I'm getting sick of this bullshit...

[EE_]

How the fuck can the Supreme court use the constitution to force all states to comply to queers marrying, but not force all states to have the same gun rights? The constitution is anything but clear regarding marriage, and is perfectly clear regarding our right to own and carry firearms.

Supreme Court
Gay Marriage Cleared by U.S. High Court to Start in Alabama
Feb 9, 2015 8:59 AM EST
It comes in advance of a constitutional showdown that may mean legalization nationwide.

Greg Stohr
(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex weddings to start in Alabama, letting the number of gay-marriage states climb in advance of a constitutional showdown that may mean legalization nationwide.

In a 7-2 order, the justices rejected Alabama’s bid to stop a federal trial judge’s legalization order from taking effect Monday. The state now will become the 37th where gays can marry. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The rebuff brings gay marriage to a state whose chief justice, Roy Moore, has told officials not to comply.

The Alabama request was the first to reach the high court since its Jan. 16 decision to take up the issue. Previously, the justices had let gay marriage start in Idaho, Alaska and Florida.

Each new state magnifies the potential complications should the high court rule against marriage rights. A ruling potentially would nullify lower court decisions that have required states to issue licenses, creating uncertainty about the rights of people who wed in the interim.

A federal judge in Mobile struck down Alabama’s ban last month, and her ruling is set to take effect Monday. A federal appeals court in Atlanta refused to step in, prompting Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange to turn to the Supreme Court. Governor Robert J. Bentley supported Strange’s request.

‘Proper Way’

Thomas, in a dissent joined by Scalia, wrote that “the court looks the other way as yet another federal district judge casts aside state laws without making any effort to preserve the status quo pending the court’s resolution of a constitutional question it left open” in 2013.

“This acquiescence may well be seen as a signal of the court’s intended resolution of that question. This is not the proper way to discharge” the court’s responsibilities.

The high court will hear arguments on gay marriage in late April and in all likelihood rule in late June. The number of gay marriage states has tripled since 2013, when a Supreme Court ruling on a federal benefits law cast doubt on state bans.

Since then, four federal appeals courts have backed marriage rights. The justices will review the sole appellate decision that said states could restrict marriage to heterosexual unions, hearing appeals from couples in four states -- Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio.

In addition to the 37 states, the District of Columbia allows gay marriage, as do parts of Missouri.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-09/gay-marriage-cleared-by-u-s-supreme-court-to-start-in-alabama

[7th trump]

Its because the Supreme Court is stacked with the false chosenites.

[Uncle Salty]

I get the frustration, but what gives the government the power to prohibit consenting adults, regardless of gender, the ability to marry?

[EE_]

I get the frustration, but what gives the government the power to prohibit consenting adults, regardless of gender, the ability to marry?

The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious rite.

Speaking of faggots, I see Bruce Jenner's transformation is complete...he's driving like a women now. (sorry ladies :) ) He only killed one lady.
Now why would he want to become a women at 65...to get more dick?
http://www.x17online.com/media/images//2015/02/bruce-jenner-car-crash-020815.jpg
https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/bruce-jenner-crash2.png?w=559

[General of Darkness]

Obvious false fag attack.

[madfranks]

How the fuck can the Supreme court use the constitution to force all states to comply to queers marrying, but not force all states to have the same gun rights? The constitution is anything but clear regarding marriage, and is perfectly clear regarding our right to own and carry firarms.

That's because marriage is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Back then people would have thought you insane if you believed that the government should have the authority to tell you who you can and can't marry. Most people back then realized that marriage was none of the state's business. Today though, you are viewed as a weirdo if you question why you need a government issued marriage license.

[Horn]

Really, if i were a homo, i would consider those homos looking for marriage liscense to be homos.

[midnight rambler]

How the fuck can the Supreme court use the constitution to force all states to comply to...(whatever)

'Cause the Supremes are viewing everything through the prism of the more recent constitution, the 14th Amendment.


The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a religious rite.

Wrong, not when there's a license* involved. It strictly about corporate state benefits and has absolutely nothing to do with the union between a man and a woman as The Creator intended.

*a license is permission to do something that would otherwise be 'illegal'

[palani]

When a man is permitted to marry a dog and a woman a donkey then you can be assured ... at least one of the pair is a U.S. citizen while the other is another version of animal.

[Glass]

Everything is relative. People often seek Justice but settle for Dollars. Their desire for justice is relative. The Constitution is relative. So long as you can "debate" it's meaning you have progress. A good thing. /sarc

[Ponce]

Palani, this lady already marry a dolphin and this other lady marry herself.......... hummmmmmmm I keep looking at myself in the mirrow and wondering hummmmmmmmmm, should I?

