The Rule of “Because I Said So!” Law The constitution does NOT belong or apply in MY courtroom! “We do not hear or apply the constitution or its law here.” If you have ever appeared in one of these petty Texas kangaroo trial courts and tried to argue or assert anything regarding or relating to the State or federal Constitutions, or the protections afforded you by those instruments, those proclamations, or something very similar, is what you will hear coming from the mouth of the so-called ‘judge’ from atop his or her “throne of judicial omnipotence.” Yeah, that’s right, YOUR public servant says that he or she does not care that you are supposed to be covered by and have access to any and all provisions of those instruments that are supposed to protect you and limit them in their acts and behavior. Most ordinary folks refuse to believe that this could be or actually is the case however. At least, it is until they find themselves standing before one of these self-proclaimed deities and have to find out first-hand that they should have listened to you about the dangers of being force-fed the court’s always yummy shit sandwiches when you tried to warn them about the corruption that pollutes any form of justice you would hope to receive there. Aristotle said “The law is reason free from passion,” which may or may not be completely true or accurate. But it is a far better concept than that found in these kangaroo courts, where the concept appears more to be “The law is nothing more than governmentally declared passion, greed, and necessity without any form of reason.” Yeah, wrap your mind around that one for a while. Now, I am well aware of WHY those in this corrupt system declares this, and even why they actually think that they can get away with it. But most folks are not. And that almost always has the result of throwing those folks into the Just Us systems much desired state of confusion and frustration. And understandably so. After all, we are told and taught that the constitutions are the highest form of law in the land, that all agencies and actors of government are sworn and bound to obey, defend, and uphold it. And therein lies the rub. The very first things that you absolutely MUST recognize and come to terms with, are these facts: 1) You are NOT in a “court of LAW,” you are in an “ADMINISTRATIVE court of STATUTE,” and they are NOT the same thing. A statute is NOT the law, and it is NOT evidence of the law itself. It is merely evidence that a law ALLEGEDLY exists upon which the statute is, again, ALLEGEDLY based. 2) The people called together to sit in judgment of you at a trial are not members of a constitutionally defined and operated jury, they are strictly an ADMINISTRATIVE ADVISORY PANEL under the full control and manipulation of the prosecutor and the judge, they just don’t know and realize it. 3) The Texas municipal courts are all courts created by statute and ordinance, are of very limited jurisdiction, and are entirely ‘quasi-criminal’ administrative, NOT judicial, though they will try to convince you otherwise. Their jurisdiction is limited to ‘quasi-criminal’ offenses punishable by fine only, meaning that they have absolutely no civil jurisdiction whatsoever. Which is precisely why the city that runs them tries to ‘criminalize’ any ordinance ‘violation,’ so they will have jurisdiction to enforce their own internal edicts in their own best interest, not yours. It is very important to remember, however, that ordinances are NOT law, nor are they in any way statutory, and, most importantly, they are NOT binding upon the general public in any way without their knowing consent to be subjected to them. To understand this, please STUDY (not just read) ALL of Article 1, then Article 3, Secs. 29-39, 56, and 62, Texas Constitution. It is also very important to understand that there is no such lawful jurisdiction as ‘quasi-criminal’ jurisdiction. That is a term that you not find in any constitution OR statute. It is entirely a fabricated concept of unconstitutional and unlawful judicial doctrine. 4) Justice courts, also known as JP courts, while truly constitutionally created, actually have both ‘quasi-criminal’ administrative and civil judicial powers. Just like municipal courts, their jurisdiction is limited to ‘quasi-criminal’ offenses punishable by fine only, and its civil powers are limited by the Texas constitution to cases involving a maximum of two hundred dollars. However, the Texas Legislature has unconstitutionally expanded that civil power to amounts of not more than $10,000.00 dollars by creating new statutory court schemes pursuant Sec. 27.031(a)(1), Government Code. They call these “small claims” courts, with a monetary award or issue cap of the aforementioned $10,000.00, and then they placed them under the jurisdiction of JPs, thus violating Sec. 19, Art. 5, Texas Constitution. statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.27.htm#27.031 statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.5.htm#5.19 ============================== So, how do we handle such a proclamation by these so-called courts of [in]justice? Well, this is how *I* would do it. ============================== Judge: The Constitution Does NOT Apply in MY Courtroom!” Or alternatively: “We dont use or apply the constitution here! You: “Objection! I take this court’s declaration that it is a law and authority unto itself to mean that it is under no obligation whatsoever to provide or honor the constitutional protections of ALL of my unalienable and due process rights, including, but not limited to, the right to a fair and impartial