California who ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jurisdiction
California
Some say it will never happen.
Some say it's bound to happen.
Others say it's just some stupid conspiracy theory.
But none of them want to believe me when I say , it's already happened.
Below is a file that I have uploaded that was given to me by a California judge to explain to me the reasoning the court is given for saying that the Supreme Court rulings don't matter and the United States Constitution does not matter.
Now I've had attorneys give me all kinds of explanations for this and I haven't yet had one tell me that it says what it says which is, California is not a State. Breakdown what the paper says in layman's terms is that California is not a state or State of the Union as the Articles would describe and the reason for that is mainly because California wasn't there when the Constitution was written, and the Constitution doesn't mean anything anyway because the Articles of Confederation were what said the Constitution was Supreme and since the Constitution is supreme the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect and since they are no longer in effect there is nothing to say that the Constitution is supreme.
I get so frustrated from all the times I've been told by an attorney that it doesn't say that California is not a State. When it says in black and white , California is not a State. There is no conspiracy theory there. But there is conspiracy against the people from the courts taking away their rights and I'm curious on why hasn't this been spread around the news and why do all the attorneys deny what it says.
Why on Earth would somebody want to join the bar when they already have the right to work and they could be acting as the attorney for someone and not have to go by the bar rules and secretly take away the rights of the people in America , and why would an attorney close his eyes to it and let these people rape and pillage our country ? Is it ignorance ? Because I say ignorance isn't Bliss. Ignorance is ignorant.
 

Attachments

  • 201712040715531000.jpg
    201712040715531000.jpg
    528 KB · Views: 5
The court said nothing of the sort in that decision. He didn't say the US Constitution didn't matter, he just said your assertions that what happened were not in violation of the Constitution.

He didn't agree with your assertion that requiring driver's licenses/registration is a violation of the right to travel. The US Supreme Court agrees with him Hendrick v. Maryland is probably the most appropriate decision to look at.

As for your Fourth Amendment, Brewster v. Beck (a federal decision in the ninth circuit, which would apply to you) pretty much dismisses your claim as well.

Your jpeg has a sort of incomplete reference to the actual notes on the case, here is a better link: FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions.

It pretty much just dismisses any applicability that the Articles of Confederation have to anything in California because: 1. California wasn't a member of those articles,and 2. Those articles ceased to exist when the US Consitution was ratified which was way before California came along.
 
Last edited:
Below is a file that I have uploaded that was given to me by a California judge to explain to me the reasoning the court is given for saying that the Supreme Court rulings don't matter and the United States Constitution does not matter.

That's just silly beyond belief, and the case you mentioned has to do with the propriety of the towing and subsequent retention (by a private tow service) of a privately owned motor vehicle. Moreover, the case was decided by a California Court of Appeal -- not by the California Supreme Court.

In the first paragraph of the "facts and proceedings" section of the opinion, it states that the plaintiff "describes himself as a 'free inhabitant of the California Republic' a indicated in the 1849 Constitution of the California Republic, section 4 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States, and article IV of the Articles of Confederation."

Anyone who describes himself as a "free inhabitant of the California Republic" is almost certainly an idiotic nut job. Anyone who, in the 21st Century, thinks the Articles of Confederation are of any legal significance is an uneducated fool. Anyone who thinks section 4 of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution has anything to do with a case involving the towing of a motor vehicle has a serious screw loose.

We then move onto section IV of the opinion, in which the plaintiff revealed himself to be a real moron by arguing that he has "an absolute right to travel on highways by automobile without licensing or taxation unless [he is] transporting persons or property for hire. He argues that the right to travel on highways is clearly established and that he was relying on United States Supreme Court rulings when he was traveling on the highway without a state-issued driver's license."

If you read the rest of the opinion, you'll see that the court was far more patient than it should have been with this numbnut and explained in exhaustive detail why his "right to travel" theory was legally wrong. The case does not, in any way, shape or form say or imply that "Supreme Court rulings [in general] don't matter" or that "the United States Constitution does not matter." Rather, the court explained that neither the Supreme Court rulings cited by the plaintiff nor the constitutional "right to travel" supported the very silly arguments that the plaintiff was making.

Now I've had attorneys give me all kinds of explanations for this and I haven't yet had one tell me that it says what it says which is, California is not a State.

You think this case says "California is not a State"?!

I get so frustrated from all the times I've been told by an attorney that it doesn't say that California is not a State. When it says in black and white , California is not a State.

Where does it say that? Quote it and provide the page citation (209 Cal. App. 4th __).

Better hurry because I'm quite confident one of the moderators will lock this thread because they tend not to tolerate this sort of nonsense.
 
By the way, if you google the plaintiff's name, you'll find out that this case was just the tip of his crazy iceberg.
 
Some say it will never happen.
Some say it's bound to happen.
Others say it's just some stupid conspiracy theory.
But none of them want to believe me when I say , it's already happened.
Below is a file that I have uploaded that was given to me by a California judge to explain to me the reasoning the court is given for saying that the Supreme Court rulings don't matter and the United States Constitution does not matter.
Now I've had attorneys give me all kinds of explanations for this and I haven't yet had one tell me that it says what it says which is, California is not a State. Breakdown what the paper says in layman's terms is that California is not a state or State of the Union as the Articles would describe and the reason for that is mainly because California wasn't there when the Constitution was written, and the Constitution doesn't mean anything anyway because the Articles of Confederation were what said the Constitution was Supreme and since the Constitution is supreme the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect and since they are no longer in effect there is nothing to say that the Constitution is supreme.
I get so frustrated from all the times I've been told by an attorney that it doesn't say that California is not a State. When it says in black and white , California is not a State. There is no conspiracy theory there. But there is conspiracy against the people from the courts taking away their rights and I'm curious on why hasn't this been spread around the news and why do all the attorneys deny what it says.
Why on Earth would somebody want to join the bar when they already have the right to work and they could be acting as the attorney for someone and not have to go by the bar rules and secretly take away the rights of the people in America , and why would an attorney close his eyes to it and let these people rape and pillage our country ? Is it ignorance ? Because I say ignorance isn't Bliss. Ignorance is ignorant.
 
Why on Earth would somebody want to join the bar when they already have the right to work and they could be acting as the attorney for someone and not have to go by the bar rules and secretly take away the rights of the people in America , and why would an attorney close his eyes to it and let these people rape and pillage our country ? I


Sorry, take your sovereign nonsense elsewhere.
an you.

This thread is closed.

If you open another thread on this sovereign nonsense, I will summarily ban you.

Feel free to ask legal questions, but we don't debate.

Debates only create ill will and hurt feelings, so please keep your personal opinions to yourself.

Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top