V

[palani]

Palani, this lady already marry a dolphin and this other lady marry herself.......... hummmmmmmm I keep looking at myself in the mirrow and wondering hummmmmmmmmm, should I?

V

Yeah ... but what would the OFFSPRING look like?

[singular_me]

if marriage hadnt pushed so much down the throats (to produce slaves to the PTBs throughout the ages), this wouldnt happen. From my perspective, at least 40% of population were not born to become parents but absolutely free adventurers. Nature has made sure that everything remained balanced but societies corrupted her for the sake of taxation/power/standing armies/usury, etc

it is institutionalizing marriage/family as a model that is the problem... man is no animal as he has the choice to reproduce or not.

also marriage shouldnt be a government issue, asking the gov the permission to get married? LOL

[palani]

marriage shouldnt be a government issue, asking the gov the permission to get married? LOL
The license is for the minister. Without it he would not legally be able to perform the ceremony.

[madfranks]

The license is for the minister. Without it he would not legally be able to perform the ceremony.

In the eyes of who?

[Glass]

In the eyes of who?

da gubermint. Something that is lawful, may still be illegal.

It's illegal to traffic. Thats why they want you to have a driver licence/se.

[palani]

In the eyes of who?
My best guess would be the entity that saw fit to issue the license.

[steyr_m]

How the fuck can the Supreme court use the constitution to force all states to comply to queers marrying

This has been on the agenda for a long time. The only thing holding it back was getting [enough of] the people's psyche prepared for it.

[madfranks]

My best guess would be the entity that saw fit to issue the license.

So what? Who cares?

[singular_me]

marriage licenses were born with slavery I believe... blacks needed one, then they extended it to the non slaves. But I digress the marriage license already existed for slaves in ancient rome: asking the master the permission.

a simple contract between future spouses stating their expectations and limitations would be a lot more ethical. Religion and government should stay away from the issue, indeed as we can see now it also is a religious matter. However contract or not, spouses should register with a private network, this to avoid multiple weddings.




The license is for the minister. Without it he would not legally be able to perform the ceremony.

[palani]

So what? Who cares?

Christian nations had a custom they called 'breaking on the wheel'. They had another custom called 'draw and quarter'. Another was 'burning at the stake'.

People learned to care.

[Spectrism]

marriage licenses were born with slavery I believe... blacks needed one, then they extended it to the non slaves. But I digress the marriage license already existed for slaves in ancient rome: asking the master the permission.

a simple contract between future spouses stating their expectations and limitations would be a lot more ethical. Religion and government should stay away from the issue, indeed as we can see now it also is a religious matter. However contract or not, spouses should register with a private network, this to avoid multiple weddings.

Do you ever have facts and truth to back up your idiotic claims?

Marriage is the strongest unit for rearing children. It provides stability to the members and all of society. It maintains a mutual commitment to weather hard times. Outside of marriage you have the law of the jungle and look at how wonderful it is for the savages in various other cultures.

To equate this to slavery is bizarre. In a normal household the members provide different assets and abilities. The law was established to protect those arrangements, securing the home from intruding outside forces. Now we have morons who don't understand the value of a good home and with their superior knowledge prefer unlawfulness as the only alternative to what they call "slavery".

[Glass]

Do you ever have facts and truth to back up your idiotic claims?

Marriage is the strongest unit for rearing children. It provides stability to the members and all of society. It maintains a mutual commitment to weather hard times. Outside of marriage you have the law of the jungle and look at how wonderful it is for the savages in various other cultures.

To equate this to slavery is bizarre. In a normal household the members provide different assets and abilities. The law was established to protect those arrangements, securing the home from intruding outside forces. Now we have morons who don't understand the value of a good home and with their superior knowledge prefer unlawfulness as the only alternative to what they call "slavery".

You might be confusing wedlock or holy matrimony with marriage. Neither require a licence/se.

[singular_me]

sure he is... this is all what it is about: getting the gov approval to get married.



You might be confusing wedlock or holy matrimony with marriage. Neither require a licence/se.

[singular_me]

another man made law showing its obsolescence

just as drugs, marriage should be treated same: it is no one business if you do.

we cannot resolve the issue with the same mindset that created it.

you all want less or little government, but if we must ask the gov/master the permission to get married, it is clearly shooting oneself in the foot

Spectrism, you are not a freedom advocate, but a full blown fundamentalist-statist.




