you dont have to mind your launguage around me hun just try not to let how
i talk rub off on you too much lol.
i can tell you now if your going to bounce from thing to thing its not
going to end up in your favor, you dont demand a trial by jury then
challenge jurisdiction if your challenging jurisdiction, you would either
demand the trial by jury and if asserted and stuck to properly their going
to dismiss because they know their not capable of convening one if they try
point out the defects bye goes them, with challenging jurisdiction stick to
the point and if they attack it defend it properly then if needed assert
the claim properly to the appealant court and its gone. im not sure who
told you a name change would do anything to help you in a legal situation
but id be careful about listening to crack heads, it wouldnt do anything
but carry over the charges to the new name unless their doing it in some
speific thing theyve attempted that ive never herd of before. the geneva
bible may be older but the kjv was what was authorized into law and thats
not in line with the "rite of kings", see the following:
Rulers are not to be a terror to good behavior, but rather to the wicked
and evil doers. [Prov. 20:26; Rom. 13:3-4].
Irresponsible civil leaders are they who are either blind, ignorant, lazy,
greedy, self-centered, drunkards, or act for their own gain. [Isa. 56:10
-12].
If a ruler unintentionally or out of ignorance violates the law and the
violation comes to his knowledge, he shall make restitution for it. [Lev.
4:22-23].
Civil rulers are to be chosen from among thy brethren or race, we are not
to put a stranger (an alien or one of another race) over us in a position
of authority. [Exod. 18:21; Deut 17:15; Jer. 30:21].
It is an abomination for a civil ruler to commit wickedness, for his office
is established on righteousness. [Prov. 16:12].
A distribution of power and levels of authority are to be
established-rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties,
and rulers of tens. [Exod. 18:21, 25; Deut 1:13-15].
Judges, magistrates and officers are to be appointed in all towns and
cities. [Deut 16:18; 2 Chron. 19:5; Ezra 7:25].
Government is to be for the punishment of the evildoers, and for the praise
of them that do well. [Rom. 13:3; 1 Pet 2:14].
Warnings against an all-powerful leader, king or central government. [1
Sam. 8:9-22].
Government officials are to be chosen by the people. [Deut. 1:13; Deut 16:18
].
When the wicked are removed from the presence of civil leaders, the
government will be established in righteousness. [Prov. 25:5].
The judge that justifies the wicked and condemns the just is an abomination
to God. [Prov. 17:15].
Both sides of a case are to be heard -He that answers a matter before he
hears it, it is folly and shame to him. [Prov. 18:13].
One cannot be tried and sentenced without an accuser indicating the charges
against him. [Acts 23:35; Acts 25:16, 27].
No man is to be judged until the court hears from him his case and knows
the facts of what he has done. [John 7:51].
The congregation of the people (jury) can judge
matters in a criminal case. [Num. 35:12, 24-25].
There shall be no contempt of court. [Deut. 17:12, 13; Rom. 13:1-3; Titus
3:1].
Disobedience to government is justified when government requires an ungodly
or unlawful act. [Exod. 1:15-20; Josh. 2:1-18].
We are not to submit to human edicts when in conflict with Divine
laws. [Dan. 3:10-18; Dan. 6:7-23; Acts 4:13-21; Acts 5:16-32].
You shall not follow the laws and ordinances of other nations in your
land. [Lev. 18:3; Mic. 6:16; 2 Kings 17:19-20].
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 10:19 AM Karen Christopherson <karenmmc3@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I hear you. I tell you one thing, I have been solid from the beginning in
my belief and drive but what has blown my mind is the corruption and how
they truly cannot say that they don't understand what I'm saying and yet
they continually purposefully and maliciously prosecute me and kidnap me!
