Know Your Constitution...

[Shoonra]

[quote=mrg]Not to mention the junta in DC:

Supreme Court Rules
Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. __All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

This rule, in virtually the same language, dates from the very first Supreme Court Rules adopted in February 1790.
What confuses you is the particular meaning of the word "process". Here it means an order of the Court, as for example an order sent to a lower court to send up the file of the case under appeal. The order is given in the name of the President because it's the Prez who can enforce it with Federal Marshals and the like.
This rule has been discussed in a bunch of Supreme Court decisions, mostly in the 19th century.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This rule, in virtually the same language, dates from the very first Supreme Court Rules adopted in February 1790.
What confuses you is the particular meaning of the word "process". Here it means an order of the Court, as for example an order sent to a lower court to send up the file of the case under appeal. The order is given in the name of the President because it's the Prez who can enforce it with Federal Marshals and the like.
This rule has been discussed in a bunch of Supreme Court decisions, mostly in the 19th century.

Excuse me for not believing you, but if there are so many why have you omitted to provide even one?

This rule (what rule number is it?) most certainly has the appearance of being something else.

[mrg]

I did not originally post this:

Originally Posted by mrg
This rule, in virtually the same language, dates from the very first Supreme Court Rules adopted in February 1790.
What confuses you is the particular meaning of the word "process". Here it means an order of the Court, as for example an order sent to a lower court to send up the file of the case under appeal. The order is given in the name of the President because it's the Prez who can enforce it with Federal Marshals and the like.
This rule has been discussed in a bunch of Supreme Court decisions, mostly in the 19th century.

I would like to see the precise PROOF of claim re: "particular meaning of the word 'process'..."

I posted this:

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Should we also bring to light how the states violate separation of powers when the executive branch are co-mingled with their own judicial tribunal?

Not to mention the junta in DC:

Supreme Court Rules
Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

[KarenM]

Obviously you didn't. There aren't any of your family pictures in it.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by mrg

I did not originally post this.

My mistake mrg. Messed up between the cut and paste.

Correction made.

[rodman652]

while I was away.
The way I see it, citing case law is nothing more than producing the defined opinions of other individuals to support ones argument, which is then contradicted by the other side with their own case cites.

however, a case that is dismissed "Nolle prosequi" is within itself a tacit opinion, is it not?

Case law has no opportunity to present itself. Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void.

There must be a valid injured party either criminally or civilly that has sworn under oath in a court of law to that injury.

and, the nature and cause of the action being pursued must be explicit.

[Shoonra]

Nolle prosequi is hardly a precedent. To begin with, it doesn't wexpress any part of a judicial opinion.
It is merely the abandonment of a civil case by the plaintiff or a criminal case by the prosecution, so that the case is dismissed. It does not necessarily say that a similar case might not be raised in the future.

Such a decision to nolle prosequi might arise from problems, newly discovered or occurring, with the evidence or crucial witnesses. Or with some recent or intervening change in the law or the litigation enviroment. Or even an out-of-court settlement.

The nolle prosequi does not necessarily tell us anything about legal situation of the accusations or defendants involved in the instant case.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by rodman652

Any law repugnant to the constitution is null and void.

Sort of. Actually it's usual that only the particular part of the law that is incompatible with the Constitution that is null. Those parts of the law that can still operate without conflict with the Constitution are allowed to survive.

More to the point, individuals don't get to decide for themselves which laws they interpret as unconstitutional. If they want or need to, they can challenge the law but if that law is upheld in court, they face all the usual penalties associated with wllful violation.

Originally Posted by rodman652

There must be a valid injured party either criminally or civilly that has sworn under oath in a court of law to that injury.

Actually this is a maxim of pick-up basketball games; no harm no foul. It's not a principle of law.

It is sufficient in criminal (and some civil) cases that a law has been violated even if no identifiable person has yet been injured. And I must admit that I have not yet seen a murder prosecution in which the injured party swore to much of anything in court.

[rodman652]

Good point! The word willful deserves consideration as well.

The point I'm trying to make here is the information identified in post #22 of this thread being entered into the record would leave the prosecutor to contemplate within his/her own imagination on how to proceed. He/she may simply decide that it isn't worth the effort to proceed and move to dismiss.

I call that a win, wouldn't you?

Anyone seen this website http://www.truthattack.org/ ? I think it's Tom Cryers

[Dillon Hunt]

check out this site for more great Constitutional and traffic ticket info.

http://geocities.com/parking_ticket_...ation_kpd.html


DH