-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Tyrant NY judge says Second Amendment doesn't exist in her court room
- Thread starter FPrice
- Start date
no one going to change rules of how legal system operates in this country. judges themselves will not allow to alter the way how judges are regulated.
it is a closed loop system, and activists found a perfect loophole of how to abuse it.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 9,629
- Likes
- 9,246
I wouldn’t believe it unless I experienced it first hand but somewhere in this state there was a judge that smack some shit down real quick… I would’ve loved to heard the conversation but I’m pretty sure it went like “what the f*** are you doing? You can’t do that”
Hard to believe, but there’s at least one good judge in this state because it was a f***ing shit show… you can always sue. But my constitutional rights attorney basically said hey you can’t sue over hurt feelings…. I disagree but regardless… at least this judge got it right cause I was getting railroaded real hard over nothing.. they almost gave me a f***ing heart attack.
"She told us, ‘Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom. It doesn’t exist here. So you can’t argue Second Amendment. This is New York.'"
Actually, this is a TRUE statement. And once the Second Amendment community understands it, we would be on your way to recovering our God given rights. But as long as we allow the government to get away with it, they will continue to take advantage of our collective ignorance, and oppress the shit out of us.
The judge said, and I paraphrase: "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this court." This is a true statement because...
1) A "court" may mean one of three forums:
Article I legislative courts (example: US Tax Court, see Title 26 US Code § 7441), that right, "US Tax Court" is not a judicial court of law, because it's based on the false or erroneous presumption of a government entitlement, such as "wages," or "gross income."
Article II Administrative Courts, which include the majority of proceedings people are familiar with, such as: traffic court, child support court, "gun court," housing court... etc. These courts are "regulatory" courts, that is they adjudicate regulatory crimes or regulations. A regulatory crime, or a violation of “regulations result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property, but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.” See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 484 Mass. 53, 58 (2020) quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 256 (1952).
And finally, we have Article III courts, or common law courts, which are for the adjudication of private rights disputes, and common law crimes, which MUST involve an actual injury, loss, or breach of a lawful contract. this is the judicial court of law they try to convince you're in, but in most cases it's NOT.
2) The difference between these courts is explained in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 68-70 (1982) in the "public rights doctrine." Basically, the court explains: "The public rights doctrine is grounded in a historically recognized distinction between matters that could be conclusively determined by the Executive [Article II] and Legislative [Article I] Branches and matters that are 'inherently ... judicial.'" ... "a matter of public rights must, at a minimum, arise 'between the government and others.'" and "only controversies in [these] categories may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination." and "Private rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power."
Further, when the government "creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right." The term "particularized tribunals" mean either Article I or II courts, NOT article III courts.
3) The court that tried and sentenced Dexter Taylor was an Article II court. As described above, Article II courts are administrative courts that executive agencies of government use to enforce "regulations." And the term "regulation" generally means the rules and requirements "of general application and future effect ... adopted by an agency to implement or interpret the law enforced or administered by it," see Mass. Administrative Procedures Act, MGL 30A, § 1(5). This parallels New York's APA.
For example: the dental practice act is enforced and administered by the State Dental Board, so if you pull teeth, then you'll need a license. The department of education and early childhood development issues licenses to child care providers. The department of health and food safety issues licenses for poultry and meat processing. These licenses extend the public trust to those with proven qualifications to SERVE the public; but there is no such thing as a license to pull your own tooth, a license to be a parent, or a license to kill and cook the chickens in your backyard.
Now here's the fraud: They charged Dexter Taylor with essentially not having permission (or a license) to keep his own arms, and to supply them for himself. But these are regulations that apply only to the group regulated by the State's department of public safety, who licenses ONLY gunsmiths, dealers, manufacturers, firearms instructors, private investigators, armed guards, watchmen and other public safety personnel. These are entitlements that government control, and therefore they may institute proceedings in an Article II administrative court. The subject matter being adjudicated is NOT the right of the people to keep and bear Arms according to their own constitutional, "personal," and "individual right," and therefore...
The "judge" is correct in stating: "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this [Article II administrative] court." But the judge is not acting in her judicial capacity, she is an administrator in an Article II administrative court, and therefore she is violating the separation of powers doctrine, the administrative procedure act, the declaratory judgment act, the major questions doctrine, 6th Amendment right to know, the vagueness doctrine, the presumption of innocence, and other due process guarantees.
4) The key to understanding "gun laws," in fact any licensing law, is that executive branch agencies enforce regulations derived in part from legislation, and applied according to the agencies' discretion. And "Acts of [the legislature] are to be construed and applied in harmony with, and not to thwart, the purpose of the Constitution." Phelps v. U.S. 274 U.S. 341 (1927). BUT -- they don't. The executive agencies actually MISAPPLY the written law, the Judicial branch happily plays along, and ignorant & lazy people happily comply.
