12-03-2007, 08:50 PM
|
 |
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ownmaster
(b) The Legislature may make no law except by statute and may enact no statute except by bill.
|
In all fairness, your use of the word "by" was ambiguous.
It appeared to me to mean through, and you didn't specify that you were quoting a constitutional provision.
But, I guess that's enough to make you angry to the point of calling me a MFer.
It doesn't take a whole lot to anger someone who already feels incompetent.
Last edited by Extramural : 12-03-2007 at 08:52 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 08:51 PM
|
 |
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 363
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Extramural
1. Could you produce one of those attorney licenses for us to see?
|
I have seen one. Really big... and two huge ribbons attached and issued from the clerk of the Supreme Court of California.
I don't own one, so I cannot produce it.
All in all your rebuttal to my own quite frankly sucked. |
12-03-2007, 09:01 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ownmaster
All in all your rebuttal to my own quite frankly sucked.
|
You are the superior being, I am sure.
Meanwhile, I will wait for your state to appear.
But if you would be so kind as to show where I gave rebuttal, that may help also. What part specifically sucked? What did it suck? Why did it suck? Did it cause damage to you? Is your opinion arbitrary, or do you have facts to back it up?
Last edited by Extramural : 12-03-2007 at 09:05 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 363
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Extramural
You are the superior being, I am sure.
Meanwhile, I will wait for your state to appear.
But if you would be so kind as to show where I gave rebuttal, that may help also. What part specifically sucked? What did it suck? Why did it suck? Did it cause damage to you? Is your opinion arbitrary, or do you have facts to back it up?
|
So no rebuttal to the points that I made about the whole paper being a sham interpretation of law?
Good.
Keep waiting for a state to appear and see if you can do it while sitting on your hands.
Last edited by Ownmaster : 12-03-2007 at 09:21 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:14 PM
|
 |
Come and Get Some!
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinois Republic
Posts: 3,403
|
|
|
......................
Last edited by mrg : 12-11-2007 at 03:25 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:19 PM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 363
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Extramural
But, I guess that's enough to make you angry to the point of calling me a MFer.
|
Me call you it!? How dare you . It is in your signature line is it not?!
TMFKAHB?
I have to presume what the acronym means and I see
"The Mother F*cker Known As Henry Bowman."
So if you have a problem with your identity that is your own issue.
I am trying to respectfully call you what you call yourself.
Last edited by Ownmaster : 12-03-2007 at 09:21 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:34 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ownmaster
Me call you it!? How dare you . It is in your signature line is it not?!
TMFKAHB?
I have to presume what the acronym means and I see
"The Mother F*cker Known As Henry Bowman."
So if you have a problem with your identity that is your own issue.
I am trying to respectfully call you what you call yourself.
|
ROFLMAO!!!! (Please get someone to help you with that acronym)
So you have a great imagination!
If you could show me where I deciphered that acronym for you, I will wait for that, along with "your state" to appear. (Oh wait, you said it was a presumption. OK, presume on.)
I'll still wait for "your state" to appear, whenever you're ready to produce that for me, so that you can back up your claim with fact. |
12-03-2007, 09:36 PM
|
|
Banned User
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 363
|
|
And here is a common law definition of person and this author is given heavy weight in the SCOTUS opinions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Informer Research
Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word "person," and the latter word interchangeably with "individual" and "man," whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.
|
He might have but he did not. Gaius then goes on to give his own take, however I do not think he is given the authority of Blackstone.
Quote:
(Emphasis added)
U.S. Supreme Court
SCHICK v. U S, 195 U.S. 65 (1904)
Blackstone's Commentaries are accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England. At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, it had been published about twenty years, and it has been said that more copies of the work had been sold in this country than in England; so that undoubtedly, the framers of the Constitution were familiar with it. In this treatise, vol. 4, p. 5. is given a definition of the word 'crimes:'
...
In the light of this definition we can appreciate the action of the convention which framed the Constitution. In the draft of that instrument, as reported by the committee of five, the language was 'the trial of all criminal offenses . . . shall be by jury,' but by unanimous vote it was amended so as to read 'the trial of all crimes.' The significance of this change cannot be misunderstood. If the language had remained 'criminal offenses,' it might have been contended that it meant all offenses of a criminal nature, petty as well as serious; but when the change was made from 'criminal offenses' to 'crimes,' and made in the light of the popular understanding of the meaning of the word 'crimes,' as stated by Blackstone, it is obvious that the intent was to exclude from the constitutional requirement of a jury the trial of petty criminal offenses.
|
Keep waiting Henry. I am not talking to you during most of this, in reality. I am talking about you and showing the readers why you jump to wrong conclusions as soon as read this crud as I depict it for others. So keep waiting. Shhh... while sitting on your hands please.
Last edited by Ownmaster : 12-03-2007 at 09:45 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:38 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
|
But where is "your state?"
I'll wait...
Last edited by Extramural : 12-03-2007 at 09:48 PM.
|
12-03-2007, 09:53 PM
|
|
Practice Makes Perfect
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 383
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ownmaster
Keep waiting Henry. I am not talking to you during most of this, in reality. I am talking about you and showing the readers why you jump to wrong conclusions as soon as read this crud as I depict it for others. So keep waiting. Shhh... while sitting on your hands please.
|
If by "Henry", you mean me, please present evidence where I jumped to a wrong conclusion with my original post? You must have imagined that I believed and/or supported all of the "office of the person" paper?
I only pointed out what I had learned about attorneys being dual office holders if they are in the legislative or executive branches.
I fail to see where you rebutted that, or did I miss something?
I am waiting for your state to appear...
[I have to say that your use of the English language reminds me of CharlesA6.]
Last edited by Extramural : 12-03-2007 at 09:56 PM.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.1 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
|
|
