How to reform the Supreme Court

[legaleagle_45]

I already posted Fines story and being a former state prosecutor I think he should be a good source since he exposes frankly only the tip of the iceberg what is going on and has always been going on in the juidcial system.

So you trust the word of an attorney presented in a sympathetic TV interview not under oath to support the proposition that attorneys are crooks and liars?

PS: he was not a former state prosecutor. He was a former federal prosecutor in DC, (probably enforcing the 14th amend against you)

A whackadoodle ex attorney at that, having been disbarred and still representing clients? Then when he is fined and sanctioned for practicing law without a license, he has a $50K judgment entered against him. This (he claims) is in retaliation for a completely unrelated claim about some bogus court corruption(which claim has been rejected as frivolous at both the state and federal level) When the judgment creditor hauls him in for a judgment debtor exam, he refuses to answer questions poised of him at the hearing even theough the law requires him to do so and the court throws him into jail for contempt. After 18 months of being confined for contempt because he willfully disobeyed a court order to produce financial records and to otherwise answers questions under oath so his judgment creditors could collect their judgment the trial judge finally relents because:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s con-
duct is irrational. Fine has always had the key to
his own jail cell. He has elected to give up his
freedom for 18 months in order to keep a judgment
creditor from collecting a $50,000.00 judgment. He
refuses to even discuss his obligations to the
judgment creditor but portrays himself as a lone
hero who is being incarcerated because he has
exposed a vast conspiracy of over 400 judges of this
court who are dishonestly collecting money to
which they are not entitled. This contention has now
been rejected at all levels of the Federal and State
Governments.

His conduct is bizarre, and that fact alone must
be considered by this court in performing its
continuing duty to determine whether Fine's continued
confinement serves any useful purpose.
Coercive confinement of a contemnor is only effective
if the contemnor is capable of making a rational
choice between the alternatives available to him.
It is now likely that Fine is not capable of doing
so. Fine's continued incarceration is not likely
to benefit the judgment creditor, and is only in-
creasing its loss by requiring it to answer the
courts periodic inquiries as to the collectability
of the judgment. Fine's continued incarceration
is a detriment to the public because Fine is using
up jail space in an overcrowded jail, and may cause
the release of persons who constitute a greater
threat to the public than Fine does. By keeping him
incarcerated for 18 months, the court has deterred
others from defying its orders to the extent that
it is possible to do so given the facts of this
case.

Thus, we have a judicial determination that your source is a loony tunes whackadoodle

 

[legaleagle_45]

if they went beyond the scope of their instructions then it was indeed illegal. they talked of Due process of law, hypocrites. The reason it mattered was precisely because, as u say, the majority was not represented...it would have turned out different. "heavy-lifting" give me a break.

Not technically illegal, just unauthorized. The states then had the ability to reject whatever was suggested (which they could anyway). They choose to ratify the actions instead.

The entire historical background of the Constituion and the Bill of Rights is extremly interesting (bizarre even) but little understood.

One thing that I alluded to was the fact that the anti federalists thought they would be able to examine the proposals and vote for the ones they liked and veto the ones they disliked. However, the Constitution was a take it or leave it proposition. They did not have the ability to ratify Article I and reject Article II... and only 9 states were needed to ratify.... This created a real nightmare because if you could convince only 9, you would almost assuredly get the remaing 4, otherwise those remaining 4 would be on their lonesome... everyone knew the remaining 4 would eventually be forced to join out of pure necessity if nothing else.

The first thing to keep in mind is that practically everyone, both Federalists and Anti Federalists wanted changes in the AoC... the proposed Constituion offered those changes, the only issue was whether it went too far.

First out of the gate was Delaware. The anti federalists were still shell shocked and did not get their act together and Delaware ratified by unanimous proclimation on December 7, 1787

Next up was Pennsylvania. The anti federalist finally proffered some opposition, suggesting numerous amendments to the Constituion. The minority report detailed these amendments and they included (but were not limited to) a Bill of Rights... but as indicated this was the minority report. Pennsylvania Ratified, December 12, 1787

However the lack of a Bill of Rights was the one thing that struck a chord with the people.... Opposition mounted in key states and demands were made for a Bill of Rights from all corners.... But the Federalists would not hear of it and would not allow it...

