/mlpol/ - New amendment to the Constitution removes all your rights under the Constitution!!

New amendment to the Constitution removes all your rights under the Constitution.

'''Text - H.J.Res.48 - 115th Congress (2017-2018)''': Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/48/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22nolan%22%5D%7D

It removes all your rights because all persons are registered as corporations when they are born. (This has been amply researched. Do not believe it, research it yourself).

The bill removes all the rights under the Constitution of those who are corporations.
Thus, everyone in the U.S., practically, under this bill, will loose '''ALL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.'''

H. J. RES. 48

“ section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as '''corporations''', limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state '''shall have no rights under this Constitution''' and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/48/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22nolan%22%5D%7D

'''Got a Birth Certificate? You are a Fictitious Corporation Created by the British Accreditation Regency (BAR Association)'''

https://spktruth2power.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/got-a-birth-certificate-you-are-a-fictitious-corporation-created-by-the-british-accreditation-regency-bar-association/

PLEASE HELP SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE!

'''Please help to stop this crap being pushed by a compromised Congress now!'''

I don't believe this bullshit.
Changing the Constitution isn't easy anyway.

>>123548

The link is legit. Read it and study it. Current Congress is sold-out and attempting to betray America the Beautiful.

It is HIGH TIME TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787.

These Congressmen are a bunch of traitors to our Constitution and now are trying to remove all your rights under The Constitution!

>>123548
This, it won't happen. There have been 11,000 attempts to amend our constitution but only 27 have gone through. There is no way 3/4 of the states could agree on anything these days.

>>123552
A proposed amendment needs a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress to even be proposed. Then We The People vote on it and it must be approved by 3/4 of States. It is almost impossible to amend our constitution and this bill hasn't even been proposed yet.

The strength of our constitution is that it is almost impossible to amend. Again, they haven't even proposed this amendment yet.

>>123556
>this bill hasn't even been proposed yet.

The bill has not been proposed yet?

>>123557
No. What you linked in OP is the bill to propose it.

>>123558

Oh, good, if that is the case it can be stopped in it´s tracks even before it is proposed.

>>123556

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/30/2017)

115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 48

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 30, 2017

Mr. Nolan (for himself, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Takano, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. O'Rourke, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Lee, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Engel, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. Norcross, and Mr. Jones) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.

'''Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein)''', That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

>>123556

It says introduced to the House and resolved by the Senate!

>>123585
>>123586
Tbh learn how amendments to our constitution work.

The bill you quote is to the bill to propose it. It's right there in the first sentence! In other words, they have proposed proposing this constitutional amendment. If both houses of Congress vote in favor of the bill with a 2/3 supermajority, then it is proposed and goes to our State legislators, 3/4 of which must ratify it.

>>123673
This, first you gotta propose a proposal to propose your proposed amendment, all the while your people can propose amendments to your amendment.

Despite the red alert from the based soukie flagger, this isn't anything to worry about at this stage. Adding and removing amendments are nearly impossible, which is why democrats go for gun laws rather than striking out the 2nd amendment as a whole. It's also why they push the "hunting and sport" cop out in their unconstitutional bills/laws

>>123736
He's not based. He's a shill. This isn't even tangible on reality.

Are you one of those "Sovereign Citizens"? lol

>>123673

How was the 47th amendment to the Constitution passed? This should give you a clue.

>>123736
>Despite the red alert from the based soukie flagger, this isn't anything to worry about at this stage.

Nice try to deflect people away from a serious issue.

>>123742

And you are a shil from Canada shilling about what you have no clue about.

>>123757

That is the same argument the Nazis of 8 chan POl are using. Nice try to deflect shill.

>>123777
Your entire argument was debunked here >>123675

>>123774
>calling a Leaf a meddler for making a personal observation
>when your own flag is South Korean and you make posts on American politics, calling people to action

The doublethink is real, here. Also:

>>123776
>>123777
>>123778

Don't think I haven't been noticing you replying to EVERY post that runs counter to what you've been saying in individual posts. Clearly, someone's rustled your jimmies.

I am not a lawyer, but I think you're misinterpreting this.