Let me tell you I have had a lot of other things just pile up to where I've
like been a deer in headlights. And they have taken full advantage of the
situation for profit and I'm not crying about it or nothing but it
certainly could make you! But right now my back is up against the wall cuz
damn I don't want to go back to damn freaking jail and there's warrants out
on me now well on my juridical person and I'm done everything that I know
to do and I'm going to finishing touches on it right now they can be no
more excuses on their end whatsoever and I'm going to require a court of
record trial by jury and of course proof of jurisdiction right off the rip
and I'm pretty damn bold at this point cuz I'm sick of their crap your
place forgive my crass language but I think that's honestly what we have
got to feel like with these evil thieves.
this may be a little TMI I'm sorry for the long note but I was listening
to someone today and they were talking about you know how in the Bible it
talks about the principalities and the wickedness that we fight right well
in the original Geneva Bible which is older than the King James version, it
says that those wicked forces are the world rulers!! Yeah I can see these
black robed devils being demons in disguise!
Also get this I heard something today as well that made me think this is
an option as well and that would be to change your name and die a civil
death meaning the all caps name bye bye bye and you just do the new name
with the probate Court as just your regular upper and lowercase.
A cop said that once you do that your name comes up in red whenever they
pull you over and you don't have to even answer nothing they're like you
have a good day now you hear I guess that is the list we want to be on do
not detain leave us that blank alone
On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:53 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
you need to know what your doing before you go in and be prepared for
things like that, the judge is allowed to figure out if your compitent to
defend the captioned defendant. you shouldnt be attempting to use a
constitutional argument to attempt to beat any taxs unless its technically
the 1st amendment (religion). i would say it takes far less time than aeuis
suggests to get on point with the caviate of finding particular actually
working process(es) and digging into what they and why they work ontop of
knowing how to defend said process(es) to the death as well as figuring out
tricks they may play, if you hyper focus on actually learning for at least
1 hour a day you should be a beast within a year. by the sounds of it
though i do agree with him that you have learning to do if your getting
kicked around like that and that many times
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 8:56 AM Karen Christopherson <karenmmc3@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Whenever I stood sui juris in front of the judge, he ridiculed me and
said I did not even know what it meant.,
Prior to that I had been targeted and arrested seven different times
because I had made a constitutional stand regarding property taxes where
they took my home and did not even respond to my conditional acceptance of
their offer t
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 8:58 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
karen, that message was to konstant for some reason some of these
messages are not popping up until after i respond to one. if they violate
your God given constitutionally protected rights then more than likely yes
you have some sort of claim and/or way to attack whats gone one but not
knowing whats/has gone on i can only say so much.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 7:51 AM Karen Christopherson <karenmmc3@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Wonderful. I am now working on some affidavits as I have been targeted
big time and can you give me some pointers on what to say in terms of
having them just discharge all these commercial bogus charges against my
juridical person as I have given them my declalration in 2021 that they
just ignore my non-corporate status and have kidnapped me like eight times
since then and I have just been blown away!
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 8:36 AM veritas ghost <guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
indeed its why i point out theres multiple ways to skin those cats,
they screw up in so many ways their almost begging you to educate them
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 6:25 AM Konstant Tution <
mistyharland75@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wow they violate these every single time.
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 11:19 AM veritas ghost <
guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
JUSTICE McREYNOLDS (us supreme court) separate opinion:.."Only the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is derived directly from the
Constitution. Every other court created by the general government
derives
its jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress. That body may
give,
withhold or restrict such jurisdiction at its discretion, provided it
be
not extended beyond the boundaries fixed by the Constitution. . . . The
Constitution simply gives to the inferior courts the capacity to take
jurisdiction in the enumerated cases, but it requires an Act of
Congress to
confer it." Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 234. Myers
v.
United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)
justice harland (us supreme court) dissenting:..When the right
affected is one assured by the Federal Constitution, any infringement
can
be dealt with under the Due Process Clause. shapiro v thompson 394 u.s
618
(1969)
JUSTICE BLACK (us supreme court) delivered the opinion of the
Court:..We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for
acknowledging
that those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental
safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally
protected
against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. In many cases other than Powell and Betts, this Court has
looked
to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to
decide
whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States.