Why? Because it was a poison pill proposal. Remember the Constitution was a take it or leave it proposition, they could not insert amendments. In order to add a BoR the Constitution would have to be sent BACK to convention for a rewrite to add a Bill of Rights and tinker with some other proposal... But this time the anti federalists would not stay at home sipping mint juleps. They would attend in force and the resulting product would look nothing like what was produced in Philly in 1787. The Constituion would in fact not survive if it was sent back to Convention for amendments.

Both parties knew this and so the anti federalist extolled the virtues of a BoR as the next best thing to Mom and apple pie, while the federalists claimed it would be the end of the universe and would destoy rights rather than protect them. See, Hamilton Federalist 84. Yes political hyperbole existed even then. Patrick Henry was a leading anti federalist. He felt that because the federalist were in favor of ratification, they should be called the Rats instead of the federalists and the anti federalists should be called the Anti Rats.

Most historians believe the anti federalists would have prevailed in blocking ratification but for the intervention of none other than Sam Adams and what is termed the "Massachusetts Compromise". Sam was a moderate anti federalist who really did want a BoR (many anti federalists used it only as a weapon to prevent ratification while many federalist opposed a BoR merely because they wanted ratification-- James Wilson of Pennsylvania for example). Sam's proposal was this:

We ratify the Constitution as is, but wih the express direction to our first congress critters to prepare, propose and submit to the states a BoR

In short, they appointed the 1st US Congress as the next Constitutional Convention directed to propose amendments regarding a BoR

Massachusetts ratified with this proviso in Feb 1788 and other states soon followed suit. The Constitution was ratified and the 1st Congress did in fact propose a Bill of Rights (with the federalists actually taking the lead on the process while the anti federalist complaining it was a waste of time).

And that is why we have both a Constitution and Bill of Rights.... and it was a very close thing.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Please do, since it was never ratified. Since then, the US Supreme Court very explicitly described the 1810 proposal as unadopted in several cases... Waring v. Clarke (1847) 46 US (5 How.) 441 at 493;Dillon v. Gloss (1921) 256 US 368 at 375; Coleman v. Miller (1939) 307 US 433 at 472; Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) 387 US 253 at 277-278.

My understanding is that virginia ratified it then reversed their decision, which is not possible for them to do.

Your understanding is wrong. Virginia state legislative records indicate that the Virginia House of Delegates approved the amendment on February 2, 1811, but the Virginia Senate rejected the amendment on February 14, 1811. Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia 91 (Richmond, Samuel Pleasants, 1810 (1811); Journal of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia 83 (Richmond, Thomas Ritchie, 1810 (1811) It requires boith houses of the legislature of Virginia to ratify, not just one. However, even if Virginia had ratified, you would still be one short... so you still lose.

You mean you are unaware that your puppet masters cherry picked a few states that had a misprint over a few years and you took them at face value conscerning a vast conspiracy to cover up and destroy the publ;ic records of the USA by an evil cabla of lawyers and bankers and that this conspiracy has lasted for 200 years and that it is only now coming to light? Errr... I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you real cheap. Interested?

But to answer your question... all of the official federal publications made after 1818. The states works of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. The most respected works of the Constituional scholars of the day, to wit William Rawle,A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825; second edition, 1829); Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Not to mention the previous case law I cited.

QUACK QUACK QUACK

Thats all you do is quack.

first 3 out of 3 court cases that I could find that you posted had not a damn thing to do with reviewing the ratification of the original 13th amendment.

it was ratified signed sealed delivered with certified copies

See the problem with book burning is that its really hard to burn every damn one if them.
​

 

[KokomoJojo]

I already posted Fines story and being a former state prosecutor I think he should be a good source since he exposes frankly only the tip of the iceberg what is going on and has always been going on in the juidcial system.

So you trust the word of an attorney presented in a sympathetic TV interview not under oath to support the proposition that attorneys are crooks and liars?