Whether or not people are registered as corporations, there remains the fact that as they are people in their own right. The US Code explicitly defines the term "person" to include all members of the species Homo Sapiens who are born alive at any stage of development. John Doe the corporation might not have rights, but John Doe the person does.

In any case, constitutional amendments almost never pass, since they require 3/4 of congress to agree on something, and right now, we can barely even get 1/2 of congress to agree on anything.

>>123551

The constitution of 1787 didn't have any of the amendments at all. Not even the first amendment. You're not even an American, so why are you trying to tell us what we need to do? Fuck off, Korea.

>>123773

There is no 47th amendment. There are 27 amendments to the constitution, the last of which was passed in 1992. Incidentally, the 27th amendment was the first amendment to be proposed, but the last to actually get ratified. It took over 200 years to make its way into the constitution.

>>123773
>How was the 47th amendment to the Constitution
There is no 47th amendment you idiot.

>>123780

Link not working..

>>123782

That is just a proxy. Flag means nothing. The Canda flag dude however is really a Canadian munk. That is the difference. Canadians meddling. My Ip however is just spoofed.

>>123782

Nice try to riducule others shill. Your tactics are blatant lies and have been exposed shill.

>>123783

''I am not a lawyer, but I think you're misinterpreting this.''

''Whether or not people are registered as corporations,''

If you do not know that people are corporations then you have not right to give an opinion, because you are just speaking non-sense not based upon any knowledge at all.

>>123783
>In any case, constitutional amendments almost never pass, since they require 3/4 of congress to agree on something, and right now, we can barely even get 1/2 of congress to agree on anything.

Never pass? How did they then pass the 47th amendment? This should give you a clue.

>exaggerates everything
>uses bold text and formats every post to be both eye catching as well as an eye sore
>uses a proxy
>posts under a rarely seen flag
>scrounges up the worst conspiracy bullshit he can find with google search
>dismisses all information debunking him
OP is actively giving out information, and he's vindictive about being called out.

>>123795
misinformation*

>>123787
>>123789
>it took you two posts to reply to my one

Jesus Christ, what are you, some sort of Plebbitor shill trash? And considering you think the Jews are on the Nazis' side, I'm inclined to believe you are.

>>123783
>You're not even an American,

How do you know if I am an American or not? Presumption is a dreaded disease.

Of course the Constitution of 1787 did not have any amendments. That is dumb remark and quite irrelevant in fact.

>>123784

27th amendment. That was a typo mistake.

How was the 27th amendment to the Constitution passed? This should give you a clue.

>>123806
>after 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days
So?

>>123795

Proxys are good. Nobody is exagerating. Bold text at times is good. The flag is meaningless, it is retarded even to activate flag tracking. The word conspiracy was created by the CIA to ridule truth. Those opposing the truth are dismissing all information debunking them. You are vindictive about being called out for how wrong you are.

>>123796

I already knocked-down all of his riduculous arguments. Try another, that is laughable.

>>123799

Thout shalt not swear or cuss. You are a law breaker and an offense to the Father in Heaven.

>mfw this thread just got good

Well, at least you did one thing, shill: you made me laugh.

>>123809
That's clear bullshit. Stop believing in feeble nonsense, and actually attempt to find real corruption instead of bringing up old shit from 10 years ago.

>>123804

How is it then that judge Anna J. Brown is able to use her title of nobility, imparted upon her by the Bar, to patent land?

>>123807

How specifically was it passed. More details please. That should give you a clue.

>>123817
>How specifically was it passed. More details please. That should give you a clue.
>It removes all your rights because all persons are registered as corporations when they are born. (This has been amply researched. Do not believe it, research it yourself).
Actually, the burden of proof falls on you, not me.

>>123814

Call others shills when you do not agree with them. A tactic also of the clowns. Tactic two - call something a "conspiracy theory" to attempt to discredit it.

>>123815

I just replied to the lies spoken and refuted them is all. If you cannot handle that then sorry you are hopeless.

>>123819

I am not going to waste my time with ignorant people who are not willing to research this, who have their head in the sand, who are here only to spread lies, mock, ridicule and lie. Get lost.