Do you ever have facts and truth to back up your idiotic claims?

Marriage is the strongest unit for rearing children. It provides stability to the members and all of society. It maintains a mutual commitment to weather hard times. Outside of marriage you have the law of the jungle and look at how wonderful it is for the savages in various other cultures.

To equate this to slavery is bizarre. In a normal household the members provide different assets and abilities. The law was established to protect those arrangements, securing the home from intruding outside forces. Now we have morons who don't understand the value of a good home and with their superior knowledge prefer unlawfulness as the only alternative to what they call "slavery".

[Spectrism]

As I said, the laws WERE established to protect the family. The wife, typically managing the household.... oh... before the time of most of you upstarts... and she had no means of producing money. She was protected by law and societal norm from abandonment with special legal status. Now, the gays want the endorsement of government and society to protect their perversions. And some of you are playing right into this, thinking it is not a government role. Well, money is a government role and the maintenance of domestic tranquility while protecting the God-given rights of its citizens.

[singular_me]

man's laws will NEVER equate Natural Laws as Natural Laws encompass them. Natural Laws are values that remained unchanged regardless of the situation/circumstances whereas man-made laws cannot apply to all situations evenly, that is why the penal code has so many laws coercing Natural Laws and bring about even more disruptions and chaos in the end. Your posting clearly shows what I am saying here.

yes, get married at your favorite church then get it registred with a private database (optional choice, so at your own risk if you dont), why not. But that one requires a gov/master permission is ludicrous.




As I said, the laws WERE established to protect the family. The wife, typically managing the household.... oh... before the time of most of you upstarts... and she had no means of producing money. She was protected by law and societal norm from abandonment with special legal status. Now, the gays want the endorsement of government and society to protect their perversions. And some of you are playing right into this, thinking it is not a government role. Well, money is a government role and the maintenance of domestic tranquility while protecting the God-given rights of its citizens.

[7th trump]

Do you ever have facts and truth to back up your idiotic claims?

Marriage is the strongest unit for rearing children. It provides stability to the members and all of society. It maintains a mutual commitment to weather hard times. Outside of marriage you have the law of the jungle and look at how wonderful it is for the savages in various other cultures.

To equate this to slavery is bizarre. In a normal household the members provide different assets and abilities. The law was established to protect those arrangements, securing the home from intruding outside forces. Now we have morons who don't understand the value of a good home and with their superior knowledge prefer unlawfulness as the only alternative to what they call "slavery".

Actually Spec....singular is correct on this one this time.
It was forbiddon to interracially marry between the whites and slaves. The only way for that to happen was to get permission (license) to marry.
And since the 14th amendment is an amendment (freeing the slaves from involuntary slavery) it does not discriminate who can apply for its protections (civil rights act of 1866).
(The slaves were only free of involuntary servitude...but no northern state actually considered them an equal to the white man...see 42usc 1982 and 42usc 1983).
So when a white person under the 14th amendment (aka "US citizen" by application of ssn.....SS-5 form signed under penalty of perjury of being a US citizen..or the use of the number on government forms) wants to marry (another 14th amendment "US citizen" subject) the law states a marrage license is in order....otherwise its none of the government business.
Still to this day and age the US government recognizes that the blacks (us citizens in general, nondiscriminatory) are not an equal to the whites (the People....though virtually all whites have applied for 14th amendment status).
All us citizens require that same 100+ year old law to get a license even though white to white marrage isnt interracial.

[7th trump]

As I said, the laws WERE established to protect the family. The wife, typically managing the household.... oh... before the time of most of you upstarts... and she had no means of producing money. She was protected by law and societal norm from abandonment with special legal status. Now, the gays want the endorsement of government and society to protect their perversions. And some of you are playing right into this, thinking it is not a government role. Well, money is a government role and the maintenance of domestic tranquility while protecting the God-given rights of its citizens.

I havent come across one law that protects the wife the way you say.
And what is this legal status anyway?
Do you have any links to this legal status?
I'd like to see it for my own educational reasons.

[Horn]

I thought the law was created to keep rednecks from marrying within the family and producing retarded children. Neither gays or the state would have need of a marriage, if it were named a civil union corporation by the state.

W.A.S.P. Christianized westerners may also place more weight on incorporating with one another,

than they are permitted to so easily divorce by their Church of England.