PS: he was not a former state prosecutor. He was a former federal prosecutor in DC, (probably enforcing the 14th amend against you)

A whackadoodle ex attorney at that, having been disbarred and still representing clients? Then when he is fined and sanctioned for practicing law without a license, he has a $50K judgment entered against him. This (he claims) is in retaliation for a completely unrelated claim about some bogus court corruption(which claim has been rejected as frivolous at both the state and federal level) When the judgment creditor hauls him in for a judgment debtor exam, he refuses to answer questions poised of him at the hearing even theough the law requires him to do so and the court throws him into jail for contempt. After 18 months of being confined for contempt because he willfully disobeyed a court order to produce financial records and to otherwise answers questions under oath so his judgment creditors could collect their judgment the trial judge finally relents because:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Fine’s con-
duct is irrational. Fine has always had the key to
his own jail cell. He has elected to give up his
freedom for 18 months in order to keep a judgment
creditor from collecting a $50,000.00 judgment. He
refuses to even discuss his obligations to the
judgment creditor but portrays himself as a lone
hero who is being incarcerated because he has
exposed a vast conspiracy of over 400 judges of this
court who are dishonestly collecting money to
which they are not entitled. This contention has now
been rejected at all levels of the Federal and State
Governments.

His conduct is bizarre, and that fact alone must
be considered by this court in performing its
continuing duty to determine whether Fine's continued
confinement serves any useful purpose.
Coercive confinement of a contemnor is only effective
if the contemnor is capable of making a rational
choice between the alternatives available to him.
It is now likely that Fine is not capable of doing
so. Fine's continued incarceration is not likely
to benefit the judgment creditor, and is only in-
creasing its loss by requiring it to answer the
courts periodic inquiries as to the collectability
of the judgment. Fine's continued incarceration
is a detriment to the public because Fine is using
up jail space in an overcrowded jail, and may cause
the release of persons who constitute a greater
threat to the public than Fine does. By keeping him
incarcerated for 18 months, the court has deterred
others from defying its orders to the extent that
it is possible to do so given the facts of this
case.

Thus, we have a judicial determination that your source is a loony tunes whackadoodle

The judges who made those determinations were taking bribe money by the other party.

You trust or want us to trust judges who were on the take?

Thats not court reform thats your continued support for their corruption.

everyone is a kook except you and your solution to court reform is to insure it remains as is or gets worse.

yeh say what you will but I just showed you virginia did in fact ratify LMFAO

One thing you can be assured, that if you depend on the government, sooner or later that big ole red white and blue dick will get jammed square up your ass

 

[KokomoJojo]

you seem to be defending the status quo by saying it was based on a run-away, illegal convention...novel

Not illegal at all, but certainly a "runaway convention".

@dcraelin.....BINGO!

it was!!! LOL

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788
Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States. This Convention met in Richmond from June 2 to June 27, 1788. By a vote of 79 to 88 on June 26 the Convention ratified the Constitution and recommended twenty amendments and a bill of rights based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Mr. HENRY.

Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government.

Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question.

I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness.

I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things.

A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted.

When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger.

snip

I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature!

Make the best of this new government--say it is composed by any thing but inspiration--you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever.

If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us.

If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. [well they never got it did they!] And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand,

What right had they to say, We, the people?

My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask,

Who authorized them to speak the language of,
We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives.

But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct.

Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name.
That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.

It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception.

Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation.

The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

Not illegal at all.

in leeegooeeees its called "extra-constitutional" meaning operating outside their authority, meaning pierced the corporate veil, meaning ILLEGAL, meaning its sue the fucking shit out of em time. Oh wait those are the floundering fathers.

Call me a heretic! defy the gospel of the holy fathers! LMAO

for a leagle eagle you sure arent very good at this are you.

Still waiting for you to prove that any of this constitution crap applies me. You know prove it legally.

 

[dcraelin]

"Most historians believe the anti federalists would have prevailed in blocking ratification but for the intervention of none other than Sam Adams and what is termed the "Massachusetts Compromise". Sam was a moderate anti federalist who really did want a BoR (many anti federalists used it only as a weapon to prevent ratification while many federalist opposed a BoR merely because they wanted ratification-- James Wilson of Pennsylvania for example). Sam's proposal was this:
Quote:
"We ratify the Constitution as is, but wih the express direction to our first congress critters to prepare, propose and submit to the states a BoR""

did Adams actually say "congress critters"????

BTW RI was basically bullyied into the union on threat of a blockade
I believe NC originally turned it down

 

[legaleagle_45]

first 3 out of 3 court cases that I could find that you posted had not a damn thing to do with reviewing the ratification of the original 13th amendment.