>>123673

How specifically was the 27th amendment passed. This should give you a clue.

>>123823
>makes claims
>won't back them up
>when I ask for some sources I get called ignorant
Well when I can't find anything maybe you should provide a source

>>123585

Under a state of martial law and military rule, with The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 having issolved the U.S. Fed Government, and the current state of inter-regnum, the normal process of the Electoral college and amendments have been aborted and now a fictitious entity is proposing to be the legit government. Do you homework shills.

>>123816
Non-sequitur. Also, no account exists of a Judge Anna J. Brown with nobility nor with a patent.
>>123821
Did something go missing under your head? You didn't/

>>123830
>Do you homework
Well, if it means I'll actually learn correct grammar, sure. Maybe you should "do you homework", too.

>>123828

What claime specifically are you asking be sourced?

Try this article referred to here:

>>123547

>>123835
First I want the details on why the 27th amendment's ratification was in your opinion so fishy

>>123831
>Also, no account exists of a Judge Anna J. Brown with nobility nor with a patent.

You can claim whatever you want but she is doing this -- using her title of nobility to patent land. Obviously something, some screw is missing in your brain.

>>123832

Looking for something to criticize hey shill? Nice try but big time fail dumbo.

MAKE NO FRILL
KILL THE SHILL

>>123836

Who said it was fishy? Stop reading into things and just answer the questions I make.

>>123839

MAKE NO FRILL
KILL THE CANDADA SHILL

>>123840
Fine, how was it ratified besides taking 202 years?

>>123843
>202 years?

It did not take 202 years to ratifiy it. That is not an answer to my question.

>>123842

F off CANDADA SHILL.

If you cannot understand how the 27th amendment was ratified, you will not understand the 28th ratification.

>>123847

CANDADA SHILL ANSWWERS WITH PORN WHEN HE HAS NO ANSWER. SHOWS HOW STUPID IT IS.

>>123849

F off porn fag.

>>123791

>If you do not know that people are corporations then you have not right to give an opinion
Your source to this claim is a fucking Wordpress blog, and not an official SCOTUS ruling, or a citation of the US Code, or a citation of the US Constitution. The Wordpress blog you linked to does not cite any legal statute either, and is therefore worthless. But since you didn't seem to understand me the first time, allow me to spell things out for you: Whether or not your claim that we are all corporations is true, that does not change the legal precedent that as humans, born alive, we are people, and distinguished from any fictitious corporation created on our behalf. My source for this claim? 1 USC 8.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

>>123793
>>123801
>>123806

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratification_by_the_states

It was passed when a bunch of states, over time, ratified it.

>On May 18, 1992, the Archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, certified that the amendment's ratification had been completed.[19][20] Michigan's May 7, 1992, ratification was believed to be the 38th state, but it later came to light that the Kentucky General Assembly had ratified the amendment during that state's initial month of statehood,[17] making Missouri the state to finalize the amendment's addition to the Constitution.[a][3]

Not really any foul play here.

>>123800

You have a South Korean flag, idiot. It's pretty damn likely that you're a South Korean.

>Of course the Constitution of 1787 did not have any amendments. That is dumb remark and quite irrelevant in fact.
So you want to go back to a constitution that doesn't guarantee a right to free speech, or a right to bear arms? Kill yourself.

>>123851
>>123852
>it is
It's fucking xir, shitlord.

Under a state of martial law and military rule, with The Emergency Banking Act of 1933 having dissolved the U.S. Federal Government, and the current state of inter-regnum, the normal process of the Electoral college and amendments have been aborted and now a fictitious entity is proposing to be the legit government. Do you homework shills.

>>123854

CANDADA PORN SHILL THINKS IT CAN WIN BY POSTING PORN.

>>123844
>The Twenty-Seventh Amendment has one of the most unusual histories of any amendment ever made to the U.S. Constitution. Congress passed the Twenty-Seventh Amendment by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, in 1789, along with eleven other proposed constitutional amendments (the last ten of which were ratified by the states in 1791, becoming the Bill of Rights). The Amendment provides that: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”

>It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982 when Gregory Watson researched it as a student at the University of Texas at Austin and began a new campaign for its ratification. Watson's role has been widely popularized, since his original paper proposing the idea received a poor grade (although a current Professor at Texas, Zachary Elkins, engineered a grade change in 2017 in light of Watson's accomplishments). The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.

