Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • The judge made a bad argument. The guy didn’t pull the machete and retreat. Inst

    The judge made a bad argument.
    The guy didn’t pull the machete and retreat.
    Instead he stood ground and threatened them.
    She should have criticized him for his over the top behavior rather than duty to retreat.

    Now, in addition to the right to bear arms for personal, private, and political ends, we need to constitutionally mandated
    ‘stand your ground’,
    ‘castle doctrine’,
    as well as:
    ‘initiation of defense’
    ‘necessity defense’
    ‘justifiable homicide’,
    and to expand:
    ‘defense of others’, and
    ‘defense of property’,
    into responsibilities rather than rights.
    The problematic law is ‘duty to retreat’ which is we need to expressly prohibit.

    Reply addressees: @steven_spo @covid_clarity


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-03 18:44:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819806473784086528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819712415757451329

  • MINNESOTA IS LOST…. Minnesota gives the aggressor the rights, not the defender

    MINNESOTA IS LOST….
    Minnesota gives the aggressor the rights, not the defender:

    —“…we rejected the notion that people have an inherent right to stand their ground more than 150 years ago in Shippey, 10 Minn. at 232. Consequently, the legal excuse of self-defense codified in section 609.06, subdivision 1(3), does not include an “inherent right” to stand your ground.”—

    Via @covid_clarity:
    “BREAKING: Minnesota Supreme Court rules that even when a person is actively being attacked and at risk of death they cannot defend themselves and brandish a deadly weapon if it is “reasonably possible to retreat”

    https://t.co/FKkxbo9ied

    Reply addressees: @covid_clarity


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-02 00:11:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819164139367157760

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818801721558077655

  • CAN WE LEGISLATE THE PROTECTION OF CHILD AND FAMILY FROM THE SCHOOL AND STATE? A

    CAN WE LEGISLATE THE PROTECTION OF CHILD AND FAMILY FROM THE SCHOOL AND STATE?
    A qualified “Yes”.

    We can impose legislation prohibiting state interference in a child’s development and the parental choice of that development, as long as we can provide the criteria by which to disambiguate the defense of the child and family from the state via the school, and the school’s function as a defense of the child from parental abuse. This problem of demarcation is actually the source of the capacity for the state to incrementally abuse parental and child rights.

    This is our organizations category of mission. We can do this. I can do this. It is a non trivial problem like every other non-trivial problem we have solved. But precisely because it is a non trivial (hard) problem, it will require the entire staff to collectively input into the solution. I will be able to fulfill my usual function of integrating and consolidating but it will take the whole senior staff.

    1 – The first, and canonical problem, is of course religion and health. That one is easy to solve.
    2 – The secondary problem is one of risk and propagation of risk – again a problem of health care such as vaccines.
    3 – The third is the discipline necessary to serve the spectrum of neoteny, dominance, impulse, self regulation in children given race, class, and developmental differences.
    4 – The fourth is reversing the defensive and feminizing trend, and restoring competition and tolerance for status and self image that results from competition winning and failing, with training in mindfulness, rather than ‘everyone wins’.
    5 – The fifth is the fitness, manners, ethics, morals, and traditions of the high trust population that the left has sought to undermine by avoiding competition, it’s consequences, and the mindfulness necessary to tolerate those consequences while one develops agency.
    6 – The sixth is the nature of mankind, polity, and economy, which is taught as a system of lies by the left in order to produce their utopian vision – and the civilizational suicide that invariably results precisely because of the eradication of responsibility and competition and mindfulness despite the consequence of it.
    7 – The seventh is teaching the western tradition of the priority of contribution to the informal commons by Sovereignty, Heroism, Duty, Reciprocity, Truth, Excellence and Beauty – all of which is a competitive structure attributing value to those who most contribute to the common good: meritocracy.
    8 – The eighth is teaching practical skills instead of ideals: including mathematics, accounting, project management, contract, economics, the constitution of natural law, and geostrategy during high school, with as much emphasis or more than on physics, biology, and chemistry.
    The solutions are not impossible
    They are not even hard.
    1 – They require gutting the education establishment.
    2 – They require constitutional articulation of the purpose of education both primary, secondary, and post-secondary (Higher).
    3 – And the requirement that universities carry the debt of their student loans, even if the debt supplied by the state, and to issue degrees certifying a graduate is fit for purpose (employable). Then separating employment degrees from fulfilment degrees which shall not be financed by the state.
    4 – And lastly to prohibit the charging of money for false promises of freedom from the laws of nature or false criticism for man’s adaptation to the laws of nature (meaning the entire leftist program.)