It is nice that you keep demonstrating your legal incompetence. In Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441 at 493 (1847) it was confirmed that only 12 amendments had been made to the Constitution:

that two of the only twelve amendments ever made to it relate to additional safeguards for this trial

Waring v. Clarke - 46 U.S. 441 (1847) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 US 368 at 375 (1921) the court noted:

That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-- are still pending

Dillon v. Gloss - 256 U.S. 368 (1921) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

So unless you can point to another amendment proposed in 1810, clearly the court was asserting that TONA had not been ratified.

In Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433 at 472 the court quoted Dillon:

"... four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810, and one in 1861-are still pending"

Coleman v. Miller - 307 U.S. 433 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Afroyim v. Rusk 387 US 253 at 277-278 (1967), Justice Harlan noted:

In 1810, a proposed thirteenth amendment to the Constitution was introduced into the Senate by Senator Reed of Maryland; the amendment, as subsequently modified, provided that any citizen who accepted a title of nobility, pension, or emolument from a foreign state, or who married a person of royal blood, should "cease to be a citizen of the United States." The proposed amendment was, in a modified form, accepted by both Houses, and subsequently obtained the approval of all but one of the requisite number of States

Afroyim v. Rusk

You are not too good at this, LOL

it was ratified signed sealed delivered with certified copies

Oh really?

On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J.M. Patton, who were preparing a revised edition of the laws of Virginia, wrote to William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy, and noted that although TONA was included in the Revised Code of 1819, "[w]e are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been adopted." The revised code noted that the previous publication was in error

.

See The Revised Code of Virginia, with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Rights and Constitution of Virginia 30 (Richmond, William F. Ritchie, 1849).

So you think that an admitted error latter corrected in subsequent editions is sufficient to establish ratification??? I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you real cheap.

But let us presume in 1819, the date of your publication, that Virginia ratified TONA... still not enough to qualify as an amendment. Even if you take it back to 1811, it is still one short . If you assert Virginia ratified in 1819 you are 4 short. You still have not provided the names of the states which ratified TONA and the dates of their ratification... One truly wonders why that is.

See the problem with book burning is that its really hard to burn every damn one if them

So it should be quite simple to name the states which ratified TONA and the dates of such ratification. Please do so.

 

[KokomoJojo]

first 3 out of 3 court cases that I could find that you posted had not a damn thing to do with reviewing the ratification of the original 13th amendment.

It is nice that you keep demonstrating your legal incompetence. In Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. 441 at 493 (1847) it was confirmed that only 12 amendments had been made to the Constitution:

that two of the only twelve amendments ever made to it relate to additional safeguards for this trial

Waring v. Clarke - 46 U.S. 441 (1847) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 US 368 at 375 (1921) the court noted:



Dillon v. Gloss - 256 U.S. 368 (1921) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

So unless you can point to another amendment proposed in 1810, clearly the court was asserting that TONA had not been ratified.

In Coleman v. Miller, 307 US 433 at 472 the court quoted Dillon:



Coleman v. Miller - 307 U.S. 433 (1939) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

In Afroyim v. Rusk 387 US 253 at 277-278 (1967), Justice Harlan noted:



Afroyim v. Rusk

You are not too good at this, LOL



Oh really?

On August 1, 1849, C. Robinson and J.M. Patton, who were preparing a revised edition of the laws of Virginia, wrote to William B. Preston, Secretary of the Navy, and noted that although TONA was included in the Revised Code of 1819, "[w]e are satisfied that this amendment was never adopted, though it is difficult to account for the fact that it should have been put into the Code of 1819 as an amendment which had been adopted." The revised code noted that the previous publication was in error

.

See The Revised Code of Virginia, with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Rights and Constitution of Virginia 30 (Richmond, William F. Ritchie, 1849).

So you think that an admitted error latter corrected in subsequent editions is sufficient to establish ratification??? I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you real cheap.

But let us presume in 1819, the date of your publication, that Virginia ratified TONA... still not enough to qualify as an amendment. Even if you take it back to 1811, it is still one short . If you assert Virginia ratified in 1819 you are 4 short. You still have not provided the names of the states which ratified TONA and the dates of their ratification... One truly wonders why that is.

See the problem with book burning is that its really hard to burn every damn one if them

So it should be quite simple to name the states which ratified TONA and the dates of such ratification. Please do so.