Didn't take 200 years my ass

>>123778
I'm the reporter who runs ANN lol Not that that means much but I'm definitely not a shill. I just think Sovereign Citizens are nutjobs.

>>123853
>Your source to this claim is a fucking Wordpress blog,

That blog is just an intro for idiots like you. Kinda like info for idiots 101.

>or a citation of the US Constitution.

U.C.C. military rule law and law of the sea are specific frameworks of law under wartime shill.

''Whether or not your claim that we are all corporations is true, that does not change the legal precedent that as humans, born alive, we are people, and distinguished from any fictitious corporation created on our behalf. My source for this claim? 1 USC 8.''

But when you appear before a Federal Court, your fictitious corps is the one that is tried on their ship. You have no rights only priviledges.

Do not quote Wikipedia please.

Amendments to our constitution that had been ratified by the states were removed by a treasonous Congress. Do not give me that bull-shit.

Just because I have a korean flag as the ip does not prove I am Korean you idiot.

The right to free speech and to bear arms is not a reason for you to tell others to kill themselves fag. The amendments can all be preserved upon the legit version of our constitution and we do not need your fake organic constitution any more paid shill.

>>123852
Not only have you repeatedly proven you don't know what the word "shill" means, you have just proven that you're an outsider.

Rule 10, bitch. Enjoy your porn.

>>123859

Ok, good, so what was the last ratified amendment now in modern history and how was it passed?

>>123859

Where did you get that info from? Source of the article please?

>>123866
The last one passed was the 27th, and it was passed gradually over time.

If your point is "Well it will be passed over time" then I raise you this:
What is to stop something passing making sure people aren't considered corporations?
>>123867
Sure
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxvii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

>>123859

The article does not explain how it was ratified, thus incomplete. What is your source for this? Link?

>>123865

You have proven that you are an outsider because you don´t know what the hell you are talking about porn fag.

>>123872
"Oh no, please, don't make me post more of the horsepussy I love!"

>>123869

No Wikipedia links please.

The National Constitution Center is the first and only institution in America established by Congress to “disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.” The Constitution Center brings the United States Constitution to life by hosting interactive exhibits and constitutional conversations and inspires active citizenship by celebrating the American constitutional tradition.

https://constitutioncenter.org/about

Congress itself is supporting the fake organic constitution and is acting on behalf of an illegitimate gov. so quoting this site has no validity whatsoever. The current gov is illegit and in inter-regnum.

>>123875

Porn shill is not proving anything except how retarded it is.

All the lie fags have been busted and exposed in their lies.

Fags and lies will all be silenced. Do not even try it with me. I will blow you out of the water with your lies.

>>123876
I'm still failing to see what you want me to know about the 27th amendment

>>123877
Posting porn is always good.

>>123864

>That blog is just an intro for idiots like you. Kinda like info for idiots 101.
Look, man, I have a master's degree. I might not be a lawyer, but I can read fucking legalese. If you make a legal claim, I'm going to expect you to either link me to a law on the books, or a Supreme Court opinion.

>U.C.C. military rule law and law of the sea are specific frameworks of law under wartime shill.
Then cite where in the Uniform Commercial Code, Military Law, or Maritime Law that you are referencing.

>But when you appear before a Federal Court, your fictitious corps is the one that is tried on their ship. You have no rights only priviledges.
When you walk into any court, Federal or State, it is you the human being that is tried, and you the human being who gets sent to jail when you're found guilty of a crime.

Incidentally, judges really don't like it when you pretend like there's a separation of a legal person and the human being that stands before them. This is what it looks like when you try to pull that crap in court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7h7uevwxt8

>Do not quote Wikipedia please.
You could always check their references...

>Amendments to our constitution that had been ratified by the states were removed by a treasonous Congress. Do not give me that bull-shit.
Which amendments? The only amendment that was removed was the 18th, which was removed via the 21st amendment.

