Clinton is an empire, backed by narcissistic greed, corruption and, apparently, immunity.
I agree, it's a fairer assessment. It's a borderless transnational criminal organization, specialized in using political bribes to loot nations and rape children.
....and rape all of the Earth's precious resources: preying on the poorest & most vulnerable countries: Haiti, India, Nigeria...
People, read Clinton Cash or watch the free documentary on youtube.
As much as I detest Trump, I appreciate that he is raising awareness of corrupt Clinton's Foundation & State Department treacheries.
We must build the third parties NOW to ensure this never happens again: a corrupt 2-party system that nominated 2 greedy, entitled gazillionaire thugs who profit off the people worldwide.
A choice of two is hardly a "democracy."
A diverse choice is.
Very true... the problem is that the executive branch has taken too much power in recent years... Potus wasn't designed to be like that... However it's a natural evolution of corruption to take all branches of the gov to merge them to serve the looting.
It isn't that the government has taken too much power, as much as the people have let them.
The American form of government allows people to individually or in groups put down almost any law of government that they want. It is done through the basics of the governmental system, which is the court jury system.
In all cases where government has a case against a person, the person can file a claim against the government official, man to man, who started the case against him. The individual's case can be filed right inside the government's case, requiring that the official show what harm or damage the individual has done. If there is none, the individual can claim damages and court costs.
When an individual does the above man to man rather than individual to government, he takes the case out of whatever administrative court it might have been in, and moves it into common law. Common law means that the person can request a jury trial. Juries can judge the law, and effectively make a law to be null and void in the particular case. The judge is only a referee, and can be held in contempt of court if he opens his big mouth too many times.
If enough juries shut down the same law in their cases, the law is held to be null and void across the land.
This can be done in Canada, Britain, Australia, and with some difficulty, in India and Bangladesh. There are a few other countries that allow this as well. But America is the easiest.
In all of these countries, if people don't know what they can do, they probably won't do it.
If a jury makes a decision that the judge doesn't like, and the judge files complaints against the jury members, the jury members each have the duty to file a man to man claim against the judge.
Help to wake the juries up. They have absolute power every which way in all the cases they hear. Jointly the jury has more power than a king. Juries are connected to common law. America is a common law land.
We can essentially shut down every law the President and Congress make through the jury. Tell the juries to look up the law. Jury nullification.
This is the best post I have ever seen on Bitcoin talk forum. I am glad to be here. Thanks
Karl Lentz talks a lot. You could listen to him all day, and still not quite understand what he is saying. He shows how to use common law from a common law standpoint. Some links:
http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.
http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.
http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.
http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.
Other Info
http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.
http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness."
And now I am afraid I must call bullshit: The last link you provided has a quote attributed to a famous court case called Penhallow vs Doanne's admin. It is from 1795 it is case #6 of the S.C.O.T.U.S. and that text does not appear in that case. That is a fake quote in my opinion and I feel qualified to say this since I have carefully examined all of the originals of the case across the country. If you can provide a certified copy of the case that shows that quote I will pay you for your trouble. I have tracked that case for more than 16 years (well over 22 years by my counting) and find that text nowhere in the arguments of counsel. However, since I did not review all of the counselors notes on the case I will offer you $100 USD in bitcoin if you can direct me to the source where the arguments of counsel can be found regarding this quote. Basically the case was about admission of evidence and the rules governing the settling of jurisdiction and international law was invoked to reason which court should or did rule and how proper the rule was. Finally, the scotus allowed evidence that a previous court had barred from the record and this new evidence changed the outcome of the case and thus the property was dived differently as a result.
Are you sure you clicked the correct link? Trinsey v Paglario is mentioned there, along with its relevance. What are you really saying? T v P was not meant as a listing in or part of P v D. It was meant as another case that was relevant to the issue along with P v D.
When you actually check T v P at the legal site given in the website, you will find that the wording IS different than the website I listed. In the past, I have found the actual wording online for T v P, and I understood how the wording can be construed to mean what the website I gave says.
One of the important things about using common law is that you don't need T v P. It simply helps to show that even the legal common law is active in the same way as lawful common law. Here is the big point. You are never a citizen of the legal system unless you are a BAR card carrier. And, you are never a "citizen" in a man-to-man common law case unless you are a witness, or a part of the tribunal. This is what P v D and T v P are all about.
That is not at all what Doanne v. Pennhallow is about and you bring up a big concern that was voiced by the commentators of the time who reviewed the case in 1796 following the case. They feared that false legal advice would be proffered as a way to game the system here in America and in fact this fake legal advice would be the only way to truly game the society here as it is now set up since 1796. So I recommend you only copy and paste legal citations you have personally verified otherwise your attempts at legal advice actually do this country a disservice if they are not true as in the case here with Penhallow v. Doanne where not only you cite a fake quote that is not found in the case but also conclude things that are never discussed in the case. In fact it is a truly remarkable case that is worth study.
Second, anyone who doesn't do his research personally, almost deserves the "bad" he gets. That's what often happens when people rely entirely on attorneys.
Third, well, what is it now? D v P? or P v D? Do you even know what you are talking about?
I am sorry but a web page quote is not legal research.
I'm not sorry. Who would want it to be that simple? Almost anybody can make a webpage. Who would want it to be legal research? except you, that is, since you expressed that you are sorry.And if you take a quote from a court case into court as part of your argument you will want to make sure it is correct and true certified copy. I am saying that you cannot do that with the quote you are providing us from Penhallow v. Doannes admin.
P v D wasn't the point. But from the little research that I have done just now, it seems to fit.Instead I am saying that this case is a good study on jurisdiction, courts, evidence, things like that. It is the longest case in our history and it still has not ended to this day technically. It is also the first real case the Scotus handled. It came about from ships that were taken during the revolutionary war in early 1780's or earlier commonly called the 'prize cases'. The court had to wait for enough counselors who were learned enough to become approved to practice before the SCOTUS before they could hear this case and Doanne was already dead waiting for justice to be granted him through the courts. At the end of the case the court lamented how no one should ever have to wait that long for justice. Doanne v. Penhallow was the first true test of the new jurisdiction the SCOTUS had been given by the new congress.
Sounds like you are hung up on P v D. Congrats.BADecker, I am not trying to pick on you actually trying to help you with your arguments.
In fact I agree that the judges let the attorney's get away with things they should not be doing when they allow them to argue facts of the case when instead the jusdge should remain neutral. So the local rules are important as shown in the other case you mentioned. And it seems that was why that case had the outcome it did. Thanks now I have a new case to verify next time I go to the law library.
Listen to what Karl has to say at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQt8rtP_9DM (only if you like, of course).
