Conceptualizing the TP/Soverign Movement as a Religion

[rogfulton]

Sometimes it looks like the "Courts" are only an extension of the Legislative "Branch" via their rulings, decisions, etc.

Not to the rest of us.

[notorial dissent]

Sometimes it looks like the "Courts" are only an extension of the Legislative "Branch" via their rulings, decisions, etc.

Only if you aren't paying attention, or have another agenda.

[searcher]

To: pottapaug,et.al.
Re: > "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
I am not knowingly attacking,I'm searching for truthful answers. Also, I am not vain.(:

[Pottapaug1938]

To: pottapaug,et.al.
Re: > "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
I am not knowingly attacking,I'm searching for truthful answers. Also, I am not vain.(:

To searcher:

You completely miss the point of my quote.

[JamesVincent]

Maybe it would help to clarify specifically what you are "searching" for. A lot of what has been discussed are old hat arguments that have failed time and time again. There really is no new ground there. New arguments based on old arguments, maybe, but no breaking stories.

A lot of what is being discussed is semantics, changing one word for another does not change the meaning and it is an old sov'run mind trick, that works about as well as Obi Wan's Jedi mind tricks usually did. The three branches have clearly defined structures and limits placed on them by various documents, starting with the Constitution. By using word swaps or, through just plain stupidity, questioning what a word means ("defines" rings a bell) sov'runs enjoy a make believe sense of what they are talking about. Not only sov'runs, but TPs/TDs use this as their only means of proving the ebil gubmint wrong and, time after time, fail miserably. One of VanPelt's biggest arguments, IIRC, was that the wording changed at some point on how money is treated and after that means something completely different.

So... what are you looking to find?


edit: Maybe I'm wrong but you seem to be running in circles around old arguments.

[searcher]

To, pottapaug,
@ >you completely miss the point of my quote.
And, you,pottapaug,completely miss the point of my quote that I borrowed from you.
Your sense of humor is very dry, even with a glass of water. This > (: < is a smile. I do not know how to get the Smilies to work for me so I have to make my own. (:

[searcher]

THANK YOU,cynicalflyer, for your response AND the link !!!

[webhick]

I do not know how to get the Smilies to work for me so I have to make my own. (:

When you're making a post, you can simply click on one of the smileys to insert it into your post. Also, your smileys aren't converting to images because you're doing them left-handed.

[Pottapaug1938]

To, pottapaug,
@ >you completely miss the point of my quote.
And, you,pottapaug,completely miss the point of my quote that I borrowed from you.
Your sense of humor is very dry, even with a glass of water. This > (: < is a smile. I do not know how to get the Smilies to work for me so I have to make my own. (:

You still miss the point. WE aren't attacking anything, either. Rather, we are defending against people like Pastor Mummert, who want to inject religious doctrine into our science classes; we are defending against efforts to inject sovrun and tax-denier foolishness into our political discourse, and so on, even if the approach is "but I'm just asking".

[grixit]

To: pottapaug,et.al.
Re: > "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
I am not knowingly attacking,I'm searching for truthful answers. Also, I am not vain.(:

You're so vain you probably think this site is about you.

[Arthur Rubin]

You're so vain you probably think this site is about you.

Keyboard warning!!!

[cynicalflyer]

famspear,@ It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

But if any judicial department issues ALL process in the name of the President of the U.S.,this IS some degree of a merger, it seems to me.

Searcher, let me explain it as I understand it.

Most states and the federal government do not have process servers; if a document was to be served on a person in a state the local sheriff did it. At the federal level, it would have been the US Marshal's service, under the executive branch.

The last several decades have seen the advent of process servers in some states (heck, I was one in NY for a time). But the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have its own nor does not appoint its own. Even the Marshal of the U.S. Supreme Court was only (relatively) recently empowered to "serve and execute process" (28 USC § 672)

If someday the U.S. Supreme Court were to even direct you or someone else to appear for a contempt proceeding or something similar before them, something that has happened maybe a half dozen times in the last 200 years, the subpoena or summons would be delivered by a U.S. Marshal or the Marshal of the Supreme Court, not an employee of the U.S. Supreme Court or a process server.

Make sense?

[cynicalflyer]

P.S. An example of process "issued in the name of the President of the United States" was in Hiriart v. Ballon, 34 U.S. 156 (1835, NOTE THE DATE here).

A lawsuit was commenced in the Eastern District of Louisiana (EDLA). EDLA's general rules at the time provided

Suits at law shall be commenced by writ or process, under the seal of the court, and signed by the clerk, and be tested in the name of he judge, (or if that office shall be vacant, of the clerk) and shall issue in the name of the president of the United States to he marshal of the district, commanding him to arrest or summon the defendant, (as the case may be) and shall be returnable on the first day of each term.

Because it was a civil suit it would have been "summoned", not arrested.

Why? Because again at the time these rules were being written there was no such thing as a "process server"; all lawsuits started with a US Marshal (under the executive branch) showing up on your doorstep with a Summons to appear because you were named in a lawsuit.

This is not a conspiracy.
This is not the judicial branch being absorbed by the executive.
This is not going to get you out of paying any taxes you owe.

[Famspear]

.......This is not a conspiracy.
This is not the judicial branch being absorbed by the executive.
This is not going to get you out of paying any taxes you owe.

Aw, shucks!

[searcher]

To:grixit,
Re: > You're so vain you probably think this site is about you.
Grixit, you are a mindreader. I knew Carly, & when I first heard the song, I called her & asked her why she did not seek my approval before recording it. I told her that she should have known I would have approved & the only reason I could think of, was she might think I would not have approved. Of course I would have approved of the song, & since I am not selfish,I would not want any royalties from it. Her recording it was Royal enough.She understood & got a good hearty belly laugh out of it.(: I think I'm about to walk the plank on this good ship, maritime-admiralty,instead of being promoted to, Admiral, which should be the next move. However, I am also a realist, & I don't think that will happen in the next day or two, BUT probably in the next couple of weeks. I am patient also, but you already knew that.

[searcher]

To: Cynicalflyer,
Thank you for your help. What you posted is clear. I read the case. Thanks for the link. At least the case & your comments make clear how & WHY the process is issued whereas SCOTUS Rule 45 leaves a lot to the imagination.
Re: >This is not going to get you out of paying any taxes you owe.<
I am not trying to get out of anything except the confusion I am in & some Quatloos members are helping me to do that.