Definition of republic

what more needs to be said? jerseee made a good post about being guaranteed a republican form of government. so, if the people are supreme, and the government is responsible to us, then why not fire the judge, district attorney, etc. Something ive always noticed when dealing with court cases. When you act like who you are supposed to be (sovereign) you can get things accomplished. here is the definiton of a republic: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

[suijuris]

So the question is, can one person fire an elected official?



Or must the people impeach one who has been elected?



One who is hired can be fired, on who has been elected can be impeached. Can we mix the two?

[Jerseee]

SJ,



Actually, I think when you fire a DA or judge--you dismiss them from the proceedings not from the office. impeachment is ouster of office altogether.



what do you think?

[suijuris]

Well, if they have to be hired for the procedings, maybe one should simply request proof of that first...

[Jerseee]

That is why one should ask to see their notice to appear. They are 3rd party interlopers.

jerseee,



are they, or are they "officers" of the "fiction" and therefore have the right to be present in times of dispute (statutory court)?



jon

[Jerseee]

jon,



I guess that depends on if they have any right to be there at all. They still need a notice to appear--yea or nea?

good point jerseee, shouldnt they have a notice to appear since they are almost always "testifying". lastly, WHY CANT a group of sovereigns impeach a district attorney or other government official for NOT following the common law? whats the procedure? see, thats the stuff we need to focus on, run a half page ad in the local paper of the offender under freedom of speech or pass out flyers and move as a TEAM. do the job in the open and see what happens then. print a couple of american flags on the the flyers too so they cant run the you are anti american propaganda.

hold on a sec...



the STRAWMAN is a fiction, a statutory creation, subject to statutory regulation, right?



so, if the action is brought against the fiction, then the "opposition" has the right to be there, as the pleading was sufficient...



so, how can one fault the "opposition" for not following the common law when that venue does not apply to the fiction?



just asking for discussion and clarification purposes...



jon

[Jerseee]

jon,



I do not disagree with that. But does that give them the right to appear?



If the fiction has to follow procedure--doesn't the other party?



No one is questioning statutory codes and fiction...but does that give them the right to interfere without following procedure?