[expat4ever]

I thought the law was created to keep rednecks from marrying within the family and producing retarded children. If we start with adam and eve then we are all inbreds of course. :). From a natural perspective inbreeding would strengthen the genepool eventually. Yes you get some mutants but the ones that are healthy have stronger genes. Works this way in all of nature so why not humans? Not that I want to, there's plenty out there in the gene pool that are good breeding stock.

[Glass]

I think the gays want recognized marriage because of the benefits. Tax benefits, health care benefits, fostering benefits, pensions, inheritance etc.

[Dogman]

If we start with adam and eve then we are all inbreds of course. :). From a natural perspective inbreeding would strengthen the genepool eventually. Yes you get some mutants but the ones that are healthy have stronger genes. Works this way in all of nature so why not humans? Not that I want to, there's plenty out there in the gene pool that are good breeding stock.

Some studys have been made to see what the minimum population size would need to be to have a viable population that can survive and grow. Mainly doing so to see how many breeding pairs would be needed to colonize another planet. The numbers are somewhere between 50-100 breeding pairs as far as I can fine. Would have to keep track of who is screwing whom for procreation and health of the overall population. Inbreeding may help some, animal husbandry does it all the time to set traits when developing a new 'line'. We do it all the time with dogs and cats, plus with livestock in the past.

But same sex pairs are unnatural to me, and thank the gods they can not reproduce and deserve the Darwin award, which is a good thing.

[Horn]

If we start with adam and eve then we are all inbreds of course. .

A bunch of kissin cousins, if this is the case, I can tell you I'm alien not from this planet.

The furthest apple.

[Dogman]

A bunch of kissin cousins, if this is the case, I can tell you I'm alien not from this planet.


We know, we truly know !

Suspected it for years.

Thanks for finally admitting the fact !

;)

[Horn]

We know, we truly know !

Suspected it for years.

Thanks for finally admitting the fact !

;)

You might be slightly stronger and have prettier hair than I, due to your retardness,

but my wits are unmatchably a class above.

[Dogman]

You might be slightly stronger and have prettier hair than I due to your retardness,

but my wits are unmatchably a class above.

I just 'may' resemble your remarks !

Live is good, considering the alternatives !

;)

[singular_me]

what are you up to? homosexuality has always existed, something we have to deal with, but I can tell one thing, is that the government made it WORSE as it succeeded in institutionalizing it. Happy now?

what spouse protection ?? Any law trying to enforce empathy is doomed because the Natural Laws sez that it cannot. The sad state of the world affairs is the evidence of this.

only Natural Laws are God given Laws. And the NWO knows this, hence regard themselves as gods. The evil at stake here is that they made sure to twist everything so we cannot find out. But I DID.



As I said, the laws WERE established to protect the family. The wife, typically managing the household.... oh... before the time of most of you upstarts... and she had no means of producing money. She was protected by law and societal norm from abandonment with special legal status. Now, the gays want the endorsement of government and society to protect their perversions. And some of you are playing right into this, thinking it is not a government role. Well, money is a government role and the maintenance of domestic tranquility while protecting the God-given rights of its citizens.

[singular_me]

in short, most of what they are after are scams/hoaxes/deceptions and participate in the corruption of Natural Laws. Great.

I let them eat the cake.



I think the gays want recognized marriage because of the benefits. Tax benefits, health care benefits, fostering benefits, pensions, inheritance etc.

[midnight rambler]

To equate this to slavery is bizarre.

Actually she's somewhat correct - the 'marriage license' was something that originated in the mid-19th century which 'permitted' inter-racial marriage (IIRC it originated in Chicago).

[7th trump]

Heres a site I just found.....looks promising to thoses who arent up to speed on the subject.

http://freedom-school.com/law/what-is-a-license.html

[7th trump]

Actually she's somewhat correct - the 'marriage license' was something that originated in the mid-19th century which 'permitted' inter-racial marriage (IIRC it originated in Chicago).

No......she's not somewhat correct....she is correct!

[singular_me]

this is just one link, but the topic is well documented on the net. A license is a permission granted by the master/state to do whatever
-----------------------------------------------

There was no marriage registry, nor was there any need for a state appointed person with the power to declare the couple to be married. Only four things were necessary: the bride and groom must be free citizens and be past the age of puberty; they must intend and consent to being husband and wife; and they must have the consent of any relevant guardian. [2] The bride must then be escorted into her new husband’s home, and it is this deed that completed the marriage. [3] Written documentation of a wedding was not necessary. Sleeping together did not make a marriage, [4] and separation did not break one up; [5] what counted was the intent of the individuals involved........ While the couple, not a priest or magistrate, declared themselves to be married, a ceremony involving friends and family much like our own was very common.............


