Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. Because its orbit is outside ours it's gravity serves a very useful purpose. It bends space enough to attract the majority of all meteors and asteroids. It is like a giant vacuum cleaner protecting us from harmful debris. In our battle the federal government served the same purpose. Its gravity prevented all the other states from being relevant. The bad side is they are more wicked than all the others combined. The good side is defeating the words is the best victory. So since God established the players and the battlefront we find ourselves pleased to enter the Frey. Was it not God who put Jupiter in its place?
This set of events could change down the road soon for the next battle. The Supreme Court is ruling on a federalism case called Bond in February. The essence being that the 10th amendment is an individual right to choose the jurisdiction you to face. Meaning Scott and I could have chosen Utah and the feds would become irrelevant. They haven't touched this subject for a century so let's hope they reduce the reach of this over bloated tyrant. Do you think they have cross the line of their design in the last century? To me by a million miles, this would be the first reverse and not very far backwards. But it’s a direction change and I think the spirit of the Lord is for it. In the heavens Jupiter's days are numbered. May it be so on earth as it is in heaven. Amen!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Meaning Scott and I could have chosen Utah and the feds would become irrelevant."
Is it still relevant as you & Scott did not contest the Feds taken over jurisdiction at the time by any court filing? Does your non-contesting at the time alleviate that right as it seems the FEDS might say there are time limits on these things to contest jurisdiction of the Federal Court? Or are you saying because you were not given a choice or some sort of prior notice years ago, when the FEDS ousted you from Utah, that the time toll hasn't even started yet?
Course how can you have a choice or act on a choice when you didn't know you had that right way back when? If I'm not mistaken, constitutional rights can't be taken away nor can they be given up, although the courts might lead you to believe differently. Constitutional rights are the principles upon which this Republic was founded and the courts should adhere to these principles. If they don't, they lose jurisdiction. Since the Federal Court did not allow you a choice, they have lost jurisdiction so there charges are moot.
You obviously did not sign anything in writing waiving those rights, nor have you ever accepted the jurisdiction of the FEDS, so one can argue, you have a good if not interesting and compelling argument, especially if Bond prevails.
Course you always said that "Utah's feeble efforts to charge you with a crime, was only intended to get you off the streets until the FEDS could figure out what to do, and that the State of Utah never had a case against you, and that was said even before the FEDS wrongfully took jurisdiction over you, against your will, and you predicted "things would be in the end, all settled on the Federal level," so that prophecy or keen insight seems to be holding true at this point.
You also predicted that Fannie Mae would break even before most people realized there were serious problems & we see that happened too.
However, if you are now going to challenge jurisdiction of the FEDS since you weren't given a choice where you were prosecuted, than what choice is there for the powers to be? Drop the federal charges, & make you go to trial on the Utah State level court? Or just drop the federal charges and set you free? Wouldn't that be "double jeopardy" to charge you in Utah, or are the Utah charges, considered separate charges? But then again, aren't those charges irrelevant in Utah because they gave up jurisdiction and didn't allow you a speedy trial there, so doesn't this make the State of Utah moot, whatever the charges? As I remember the charges were "insurance fraud" and being a fugitive from justice. This seems to all stem from the alleged Dorean scam which on the federal level, they could only turn into mail fraud convictions and the clients being the victim, not the banks, even though the original complaint had to say to the grand jury that the banks were the victims in order to gain federal jurisdiction. We know the banks couldn't be the victim since all bank charges were dropped before trial, despite all the media saying that the banks were being harmed by this Dorean "scheme".
Isn't the alleged insurance fraud a ploy against the banks if there is a ploy against anyone, since the subrogation bond was only sent to them, not for the alleged benefit of the clients? The State of Utah can't turn that around to say the subrogation bond's intent was to defraud the clients. I can't see how the State of Utah would or could want to do anything at this point. There has been no specific ruling in court to say the subrogation bonds were not real or valuable or that the trust company had or didn't have sufficient assets to back the bonds. I kind of wish that this issue was at least settled somewhere on these subrogation bonds.
Kurt and Scott are under the jurisdiction of foreign potenates and princes, namely, Israel. Didn't you know that? You should have.
Here's a quote from the book the Rape of Justice by Eustace Mullins:
"The banking corporation's legal representatives, the judges and the lawyers, are aware of who they represent, but they never inform the citizen that they are functioning on the principles of the law merchant, while the citizen expects to be defended under the principles of the Constitution. The respected legal scholar, Bruce Fein, stattes, "It is very disturbing if you have a secret law (jurisdiction) that is known only to the judge or the government." The entire purpose of this work is to inform you, the American citizen, of the existence of this secret law. Thus it is no longer a secret, and you can mount an adequate defense."
Law merchant jurisdiction is basically a jurisdiction of men not of laws- a jurisdiction of whatever judges and lawyers want. Pretty scary jurisdiction for anyone to be under.
Here, have some Zionist News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mzhcgq0AU&feature=feedu
Joseph "constitutional rights can't be taken away nor can they be given up, although the courts might lead you to believe differently."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no constitutional courts to claim constitutional rights, and yes, you do have to be in a constitutional court to claim constitutional rights. Good luck finding one.
OMO:
Are you saying Kurt using the 10th amendment is a total waste of time in any court?
"Are you saying Kurt using the 10th amendment is a total waste of time in any court?"
YES. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THE FEDS HAVE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION ONLY IN CASES OF PIRACY, COUNTERFEITING, TREASON AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR BY THE MILITIA. THE STATES HAVE JURISDICTION IN ALL OTHER CASES.
AND THEY BOTH HAVE TO PROVE CORPUS DELICTI.
Post a Comment