Of course it's funny to you, because you're ignorant concerning the subject and are unable to comprehend. This is easily identified by in the rubbish you've posted in that section of your post I didn't include, as well as other posts youve made concerning the common law.
There are abundant legal sources that any lawyer worth 2 cents is aware of concerning limits upon legislative acts by the common law.
I would recommend you educate yourself on the subject, but it appears your capacity to conduct research is impaired by your egotistical arrogance if not just plain laziness.
Everything you posted says that the legislature can alter the common law EXCEPT for such parts as have been expressly incorporated into the state constitution. So what? Everyone knows that a constitutional provision overrules any statutory enactment to the contrary.
You, a layman, presuming to educate me on principles of law is laughable on its face. Go "educate" physicians on medicine, or physicists on quantum physics. Let me know if they laugh at you as long as I did.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
The important byproduct of Erie was Zionist Brandeis comment at the end about stare decisis. It takes some consideration about what the Constitution annotations say about Erie (1938) and Swift (1840) and an understanding that The Sanhedrin is administering the Seven Noachide Laws through Masonry and Pauline Christianity. I will attach the materials and then I can connect the dots for people who do not see it.
In a nutshell by resetting the stare decisis - case law - correcting it from its 1840-1938 error after 1933, all case law of material effect was post-1938 and thus collection agents in black robes only listen to opinions with a bankruptcy in receivership flavor.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
The important byproduct of Erie was Zionist Brandeis comment at the end about stare decisis. It takes some consideration about what the Constitution annotations say about Erie (1938) and Swift (1840) and an understanding that The Sanhedrin is administering the Seven Noachide Laws through Masonry and Pauline Christianity. I will attach the materials and then I can connect the dots for people who do not see it.
In a nutshell by resetting the stare decisis - case law - correcting it from its 1840-1938 error after 1933, all case law of material effect was post-1938 and thus collection agents in black robes only listen to opinions with a bankruptcy in receivership flavor.
In 1982, Bruce Allen Murphy, then assistant professor of Political Science at Pennsylvania State University, wrote a book, entitled The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, in which he documented his discovery of letters and papers of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, which contained some of the collection of notes and letters of Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis. He detailed the extra-judicial activities of Justice Brandeis and revealed that while Felix Frankfurter was professor at Harvard, Justice Brandeis would communicate with him about his feelings on a particular social goal, and request that he have some of his most gifted law students produce some papers, essays, and articles for the law reviews, which professed these views. He wrote: "Once these articles were in print, the justice would cite the information and analysis, as well as "the mandate of opinion in the Law Reviews," to lobby various politicians and his own colleagues on the Court. It is interesting that these student-authors would later be placed by Brandeis and Frankfurter in a plethora of New Deal Agencies, where they could help to implement many of the policies that they had earlier been influenced to propose in print."
And one must understand the nature of forgery, and its use in law, as opposed to fraud and fabrication. The Protocols are admittedly a forgery. There are a few chapters about that in Holy Blood, Holy Grail - co-authored by Michael Baigent Senior Editor of Freemasonry Today.
The real coverup is more interesting than the attachment below. The real coverup came in a civil suit from Michael Baigent against Dan Brown for plaigerizing Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The DaVinci Code. Albeit the Mason in the black robe (attorner) gave no explanation that I remember he apparently turned to the back of Holy Blood and found thirty pages of Bibliography. Considering Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a history book - it is nonsense for the author to be accusing anybody of plaigerizing his work! The case was dismissed.
Justice Brandeis began his career a lot earlier than FDR's Administration. Rumor has it he got his bench by blackmailing Woodrow Wilson, author of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
Regards,
David Merrill.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede.
During discussion about the Treaty of 1213 and the Magna Charta (1215).
The Sanhedrin is administering the Seven Noachide Laws through Masonry and Pauline Christianity.
For those of you who have not figured it out yet, David is not playing with a full deck. This quote in particular is yet another good proof of that.
The Sanhedrin, the highest religious authority in ancient Judaism, was disbanded under Roman rule in 358 A.D. Although in October 2004 a group in Israel claimed to have founded a modern Sanhedrin, it has not met with universal acceptance even in the Orthodox sect of modern Judaism.
Regardless, claiming that a group that was disbanded in 358 A.D. and not re-established, if at all, until 2004 A.D., was behind a United States Supreme Court decision issued in 1938, is sheer insanity.
__________________
We reject Skurdal's argument that he is a "free man" exempt from the laws because he has "no contracts" with either the state or federal governments...No persons in Montana may exempt themselves from any law simply by declaring they do not consent to it applying to them...Accepting Skurdal's assertion of exempt status is an invitation to anarchy. We decline that invitation. - State v. Skurdal, Supreme Court of Montana, 235 Mont. 291, 767 P.2d 304 at 308 (1988).
Everything you posted says that the legislature can alter the common law EXCEPT for such parts as have been expressly incorporated into the state constitution. So what? Everyone knows that a constitutional provision overrules any statutory enactment to the contrary.
You, a layman, presuming to educate me on principles of law is laughable on its face. Go "educate" physicians on medicine, or physicists on quantum physics. Let me know if they laugh at you as long as I did.
Nice backtrack. If you had any reading comprehension skills you would of understood. Not only arrogant, but blind...maybe because your head is up your....
__________________ Liberty: Freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.
Last edited by FreeFromContract : 04-13-2008 at 11:00 AM.
Linear Mode
