White Stone that Acquits...

[Shoonra]

I left out a word by mistake: The District of Columbia did NOT function as the Seat of Govt until around 1800.

The rest of DM's bleatings made no sense.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
I have practiced law and appeared in courts, so it's not "theoretical".

As a librarian and researcher I keep track of the actual decisions of courts, not the theories of legal writers.

Do you send the "theories of legal writers," down the Orwellian "memory hole?"

If so, how, precisely, would this dubious practice not also relegate a large body of opinion "of the actual 'decisions' of 'courts'," which, at least in part, seemingly must necessarily employ, even from time to time, "theories of legal writers," to the same "memory hole," and thus constitute but a partial tracking "of the actual 'decisions' of 'courts'?"

How, exactly, have you "license" to "practice" law?

Can you explain, very precisely, exactly what "theory" is, in fact, and its indisputable relationship to proven Law?

Will you provide and precisely describe any "theory," indisputably proven as "Law?"

Will you provide and demonstrate any factually, and verifiably valid proven Law that is not subject to the precedent of theory?

What is the precise distinction between "appearance" and "substance?"

How is it that your "courts" make "decisions," when it "appears" that these so called "decisions" are merely "opinions?"

In a court of competent jurisdiction per the common law "Constitution for the United States of America," strictly in and of itself, how, precisely, would "appearance" rather than the substance and reality of the cognizeable, discernable and tangible presence of a flesh and blood human being for purposes of personal accountability as to nature and cause, facts, and common law (Constitutional) due process, be admissable?

How, precisely are "opinions" (in appearance, referred to as "decisions") offerred by mere mortal flesh and blood human beings other than "the theories of legal writers?"

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I left out a word by mistake: The District of Columbia did NOT function as the Seat of Govt until around 1800.

The rest of DM's bleatings made no sense.

Then it makes no sense to overhaul the Revised Statutes of the District on the eve of the Bankers' Holiday when the enemy in the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act was changed from the German national to the citizen of the US worded the same way as the Fourteenth Amendment.

I think that the subject came up because most people reading here at suijuris.net are intelligent to put the historical details together Shoonra. But you keep fighting a losing battle to obfuscate; I guess after this long I must admit a certain admiration for your tenacity.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[Dillon Hunt]

Juries should decide the Law not judges.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I believe at one time there were jury trails in the US supreme court.

Right along with the dancing frogs in the orchestra pit.

[wargamez102]

...YOU, You and you, fricken shysters. You will not ever learn!

Riddle Me this and riddle me that... "Apostille"

No sense in giving the whore of babylon any more credit, especially where credit has not been due and/or owing.

Meanwhile... N/A...........

Enjoy the muncies while we' prepare for the guest(s)!

Wouldn't have it' any other way'!

Don't get mad at me, heck, they told you along time ago that I was coming.

Guess what...? Howdy... I am the one (icon)

Meanwhile...II. hold this...

[jekylisland]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

If you think that the Congress exists only for the purpose of legislating over a district ten miles square, that it bothers holding elections all across the country for Representatives and Senators to come to DC and legislate only over DC and not outside DC, then a serious question arises about how or why anyone bothers. Or even why the drafters of the Constitution put so much effort into it.

I didn't tell you what I thought. You offered yourself as an authority, and I accepted your offer. I am interested in truth, not belief. Assumption, presumption, conclusion, and speculation are excellent for exhibiting a belief, but do nothing to evidence a truth.

[Judge Roy Bean]

A translation of this is in order:

Originally Posted by David Merrill Van Pelt

Do you think anybody can enter Judge Roy Bean's court carrying the Constitution as a party to that action? Sure! He will act like a judiciary until that law of the flag steps in and commands that he not reveal the bankers' strategem and tactical plan through the Bankers' Holiday (1933) - that the citizens of the US are the enemy in the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act - and I can prove that again. I have linked the documentation so many times it is a boring chore for me.

Which is Van Peltism for: "If a third blue person will be carrying artificial comets into the drawer will it count? Seven times other orders brought secrets but when fish have the right to bicycles in the air the opponent won. Only if alternate current puts celery into the food processor can it be proven."

There. That's much more coherent.

Y'all are welcome.

[jekylisland]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

- same as the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment preparing for the 1871 incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipality.

I believe you are referring to The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Thank you, I am familiar, and that is evidence of a truth.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

Juries should decide the Law not judges.

It's depends who you ask.