Hello:
I do not know if I am using the correct language and terms to explain this, but
here goes:
Progressive Globalist Democrat Lawyer President Woodrow Wilson changed us
fromConstitution-Based Law (Rule of Law) to Case Law-Based Law (Rule of Man)
circa 1913.
Wilson was advised to do so by a German Law Professor. I can't find the book I
first read thisin and I have been searching to find it again for it 3 or 4
years. I read so many books on
Progressivism from 2006 to 2012, and they all blur together now.
Progressives hate the US Constitution because most of Progressivism's proposed
agenda is unconstitutional.America is supposed to achieve Equality and Equity
through the Rule of Law. The Rule of Lawmeans 1 set of Laws for everyone and
applied equally without consideration for wealth,
status or government position. That one set of laws being the US Constitution.
But that damn Constitution is so hard to amend and requires exposure of changes
to thelight of day and, for the most part, the informed consent of the masses.
This is why Progressiveslike to refer to a "living" Constitution able to be
changed by mere reinterpretation over time, instead of original intent.
Before Wilson's circa 1913 case law change, all lawyers and judges were
restricted to onlyresolving legal matters before the Court based solely on the
decision conforming with Constitution.
Wilson's new Case Law based legal system, "allowed" the Constitution to be
amended byallowing reference to case law. Over time, Judges could incrementally
"amend" the constitution'sjurisprudence and meaning by Judges slowly over time
building on the incremental changesof judges before them.
After Wilson's circa 1913 case law change, lawyers and judges decisions were no
longer
restricted to solely conforming to the constitution, instead, they could use
either the Constitutionor Case-Law.
Remember again, the Progressive Globalists are fighting an unconventional
revolution by slow,covert infiltration over generations so no one generation
notices enough change to resist, revoltor mount a counter-revolution.
Here are 2 examples that evince this incremental change in the Law.The first is
a move away from the "Pound Principle" of Jurisprudence. Simply stated,
the"Pound Principle" calls for all matters before the court to be resolved on
merit rather than technicality.An article I wrote called, "Resolving Court
Cases "on the Merits", revisited is attached.
The second is Harvard Law School dropping the US Constitution as a
requirementfor first year law students, and then as a requirement for
graduation.
As Harvard Law Dean, Kagan Did Not Require Study of U.S. Constitutional Law But
Did Require Study of International and Foreign Law
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
As Harvard Law Dean, Kagan Did Not Require Study of U.S. Constitutional ...
Supreme Court nominee Solicitor General Elena Kagan meets and greets senators
on Thursday, May 13, 2010.(AP Phot...
|
|
|
I hope that someone can put that thought into more eloquent words than I have
Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended only
for the use of the person or entity named above and is privileged and
confidential. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
other than to the person or entity named above is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender
by phone and by replying to this message and then delete the message and any
attachments from your system.
On Wednesday, March 31, 2021, 7:59:08 PM CDT, Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Veritas ghost
If I understand you right. I agree. Go look at court cases and codes and then
find where the judge got it from the constitution is one of my tools to
understand the law of the constitution and to explain the law. The only reason
I object to using them in your document is these con artists will gladly use it
against you to confuse one.On Mar 31, 2021, 10:40 AM -0600, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
charley, i know we dont need to use statutes and codes. most want to know what
backs what one says though and wouldnt believe it unless they can directly see
it from a court case or their books. i had forgotten where i had pulled those
cases from (i have a mix of thousands of screenshots, text notes, and
documents) but found it and attached to this email.
surf, glenn has made videos on this subject. im not sure if the guy your
talking about is still on here or not.
if the random black robed man/woman on the bench is not following the law, you
fight that stranger off the street trying to rob you. they know the
constitution is the supreme law and they cannot claim ignorance of law, supreme
court cases back this up and are the inferior courts are bound to listen to
their overlord the supreme court of which we are the ultimate sovereign. its in
their own books as plain as the light from the sky
no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to
enforce it. 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, section 117 late 2nd, section 256
wallace v jaffree
The stare decisis doctrine and its exceptions do not apply where a lower court
is compelled to apply the precedent of a higher court. See 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts
§ 183 (1965).
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 6:00 AM surfboate <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, i was aware of that i just wondered if the guy that posted the
information was still on here on how he got his automobile registered in Cali i
think it was.
