franklin
Forum Replies Created
So…the only thing left to do is communicate with the electors and demand that they uphold the Constitution.
Thanks for the clarification Admin.
I don't remember anything like that either…about congress giving the decider the power to knight Article III judges without congress having first created Article III courts.
While the judges in the link you provided are appointed for life as long as they behave themselves…WHTJ makes it clear that this is no longer a criterion solely for determining an Article III judge sitting in an Article III court because…if I remember rightly…that criterion was applied to the territorial Article IV judges some time in the 1940s.
It only means that the IV judges got a congressional franchise perk that formerly only belonged to the III judges…who would get their tenure directly from the Constitution. Judicial power of the United States wasn't and couldn't be granted with the congressional privilege.
However, the glaring fault is the presumption that you can have an Article III judge without a congressionally established and ordained Article III court.
According to that logic (and I wince at calling it that 🙁 )…If there was a woman named Cinderella…then just by virtue of that name she would transform any room she was in into a ballroom with waltzes playing in the background.
Likewise, a judge called Article III would transform any courtroom into an Article III court with the judicial Power of the United States playing in the background.
But congress can't delegate the power to create courts inferior to the supreme Court to judges any more than Cinderella could delegate her pretty foot so her ugly step sisters could exercise their seductive power over prince charming.
It's not surprising then that there isn't a discussion in WHTJ about the decider appointing independent Article III judges with no Article III benches to sit on. Such a notion defies logic and law in a single stroke (and only a judge could do that!)
It seems that Article III status assumed by judges is a mere presumption on their part.
But, I am definitely open to further education on this.
Thanks Admin. My pleasure.
However, I'm not sure exactly how I've expanded on the conclusions of WHTJ. Could you indicate what point you're referring to?
Thanks again.
There has to be a better word than idiot to describe these idiots.
“Dumber than a box of rocks” works better for me.
They live in an imaginary world that is supposed to be…not the real world that actually is. That's called psychosis.
While claiming their independence…they fail to see the contradiction that they have to plead with their masters…the congress…to get more of those inflated dollars. Some independence.
They also fail to read Article III accurately. First…the authority to create Article III courts is granted to Congress. Then…and only then…are the judges of those…ordained and established…courts seated on their respective duffs…to exercise the power of the court.
The abiding Judicial power is vested in the Article III court…not in the judges except temporarily as agents when they are sitting in such a court to activate the court's powers.
So someone claiming to be an “Article III” judge without an Article III court is like someone claiming to be an angel if there was no heaven…or claiming to be French if there was no France.
An “Article III” judge does not create an Article III court…only Congress gets to do that.
Then they talk of attracting qualified people to the bench. Anybody can be attracted to the bench but there is no judicial branch they can apply to in open competition…they are nominated and appointed politically by the decider with a little murmuring from the senate. However…
There is nothing in Article III Sec. 1 that gives either Congress or the decider the authority to nominate and appoint judges to Article III courts. We have to look at Article II sec. 2 for that. And the process is not limited to the president.
If congress wanted to create an independent judiciary they would have first ordained and established Article III courts…which cannot be verified from 28 USC…
they then could have invoked the constitutional language
Quote:but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper…in the President alone…in the Courts of Law…or in the Heads of Departments.” (Article II Sec. 2)So the appointment of federal judges could be done by an independent judiciary. Only the appointment of Supreme Court Judges is given to the president by the Constitution…
Quote:and [with the Senate's consent] he shall nominate Judges of the Supreme Court (Article II Sec. 2)The self-styled “Article III” judges don't seem to realize that Congress never invested a judiciary with the power to appoint independent federal judges. They are the puppets of the executive.
These people can't even read simple English.
We gotta find a better word than idiots to describe these idiots.
We should have a contest. 🙄
Here's a “how to” manual to develop the skills necessary for self-government
I'm still under the apparently naive impression that federal writ only runs over state land that has been properly ceded to…and jurisdiction accepted by…the federal government.
One way of handling this would be to FOIA the governors of the states that are affected so far and asking for evidence of the cession by the state and acceptance of jurisdiction by the federal government.
Following the link in Admin's post doesn't get any specific information about who authorizes these encroachments. Apparently congress hasn't authorized it…but they've considered the entire land mass as a constitution-free zone for decades now.
People are simply going to have to assert their rights on a case by case basis and just say no. If there are no laws about this…there can't be any penalties (except for muggery and thuggery).
Ghandi just said no…and the king packed up his crown and went back to England.
Everyone needs to see the map. And then ask the right questions of our elected state cowards.
Thanks for posting it. I'm emailing the link to everyone I know.
Bing
I just clicked on it from the post and got to it okay. Don't know what the problem is.
Try typing the URL in or part of it to get to the site and then look for the video there.
Franklin
😆
- Quote:It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring [such as judicial creatures of congress] for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.
The judges are of course describing themselves. Society should indeed prevent such degenerate imbeciles from continuing their kind. Impeachment was to be the means…but as Thomas Jefferson and that deep thinker Pelosi have pointed out…it's off the table. Jefferson said it might take a new revolution.
The judges didn't intend to describe themselves but there is a phenomenon called “the observable unconscious”.
This occurs when someone appears to be talking about someone else but is accurately and unknowingly describing themselves. One form of it is what Freud called “projection”.
For example, everything the decider says and has said about the doings of terrorists…particularly Saddam…describes himself and his policies with great accuracy.