Yeh it is.

So someone who was uninformed was satisfied it was never ratified despite the preponderance of contrary evidence la dee da. That and a dollar eh...

 

[legaleagle_45]

The judges who made those determinations were taking bribe money by the other party.

Incorrect. It has been determined that the payments they received from Los Angeles County were quite legal and proper. The argument being made by our whackadoodle Mr. Fine, Esq. is that because they receive a payment from someone who might be a party to litigation over which they preside, they are being "bribed". If this conclusion was correct, the judges could not hear cases involving the the State of California either.... and all them criminal cases entitled "State of California vs. _______ " are void. Continuing this argument to the next level would mean that no federal judge could here a case involving the US Government and all them cases entitled "US vs __________ " are void. Going down a level, are fine Mr. Fine, Esq would necessarily have to assert that a municipal judge could not hear any cases involving the city, thus voiding any and all parking violation decisions rendered by municpal judges.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The judges who made those determinations were taking bribe money by the other party.

Incorrect. It has been determined that the payments they received from Los Angeles County were quite legal and proper.

So you dont give a shit about conflicting interests, nuff said.


How many times have people said that the government in this country is nothing more than a house of cards glued together by mostly bullshit.

They cant even "prove" jurisdiction over the inhabitants, yet they presume and enforce it with their hired guns, and that is jurisdiction by conquest and oppression.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Continuing this argument to the next level would mean that no federal judge could here a case involving the US

well the first problem is that you got a constitution that presumes 2 general partys,

1) the government [as sovereign king] above

2) the people [as vassal subject] below


However when it comes to arguing the particulars the government alone claims exclusive authority to be the final arbiter on that presumed agreement.

 

[legaleagle_45]

ROTFLMAO You doofus. LOL

Count em from your own source and weep weep weep...

When TONA was submitted to the states in 1810, 17 states were part of the USA so in 1810 THIRTEEN ratifications were required to make the amendment part of the Constitution at that time. However Louisiana was admitted as a state on April 30, 1812, therefore the number of state ratifications required to make TONA part of the Constitution rose from 13 to 14. Prior to that date TONA had received only 11 ratifications, (12 if you assert Virginia ratified prior to 1812--- which would contradict your proof since it says it was sent to President Monroe-- Monroe was President from 1817-1825-- Funny how your source leaves out the year of ratification in the table, huh? Very unprofessional, tsk, tsk, tsk) New Hampshire ratified TONA on December 12, 1812, again placing the amendment at either 12 (two short ) if you claim Virginia ratified 1819, or 13 (one short) if you claim Virginia ratified prior to 1812. Indiana was admitted to the Union on December 11, 1816, and was followed by Mississippi on December 10, 1817 and Illinois on December 3, 1818, with no further ratifications emerging. By 1819, therefore, the threshold was SIXTEEN ratifications, and TONA fell four states short. So EVEN IF Virginia ratified at any time, it did not matter, there was never enough states ratifying TONA ACORDING TO YOU OWN EVIDENCE.

 

[legaleagle_45]

well the first problem is that you got a constitution that presumes 2 general partys,

No the first problem is that you are a legal ignoramus who does not know what you are talking about. What is truly funny is you do not see the aburdity of Mr. Fine's claim and wish to divert and deflect from what is the truth to what you think should be the law. Sorry, does not work that way.

 

[legaleagle_45]

So you dont give a shit about conflicting interests, nuff said..

Merely because you find them conflicting does not mean they are conflicting. You are of course asserting that a judge can not hear any case in which a party to the litigation happens to be the governmental entity that pays his salary. That has never been grounds for recusal at any level at any time in the history of the Universe, and the fact that Mr Fine, Esq claims otherwise is proof positive that he is a cetified legal nit wit waackadoodle.

The fact that you agree with Mr. Fine is proof positive that you are a loony toon.

Amusing perhaps, but a certified loony toon none the less.

LOL

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Fine have it your way then we need to reopen all cases that involved more then 20 bucks and have been tucked under statutory equity today retried under common law.

What part of do you fail to understand?



What you fail to understand is that the framers specifically knew of the distinction between law and equity as a term of art and specifically adopted that distinction in the 7th Amend. To claim that was not their inten is to demonstrate your ignorance. To claim that we should expand that original intent to encompass everything is fine, so long as you understand that you need to pass a Constituional Amend.