>The right to free speech and to bear arms is not a reason for you to tell others to kill themselves fag. The amendments can all be preserved upon the legit version of our constitution and we do not need your fake organic constitution any more paid shill.
If you want to preserve the amendments, you should not ask to restore the constitution to the version it was in 1787. Try 1791 instead.

Ad hominems, Ad hominems everywhere

>>123884

You just got whale blown out of the water, lol.

>>123877
Who said I was proving a point, faggot? I'm just doing what I love.

>>123893
And now he's resorted to...

Shitty puns and aquatic mammal posting?

>>123888
>If you make a legal claim, I'm going to expect you to either link me to a law on the books, or a Supreme Court opinion.

Do your homework, I am not going to waste time with people who know nothing about this.

''Then cite where in the Uniform Commercial Code, Military Law, or Maritime Law that you are referencing.''

You need to speak to a judge to get the insider secrets or hear from someone who has. You will not find it out in the open.

Courts operate under martial law - see the gold fringed flag. It is not about pretending to not be something. Obvioulsy you do not understand how the system works.

Again, do not quote Wikipedia. Give a reliable source.

''Which amendments? The only amendment that was removed was the 18th, which was removed via the 21st amendment.''

Sorry but you are missing a major amendment that was ratified by the states and was illegall removed.

''If you want to preserve the amendments, you should not ask to restore the constitution to the version it was in 1787. Try 1791 instead.''

We are just wanting to cast-off the fake organic constitution is all.

>>123896

Much better then porn posting hey?

>>123899
I'd disagree.

>>123897
>Sorry but you are missing a major amendment that was ratified by the states and was illegall* removed.
Then tell us which one
also *illegally
>>123899
Nah, at least the porn is entertaining

This porn fag dude is so ridiculous. He thinks he can derail the thread by posting shity porn characters.

>>123902

Nah, doing so would only bring on a storm of most false statements and shit posts. I am not going to argue with people not willing to look into this. Study it for a few months then come back when you know enough about the subject. Otherwise, I am just wasting my time.

>>123906
Did you mean the 18th Amendment?

>>123906
>starts debate
>denies carrying the burden of proof
One moment please

>>123909

I did not start any debate. Am just swatting all the flies...LoL.

>>123906
Fair enough, porn threads are an excellent alternative to well-reasoned, well-thought, and well-cited discussions.

>>123910
jokes on you, that still looks like a vagina!

>>123914

**For the dirty mind folks like you.**

>>123915
that may be true, but at least I don't have all these random images saved.

>>123910
That's a hot-ass piece of wood.

>>123910
That legit looks like s vag.

Sometimes, I feel lewd is just as pleasing as explicit.

>>123897

>Do your homework
You're the idiot making claims. If you aren't going to back up your arguments with actual citations to actual laws, you're nothing more than a troll.

>You need to speak to a judge
No, actually, I don't. If it was an enforceable law, it would be on the books.

>Courts operate under martial law - see the gold fringed flag
Okay, it's time for me to cite some actual law now:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/912/224/1986395/

>Finally, Defendant Greenstreet's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment identifies this Court as an "Admiralty Court" without further discussing his allegation. If his reference is to be construed as a jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Others have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty. In light of the fact that this Court has such a flag in its courtroom, the issue is addressed. The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively. To think that a fringed flag adorning the courtroom somehow limits this Court's jurisdiction is frivolous. See Vella v. McCammon, 671 F. Supp. 1128, 1129 (S.D.Tex.1987) (describing petitioner's claim that court lacked jurisdiction because flag was fringed as "without merit" and "totally frivolous"). Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction.

>Sorry but you are missing a major amendment that was ratified by the states and was illegall removed.
Name it.

>We are just wanting to cast-off the fake organic constitution is all.
I prefer the real constitution on the books now. The one that recognizes that I have rights. The one that makes slavery illegal.

13 illemvd rat den cngd.

>>123911
Well you are stating vague facts and not providing much solid evidence.

>>123924

You're the idiot making claims.

If you aren't going to back up your counter - arguments with actual citations to actual laws, you're nothing more than a troll.

''No, actually, I don't. If it was an enforceable law, it would be on the books.''