When Michelle Obama says “No law will prevent Obama from becoming president” she unconsciously reveals their mutual agreement that existing or potential law has no place in their thinking or any relevance to their actions.”
Understanding the observable unconscious in this context makes a prediction possible. Given his actions and her statements…it's safe to say that Obama supporters who are now affectionately sloganing “Barack my world” are going to get Baracked in ways they never imagined or ever intended in their slogan. Biden, Powell and Albright (a misnomer if ever there was one) have warned them.
I agree with the judges only insofar as they are talking about themselves…and they should be the first to go.
dmiladin wrote
Quote:While I don't like taxes anymore than you fine gentlemen do, I wouldn't mind if my money actually went to what I feel is good use, ie UHC.Call me a socialist, but I'd much rather pay for other people's healthcare and wellbeing than throw my money away on a debt to the private bankers who exploit me and debase my worth every year.
You haven't really made a distinction so that you could make a choice…you're getting robbed either way. But UHC has other implications than giving your money away to others. While the bankers merely took your money and ran off.
You might want to compare your statement about health care with what Ayn Rand wrote about altruism. Then you would have two sides to the argument so that you can make a rational choice instead of an apparent 'lesser of two evils' choice.
But beware Ayn Rand is addictive.
Thanks for the calm factual assessment of the bailout. And this point is particularly helpful in understanding the impotence of the Congress…
Quote:The impotence of Congress traces to the Great Depression. As Theodore Lowi in his classic book, The End of Liberalism, makes clear, the New Deal stripped Congress of its law-making power and gave it to the executive agencies. Prior to the New Deal, Congress wrote the laws. After the New Deal a bill is merely an authorization for executive agencies to create the law through regulations. The Paulson bailout has further diminished the legislative branch's power.Perhaps it would have been better if the House had not caved in to threats of martial law and depression. Both seem visible on the horizon anyway and their giving in to the decider won't prevent either. Biden is warning of such catastrophes shortly after an Obama win.
Greenspan has now admitted publicly that he was “partially wrong” in his opposition to tighter regulation. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi…icle5003610.ece
There! That should make everyone feel better :).
Of course, the bailout has been good for some including Starkist. Reportedly Pelosi
added a 50 million dollar perk to the bailout bill for Starkist because their home office is in her district.
Fiat money is the root of all evil. Without it there is no need, or even a rationale, for a large socialist government.
Two thirds of the states' governors could convene a constitutional convention (Article V) with the specific agenda of taking away Congress's borrowing power. As long as they retain that power we will have the evil we see today…enslaving the people with debt for generations to come to cover the “partially wrong” judgments of Alan Greenspan.
Good story Admin…social justice in action 😆 . You've gotten empirical evidence that socialists don't include themselves in the practices of socialism. Here's more evidence. To wit…
When Karl Obama Marx said he was going to “spread the wealth around” he only meant that he was going to spread it to him and his wife. But Mrs. Michelle Marx was prepared to go further when she said…
“The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health Care and a revamped Education System, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of the pie so that someone else can have more.”
And she left her piece of pie for some poor unfortunate.
Notice on her Waldorf Astoria room service bill, Michelle, true to her word, gave up her piece of pie (and ordered lobster, caviar and champagne instead).
Their slogan should be “Change (Michelle and me) can live the high life with”.
See the room service bill here…
Thanks Admin for the clear breakdown. I have to say I'm not up to speed yet on words of art and would have equated non-resident alien with non-resident alien individual. So that's a really helpful reminder of what individual means in the tax code.
Your two cents is more valuable than two cents. I understand (and I forget where I read it) it takes 2.5 cents to produce one penny! And the author of the information remarked that “only the government can lose money while making money.”
But then the government thrives on contradictions.
Thanks again for the clarifications. Much appreciated.
A couple of principles come to mind.
1. Don't Acts of Congress only run on property over which the Congress has jurisdiction? If so, how could this Act apply to someone in Arkansas or Oregon?
2. If freedom of association is a constitutional right…then so is freedom of dissociation. How can a fundamental right be taxed by a private company called IRS?
I can see Columbo scratching his head over this. :huh:
Thanks BobT
I've read the amended form 12153 as you suggested. And a few of things come to mind as a result. They are not arguments or settled conclusions…just thoughts at this point.
1.) They may reject the amended form as frivolous and decide that no adequate response has been made to their 950 letter. This shifts the burden of proof from them (“You made a response to our 950 letter and it was the wrong one)
2.) The 950 letter doesn't fall anywhere in the list of categories covered by the 12153 and they may then decide that the response was off point and frivolous.
3.) Asking them to adjudicate anything gives them power over the situation…power that they will certainly abuse.
4.) The 950 letter is actually asking my permission to make the “proposed changes” in my capacity as trustee. (As Hank Reardon pointed out to the court…they needed his consent and cooperation to hang him high. Request denied.) At this point I think I'm in the driver's seat. However…
5.) The trust is dead for want of a trustee. If that's true then it seems I can not act in any way as the trustee trying to protect the 'rights' of the straw man (to whom the letter is addressed) without reestablishing the trust and creating the presumption that it is alive and well and living in DC.
This last point keeps popping into my head as I mull this over. If I've resigned as the trustee…then it seems all future actions have to be consistent with that resignation.
At this point I think it would be inconsistent with the resignation to respond for the straw man…and reply with Wrong Party Notice and an affidavit that the trustee has resigned and cannot act for the strawman…but I'm not convinced. Thus the request for some First Amendment bantering at the water cooler.
Thinking…thinking… :huh:
