Supreme Court and Constitution do not matter.

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

reigningscorpios

New Member
Jurisdiction
California
A couple of months ago a California judge gave me some court papers from a previous case so that I would understand where the court was coming from. The judge was explaining why I had no rights and the way that she explain this what's by saying that California is not a state of the union because California wasn't there when the Constitution was written and the Constitution doesn't mean anything anyways because the Articles of Confederation or what said the Constitution was Supreme and since they are no longer in effect there's nothing to say the Constitution is supreme so we have no constitutional rights in court.
Now my first question is , if this is not treason then what is?
My second question is, If we are not members of a state , and if we're not a state of the union or one of the United States, then ,wouldn't that mean that the courts have no authority over us ?
My guess is going to be that the replies to both of these questions are going to be type of well it's okay because of this or it's okay because of that and it can't come out that way.. the courts can't have it both ways where we don't have any constitutional right so where nobody because we're not a state and yet they're in charge of us because we're State and we have to go by the laws. It can't be both ways, and I'm not going to ask , can it, because it can't be both ways
 
I'm sorry the reason for the title of this thread is because this is exactly what the judge told me that the constutution and the Supreme Court don't matter. How is that not Treason?
 
You should be speaking to your attorney about this, especially since you haven't explained why you were in court to begin with.

Sounds like you lost a case and are upset - also seems like you're the type to be argumentative in court.
 
My best guess is that you are misunderstanding something you were told.

Also, no, what you describe is not treason.
 
reigningscorpios said:
this is exactly what the judge told me that the constutution and the Supreme Court don't matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to believe for a minute that any judge would say that (even in CA) until you post a copy of the official transcript of her exact words.

An explanation of your case would help us figure out where you are coming from.

The name of the prior case cited by the judge would also help.
 
reigningscorpios said:
The judge was explaining why I had no rights and the way that she explain this what's by saying that California is not a state of the union because California wasn't there when the Constitution was written and the Constitution doesn't mean anything anyways because the Articles of Confederation or what said the Constitution was Supreme and since they are no longer in effect there's nothing to say the Constitution is supreme so we have no constitutional rights in court.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's so silly as not to be even remotely believable, and I'll just quote what "adjusterjack" wrote above: "I'm not going to believe for a minute that any judge would say that . . . until you post a copy of the official transcript of her exact words."

reigningscorpios said:
Now my first question is , if this is not treason then what is?
Click to expand...

What an odd question. Did you just make up a definition of "treason" and then decide that what this judge allegedly did fits that definition? "Treason" is rather clearly defined in section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (emphasis added). Even if your allegation against this judge were true, what you described doesn't even come close.

reigningscorpios said:
My second question is, If we are not members of a state , and if we're not a state of the union or one of the United States, then ,wouldn't that mean that the courts have no authority over us ?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who "we" are in this sentence, but you appear to be asking about the effect of something is patently absurd, so I don't really see the point in trying to answer an absurd hypothetical question that is based on an absurd statement.
 
reigningscorpios said:
A couple of months ago a California judge gave me some court papers from a previous case so that I would understand where the court was coming from. The judge was explaining why I had no rights and the way that she explain this what's by saying that California is not a state of the union because California wasn't there when the Constitution was written and the Constitution doesn't mean anything anyways because the Articles of Confederation or what said the Constitution was Supreme and since they are no longer in effect there's nothing to say the Constitution is supreme so we have no constitutional rights in court.
Now my first question is , if this is not treason then what is?
My second question is, If we are not members of a state , and if we're not a state of the union or one of the United States, then ,wouldn't that mean that the courts have no authority over us ?
My guess is going to be that the replies to both of these questions are going to be type of well it's okay because of this or it's okay because of that and it can't come out that way.. the courts can't have it both ways where we don't have any constitutional right so where nobody because we're not a state and yet they're in charge of us because we're State and we have to go by the laws. It can't be both ways, and I'm not going to ask , can it, because it can't be both ways
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question? It sounds like a joke. No judge is going to say what you allege them to say.