trial. In which case I do not agree or consent to participate or to accept its alleged jurisdiction, regardless of this court’s assertion of jurisdiction in this or any other alleged matter to which I am an alleged party.” Judge: Be that as it may, I say that the court has jurisdiction in this case and we are going to proceed any way.” You: “Objection! As this court has already declared before these witnesses present, that, it is not bound by any rules or obligations requiring it to follow or apply any provisions of the law of the land or to honor my rights as protected therein, I move for your recusal, as I have reason to believe and do believe that you cannot and will not abide by any law nor have any intention of providing me with a fair and impartial trial. And instead, will act to deprive me of my unalienable rights by any and all means at the court’s disposal. And if you refuse to self-recuse, I move for your disqualification and a continuance so that I might prepare a proper written Motion for Disqualification pursuant Sec. 29.052, Government Code. ============================== Now, when I write that Motion to Disqualify, I will not only repeat the past tense recital of the same facts and accounts above, but shall also add the following: ============================== Be it known and understood that, I hereby site grounds for criminal and judicial sanctions due to the Original Court’s knowing and outright refusal to operate lawfully within the rule of law and judicial procedure, as well as the constitutional limits and prohibitions upon its authority and powers (See attached sworn criminal and judicial misconduct complaints). Therefore, I have reason to believe and do believe that the Original Court did so with knowing and willful intent to deprive not only me, but all of those that come before it, of any and all fundamentally protected rights under color of law and with the express purpose of denying each and every one of us a fair and impartial trial. And further, I have reason to believe and do believe that the Original Court did and does continue to knowingly and willingly engage in sedition against the People of Texas and our rightful Republican form of government under the supreme law of our constitutionally founded and protected Republic. And further still, if I indeed understand the Original Court correctly, and I firmly believe that I do, said court claims it has the power and authority to both abrogate and derogate any and all protections of the People and prohibitions upon its powers and authority, by refusing to recognize or be bound by and subjected to the provisions of either the State or federal constitutions. Which, as the reviewing court is well aware, and as a matter of lawful delegation of powers in a constitutionally founded and [supposedly] controlled Republic, any judicially proclaimed destruction or diminishment thereof would cascade downward, thus, having one of only two possible outcomes. The first outcome being that of empowering the Original Court to become and act as an entirely independent and autonomous self-proclaimed ‘governmental’ entity. An entity presumably unbound by any requirement of separation of powers, and with the ability to ignore and negate any and all laws lawfully promulgated by the legislature under either constitution. Ultimately leaving said court fully capable of creating its own laws as it sees fit under the conditions and circumstances then existing, regardless of how benevolent or oppressive those laws might be. And if that is the case, then the Original Court should be well aware of the much more likely second inverse consequence. And that is, since its very existence and authority is entirely dependent upon delegations within those instruments, any abrogation or derogation of them is irrevocably a destruction of its own power and authority. Just as much as it is to the aforementioned protections of my own individual rights and those belonging only to the People. Therefore, if the reviewing court is intent on substantiating the Original Court’s declaration that neither instrument is to be of any force and effect upon it, then, the reviewing court is simultaneously declaring itself to be lawfully and legally extinct as well. Thus, the reviewing court is caught circling within the same flushing toilet bowl as the other fetid turd that is the Original Court. Namely, that a refusal to recognize and abide by any and all constitutional provisions and protections belonging to the People is to absolutely deny itself any lawful or legal force and effect of law. It simply cannot have it both ways. Therefore, if the Original Court is claiming to be a “constitution-free zone,” and the reviewing court upholds that declaration, then, as one of the People, it is a court of no lawful authority and power over me or any other within our Republic without our express and informed consent. Neither can its actors lawfully or legally claim immunity of any kind for their acts, as they now purport to act under no official delegation of authority by the People, and, therefore, in no official capacity whatsoever. By resultant consequence, they act solely as any other man or woman that breaks the law and deserves to be criminally punished. Albeit to a greater degree due to their abuse of the power and authority entrusted to them by the People. ============================== Anyway, that’s how *I* would handle it, but you are entirely free to do what you think best in your own situation. . .
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:59:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015