Arizona Special Operations Group

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#101

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:48 pm

Kriselda Gray wrote:Is it just me, or is there a bit of a disconnect in complaining about a lack of fairness in being restricted to one thread because that's what the proprietor of the place decided was appropriate while simultaneously longing for the days when companies could refuse to serve anyone for any reason?
:clap: :clap: :clap:


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#102

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:00 pm

:explode:

No. It's not you. He's a hypocrite and a leech. He thinks he's God's gift to mankind. But he's little more than scum. And a seditionist and hater of his country. He should go somewhere where he'd be more at home. Like Syria. Or Iraq.



OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#103

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:04 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote::explode:

No. It's not you. He's a hypocrite and a leech. He thinks he's God's gift to mankind. But he's little more than scum. And a seditionist and hater of his country. He should go somewhere where he'd be more at home. Like Syria. Or Iraq.
There is an old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
You also have prerogative of asking that I be banned form the kitchen. And, the owner of the "kitchen" (business?) has every right to kick me out, if he so chooses.

BTW, John Adams tried making speaking against government out to be sedition. That didn't last very long, at all.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#104

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:17 pm

OPF wrote:BTW, John Adams tried making speaking against government out to be sedition. That didn't last very long, at all.
There's a world of difference between speaking against the government and advocating blowing up federal buildings.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#105

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:23 pm

bob wrote:
OPF wrote:BTW, John Adams tried making speaking against government out to be sedition. That didn't last very long, at all.
There's a world of difference between speaking against the government and advocating blowing up federal buildings.
Right. Only government can blow up other country's government building truck factories, TV station, and even passenger trains.

However, and interesting question, absent the requisite Declaration of War(Art I, § 8, cl 11), does the government have any powers that we did not give them? If we gave them, we must have had them to give. If the Constitution does not require us to relinquish them, do we still retain them?

There is a lot of sidestepping -- refusing to answer questions that I pose, though I have endeavored to answer all of the question (very many, so I may have overlooked some) direct to me. I would hops, since you are not inundated, that you will answer each of them.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#106

Post by Suranis » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:32 pm

Hearing this guys blathering about what he thinks the Founders were all about, we are reminded of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s mortifying question, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?"

Yes Jefferson and Washington so believed in the natural rights of liberty for all men that they owned slaves. Jefferson was also so fiscally responsible that he was a spendthrift and spent his life deeply in dept, and believed that the blacks were inferior and incapable of self governance.

Washington so believed in liberty and the cleansing force and right of the common man to take up arms against tyranny that he raised and army and brutally put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Which was a rebellion in part against taxes. It also means he thought bad things about people ranting against the government.

The real life founders would either laugh in your face or shoot you dead. Washington certainly would have done the latter.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#107

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:39 pm

OPF wrote:Only government can blow up other country's government building truck factories, TV station, and even passenger trains.
Your point is?: You are not another government.
There is a lot of sidestepping -- refusing to answer questions that I pose, though I have endeavored to answer all of the question (very many, so I may have overlooked some) direct to me. I would hops, since you are not inundated, that you will answer each of them.
Hops spring eternal, especially on the internet.

I was mildly curious why other "patriots" thought you were an informant; my curiosity has been satisfied.

I was mildly curious about the habeas papers you threw at the courts; I've concluded you were playing lawyer, and in a rather incompetent manner.

Your questions? :yawn: I'll exercise my freedom to sort my sock drawer.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15756
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#108

Post by Suranis » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:43 pm

However, and interesting question, absent the requisite Declaration of War(Art I, § 8, cl 11), does the government have any powers that we did not give them? If we gave them, we must have had them to give. If the Constitution does not require us to relinquish them, do we still retain them?

€Ah yes, the whole "goverment by choice" canard of sov cits

Since you LOOOOOVE the talk of the beginning of the nation on that let us look at the first major case before the US supreme court, Chisolm V Georgia. It focused on states rights and such

Even better let us focus on the opinion by John Jay, he who the birthers love as having sent a letter to Washington about Citizenship
1st. In determining the sense in which Georgia is a sovereign State, it may be useful to turn our attention to the political situation we were in prior to the Revolution, and to the political rights which emerged from the Revolution. All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by grants from that Crown. All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people of the colonies which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and Spain while Roman Provinces, viz., only that affinity and social connection which result from the mere circumstance of being governed by the same Prince; different ideas prevailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775.