If some judge were to say "well (insert state) wasn't there when the Constitution was written so it's not part of the union" then that would apply to the majority of the US wouldn't it?

Treason: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court."

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

That's the legal definition of treason. So did the judge levy war or give and comfort to enemies of the US within the US or elsewhere? If not then there was no treason.
 
You know, I I think I would still say yes because Chile Americans that they don't have any constitutional rights is supporting the enemy. I think that's what the enemy would want. I mean hell, I felt like i was in a foreign country when i was in court. ( besides that yellow trim flag that's in the courtroom you know the red white blue and yellow trim ,, flag ? That's not our flag.
So there's another good question,, why do all the cords fly Maritime admiralty flag and not our American flag?
zddoodah said:
Sorry, but that's so silly as not to be even remotely believable, and I'll just quote what "adjusterjack" wrote above: "I'm not going to believe for a minute that any judge would say that . . . until you post a copy of the official transcript of her exact words."



What an odd question. Did you just make up a definition of "treason" and then decide that what this judge allegedly did fits that definition? "Treason" is rather clearly defined in section 3 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (emphasis added). Even if your allegation against this judge were true, what you described doesn't even come close.



I'm not sure who "we" are in this sentence, but you appear to be asking about the effect of something is patently absurd, so I don't really see the point in trying to answer an absurd hypothetical question that is based on an absurd statement.
Click to expand...

"We" , would be the people .
You appear to be a smart man but I'm not seeing how in the world , and since when is asking out about the effect of something is absurd ? I've lost all faith in you my friend.
But I think I can help. I think what your mistake is, is how you trying to fit in that word hypothetical which still wouldn't make a question about the effect of something hypothetical as being absurd it's like sstupid question is not because it is not hypothetical the judge and the clerk told me the Constitution does not matter the Supreme Court rulings do not matter . What is hypothetical about that ?
you guys don't have to believe me but just the fact that I said it happened gives you more than a shadow of a doubt so before you start judging let me figure out how the hell to get the damn paper set here. For some reason none of the apps I've tried will send it to this page... IDK? :)
But it's coming, I don't know why I have to prove I'm not a f****** liar. But to suffice you angry old men ,it will be here somehow..
By the way I'm not trying to fight the word treason I'm just trying to say this is extremely wrong. I mean , I don't care , what do you want to call it ?
What I'm saying is , I sure hope that not all judges and all the attorneys think the same way as the judge. And if not, how did this judge get so far in his occupation with THAT way of thinking ??? and the clerk ??? and the appeals judge ???
THESE PEOPLE ARE SO BAD THAT THEY'RE ALTERING THE RECORD EVERY DAY ,,, ( oh God, i hear you guys already, * how absurd, of course, they add to the record every day " no , ALTER, ADJUST, EDIT,,,, CHANGE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID TO BETTER FIT THE BS STORY THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE. "THE RECORD". Covering up their lies.
 
adjusterjack said:
I'm not going to believe for a minute that any judge would say that (even in CA) until you post a copy of the official transcript of her exact words.

An explanation of your case would help us figure out where you are coming from.

The name of the prior case cited by the judge would also help.
Click to expand...
Why is it that my file won't upload? Says not enough memory but the file is only 5??kbs
 
reigningscorpios said:
You know, I I think I would still say yes because Chile Americans that they don't have any constitutional rights is supporting the enemy.
Click to expand...

Huh?

reigningscorpios said:
( besides that yellow trim flag that's in the courtroom you know the red white blue and yellow trim ,, flag ? That's not our flag.
So there's another good question,, why do all the cords fly Maritime admiralty flag and not our American flag?
Click to expand...

Where did you get the ridiculous notion that a flag with yellow trim is a "Maritime admiralty flag and not our American flag"? As for why the yellow trimmed flag is flown in some places, the answer is because whoever made the decision about what flag to buy thought it looked nice.

reigningscorpios said:
I think what your mistake is, is how you trying to fit in that word hypothetical which still wouldn't make a question about the effect of something hypothetical as being absurd it's like sstupid question is not because it is not hypothetical the judge and the clerk told me the Constitution does not matter the Supreme Court rulings do not matter . What is hypothetical about that ?
Click to expand...

If you go back and re-read what I wrote previously, you'll see that my comments that you're picking at we're in response to your question as follows: "My second question is, If we are not members of a state , and if we're not a state of the union or one of the United States, then ,wouldn't that mean that the courts have no authority over us ?" The part that I emphasized is the part I was describing as absurd. The State of California most certainly is one of the United States, and you are (apparently) a resident of the State of California. Therefore, since your question is based on an absurd premise, trying to answer the question as a hypothetical would be a waste of time.

I suggest you confer with a local attorney about whatever your legal matter is.
 
My God Jim, the judge doesn't shop at Wal-Mart ?
Check it out it's a courtroom. Its all about cross the T's and dot the i's and nothing is to be overlooked. I HAVE TO TAKE MY HAT OFF JUST TO GO INSIDE THEY'RE SO "PROPER" . The flag is special to a courtroom. And the flag is specked out to be an EXACT way. These court's just happen to throw a swastika on their flag but you can go hang it at the United nations. Just tell them thats they had at that yard sale.
 
Ok ,
zddoodah said:
Huh?



Where did you get the ridiculous notion that a flag with yellow trim is a "Maritime admiralty flag and not our American flag"? As for why the yellow trimmed flag is flown in some places, the answer is because whoever made the decision about what flag to buy thought it looked nice.



If you go back and re-read what I wrote previously, you'll see that my comments that you're picking at we're in response to your question as follows: "My second question is, If we are not members of a state , and if we're not a state of the union or one of the United States, then ,wouldn't that mean that the courts have no authority over us ?" The part that I emphasized is the part I was describing as absurd. The State of California most certainly is one of the United States, and you are (apparently) a resident of the State of California. Therefore, since your question is based on an absurd premise, trying to answer the question as a hypothetical would be a waste of time.

I suggest you confer with a local attorney about whatever your legal matter is.
Click to expand...
Ok , BUT, im here to ask an attorney. A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. I lost a case in Sonora and was told even before i got there by the clerk that i have no argument because the supreme court rulings do not matter and i don't have the constitution to fall back on because it superseded the articles of confederation and they were what said it was supreme. So they don't matter either. It wasn't until i got into court that the judge further explained it with paperwork that explain,,, ok go to post. Ill just word for word it cause no one will even tell me why the file won't upload.
I love this place, your all so sweet and helpful.
 
file will not upload due to low memory. I have 3 gigs free and its not even 1 meg.
So if someone could please tell me why it won't upload, if feel a whole lot better than being called a liar or just some idiot who likes to argue irrelevant jibber jabber. Yeah those are my words, your free and clear.
SO , WORD FOR WORD.
It's a towing company it's a Daily Journal dar 12506 or 5 keysight yellow flag negative treatment ( not the yellow flag I was talking about) 209 California appeals fourth court of appeal Fifth District California blah blah blah constitutional law in bold letters freedom of travel and movement . Then States in bold letters. Status under Constitution of United States and relations in United States in general California truck owner was not among the people of each state has right to free Ingress and regress to and from any other state was acknowledged by the Articles of Confederation since California was not one of the states in this Union or a state as that term was used in the Articles of Confederation.
Then it says constitutional law in bold Constitution is supreme Paramount or highest law the Articles of Confederation are no longer in effect having been superseded by the Constitution of the United States in 1789.
No I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure that I just got done saying that it said California was not one of the states
 
One more for Mighty Mouse okay it's not treason then what is it because it can be legal there's got to be a name for this a way to get that judge kicked off the bench cuz they can't be doing this crap.
 
Redirect Notice
By the way. Here is one place where i got my retarded ubsurd premise.
And again, im pretty sure it says just about EXACTLY what i said.
FUCK THIS SITE.
Does everybody have to prove their case before the can get any help.
LOOK, DON'T BAN ME JUST YET. I WILL FIND A WAY TO SEND YOU THE COURT PAPERS and then I'll be happy to leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top