Theme: Constitutional Order

  • You mean duplicating the actions of the founders in their common law suit agains

    You mean duplicating the actions of the founders in their common law suit against the state for the redress of grievances by their Petition To The King? ;). The method that is expressly permitted in and justified under the common law and exemplified in the Declaration of Independence? ;). And that we recommend returning cultural independence to the states and restoring the federal government to its original role in defense, trade, and the resolution of differences, thereby allowing us to create of establish different cultures as we see fit, as was the tradition of the european people throughout our history?
    Yes I would suggest our people understand the european group evolutionary strategy, its embodiment in the traditional then common then concurrent law, as discovered by the long history of the natural law research program, with the British invention of modernity and the modern state, and the codification of it all in Blackstone, and the american federalist papers, the declaration, the constitution, the bill of rights, and (less accurately to satisfy the communists in items ?24+) in the declaration of human rights?
    Yes I would like our people to understand the concept of natural law (the science of cooperation) natural rights (the science of minimum necessary rights and obligations to bring about natural law), the meaning of text as a weight and measure at the time of recording, the transactional process of law that like monetary accounting forces full accounting and due process, the reason for the independence of the judiciary and the legislature, and the meaning of commonality in law, and concurrency in voting and legislation, all of which are specifically designed to prevent tyranny of authority and tyranny of majority, requiring concurrency of consent of the citizens for any and all legislation passed.
    Now I’ll venture you don’t know this or why it’s so, and why you’re probably in no position to opine on our system of law and government, and because of it why our education is destroying the civilization from within just as the ‘intentional march thru the institutions of cultural production’ stated they would do, by taking advantage of the fact that educators are from the bottoms of their graduating classes, and largely women, and as such are vulnerable to suggestion and groupthink.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 15:58:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647630631696842754

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647624722639917057

  • RT @RichardHanania: Florida considering death penalty for rape under 12 years ol

    RT @RichardHanania: Florida considering death penalty for rape under 12 years old.

    Supreme Court said this was unconstitutional in 2008,…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 13:23:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647591488216334337

  • You can’t have a right to ignore commands, aggress against, violate the space of

    You can’t have a right to ignore commands, aggress against, violate the space of, taunt, even address police. And you certainly can’t have the right to riot.
    Worse, you don’t pay into the retirement system, you pay for those who are older, and those who are younger may pay you. BUT if you don’t produce enough children (you don’t), and if you depend on immigrants who are dependent rather that productive (you did), then there is no one to pay for you. So the person in the french mirror is the person to blame.

    Reply addressees: @real1maria


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 12:57:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647585013205020674

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647313678281080832

  • You can’t have a right to ignore commands, aggress against, violate the space of

    You can’t have a right to ignore commands, aggress against, violate the space of, taunt, even address police. And you certainly can’t have the right to riot.
    Worse, you don’t pay into the retirement system, you pay for those who are older, and those who are younger may pay you. BUT if you don’t produce enough children (you don’t), and if you depend on immigrants who are dependent rather that productive (you did), then there is no one to pay for you. So the person in the french mirror is the person to blame.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-16 12:57:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647585013293096963

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647313678281080832

  • President monarchy (state), senate nobility (region), house (property(business))

    President monarchy (state), senate nobility (region), house (property(business)) owners and producers, lower house (families and labor – replacing the church’s vote), and possibly a separate house for women with three or more children.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 17:47:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647295473126977536

    Reply addressees: @FlashGorgone

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647267032566472705

  • Not sure which argument you’re making. But for a prosecutor who lets felons go o

    Not sure which argument you’re making. But for a prosecutor who lets felons go on a daily basis, to prosecute trump for a procedural violation where there is no victim, and the maximum historical fee of which has been $500, is kind of ridiculous, because it’s obviously a political prosecution. Same thing for prosecuting Clinton for BJs from an intern. This is political nonsense. I’d be happy to argue the case on behalf of trump because it’s a no-lose proposition for him politically.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 17:45:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647294988638642178

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647276482648236032

  • Not sure which argument you’re making. But for a prosecutor who lets felons go o

    Not sure which argument you’re making. But for a prosecutor who lets felons go on a daily basis, to prosecute trump for a procedural violation where there is no victim, and the maximum historical fee of which has been $500, is kind of ridiculous, because it’s obviously a political prosecution. Same thing for prosecuting Clinton for BJs from an intern. This is political nonsense. I’d be happy to argue the case on behalf of trump because it’s a no-lose proposition for him politically.

    Reply addressees: @jimdorf @AttyTMD @lawofruby


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 17:45:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647294988537982983

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647276482648236032

  • If the judge is miffed for the defendant requiring an order that specifically de

    If the judge is miffed for the defendant requiring an order that specifically denies the right of the questionnaire which is a matter of judicial discretion, that’s evidence of a questionable judgment, and it’s a matter of the Judge’s ego, not the defendant’s method…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 13:51:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647236165039210501

    Reply addressees: @lawofruby

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1646951452030431232

  • @lawofruby If the judge is miffed for the defendant requiring an order that spec

    @lawofruby
    If the judge is miffed for the defendant requiring an order that specifically denies the right of the questionnaire which is a matter of judicial discretion, that’s evidence of a questionable judgment, and it’s a matter of the Judge’s ego, not the defendant’s method of defense.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 13:51:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647236164896563201

  • @AttyTMD is correct. Rather obvious: (a) requiring a formal response from the ju

    @AttyTMD is correct.
    Rather obvious:
    (a) requiring a formal response from the judge produces a document (record) justifying the denial of a questionnaire.
    (b) in this high profile case it’s logical to investigate the DEMONSTRATED biases of the jury members rather than the REPORTED verbal statements of the jury members.
    (c) Without it, if jury is later found to have prejudgements, it provides criteria for appeal.
    (d) So the balance of the argument relies on the court’s presumption that trump’s team can coerce the jurors versus the trump team’s presumption that jurors may have a prejudice against him.
    (e) Were I trump’s lawyer I would prefer the judge demonstrate an asymmetry of perception of risk in this case, by the ‘balance of probabilities’, so that we could now ‘win either way’ because by denying it, we increase moral license on behalf of trumps supporters, we increase the chance of demonstrating judicial bias as well as jury bias, and we increase the chance of appeal OR we obtain the information from the jurors to ensure that they are free of prejudice, and then avoid all possible accusations of jury coercion, thereby solidifying our case.
    Win-Win for The defense.

    Reply addressees: @AttyTMD @lawofruby


    Source date (UTC): 2023-04-15 13:30:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1647231036139491328