The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it, and it was then not an uncommon opinion that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that Crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a Confederation of the States the basis of a general government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it, and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable

Page 2 U. S. 471

that, in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and, conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country, and, in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will that the State governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.

If then it be true that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.

It will be sufficient to observe briefly that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority, and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African

Page 2 U. S. 472

slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

So there you go, that very question was dealt with by the court at the very time of the drafting of your precious bill of rights. And they basically said you are full of shit.

I'd explain it but you would ignore it as much as you will ignore the words or just cherry pick the words from way back then. :crying:


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Paul Lentz
Posts: 3666
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Downtown O-town

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#109

Post by Paul Lentz » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:54 pm

OPF wrote: There is an old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
You also have prerogative of asking that I be banned form the kitchen. And, the owner of the "kitchen" (business?) has every right to kick me out, if he so chooses.
In this case, the "owner" (Foggy) has made a decision to allow you to continue to be a customer. However, it appears that he has restricted your access to the back kitchen door, and although you can still buy lunch, you must eat it outside, and with your fingers, from a disposable paper plate.

It seems (judging from your comments) that is a business model and owner's perogative which you--at least philosophically (well, lip service anyway)--support.

What's the matter? Haven't you ever been refused a seat at the Woolworth's lunch counter before, boy?


The love of power will not win over the power of love.
Orlando, Florida 6/12/16

OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#110

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:01 pm

bob wrote:[SNIP]

Your questions? :yawn: I'll exercise my freedom to sort my sock drawer.
It appears that you overlooked most of the questions. You answered an early question that would have been answered, had you answered the remainder of the questions.



OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#111

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:06 pm

Paul Lentz wrote:
OPF wrote: There is an old saying, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
You also have prerogative of asking that I be banned form the kitchen. And, the owner of the "kitchen" (business?) has every right to kick me out, if he so chooses.
In this case, the "owner" (Foggy) has made a decision to allow you to continue to be a customer. However, it appears that he has restricted your access to the back kitchen door, and although you can still buy lunch, you must eat it outside, and with your fingers, from a disposable paper plate.

It seems (judging from your comments) that is a business model and owner's perogative which you--at least philosophically (well, lip service anyway)--support.

What's the matter? Haven't you ever been refused a seat at the Woolworth's lunch counter before, boy?
What do we have, here? A comprehension problem?
I believe that I recognized, and acknowledged, what my position was, here.
However. you have informed me that I must eat outside.
So, with that, let me ask you to join me for lunch. Since you have no problem with me eating outside, you have confirmed, rhetorically, what I have said.
Finally, you suggest that i am philosophical and giving lip service. On the contrary, as in my articles, I can back up what I say with documentation supportive of the position I set forth. That is why I provide links, so that the proof is available, to those who seek the truth.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#112

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:13 pm

OPF wrote:You answered an early question that would have been answered, had you answered the remainder of the questions.
Speaking like a fortune cookie is oh-so-compelling. :roll:

Take your ball home, or don't; whatever. I had been mildly curious about your adventures in playing lawyer, but your I've-got-a-secret routine couldn't be more boring.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#113

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:25 pm

bob wrote:
OPF wrote:You answered an early question that would have been answered, had you answered the remainder of the questions.
Speaking like a fortune cookie is oh-so-compelling. :roll:

Take your ball home, or don't; whatever. I had been mildly curious about your adventures in playing lawyer, but your I've-got-a-secret routine couldn't be more boring.
28 USC § 2242
Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf. It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant's commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known. It may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions. If addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge it shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held.

So, you ASSUME that someone must be an attorney. IN any other setting the phraseology would be "the person or his counsel".