5) So there you have it, many of you here consent to licensing and the theft of your rights and property. So why all the outrage? You left the Second Amendment's unqualified protection, when you claim anything other than your right "to keep and bear Arms." You wanted a license to "carry," which means to carry in the performance of a duty, or to carry on a business like a gunsmith. I bear arms and carry nothing.
6) Read the Amicus Curiae by NH Representative Jason Gerhard in Mass Appellate Courts - Public Case Search, and attached hereto for the Truth, because only the Truth can set you free!
Dr. Lu, Kang
[email protected]
Actually, this is a TRUE statement. And once the Second Amendment community understands it, we would be on your way to recovering our God given rights. But as long as we allow the government to get away with it, they will continue to take advantage of our collective ignorance, and oppress the shit out of us.
The judge said, and I paraphrase: "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this court." This is a true statement because...
1) A "court" may mean one of three forums:
Article I legislative courts (example: US Tax Court, see Title 26 US Code § 7441), that right, "US Tax Court" is not a judicial court of law, because it's based on the false or erroneous presumption of a government entitlement, such as "wages," or "gross income."
Article II Administrative Courts, which include the majority of proceedings people are familiar with, such as: traffic court, child support court, "gun court," housing court... etc. These courts are "regulatory" courts, that is they adjudicate regulatory crimes or regulations. A regulatory crime, or a violation of “regulations result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property, but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.” See Commonwealth v. Kelly, 484 Mass. 53, 58 (2020) quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 256 (1952).
And finally, we have Article III courts, or common law courts, which are for the adjudication of private rights disputes, and common law crimes, which MUST involve an actual injury, loss, or breach of a lawful contract. this is the judicial court of law they try to convince you're in, but in most cases it's NOT.
2) The difference between these courts is explained in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 68-70 (1982) in the "public rights doctrine." Basically, the court explains: "The public rights doctrine is grounded in a historically recognized distinction between matters that could be conclusively determined by the Executive [Article II] and Legislative [Article I] Branches and matters that are 'inherently ... judicial.'" ... "a matter of public rights must, at a minimum, arise 'between the government and others.'" and "only controversies in [these] categories may be removed from Art. III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination." and "Private rights disputes, on the other hand, lie at the core of the historically recognized judicial power."
Further, when the government "creates a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right." The term "particularized tribunals" mean either Article I or II courts, NOT article III courts.
3) The court that tried and sentenced Dexter Taylor was an Article II court. As described above, Article II courts are administrative courts that executive agencies of government use to enforce "regulations." And the term "regulation" generally means the rules and requirements "of general application and future effect ... adopted by an agency to implement or interpret the law enforced or administered by it," see Mass. Administrative Procedures Act, MGL 30A, § 1(5). This parallels New York's APA.
For example: the dental practice act is enforced and administered by the State Dental Board, so if you pull teeth, then you'll need a license. The department of education and early childhood development issues licenses to child care providers. The department of health and food safety issues licenses for poultry and meat processing. These licenses extend the public trust to those with proven qualifications to SERVE the public; but there is no such thing as a license to pull your own tooth, a license to be a parent, or a license to kill and cook the chickens in your backyard.
Now here's the fraud: They charged Dexter Taylor with essentially not having permission (or a license) to keep his own arms, and to supply them for himself. But these are regulations that apply only to the group regulated by the State's department of public safety, who licenses ONLY gunsmiths, dealers, manufacturers, firearms instructors, private investigators, armed guards, watchmen and other public safety personnel. These are entitlements that government control, and therefore they may institute proceedings in an Article II administrative court. The subject matter being adjudicated is NOT the right of the people to keep and bear Arms according to their own constitutional, "personal," and "individual right," and therefore...
The "judge" is correct in stating: "The Second Amendment doesn't exist in this [Article II administrative] court." But the judge is not acting in her judicial capacity, she is an administrator in an Article II administrative court, and therefore she is violating the separation of powers doctrine, the administrative procedure act, the declaratory judgment act, the major questions doctrine, 6th Amendment right to know, the vagueness doctrine, the presumption of innocence, and other due process guarantees.
4) The key to understanding "gun laws," in fact any licensing law, is that executive branch agencies enforce regulations derived in part from legislation, and applied according to the agencies' discretion. And "Acts of [the legislature] are to be construed and applied in harmony with, and not to thwart, the purpose of the Constitution." Phelps v. U.S. 274 U.S. 341 (1927). BUT -- they don't. The executive agencies actually MISAPPLY the written law, the Judicial branch happily plays along, and ignorant & lazy people happily comply.
5) So there you have it, many of you here consent to licensing and the theft of your rights and property. So why all the outrage? You left the Second Amendment's unqualified protection, when you claim anything other than your right "to keep and bear Arms." You wanted a license to "carry," which means to carry in the performance of a duty, or to carry on a business like a gunsmith. I bear arms and carry nothing.
6) Read the Amicus Curiae by NH Representative Jason Gerhard in Mass Appellate Courts - Public Case Search, and attached hereto for the Truth, because only the Truth can set you free!
Dr. Lu, Kang
[email protected]
Similar threads
