Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Discuss legal theories and the merit thereof

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby picka » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:19 am

Lets assume you're correct.
Why did the ninth rule that foreign nationals can contract for labor/work and property within Arizona?
Why did they not say, under the minimum contact doctrine such foreign nationals must accept the appellation of illegals and have no rights to contract, and in fact should be deported?

Your logic/assumptions are not congruent with that of the ninth.
But you're welcome to read the case and explain how 'illegals', which the court properly appelled as foreign nationals, have a right to contract for property with Arizona's citizens.
That would be a substantial contact/presence and they still can contract and have rights instead of being called illegals.

Why?
How do you explain it? (I know how the court did, and I agree with it)
And more importantly, why didn't Arizona just write a minimum presence or substantial presence law making them illegal and prohibiting them directly?
Why did they go througb the trouble of trying to stop their lawful conduct indirectly??

Hint: Arizona went after the legally privileged individuals whose behavior it can regulate to indirectly try and regulate that which it cannot otherwise regulate......which is what?
picka
Freeman
 
Posts: 682
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:32 am
Has thanked: 5 time
Have thanks: 5 time

 

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby Pumpkin » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:33 am

that said, I have " J" plates which are only issued under certain circumstances, and which may lead an Officer to believe he had better have a good reason to seize a " vehicle" bearing such plates


What is a J plate?
Pumpkin
 

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby country_hick » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:55 pm

This motion does not look baseless to me.

Marc Stevens Motion Dismiss WA Revamped

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eMPg5_PnD3o4h9Agr5g4h1dZWuYqojIshUIyEchKOoA/edit
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 45 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby Pumpkin » Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:21 pm

Any motion should be seriously considered by the court. But they wont be because the court is ruled by a man (or *****) in a Satanic black robe, who does not think that they themselves will ever face any judgment (since they think they can insulate themselves from judgment with 'judicial immunity'). But they are wrong.
The created serves the Creator. As with man to God. As with the nest to the bird. As with government to the people.
Judges don't wear black robes for nothing.
Pumpkin
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:49 pm
Has thanked: 51 time
Have thanks: 105 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby PHOSPHENE » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:40 pm

The atheist's claim is a factual one.... "There's no evidence of God."

Marc Stevens' research is like political atheism ......."There's no evidence that the Constitution applies."

That claim is supported by contract law. It's a fact that we did not sign the Constitution. Therefore, we are not party to it.
"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful" - Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788)
User avatar
PHOSPHENE
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:31 pm
Location: Shell Beach
Has thanked: 103 time
Have thanks: 217 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Fri Apr 14, 2017 8:17 pm

PHOSPHENE wrote:The atheist's claim is a factual one.... "There's no evidence of God."

Marc Stevens' research is like political atheism ......."There's no evidence that the Constitution applies."

That claim is supported by contract law. It's a fact that we did not sign the Constitution. Therefore, we are not party to it.

Factually according to article VI sec. (3)
3 The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of
the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,
to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.

There is no evidence that "this" constitution has never been adopted, No one has sworn an article VI oath to support"this" Constitution.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... .php?id=93
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 124 time
Have thanks: 48 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby PHOSPHENE » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:45 pm

Nunya_Bizness wrote:No one has sworn an article VI oath to support"this" Constitution.


There's nobody to swear an oath to anyways.
http://jim.com/treason.htm

On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take "to support the Constitution," are of no validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO NOBODY. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) — that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement — between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.

If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hundred thousand people, men, women and children, with whom I have no contract upon the subject, take an oath that I will enforce upon them the laws of Moses, of Lycurgus, of Solon, of Justinian, or of Alfred, that oath is, on general principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no obligation, not merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS GIVEN TO NOBODY, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody. It is merely given to the winds.
"This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, Sir, they appear to me horribly frightful" - Patrick Henry (June 7, 1788)
User avatar
PHOSPHENE
Out of the State
 
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:31 pm
Location: Shell Beach
Has thanked: 103 time
Have thanks: 217 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby Pumpkin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 8:50 am

The above is a bit odd considering 'crimes' are prosecuted in the name of the state (the people).
The created serves the Creator. As with man to God. As with the nest to the bird. As with government to the people.
Judges don't wear black robes for nothing.
Pumpkin
Creditor In Commerce
 
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:49 pm
Has thanked: 51 time
Have thanks: 105 time

Re: Why Mark Stevens research is CRAP!

Postby wealllbe20 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:02 pm

Marc Steven's advice about disqualifying the witness is awesome.

Everything else... I haven't been too impressed about.

I suggest you all go here with an open mind and read pages 48-89

*edit* AND 111 - 148

https://archive.org/download/chadmanscycloped01chad/chadmanscycloped01chad.pdf

then read: http://constitution.org/soclcont.htm

Then look into contract law:
Where does contract law get it's authority from?
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
---
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 84 time

Previous

Return to Legal Theory Analysis

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

suspicion-preferred