Maybe they just didn't write what they meant.
But, wait, let's look at a Court decision that addresses that. If you want the specific, read the particular pages on my site, or find the case:
Whitman v. Arkansas, 495 US 149

You may also go through the historical legal scholar works in Guardian of Liberty, where the make clear that anybody can Petition on another persons behalf.

Conclusion jumped to often result in demonstrating that the jumper is a fool.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#114

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:33 pm

I've read Whitman; it doesn't say what you think it says.

Which is why SCOTUS bounced your papers and denied your writ to let you act as Myers' attorney (excuse me, "representative").

"Guardians of Liberty"? White's "Guardians of Liberty"? Seriously?


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#115

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:36 pm

A "next friend" -- the person verifying the petition -- doesn't have to be a lawyer. The person filing it has to be a lawyer unless it's filed in pro per (in which case the next friend wouldn't be verifying it). Oh how easy it is to play lawyer when you don't know what you're talking about. (Bonus comment. Louis Franz, who acted as "next friend" for Whitman in the case you cite saw the case he filed dismissed.)

(Speaking of acting as a "next friend," something you clearly don't understand, I have personal experience. I was once the "next friend" -- as well as counsel -- for my client in a successful federal habeas case. Around 1974 or 1975.)

Screw off seditionist and terrorist. You have no idea what you're talking about.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#116

Post by SueDB » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:48 pm

Are chew toys supposed to be "Kosher for Passover®"???

Just Wondering in Washington.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#117

Post by OPF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:00 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:A "next friend" -- the person verifying the petition -- doesn't have to be a lawyer. The person filing it has to be a lawyer unless it's filed in pro per (in which case the next friend wouldn't be verifying it). Oh how easy it is to play lawyer when you don't know what you're talking about. (Bonus comment. Louis Franz, who acted as "next friend" for Whitman in the case you cite saw the case he filed dismissed.)

(Speaking of acting as a "next friend," something you clearly don't understand, I have personal experience. I was once the "next friend" -- as well as counsel -- for my client in a successful federal habeas case. Around 1974 or 1975.)

Screw off seditionist and terrorist. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Asked and Answered.
The Clerk at the United States Supreme Court held that position until I convinced him of his error. Then, he admitted it to the Docket, though went to the entire Court rather than Scalia. I would assume that the Clerk is more competent than you are, at least in that regard. I both verified and filed it.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#118

Post by bob » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:10 pm

SCOTUS filed the petition under your name, not Myers'.

SCOTUS considered the question you presented your petition (should we compel our clerk to let some bozo non-attorney represent someone else?), and answered that question in the negative. And then denied rehearing when you didn't accept that answer.

But, please, enlighten us on how SCOTUS got that wrong as well.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#119

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:54 pm

What a masterpiece:
PETITION FOR REHEARING
Petitioner, Larry Mikiel Myers, through "next friend" Gary Hunt, respectfully requests a rehearing of the Court's order dated October 7, 2013, denying his Demand for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, Docket 13-5008.
A court has a legal and constitutional obligation to answer and return a Writ of Habeas Corpus, when demanded. When the District Court refuses to answer and return, the next step is the Circuit Court. When the Circuit Court refuses, in violation of their own Rules, to send the Demand for Habeas Corpus to the District Court, and refuses to answer and return, that leaves only this Supreme Court in which a citizen may find remedy, by answer and return.
This obligation is created by 28 U.S.C. § 2241: Power to grant writ
(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.
(b) The Supreme Court, any justice thereof, and any circuit judge may decline to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus and may transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Constitution is unambiguous in assuring the right of habeas corpus, unless suspended by the Congress. The wording of the Statute (28 U.S.C. § 2241), rather ambiguous with the "may" instead of "shall", however, does not revise the intent of the Constitution. It is merely a way of passing down to a lower Court, which would be an abrogation of responsibility on the part of this Court, as the lower courts have, by their inaction on the habeas corpus, become parties (named Respondents) in the matter before you. If you will not "entertain" this Demand for Habeas Corpus, then who will?
In 28 U.S.C. § 2243: Issuance of writ; return; hearing; decision
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.
The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.