No it doesn't because your only right to a jury trial in a civil matter (the only place where a summary judgment arises) involves the right to have a jury determine matters of fact and that has long been the case allowing courts to set aside verdicts in civil cases well before the passage of the 7th Amend and it is exactly what the framers intended. If you wish to change the very nature of the right to a jury trial at common law, then you are free to pass a Constituional Amend. The thing is, I do not see you complaining about the lack of a jury trial when the amount in controversy is less than $20. Apparently you accept the intent of the framers to exclude the right to a jury for such cases, but refuse to accept the intent of the framers regarding what a suit at common law was and what the nature of the right being protected was.



You are free to change what the law is through the proper procedures, such as through refrendum, legislation or constitutional amendment, what you can not due ihave the law comply to your personal vision of what the law should be.



Bugsy.



Yet there is no obligation to speak. You are free to create such an obligation.

The judge has an sworn obligation to protect the litigants rights and insure the plaintiff does not bowl the defendant over and failure to do that is fraud and prejudices one of the parties and you are protecting their ability to continue.

Just because you claim that it is fraud does not make it so. A party to the litigation is not entitled to a verdict contrary to the law. The "party" is not the one who is given jury instructions, so their can be no fraud vis a vis the "party".

The rest of your post is gibberish... and is ignored.

[MENTION=43021]legaleagle_45[/MENTION]

Good post, Legal, but when you start talking to these people about the difference in law and equity you lose them. They are all constitutional scholars don'tchaknow. And they have no clue that they are being sold down the river through administrative regulations. Look around your house. I am sure there is nothing in it that is not regulated by some administrative board. The only thing I can come up with in my house is my cat, but her vet is regulated and likely her food as well because it requires a script from the vet to get it. The government doesn't really do anything about the hair she sheds or her shit in the litter boxes. But I would be in a helluva lot of trouble if I disposed of it improperly. Being that my cat is considered personal property, I have her Willed to a neighbor. But if someone else wants custody of my cat when I croak, they could challenge the Will itself. Well, that one isn't administrative, but you get the drift.

I doubt any cases of improper disposal of pet fur have made it to the USSC. When I walk my dog at parks, I often see clumps of fur left on the grass by careless pet owners who brush their dogs and leave.

I also doubt any cases of an improper death of a pet, brought by an owner against someone, have made it to the highest court either.

My dog, who has a lot of Sammy in her, sheds a lot. I keep her groomed and brushed only by petting her purposely every couple of days usually. I just wait for the wind to pick up and let the wind do the work and dispose of the fur.

 

[KokomoJojo]

ROTFLMAO You doofus. LOL

Count em from your own source and weep weep weep...

When TONA was submitted to the states in 1810, 17 states were part of the USA so in 1810 THIRTEEN ratifications were required to make the amendment part of the Constitution at that time. However Louisiana was admitted as a state on April 30, 1812, therefore the number of state ratifications required to make TONA part of the Constitution rose from 13 to 14. Prior to that date TONA had received only 11 ratifications, (12 if you assert Virginia ratified prior to 1812--- which would contradict your proof since it says it was sent to President Monroe-- Monroe was President from 1817-1825-- Funny how your source leaves out the year of ratification in the table, huh? Very unprofessional, tsk, tsk, tsk) New Hampshire ratified TONA on December 12, 1812, again placing the amendment at either 12 (two short ) if you claim Virginia ratified 1819, or 13 (one short) if you claim Virginia ratified prior to 1812. Indiana was admitted to the Union on December 11, 1816, and was followed by Mississippi on December 10, 1817 and Illinois on December 3, 1818, with no further ratifications emerging. By 1819, therefore, the threshold was SIXTEEN ratifications, and TONA fell four states short. So EVEN IF Virginia ratified at any time, it did not matter, there was never enough states ratifying TONA ACORDING TO YOU OWN EVIDENCE.

February 12
The Virginia Senate votes to revise the Codes of the State of Virginia.
The Senate Journal reports receiving Gov. Barbour's 2/06/1812 letter.
February 27
Massachusetts ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 11th of 13 states required.
March 12
New York fails ratification of the 13th Amendment.
April 30
Louisiana becomes the 18th state in the Union, but is not consulted on the pending constitutional amendment.