Explicitly recognized to be of this "fundamental nature" and therefore
made
immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are
the
First Amendment's freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly,
association, and petition for redress of grievances.[4] For the same
reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court
has
made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment's command that *342
private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation,[5] Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (see the
same in
the us supreme court Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S.Ct. 682 (2019))
JUSTICE SCALIA (us supreme court) concurring in part in the
judgment:..Rather, a plaintiff seeking redress through § 1983 must
establish the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory
right. See
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U. S. 329, 340 (1997); Golden State Transit
Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 106 (1989).."Likewise, a police
officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment when he obtains a confession
by
coercive conduct, regardless of whether the confession is subsequently
used
at trial. `The due process violation caused by coercive behavior of
law-enforcement officers in pursuit of a confession is complete with
the
coercive behavior itself.... The actual use or attempted use of that
coerced statement in a court of law is not necessary to complete the
affront to the Constitution.' Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F. 2d at 1244-45
(emphasis added). Mr. Martinez has thus stated a prima facie case that
Sergeant Chavez violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to
be
free from police coercion in pursuit of a confession." 270 F. 3d 852,
857
(2001).
It seems to me impossible to interpret this passage as anything
other than an invocation of the doctrine of "substantive due process,"
which makes unlawful certain government conduct, regardless of whether
the
procedural guarantees of the Fifth Amendment (or the guarantees of any
of
the other provisions of the Bill of Rights) have been violated. See
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702 (1997)..Surely the Ninth
Circuit
was not expending a paragraph to make the utterly useless observation
that,
in addition to violating the Fifth Amendment (because that is
incorporated
in the Fourteenth) Chavez violated the Fourteenth Amendment (because
that
incorporates the Fifth). That substantive due process was the point is
confirmed by the fact that the sole authority cited to support
violation of
"the Fourteenth Amendment" is Cooper v. Dupnik, 963 F. 2d 1220,
1244-1245
(1992), a Ninth Circuit case that explicitly recognized a
substantive-due-process right to be free from coercive police
questioning.
See id., at 1244-1250.
JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part: As a
matter of fact, the interrogation of respondent was the functional
equivalent of an attempt to obtain an involuntary confession from a
prisoner by torturous methods. As *784 a matter of law, that type of
brutal
police conduct constitutes an immediate deprivation of the prisoner's
constitutionally protected interest in liberty. Because these
propositions
are so clear, the District Court and the Court of Appeals correctly
held
that petitioner is not entitled to qualified immunity. Chavez v.
Martinez,
538 U.S. 760 (2003)
(us supreme court) Held: When a prisoner pursues state
post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation
process,
the statute of limitations for a § 1983 procedural due process claim
begins
to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas
Court of
Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing. Pp. 960-962.
(a) Texas's three threshold arguments lack merit. First, Reed has
standing because Reed sufficiently alleged an injury in fact: denial of
access to the requested evidence by the state prosecutor (the named
defendant). A federal court conclusion that Texas's post-conviction DNA
testing procedures denied Reed due process would "amount to a
significant
increase in the likelihood" that Reed "would obtain relief that
directly
redresses the injury suffered." Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 464, 122
S.Ct.
2191, 153 L.Ed.2d 453. Second, Texas's invocation of the State's
sovereign
immunity fails because the Ex parte Young doctrine allows suits like
Reed's
for declaratory or injunctive relief against state officers in their
official capacities. 209 U.S. 123, 159-161, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714.
Third, Reed's procedural due process claim does not contravene the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Pp. 960-961.
(b) The sole question before the Court is whether Reed's § 1983
suit raising a procedural due process challenge to Texas's
post-conviction
DNA testing law was timely under the applicable 2-year statute of
limitations. The statute of limitations begins to run when the
plaintiff
has a "complete and present cause of action," Bay Area Laundry and Dry
Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192,
201, 118
S.Ct. 542, 139 L.Ed.2d 553, a determination the Court makes by focusing
first on the specific constitutional right alleged to have been
infringed.