The person to whom the writ or order is directed shall make a return certifying the true cause of the detention. When the writ or order is returned a day shall be set for hearing, not more than five days after the return unless for good cause additional time is allowed.
Here, the timeliness of issuing the writ is clearly defined. However, with the chicanery that has been demonstrated by the servants of the public, from the Sheriff through this Court, has resulted in the suspension of habeas corpus from January 2012 through present (21 months), without the constitutionally required, for cause, suspension thereof. No explanation has been provided that the "person detained is not entitled thereto."
An Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus was submitted, dated September 22, 2013. The Court received it on September 26, 2013. The Demand for Habeas Corpus was delivered to the entire Court on September 30, 2013. The Mandamus was ignored, without regard to justice. More chicanery?
Absent redress in this Court, Habeas Corpus, the "sacred writ", which right is guaranteed in the Constitution:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, (Article I, Section 9, clause 2)
The Writ and the Constitution are effectively denied, making this Court a conspirator in denial of legal remedy accorded by the Constitution.
If there be technical errors, as the caption, which was arbitrarily changed by the Clerk, that are cause for the denial of the Demand, then we must consider whether justice can be denied to those who cannot afford, nor can they find, an attorney who will resort to the organic Constitution, as the "supreme Law of the Land," (Article VI, clause 2) or whether his " assistance of counsel for his defence" (Amendment VI) must be a member of a fraternity that has been subjected to indoctrination by both schools of law and membership in the BAR association and the consequential obedience to a court. The concept of salvation being obtained only through the priesthood was set aside at the founding of this great nation.

If there be technical errors based upon service, not in compliance by the Rules of the Court, can those Rules abrogate a right secured by the Constitution?
In Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 US 149 (1990). This Court, upholding an ancient right, held that another could petition, on behalf of the incarcerated party, for habeas corpus, under certain conditions. In that decision, at 150:
(c) Whitmore's alternative argument that he has standing as Simmons' "next friend" is also rejected. The scope of any federal "next friend" standing doctrine, assuming that one exists absent congressional authorization, is no broader than the "next friend" standing permitted under the federal habeas corpus statute. Thus, one necessary condition is a showing by the proposed "next friend" that the real party in interest is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability...
Understanding that Mr. Myers had attempted to demand habeas corpus, and was ignored, he sought a "next friend" whom he could trust, had respect for, and asked for the assistance thereof. He is, by virtue of his incarceration, unable to research, prepare, or submit, documents on his own behalf. His "incapacity" is his own, as well as a consequence of his incarceration. His "lack of access to court", has been demonstrated by his initial effort to demand habeas corpus, and subsequent actions by the lower courts.
The Record will show that though the Respondents were served, none have made a response to the Demand. This leaves only the Demand on the Record, and upon that Demand, only, can determination be made as to the legitimacy of the Demand for Habeas Corpus.
Absent such response, and having only before the Court, the Demand, how is it that such a sacred doctrine of jurisprudence can be set aside by a swish of the pen, "Denied"? Are words of the document that created this august body, this Supreme Court, to be swept aside? If so, can that sweeping be selective, or is there a deeper consequence?
To review the relationship of the Constitution, the government created thereby, and the people, we can look to what Justice Marshall said, in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803):
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such

government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.
Obviously, his comment addressed only the Legislative Branch. However, we can do no less than recognize that it also applied to the Executive, and, especially, the Judicial Branch, whether by statute or by rules, as the latter is held to make final determination as to the constitutionality of any act, or, without question, any action, which is in violation of the Constitution.
What, then, is the consequence of such a failure of obedience to the Constitution, as Justice Marshall affirmed, at least with regard to an act of the legislature? In a case that predates the Constitution, the North Carolina Supreme Court provides an answer.
The North Carolina Supreme Court addressed the state legislature enacting a law that was in contradiction to the state constitution, when they said, in Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787):
But that it was clear that no act they could pass could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.
Interestingly, they recognized that should such a law be upheld, it would have the effect of dissolving the government created by the North Carolina Constitution, because that government violated the instrument of its own creation. Does that concept also apply to the United States Constitution? Does it also extend to the Judicial Branch, if they abrogate their responsibility to uphold the Constitution with regard to the rights protected thereby? Clearly, it cannot be perceived in any other way.
CONCLUSION
This Court must grant the Rehearing requested, or it would abrogate its responsibility under Article III of the Constitution as the "judicial Power of the United States" (Article III, clause 1), as explained