    Cheers
    CD

    cc: @ThruTheHayes


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-31 16:41:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818688325558898759

  • @POTUS: NO, THE SUPREME COURT WILL NEVER CHANGE ITS FUNCTION AND MISSION. The US

    @POTUS: NO, THE SUPREME COURT WILL NEVER CHANGE ITS FUNCTION AND MISSION.
    The USA is the only constitutional republic that ALSO has sovereignty of the people and the concurrency of the people by both regions and classes – and NOT the government.
    We are the only constitutional republic that prevents the people and the government from enacting harms against one another – because our common law, our constitution, our bill of rights, were derived from natural law – meaning the science of cooperation, meaning individual sovereignty.
    And the court exists to defend the constitution and the people, from not only the tyranny of the well meaning fools in government (You) but the tyranny of well meaning fools in the majority of the polity (the left).
    As such we are protected by ‘the natural law’, ‘the rights of englishmen’, ‘human rights’, and their codification in a constitution that allows us to overthrow you and replace you if you try to violate that law.
    The supreme court is reversing the democratic party’s and their leadership in the radical left’s attempt to circumvent the people, the natural law, the common law, the constitution, and the long history of western civilization to its founding principles discovered on the Steppe: the prohibition on authority by the distribution of sovereignty, reciprocity, contract, duty, excellence, truth, and beauty i to the distributed dictatorship of those demonstrating responsibility to insure those principles with one another.
    And there is no person living or dead that will defeat me in this argument.
    And if we must end this government as did our ancestors to prevent you from your crimes, we will do so with vigor, and sufficient demonstration, that no one will try again for a thousand years.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @POTUS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-31 02:00:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818466683029221376

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818349589801443672

  • NLI – is this a case we should take on?

    NLI – is this a case we should take on? https://twitter.com/NoahRevoy/status/1818224529883222243

  • NO. WE DO NOT AND WILL NEVER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY OF MOB RULE 1) We live in a Rep

    NO. WE DO NOT AND WILL NEVER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY OF MOB RULE

    1) We live in a Republic under Rule of Law, and Rule of Law under the Natural Law, where we democratically elect representatives. We do not live in a democracy. Democracies always fail for the same reason: Power, Status, and Attention seeking (you and yours), and irresponsibility and incompetence (people who vote for you) create dependency which sponsors corruption and tyranny that brings nations to their end.

    2) If you try to further destroy The Republic, the Rule of Law, Rule of Law by the Natural Law (tort by Sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, excellence, truth), decided by the common law (commonality across classes and regions), and legislated by demand for concurrency (across classes and regions), in the defense of minority rights (those who demonstrate ability and responsibility for the self, family, business, and commons) or undermine their purpose in preserving our individual sovereignty in demonstrated interests (defense from those like you), then there are enough of us to easily bring this government down by force, reconstitute it with amendments, and legislation, and to restore those rights, obligations, inalienations, and prevent you and those like you from destroying the reason for the radical success of the west versus the rest: “the institutionalization in all walks of life of individual responsibility for personal private and common.” This alone is what makes high trust european civilization and it’s unique production of commons possible.

    And if we must replace this government, then we must do so such that no one again dares what you have dared for ten thousand years.

    I founded The Natural Law Institute for the purpose of protecting our people and our civilization and by externality mankind from the cancer of your petty, power-seeking, ignorance and arrogance.

    And I am but one man among millions who would gladly face the noose rather than suffer the consequences of ignorant, arrogant, well meaning fools.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @JoeBiden


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-30 00:12:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818077275348189184

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818048146238230704

  • Never happen. Need a constitutional convention or an amendment to pull it off. T

    Never happen. Need a constitutional convention or an amendment to pull it off. The president and congress cannot command the court.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-29 21:44:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1818040001810382895

    Reply addressees: @kylegriffin1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817866427128303959

  • I’m from Canandaigua, and we used to go camping with the Sheriff and his family.

    I’m from Canandaigua, and we used to go camping with the Sheriff and his family. 😉 But yes, the Sheriffs are largely working with the courts and the police departments have taken over most of the other duties.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-29 14:12:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817926100837679518

    Reply addressees: @words_of_a_King

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817925737732780518

  • My experience with NY and WA sheriffs (reporting crimes) has been nothing but ex

    My experience with NY and WA sheriffs (reporting crimes) has been nothing but exceptional. IMO it’s because they’re elected and they are more of a fraternity than a pseudo-millitary organization.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-29 13:11:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817910742185570528

    Reply addressees: @words_of_a_King

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817910183248400437

  • SHERIFFS, DEPUTIES, POSSES, AND MILITIAS (From: “Shire(County) Reeves(Official)”

    SHERIFFS, DEPUTIES, POSSES, AND MILITIAS
    (From: “Shire(County) Reeves(Official)”)
    Sheriffs were created to:
    – Maintain law and order
    – Collect taxes (ouch)
    – Preside over the shire court
    – Organize local defenses

    Today:
    – Sheriffs can appoint deputies full time (if paid and budget permitting).
    – Sheriffs can temporarily deputize civilians in emergencies (posse comitatus) – paid or unpaid.
    – It’s relatively easy for sheriffs to appoint ‘reserve’ deputies (emergencies) – paid or unpaid.
    – And special deputies for specific tasks and time periods – paid or unpaid.
    – Sheriffs were originally able to organize a militia for the purpose of civil defense. And certainly in the case of emergencies. It is unfortunate that we have lost this local control to bureaucratic hierarchy.

    IMO we must constitutionally standardize the role of sheriffs as more powerful than that of police, as sheriffs (Shire-Reeves) are technically responsible for the people and to the people. In other words, the last linen of defense of the people from political abuses.

    Which is why they must be elected.

    Now, I’m trying to make a point here. It’s not that I’m unaware of state differences. 😉

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-29 13:05:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1817909215039553536