-
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.
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
- 11,436
- Likes
- 11,169
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
LibertyWithoutLicense@gmail.com
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
LibertyWithoutLicense@gmail.com
calsdad
NES Member
Actually .... the judge just admitted that the rules that the Constitution which is still legally in effect in the world outside her courtroom "does not exist" inside her courtroom. That's like saying "this is my own special little world here". Well if that's true - then any rulings that happen inside that room - don't apply outside the courtroom either.
You can't have it both ways.
calsdad
NES Member
The US is "done" as a nation somewhere in the years 2032-2035. That seems to be the consensus from multiple people I read who's opinions I trust - and all of this flagrant violation of the laws of the land are a pretty big chunk of what is contributing to that demise.
2032 is not that far away. It's two Presidential terms. If I had to take a guess on how that plays out I'd guess that Trump somehow gets in this next time (although all things point to "them" fighting that tooth and nail and doing ANYTHING they can to prevent it) - and then on the rebound some total and complete retard leftist is installed as "President" on the next go-around and then it's all over. Likely because - if the Biden administration is any indication ..... they just do every single possible goddamn retard thing you can imagine to drive the country into the ground - and that simply forces the hand of sane people in "red" states - who are finally FORCED to say phuck it we're out of here.
That's your "way out".
But.... I used to think I could predict shit with some small degree of accuracy. For instance I pretty much knew that some uber-leftist would make it in as President - after Bush invaded Iraq. I could already see the handwriting on the wall for that when the invasion kicked off.
But the last few years - I don't think I can really "see" accurately anything about what is going to happen here. Too much crazy shit going on. We've got something like 20 million illegals in the country - a good portion of whom are likely enemy sleeper cells. We've "activist" black judges all over the country pulling shit like this woman has pulled. We've got the President himself who is being controlled from behind the scenes. The military is hollowed out. The economy is teetering on implosion. "They" are threatening another round of pandemic something-or-another. The country is like 35 trillion dollars in debt (that's never getting paid back), the petro-dollar is on it's last legs, China is rising to become the next superpower and likely has agents all over this country, they're forcing electric vehicles on people even thought they don't really work all that well - etc. etc. etc.
The whole thing is such a mess that I can't see how any of it gets solved as a "way out" until there's some sort of blow up and sanity can IMPOSE itself again. And IMPOSE is going to be in capital letters because it seems that is going to have to happen thru force of arms - and likely thru the elimination of a LOT of people who have willfully CAUSED all this bad shit to happen.
calsdad
NES Member
Absolutely true. But if you really sit back and analyze the WHY of why those things were great - until they were not , you can always find the reasons why that happened.
I've worked in a number of start-ups in the past. And despite some seriously long hours - there were a couple of cases where it was what I would consider to be a great work environment. The "why" of why that was - was largely due to the mentality of the people who worked there. Lots of work to do, everybody just sort of "naturally" got along with each other or was able to put aside their differences, the work was interesting and people all had a stake in things being a success - etc. In one case - which sort of parallels that political situation in this country right now - the company began as a start-up, and after an initial period of uncertainty - grew at a consistent basis once the product hit the field. I was hire #50 at the company. The start up gave stock options. Early people obviously had more stock options. People higher up - had more stock options - the usual score. So 4 years go by and the company is bought out by a much larger multi-national. Everybody's stock options vest - and there's a pretty damn good payout. LOTS of people had been hired in the interim - and as the years went on the amount of stock options you got went down.
So one day at lunch AFTER the buyout is official and everybody knows the terms - there's a group of younger developers there and one of them - who I don't think was there more than 8 months or a year at most - starts bitching up a storm about how HE is not getting in on the huge stock option payouts. I ended up giving him a complete ration of shit - and basically told him that he signed on when company was already a sure thing and he had gotten a good salary and not a lot of hours - etc. If he had wanted to roll the dice and get the good option package - he should have signed up back a few years ago when we were all working 80 hours a week, there was no guarantee of the next round of funding - and the next month might find you out on the unemployment rolls. "What part of this don't you understand dude - you take a risk - you MIGHT get a reward - that's the way this phucking thing works - you just sound like an entitled twat".
That's pretty much what is going on here with the country. That startup was fun to work at when everybody was on the same page. Once it grew beyond that and the self-entitled twats started showing up and making their voices known - it was OVER.
Not for nothing - but the vast majority of blacks that make the most amount of noise in the public square - are really not on board with what this country was envisioned as being by it's founders. That much is pretty damn clear. A LOT of them are down with big government - because it gives them shit. A lot of them are down with being commies - because I think that's their mental makeup. This thing has been covered many years ago even in mainstream TV shows like "The Americans" where the main characters are Soviet agents living here - and some of their main contacts - are blacks.
We've got a number of different groups in this country - political, ideological , and racial - all vying for dominance. The blacks seem to be most retarded IMHO -because it sure seems like they've got it in their heads that they're somehow going to come out on top. That's in a societal soup that includes multiple racial/social groups that are collectively a lot smarter than them and are larger than them.
The fact remains though: given the way this whole thing has evolved , if "traditional" or "conservative" Americans want to live again under a sane regime - they are going to have to FORCE the issue. And if certain groups don't like it - well then maybe they just need to go away.
blindndead
NES Member
Seeing people are getting out of prison.. How is this guy making out?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,495
- Likes
- 6,317
They will not overrule a DEI hire.
Similar threads