by Justice Marshall and subsequent decisions by this Court. It would also, by inaction, be usurping the sole authority to suspend habeas corpus from the Congress, where the Constitution places it.
This Court must hear, answer, and return, the Demand for Habeas Corpus, based upon that which has been submitted to the Court in the Demand for Habeas Corpus, and any responses thereto by named Respondents, or give cause otherwise. To fail to do so would be a breach of the trust of the people in the creation of the Constitution, and would, as stated in both Marbury and Bayard, have the effect of dissolving the government created by the Constitution.
To Deny this Petition is to Deny the obligation on government created by Article I, Section 9, clause 2. To Deny to answer and return the Demand for Habeas Corpus is to Deny the Constitution, itself -- and the government created thereby.
____________________________ Gary Hunt, as next friend, for Larry Mikiel Myers
This 22nd day of October, in the Year of our Lord, 2013, and the Year of Our Independence, two hundred and thirty seven
25370 Second Avenue Los Molinos, California 96055 (530) 384-0375 hunt@outpost-of-freedom.com

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
As counsel of record in this matter, I hereby certify that this petition for rehearing is presented in good faith and not for delay and is restricted to the grounds specified in Rule 44.2.
I further certify that the grounds of this petition are limited to intervening circumstances of substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.
By: ____________________________ Gary Hunt, as next friend, for Larry Mikiel Myers
This 1st day of November, in the Year of our Lord, 2013, and of Our Independence, two hundred and thirty seven



OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#120

Post by OPF » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:00 am

bob wrote:SCOTUS filed the petition under your name, not Myers'.

SCOTUS considered the question you presented your petition (should we compel our clerk to let some bozo non-attorney represent someone else?), and answered that question in the negative. And then denied rehearing when you didn't accept that answer.

But, please, enlighten us on how SCOTUS got that wrong as well.
I styled in "In RE Larry Mikel Myers". They changed it on the Docket. The Petition had Myers' name on it.
So, yes, the Court made it wrong.
What was filed is a PDF on the Habeas Corpus page.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#121

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:21 am

OPF wrote:So, yes, the Court made it wrong.
Of course, SCOTUS (and its clerks) are wrong. And not the bozo non-attorney who misreads Whitman and singularly thinks the habeas writ has been suspended. Of course.

Such knowledge must warm Myers in his prison bunk nightly.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#122

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:35 am

This guy is another idiot who has a very high opinion of himself. And who thinks everyone is wrong but him.

If he needs surgery I wonder if he goes to one of his self-taught friends. or simply does it to himself.

Not only is he a seditionist and a keyboard terrorist. He's also a clown.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24422
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#123

Post by bob » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:35 am

In Re Gary Hunt

Gary Hunt, as "next friend", and on behalf of Larry Mikiel Myers, Demandant,
v.
Jeffery K. Adkins, Supervisor of New Cases, through William K. Suter, Clerk, United States Supreme Court, Respondents
You (not Myers) petitioned SCOTUS, "counselor."


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#124

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:48 am

He purported to represent a "Demandant." And one of the "Respondents" he sued was the very court in which he purported to bring his case.

I suppose he also does surgery on himself with a spoon.



OPF
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:56 pm

Re: Arizona Special Operations Group

#125

Post by OPF » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:57 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:This guy is another idiot who has a very high opinion of himself. And who thinks everyone is wrong but him.

If he needs surgery I wonder if he goes to one of his self-taught friends. or simply does it to himself.

Not only is he a seditionist and a keyboard terrorist. He's also a clown.

So, who can explain Habeas Corpus and dispute what I have written?
Why do the courts avoid answering the Petition?
The attorneys I have spoken to, about that, have no answer and don't understand why the court doesn't simply answer and put it to rest.



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”