you can do a common law copyright on anythin attaining to "you". they
cannot recognize a man or women as they deal with fictitious entities not
people.
Wilson, Justice (the supreme Court of the United States):
What, then, or where, are the People? Nothing! No where! They are not so
much as even the 'baseless fabric of a vision!' From legal contemplation
they totally disappear! Am I not warranted in saying, that, if this is a
just description; a Government, so and justly so described, is a despotic
Government? Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419
gamble v u.s (2019) breif overview of objections and justice thomas[i would
read what the other dissenting judges say to, ill also include a tiny bit
of ginsburg]: When the original States declared their independence, they
claimed the powers inherent in sovereignty .... The Constitution limited
but did not abolish the sovereign powers of the States, which retained `a
residuary and inviolable sovereignty.' The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961). Thus, both the Federal Government and the States wield
sovereign powers, and that is why our system of government is said to be
one of `dual sovereignty.' Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 [111
S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410] (1991)." Murphy v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___, ___, 138 S.Ct. 1461, 1475, 200 L.Ed.2d 854
(2018).
...But there is a difference between the whole and a single part, and that
difference underlies decisions as foundational to our legal system as
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). There, in terms so
directly relevant as to seem presciently tailored to answer this very
objection, Chief Justice Marshall distinguished precisely between "the
people of a State" and "[t]he people of all the States," id., at 428, 435;
between the "sovereignty which the people of a single state
possess"...Stare decisis has its pedigree in the unwritten common law of
England. As Blackstone explained, the common law included "[e]stablished
customs" and "[e]stablished rules and maxims" that were discerned and
articulated by judges. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
68-69 (1765) (Blackstone). In the common-law system, stare decisis played
1983*1983 an important role because "judicial decisions [were] the
principal and most authoritative evidence, that [could] be given, of the
existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law." Id., at
69. Accordingly, "precedents and rules must be followed, unless flatly
absurd or unjust," because a judge must issue judgments "according to the
known laws and customs of the land" and not "according to his private
sentiments" or "own private judgment." Id., at 69-70. In other words,
judges were expected to adhere to precedents because they embodied the very
law the judges were bound to apply...Importantly, however, the common law
did not view precedent as unyielding when it was "most evidently contrary
to reason" or "divine law." Blackstone 69-70. The founding generation
recognized that a "judge may mistake the law." Id., at 71; see also 1 Kent
444 ("Even a series of decisions are not always conclusive evidence of what
is law"). And according to Blackstone, judges should disregard precedent
that articulates a rule incorrectly when necessary "to vindicate the old
[rule] from misrepresentation." Blackstone 70; see also 1 Kent 443 ("If ...
any solemnly adjudged case can be shown to be founded in error, it is no
doubt the right and the duty of the judges who have a similar case before
them, to correct the error"). He went further: When a "former decision is
manifestly absurd or unjust" or fails to conform to reason, it is not
simply "bad law," but "not law" at all. Blackstone 70 (emphasis). This
view—that demonstrably erroneous "blunders" of prior courts should be
corrected—was accepted by state courts throughout the 19th century. See,
e.g., McDowell v. Oyer, 21 Pa. 417, 423 (1853); Guild v. Eager, 17 Mass.
615, 622 (1822).
Justice GINSBURG, dissenting: In the system established by the Federal
Constitution, however, "ultimate sovereignty" resides in the governed.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm'n, 576
U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 2652, 2675, 192 L.Ed.2d 704 (2015); Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 324-325, 4 L.Ed. 97 (1816); Braun, supra, at
26-30. Insofar as a crime offends the "peace and dignity" of a sovereign,
Lanza, 260 U.S. at 382, 43 S.Ct. 141, that "sovereign" is the people, the
"original fountain of all legitimate authority," The Federalist No. 22, at
152 (A. Hamilton); see Note, Double Prosecution by State and Federal
Governments: Another *1991 Exercise in Federalism, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1538,
1542 (1967).
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021, 3:03 AM Mike <leatherlips1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think this is what you are looking for. I am including the part I cut
out of the main code.
*From:* Fred Wind (Redacted sender "elemental4wind" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2021 6:53 PM
*To:* administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: 23andMe just sold
the genomes of millions of its users = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If I understand correctly, nobody can patent your ORIGINAL DNA, they can
only patent the altered version of your DNA which these 'vaccines' will do.
I'm making a plea to whoever posted the POLICE BONDING PROCEDURE to please
re-email it, thank you.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:38 PM, J_B
<tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
probably not if u got one of those kits.. as you consented to it. they
want to own you aka patent. which with this covid test/rna crap changes you
and therefore your patentable
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:54 PM Jaime Alvarez <
jaimealvarez1956@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can we sue because of this for selling our info?
Jimmy
On Feb 17, 2021, at 10:23 AM, veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
yes i am. thing is if they want your dna, they already have it and any
identifier unique to you.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 7:25 PM J_B <tf4624@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
you are aware they want it for cloning purposes and Transhumansum
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:57 PM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
they do more than sell your dna. someones only hope is to edit the
contract and attach a document specifying to destroy the sample, not keep
or sell records etc when your sendin in the sample if not before "payin"
for anythin
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 11:41 AM Theresa Gayle <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
23andMe just sold the genomes of millions of its users
<https://youtu.be/1lRxbzeGTGw>
23andMe just sold the genomes of millions of its users
<https://youtu.be/1lRxbzeGTGw>
