- Nilbux -- You asked: Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution or to uphold and defend it? Excellent question, and one that injects two sets ofMessage 1 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003View Source
MessageNilbux --You asked: "Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution or to uphold and defend it? "Excellent question, and one that injects two sets of reality into the discussion. The first set is theory that, while technically correct , is not reality. The second set is reality that, while technically incorrect, is what we all experience.Theoretically, the judiciary cannot interpret law. A law, to be lawful, can have only one meaning and that meaning must be clear. If the law is so obtuse that it needs interpretation, then it is void for vagueness. Theoretically, the judiciary can only judge if the law can be applied in the case before him/her and accomplish justice, and then to apply the law as far as the Constitution would allow him/her.In reality, however, this is far from true. Justice is no longer the objective of the judiciary -- dispensing of the case is usually the primary objective and pursuing a social or legal agenda is often a backup objective. As a result of this totally different motivation, a judge will allow justice to be totally raped in favor of following procedure so that the case can be dispensed with more quickly. And often a judge will allow justice or the Constitution to be thrown out in favor of accomplishing that social or legal goal.So, in reality, judges have ceased to be agents of justice and have become agents of change. This allows for them to pursue social and legal agendas rather than upholding and defending the Constitution.It is sad that America no longer has a system of justice. All that is left is a system of laws and rules and procedures.Yours in freedom,David L. Minerwww.FreedomSite.net-----Original Message-----
From: Nilbux@... [mailto:Nilbux@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Source of income does not matter
Do they swear oaths to interpret the Constitution
or to uphold and defend it?
- You need to check the delegations of authority. ... From: Nick Marsha, You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of your interpretationMessage 2 of 9 , Dec 2, 2003View SourceYou need to check the delegations of authority.----- Original Message -----From: NickMarsha,
You are talkng two diffent entities. One, which you are correct of
your interpretation is the American Citizen who owes no alegience to
title 26 period. The second is an entity that is government
franchised using the SS# of the American citizen that signs the w-4,
pays one half of SS, medicare and an unspecified wage tax on his
earnings. The American Citizen through the use of his SS# is then
obligated to make a return of income for the entity.
It is this entity that you do not adress which causes confusion to
the average taxpayer that understands what you are talking about in
regards to Supreme Court cases such as Baltic Mining.
You see, if those cases really meant something, then sometime in the
past 40 or 50 years, we should have gotten rid of the income tax
altogether. So, either one of two things are happening.
- In a message dated 12/3/2003 9:12:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, ... If judges never denied justice, we would have a monetary collapse.Message 3 of 9 , Dec 17, 2003View SourceIn a message dated 12/3/2003 9:12:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time, dminer@... writes:
So, in reality, judges have ceased to be agents of justice and have become agents of change. This allows for them to pursue social and legal agendas rather than upholding and defending the Constitution.
If judges never denied justice,
we would have a monetary collapse.