Finally there were the many people who lived in the city of Rome or one of its provinces who were neither citizen nor slave. They worked and contributed to the economy but as long as they obeyed the law and kept out of trouble the Roman government took little interest in them. Such residents could not hold public office or participate in government in any way, but if they chose to live together and pretend to be married no one cared. Their “marriage” had no legal validity and would not be supported in court, and if the woman had an affair she could not be charged with the crime of adultery, but beyond that the relationship was probably no less real to the couple than an authentic marriage between citizens would have been. .......

With their master’s permission slaves could establish a conjugal relationship known as a contubernium, and such unions seem to have been as stable as legitimate marriages. There were advantages to such arrangements for the owner, as contented slaves were more likely to work well and any resulting children were additional slaves that could be added to his workforce, but the relationship depended on the good will of the master and there was never any guarantee that one of the pair would not be sold............
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/marriageinancientrome.htm

[7th trump]

Actually Spec....singular is correct on this one this time.
It was forbiddon to interracially marry between the whites and slaves. The only way for that to happen was to get permission (license) to marry.
And since the 14th amendment is an amendment (freeing the slaves from involuntary slavery) it does not discriminate who can apply for its protections (civil rights act of 1866).
(The slaves were only free of involuntary servitude...but no northern state actually considered them an equal to the white man...see 42usc 1982 and 42usc 1983).
So when a white person under the 14th amendment (aka "US citizen" by application of ssn.....SS-5 form signed under penalty of perjury of being a US citizen..or the use of the number on government forms) wants to marry (another 14th amendment "US citizen" subject) the law states a marrage license is in order....otherwise its none of the government business.
Still to this day and age the US government recognizes that the blacks (us citizens in general, nondiscriminatory) are not an equal to the whites (the People....though virtually all whites have applied for 14th amendment status).
All us citizens require that same 100+ year old law to get a license even though white to white marrage isnt interracial.

Ahhh yesssss....did I not mention this....yeppp I sure did!

10. Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Wood v. Breier, 54 F.R.D. 7, 10-11 (E.D. Wis. 1972). Frankenhauser v. Rizzo, 59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973). "Each citizen acts as a private attorney general who 'takes on the mantel of sovereign',"

http://freedom-school.com/law/what-is-a-license.html

[Horn]

The New York Times published in 2002 that its o.k. to kiss your cousin, cause only 1 in 10 have chance of mental retardation.

So that must not be the case for original intent blood test requirements... ._.


''In terms of general risks in life it's not very high,'' Dr. Motulsky said. Even at its worst, 7 percent, he said,
''93 percent of the time, nothing is going to happen.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html

[gunDriller]

Most elective surgeries, e.g. sex-change operations, are very high margin, i.e. profitable.


I looked up an endocrinologist at Yale who prescribed thyroid when I was a kid.

40 years later he specializes now in the endocrinology or something of Transgender kids.

Your tax dollars at work. Probably got some Jew-S gov grants to study that.

[Glass]

side topic but from 7ths Link

http://freedom-school.com/admiralty-special-maritime-exposed.pdf

mix of rant and info and citations.

EDIT: I've been reading this. It is gold. Please, if you have any interest in the law, statutes, court jurisdiction, the whole maritime law, US flag with the gold braid.... download and read this PDF. Keep it for reference. I think the info contained will kill just about any claim that comes your way. It may not give a steps by step guide but enough information for anyone who has a year or so background study in to these subject will find it very useful.

Works for US, UK and AUS. Even shows some slight differences. Talks on the special case of Texas laws.

[mick silver]

I didn't know you had a bull EE

[Glass]

7th did you read the Admiralty PDF from the link you posted? I linked it in my follow up. I think You will like the last couple paragraphs of that document.

I tried to copy and paste but the PDF is locked.

[7th trump]

7th did you read the Admiralty PDF from the link you posted? I linked it in my follow up. I think You will like the last couple paragraphs of that document.

I tried to copy and paste but the PDF is locked.

Hey Hey hey Glass...thank you for tuning me in to that.
If what you are talking about is SS being a maritime jurisdiction as well as Social Security...... no I didn't see that.
I had figured it was because of the voluntary nature of SS.
I've been looking for that evidence in case format.

Thank You
I see he links to www.state-citizen.org also.
That's a very good website...one of two websites I will endorse.

Maybe what I've been preaching about SS will help others out of the rabbit hole to regain their sovereignty.

[Glass]

That's it 7th!