Virginia promulgated its ratification in march, and on my last count march comes before april.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

There are already remedies , the Congress can at any time pass legislation that restricts what the Court can rule on.

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

bullshit.

Congress has no control of the Supreme Court.

certainly not which laws they can rule on.

Werd. The only way congress could have any control whatsoever over the U.S. Supreme Court would be through constitutional amendment. [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]: Remember the three branches of government? Did you graduate high school? The three branches are independent.

 

[legaleagle_45]

did Adams actually say "congress critters"????

No, I was paraphrasing what he meant. The conversations made by Adams were behind closed doors, the result was this proclimation made in conjunction with the ratification:

And the Convention (reference here is to the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention) do, in the name and in the behalf of the people of this commonwealth, enjoin it upon their representatives in Congress, at all times, until the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been considered, agreeably to the 5th article of the said Constitution, to exert all their influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions, in such manner as is provided in the said article.

BTW RI was basically bullyied into the union on threat of a blockade

I believe it was not an actual blockade, but their products would be subject to a tariff, placing them at a severe economic disadvatage. But if you have anything else, I would love to see it... obviously Rhode Island was coerced, they did not want any part of the Constitution from the get go and never even sent a representative to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

I believe NC originally turned it down

Sort of. Actually they "deferred". The exact language from their Convention was as follows:

On motion of Mr. WILLIE JONES, and seconded by Mr. JAMES GALLOWAY, the following resolution was adopted by a large majority, viz.: —

"Whereas this Convention (this refrence being to the North Carolina Ratifying Convention)has thought proper neither to ratify nor reject the Constitution proposed for the government of the United States, —

The reason they plainly asserted that they were neither ratifying or rejecting is quite funny in retrospect:

If it does not, in plain terms, reject, but refuses to accede for the present, I think the other states may regard this as an absolute rejection, and refuse to admit us afterwards but at their pleasure, and on what terms they please.

This was the tactic recommended by Jefferson in his communications to his political allies from Paris. He counseled that enough states should affirm the Constitution so that it becomes operative while the remaining states withold approval until the BoR's were passed by Congress. The Bill of Rights was finalized by congress and referred to the states on September 25, 1789 . NC ratified the Constitution that November and the Bill of Rights in December.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Virginia promulgated its ratification in march, and on my last count march comes before april.

Assuming arguendo... The number and dates of states ratifying TONA according to you:

1.Maryland (December 25, 1810)
2.Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
3.Ohio (January 31, 1811)
4.Delaware (February 2, 1811)
5.Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
6.New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
7.Vermont (October 24, 1811)
8.Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
9.North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
10.Georgia (December 31, 1811)[1]
11.Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
12. Virginia (March-- sometime date uncertain--1812)
13..New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)


In March 1812, 13 states were needed to ratify. Virginia (according to you) only provided the 12th. Then in April Louisana was admitted to the union, which raised the number of states needed to ratify from 13 to 14. I do believe April comes before December, so when New Hampshire ratified in December of 1812, there still was not a sufficient number of states to ratify, you are still one short.

LOL, so even if you are correct about Virginia you still lose... at no time did you have the sufficient 3/4ths states ratifying TONA based upon your count.

 

[Sunshine]

There are already remedies , the Congress can at any time pass legislation that restricts what the Court can rule on.

From my understanding the USSC chooses which cases it handles very carefully, with consideration of recommendations from lower courts. That is the only control that exists.

bullshit.

Congress has no control of the Supreme Court.

certainly not which laws they can rule on.

Werd. The only way congress could have any control whatsoever over the U.S. Supreme Court would be through constitutional amendment. [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]: Remember the three branches of government? Did you graduate high school? The three branches are independent.

They are not completely independent. They all must cooperate at some level. Example: Presidential Veto, presidential choice of SCOTUS justices. Congress makes laws, but that doesn't mean that ever law it makes is going to stick. If Congress passes a law that is challenged, the SCOTUS decides if the law is legal (Constitutional) or not. There is overlap in the legislative process in that way and in the fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered 'judge make laws.' Another area you might consider is war powers.

The three branches of our government are NOT completely independent. If they were completely independent then the government would be in complete gridlock 100% of the time.