeman
    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-Pete-Now This case involves authority - specifically how a government agency acquires legal authority to dictate an
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 10, 2009

      http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-Pete-Now

      This case involves "authority" - specifically how a government agency
      acquires legal authority to dictate an individual's sworn testimony.

      An agency of the federal government is seeking authority (power) from the
      courts to compel individuals to change their sworn testimony, both now and
      in the future. Such testimony is to be made under penalty of perjury, yet
      as government dictated testimony, it would not be their belief and would,
      in fact, be perjury.

      Further, dictated testimony would remove the need for a plaintiff to prove
      their case as well as the burden of substantiating the sufficiency of a
      pleading.

      This same agency also seeks the power and authority to force private
      individuals to stand silent when other entities testify, depriving the
      People the right to challenge such testimony and prove same to be false or
      erroneous.
      ======= ==============
      Posted through Grouply, the better way
      to access your Yahoo Groups like this one.
      http://www.grouply.com/?code=post
      .. . .. . .. . .. .. ... .... . . . ... . .. ... .

      type_N
      . ... .. . ... . . . .... ... .. .. . .. . .. . ..
    • Al Cintra-Leite
      I hope this may help someone in regards to the case cited below(the old post I left part of on -) Maxims of law say- A verbis legis non est recedendum. From
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 11, 2009
        I hope this may help someone in regards to the case cited below(the
        old post I left part of on -)


        Maxims of law say-
        A verbis legis non est recedendum. From the words of the law there must
        be no departure. Broom's Max. 268; 5 Rep. 119; Wing. Max. 25.
        You can say Fifth Amendment, right?

        Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur. To a judge who exceeds his
        office or jurisdiction no obedience is due. Jenk. Cent. 139.

        Injuria fit ei cui convicium dictum est, vel de eo factum carmen
        famosum. It is a slander of him about whom a reproachful thing is said,
        or concerning whom an infamous song is made. 9 Co. 60.
        I think this judge is SLANDERING the person of whom the judge is
        claiming "they broke the law and MUST testify against themselves in
        this criminal case."-This in spite of the Fifth Amendment to the
        Constitution for the united States of America...!
        Mentiri est contra mentem ire. To lie is to go against the mind. 3
        Buls. 260.
        Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. It is a miserable
        slavery where the law is vague or uncertain. 4 Co. Inst. 246.
        So this alleged "judge" is attempting to make the fifth amendment
        null and void, a miserable slavery indeed....
        Nemo admittendus est inhabilitare seipsum. No one is allowed to
        incapacitate himself. Jenk. Cent. 40. Sed vide "To stultify," and 5
        Whart. 371.

        Nemo contra factum suum venire potest. No man can contradict his own
        deed. 2 Inst. 66.

        Nemo tenetur informare qui nescit, sed quisquis scire quod informat. No
        one is bound to inform about a thing he knows not, but he who gives
        information is bound to know what he says. Lane, 110.
        Nemo tenetur informare qui nescit, sed quisquis scire quod informat. No
        one is bound to inform about a thing he knows not, but he who gives
        information is bound to know what he says. Lane, 110.


        Non est certandum de regulis juris. There is no disputing about rules
        of law.

        Omne sacramentum debet esse de certa scientiĆ’. Every oath ought to be
        founded on certain knowledge. 4 Co. Inst. 279.
        On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Sean Freeman wrote:
        > http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-Pete-Now
        >
        > This case involves "authority" - specifically how a government agency
        > acquires legal authority to dictate an individual's sworn testimony.
        >
        > An agency of the federal government is seeking authority (power) from
        > the
        > courts to compel individuals to change their sworn testimony, both now
        > and
        > in the future. Such testimony is to be made under penalty of perjury,
        > yet
        > as government dictated testimony, it would not be their belief and
        > would,
        > in fact, be perjury.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.