If the SS is a maritime insurance policy, what is it a policy against? Smashing into another Vassal? Or is it simply something which would be distributed to injured parties if an SS participant went out with a bang and left damaged vessels or other property 'in their wake"?

Could a claim against a person/vessel, be redirected to making a claim against the SS policy for the person/vessel instead of the person itself?

Don't know but an interesting thing to note nonetheless.

[palani]

Could a claim against a person/vessel, be redirected to making a claim against the SS policy for the person/vessel instead of the person itself?

Prison bonds. Also Child Protective Services. Even post-military benefits (VA). Drivers license. Marriage license. Any contact with the state is through the auspices of a social security benefit. It is the vessel that separates the people from the current(cy).

[Glass]

Prison bonds. Also Child Protective Services. Even post-military benefits (VA). Drivers license. Marriage license. Any contact with the state is through the auspices of a social security benefit. It is the vessel that separates the people from the current(cy).

ok, not an invalid comment but craftily oblique

[palani]

ok, not an invalid comment but craftily oblique
Without a SSN any claim would be classified as "FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED".

The only reason for a claim is to look for a basis to be made whole again. Against a bankrupt society there is no chance of being made whole and being made 'partial' is the state of a paraplegic.

[7th trump]

ok, not an invalid comment but craftily oblique

Just ignore palani....he tries his best. He may not be the winner of licking the glass but he's trying.
He'll say something along the topic and then completely say something real stupid and off topic with expectations of you understanding his off the wall theory.
He never really gets anywhere with his theories

[palani]

then completely say something real stupid and off topic with expectations of you understanding his off the wall theory.
Another FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED!!!!

[7th trump]

Another FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED!!!!

Yes we all know..........none of your shit is comprehensable to grant any relief....heck 99.9% of the time you dont even have a claim.

And I just love how you use a court ruling when you dont even follow court cites or statutes the courts use to rule from.
Hahahahahaha.......thanks for the laugh Palani.

[palani]

I just love how you use a court ruling when you dont even follow court cites or statutes the courts use to rule from

" FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED "?

Notice and OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Hardly a court ruling.

The phrase simply means "you may or may not have an injury but you haven't requested a remedy. Go away until you know what you want."

[7th trump]

" FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED "?

Notice and OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. Hardly a court ruling.

The phrase simply means "you may or may not have an injury but you haven't requested a remedy. Go away until you know what you want."
Actually.......it is a request for remedy otherwise you wouldnt be going into court, but the court cant find any "complaint" in your complaint for which to grant the remedy you wish for.
Big difference if you leave out the conspiracy bullshit palani...or simply just understand what you are talking about.

[palani]

Actually.......it is a request for remedy otherwise you wouldnt be going into court, but the court cant find any "complaint" in your complaint for which to grant the remedy you wish for.
Big difference if you leave out the conspiracy bullshit palani...or simply just understand what you are talking about.

Yada yada yada ...

[Glass]

No I think palani has a suitable grasp of things. The foundation of all law in the commonwealths (USA included) is the common law. All law flows across the common law foundation. The common law (or Law as it's called) is there but it is "under water" at the moment. This means it is submerged and seeing it is difficult.

I heard one man say (Guy Taylor - there is a thread on him and some videos) : The common law is the mother board. The laws of equity or maritime or admiralty are chips or smaller boards plugged into the mother board. They flow through the motherboard - common law. Good analogy IMO.

Everyone who goes to court must "pray" for relief. That prayer stipulates what the desired remedy is. If you do not state what you "pray" for you cannot get it. However, in some situations, even though you have not "prayed" effectively you still may get a remedy, just not the one you were hoping for.

All private processes and all court processes follow the same formula BUT the language may be different in that some language may be more modern, HOWEVER the foundations are the same. The principals still apply today. Some principals might not see the light of day very much these days but that is mostly our own fault.

There is the Claim. There is the acceptance or rebuttal of the claim, there is the finding with respect to the claim, either TRUE or FALSE and then there is the remedy. If the claim is FALSE the remedy will be conditional dismissal or unconditional dismissal. If the claim is TRUE then some kind of performance must occur. That performance may be to make good/reinstate/repair or it may be to compensate. It might even involve a penal element where additional hypothecation can occur while the party affected is warehoused.

This process happens if you do it in court or out of court (private process). The private process is the same as getting a power bill (claim) and resolving that or disputing it. The steps are the same for that as they are for any court matter. A court run process would have specifically numbered forms to follow where as a private process might be more correspondence based - i.e. writing a letter.