See McDonough v. Smith, 588 U. S. ___, ___, 139 S.Ct. 2149, ___, 204
L.Ed.2d 506. Here, that right is procedural due process. A procedural
due
process claim is complete not "when the deprivation occurs" but only
when
"the State fails to provide due process." Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S.
113,
126, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100. Texas's process for considering a
request for DNA testing in capital cases includes both trial court
proceedings and appellate review, which under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 79.1 encompasses a motion for rehearing. In Reed's case, the
State's alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamentally fair
process
was complete when the state litigation ended—when the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing. Therefore, the
statute
of limitations began to run on Reed's § 1983 claim when Reed's motion
for
rehearing was denied. Pp. 960-962.
995 F.3d 425, reversed. Reed v. Goertz, 143 S.Ct. 955 (2023)
JUSTICE WHITE (us supreme court) concurring:.. In Brooks v. State,
209 Miss. 150, 155, 46 So. 2d 94, 97 (1950), a convicted defendant
asserted
in the State Supreme Court for the first time the inadmissibility of
certain evidence on the grounds of an illegal search and seizure,
violation
of the rule against self-incrimination, and improper
cross-examination. The
court considered these questions and reversed the conviction, saying
that
"[e]rrors affecting fundamental rights are exceptions to the rule that
questions not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first
time
on appeal. . . . [W]here fundamental and constitutional rights are
ignored,
due process does not exist, and a fair trial in contemplation of law
cannot
be had."..However, it was stated in Brooks, supra, that in extreme
cases a
failure to object to questions which were violative of a constitutional
right did not in all events have to be objected to before they would
receive consideration by this Court. The appellant in this case was
being
tried for murder. Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284 (1973)
KITCHENS, JUSTICE (supreme court of mississippi) DISSENTING:..The
federal and state constitutions guarantee the right to notice of
criminal
charges. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26.."No
principle of
procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of
the
specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues
raised
by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of
every
accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal."
Cole,
333 U.S. at 201, 68 S.Ct. 514.."An indictment must contain (1) the
essential elements of the offense charged, (2) sufficient facts to
fairly
inform the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and
(3)
sufficient facts to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event
of a
future prosecution for the same offense." Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d
829,
836-37 (Miss. 2007). This Court applies de novo review to a claim that
the
indictment was substantively insufficient, and such claim may be
raised at
any time. Id. at 836; Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968, 1015 (Miss.
2007)..The
object of the indictment is, first, to furnish the accused with such a
description of the charge against him as will enable him to make his
defence, and avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection
against a further prosecution for the same cause; and, second, to
inform
the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. For
this,
facts are to be stated, not conclusions of law alone. A crime is made
up of
acts and intent; and these must be set forth in the indictment, with
reasonable particularity of time, place, and circumstances. U.S. v.
Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875) (emphasis added).
Carson
v. State, 212 So.3d 22 (2016)
KITCHENS, PRESIDING JUSTICE (Supreme Court of Mississippi)
CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY:.."Every material fact and essential
ingredient
of the offense—every essential element of the offense—must be alleged
with
precision and certainty, or, as has been stated, every fact which is an
element in a prima facie case of guilt must be stated in the
indictment."
Love v. State, 211 Miss. 606, 52 So. 2d 470, 472 (1951). "The purpose
of an
indictment is to provide the [presumptively innocent] defendant with a
concise statement of the crime so that he may have a reasonable
opportunity
to prepare and present a defense to those charges." Burrows v. State,
961
So. 2d 701, 705 (Miss. 2007).
No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established
than that notice of the specific charge, and a chance to be heard in a
trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the
constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all
courts, state or federal. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201, 68 S.
Ct.
514, 92 L. Ed. 644 (1948) (citing In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct.
499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948)). Stewart v. State of MISSISSIPPI No.
2022-KA-00107-SCT (January 18, 2024)
