Complaints --> Terrorism?

[palani]

Slaves complain. People who aren't slaves actually do something.


http://adask.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/public-enemy-1/#more-21266


Residents of Maury County, Tennessee, recently expressed concern that their water supply might be contaminated with radiation. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) deputy director Sherwin Smith reportedly responded by warning them that complaining about low-quality tap water could be construed by Homeland Security as an act of terrorism.

[gunDriller]

sort of true.

the J-Whiners - the world's most prolific complainers - are also the world's foremost terrorists.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Anyone who questions authority is a terrorist. Do not bring complaints to anyone with authority because it annoys them to no end. Complaining is only allowed when those listening to it can't do anything about it. The authorities are our rulers, not our servants. It doesn't matter if we elect them. Once they have 'authority', they are to be feared, not messed with. Welcome to the new Amerikka.



Hatha

[Ponce]

How many of you knows that the US Constitution only plays second fiddle to Common Law?.....and that when someone passes a "law" that it is NOT the law of the land till it becomes a "Resolution" by a full Congress?.......I am learning a lot while exploring all the internet about Land Patent in preparatio to save all those who hold a Land Patent or for something that will be my downfall........Land Patent was passed as a resolution by a full congress and aproved the the president back in 1816.......the resolution is FOR EVER so that the new law #192 passed in 1933, and taken away in 1982, only plays a Jr part and it does not apply to "Private Property" wich is what a Land Patent is, so that the whole skim is nothing but another "mistake" made by the government ............upssssssssssssss da, da, da, das all folks.

V

[palani]

that the new law #192 passed in 1933, and taken away in 1982, only plays a Jr part and it does not apply to "Private Property" wich is what a Land Patent is, so that the whole skim is nothing but another "mistake" made by the government

V

Silent leges inter arma. Laws are silent amidst arms. As long as you are on one side or the other then there is a conflict. [Democrat vs Republican, straight vs queen, even male vs female].

You also make the mistake that laws from one generation are automatic in their action on other generations.

Besides ... law is based upon reason and when the reason is gone then so is the law. Legislators are less than enthusiastic about removing old laws from the books than in promulgating new ones. So your job should be to show that there is still reason present to keep an old law activated.

The main problem you are going to have is that the old laws were based on a patriarchal society whereas the present society is heavily matriarchal or simply downright queer.

[madfranks]

How many of you knows that the US Constitution only plays second fiddle to Common Law?.....

V

The constitution references common law, so it should be obvious that common law supersedes and originated prior to constitutional law, yet not one person I've ever raised this point to has ever understood this. So when constitutional law says that the government can take your private property as long as it's for the public good, this is in conflict with common law which states that the forcible taking of someone else's property is theft.

[palani]

when constitutional law says that the government can take your private property as long as it's for the public good, this is in conflict with common law which states that the forcible taking of someone else's property is theft.

Common law ... NECESSITY IMPORTS PRIVILEGE. It comes from the Roman Civil law but nonetheless it is a well adapted principle. In fact you may use it yourself when your life is on the line.

So common law recognizes the principle but when the dust settles anyone who gives up private property should be paid for their sacrifice. If you give up someone elses life to save yours ... well, they don't have any further use for private property anyway.

[7th trump]

A court of record is a "superior court."

A court not of record is an "inferior court."

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.

The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.


Decision of a court of record may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts.

However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

[7th trump]

Oh.......and I want to throw this in.
It doesn't really have anything to do with the thread other than I know palani, the resident court/legal know-nothing clown, will read it.


26 USC 7441: Status. "There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court."

Just where does the "court of record" stand as far as any other court?

So how does fiat money play into all this jurisdiction palani....oh wait a minute you don't read statutes do you or Title 26 that hits everyone's pocket book.
Gee theres nothing in title 26 that says anything remotely suggesting FRN are why everyone is taxed on their labor......but has everything to do with Social Security.

[Ponce]

Thank you Franks and trump........you two have given me a couple of good pointers that will come handy in my trial in five years....... I am getting ready to stop my "private property tax" payments and if I don't pay in four years then the county, state, federal government will take me to court to try and stea it.........because my SS is my only imcome that makes me and indigent so that the state will have to pay for my trial...... I might even sue them after I win the case, and think of all those who will NOT be paying that particular tax from then on.......it would better for them to settle on a one to one basis and not have the whole country after them......this will be fun, even if I loose.

V

[palani]

A court of record is a "superior court."

Which has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

court (v.)
"woo, offer homage," as one does at court

homage (n.)
late 13c., from Old French homage (12c., Modern French hommage) "allegiance or respect for one's feudal lord," from homme "man," from Latin homo (genitive hominis) "man" (see homunculus). Figurative sense of "reverence, honor shown" is from late 14c. As a verb, from 1590s (agent noun homager is from c.1400).

[palani]

theres nothing in title 26 that says anything remotely suggesting FRN are why everyone is taxed on their labor......but has everything to do with Social Security.
An idiots attempt to educate? If so, GOOD JOB!!!

[palani]

I might even sue them after I win the case
V

Issues with property tax really never seem to find their way to any sort of court. A lien is issued. It stays outstanding for a couple years then the sheriff comes out and boots you.