On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 10:00:05 a.m. PDT, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary
spoilation of property. (Police power, Due Process) Barber v. Connolly, 113
U.S. 27, 31; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356.
The information created and surrounding the stricti juris doctrine regarding a
particular license which may, or may not, be represented by and revealed within
the contents and control of a license agreement-- “but must be revealed upon
demand, and failure to do so is concealment, a withholding of material facts
(the enducing, contractual consideration) known by those who have a duty and
are bound to reveal.” Dolcater v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., D.C.N.Y.,
2F.Supp. 637, 641.
"‘‘Motor vehicle’’ means every description of carriage or other contrivance
propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the
highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property
and cargo; ... ``Used for commercial purposes'' means the carriage of persons
or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly
or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended
for profit[.]" 18 U.S.C. 31. "A carriage is peculiarly a family or household
article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort,
and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S.
495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 S.D. NY 1884).
"A soldier's personal automobile is part of his ``household goods[.]'' U.S. v
Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition
(West) pocket part 94. "[I]t is a jury question whether ... an automobile ...
is a motor vehicle[.]" United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir.
1983).
"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression
household effects, Matter of Winburn's Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S.
592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by
the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re
Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955). "The use to which an item
is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should
be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under
UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d
338 (Ala., 1978). "Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods
purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are
mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be
considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028;
266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968). "The classification of goods in
UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust
Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971). "The classification
of ``goods'' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact." Morgan County Feeders,
Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).
"The definition of ``goods'' includes an automobile." Henson v Government
Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273,
516 S.W.2d 1 (1974). Household goods"The term ``household goods'' ... includes
everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed therewith and that
tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill,
515 P.2d 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition
(West) pocket part 94.
Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only
household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and
used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of
the household. State ex rel. Mueller v Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32
N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition
(West) 514. "All household goods owned by the user thereof and used solely for
noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action
to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2.
Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his
place of employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat
v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn.
App., 1966). "The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to
sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or
used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)."
Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor
Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978). "An
automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In
reMitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases –
Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra. "[T]he expression
``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will,
59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will,
supra. "[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and
``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782
(1955).
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021, 4:34 AM surfboate <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They are sales taxes and not purchase taxes. They presume that we are
"customers", which are defined as persons that are purchasing for resale. Look
it up. They are taxing us as customers and not consumers. The presumption is we
will be reselling it so they are taxing us customers and that is how Walmart
for example is having their obligation paid by the consumer. Something i came
to the realization of when looking up shit. Speaking of looking up shit, can
some one tell me about how the people are registering their private automobiles
in California for i think it was called "house hold goods" or something like
that. I am looking for something similar where i am at. Thanks in advance to
anyone that can help me out.
On Monday, March 29, 2021, 06:53:04 p.m. PDT, Charley Dan
<charleydan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nelson, Dice
Taxation is paid by the purchaser of the product. Employer pays you a wage and
tax taken out or not taken out. That amount is an expense to employer and put
in the retail price. Unless all employees do not pay taxes. The purchaser pays.
As the charts show you pay about forty percent when one purchases an item. Time
of the Knights they said, ten percent alright, twenty percent we rebell, thirty
percent kill the king. I hope this explains it. On Mar 29, 2021, 3:25 PM -0600,
NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx>, wrote:
Charley, please explain "still pay taxes"
Get Outlook for Android
From: administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Winningham Fearn <winfearn@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 12:12:24 PM
To: administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<administrating-your-public-servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Administrating-Your-Public-Servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<Administrating-Your-Public-Servants@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [administrating-your-public-servants] Re: Indication of proof foreign
sovereigns owed health care I don't want their medical experiments
(healthcare). I like alternative remedies that work just fine.
Best Regards, Win
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:20 AM NELSON DICE <nelsondice@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
A friend of mine who was upset his taxes were paying for my healthcare was
speaking to a county sheriff about me, since I am causing such a ruckus in the
two counties with my assertion of sovereignty.
The deputy expressed his anger with the know fact among deputies that many
sovereigns they are watching are receiving fully-paid healthcare and the deputy
is perturbed at that.
I think this validates my experience and test, that the Occupying force owes
obligations under Leiber Code, Geneva Connections, and possibly Gauge
Conventions and International Law