Reveals how dumb you are about how courts function. They never put in the books what they are doing in their legal legesse mumbo jumbo.

''If his reference is to be construed as a jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Jurisdiction.''

That is because you cannot challenge them on jurisdiction while you accepted to be tried under their ship retard. You know nothing.

I'' prefer the real constitution on the books now. The one that recognizes that I have rights. The one that makes slavery illegal.''

You have no rights under the fake organic constitution, only priviledges retard.

>>123924
>Name it.

I already gave a cue.

>>123924
I love trials featuring Sovereign Citizens. Reading about their insane doublethink and admirality laws presented in court is always kek worthy.

>>123931
Why so hostile?

>>123928
Friendly note anon, there are legal experts amongst the Mlpol userbase,... you'll have to do better desu. I'm not above tin-foil hat shit, but you're clearly tilting at windmills to a degree that is not complimentary

You quote Wikipedia and a web page produced by an illegit Congress while we are in inter-regnum and expect to use that as proof. Then you have no clue what the organic fake consitution is. Then you expect someone to challenge jurisdiction by claiming the court is admiralty court. Shows how dumb you actually are.

>>123935

Obviously that was some dumb person who tried to fight the captain while on his ship. A stupid person in fact. Not representative of any legit well informed group.

>>123938

You are just jumping to your own pea brain conclusions. Sorry. I know more then you fag.

>>123928
>That is because you cannot challenge them on jurisdiction while you accepted to be tried under their ship retard. You know nothing.

>>123937

Hostility is met back in equal appropriation of duly imparted change, in the same coin it is given.

>>123945

So you are a UN fag then?

>>123939

Read this idiots.

Oh hey a very active thread. Maybe we aren't dea...
Oh wait its drama bullshit.
Why the hell do we even care about a stupid piece of paper that will likely be thrown away in the next 10-30 years anyways? Its not like we can change it in this polarized climate.

Hey everyone, post some of your favorite lewds/porn.

>>123950

I just have fun blowing away the retards is all.

>>123917
Looks like metal to me.

>>123888
>Look, man, I have a master's degree.

I don´t care if you are the Prince of Saudi Arabia with a masters in scamming. You have been blown-away in ignorance.

>>123956

Crappy cheap porn fag thinks it can derail the thread by posing cheap crap.

>>123953
Anon /mlpol/ is a nice board.
Also I do agree with most of the others, the last amendment under our republic has passed before we either devolve into bloodshed or Mexico.

>>123960
>Also I do agree with most of the others, the last amendment under our republic has passed before we either devolve into bloodshed or Mexico.

What is that comment supposed to mean?
Sorry...

>>123956
Whatever it is, it's hot as hell.

>>123962

Talking with yourself while you post shitty porn?

Must go now. Do your homework and I will be back in a week to see what you fags have learned...out of here..see ya suckers...

>>123961
Well to put it simply.
Our republic is unstable and people and states will never agree to pass an amendment. If we have a republic after our impending civil war we might have a new Constitution, but I doubt it since we will more likely just end up a monarchy or dictatorship.

>>123969

The shill Congress is not even allowing a Convention of the States. As I have stated, we are in inter-regnum. Only restoring the Constitution of 1787 - 1789 will resolve it. End the martial law, military rule and re-instate the common law courts as they existed prior to the U.S. Civil War, which never ended. See U. Hope you do some homework and catch you in a week!

>>123969

By the way, a Constitutional Convetion is not what we need. That will make things only worse by allowing the shills to mess it up even more. We need a convention of The States. Will post more info next time I come...after the shills are gone... see u!

>>123971
>>123970
>Constitutional Convetion
>Only restoring the Constitution of 1787 - 1789

No the document in itself is flawed. Read up on arrow's therm, democracy is trash we need an Absolute Monarchy to rule over this god forsaken land to ensure that we never have a left wing presence in this state again. That and reaffirm the blood right citizenship that we had till the mid 19th century.

>>123974
The issue with monarchy is that it tends to be hereditary, and ignores potentially superior candidates for rulers in favor of blood-relations only.

Now, if you had an elective monarchy or just some form of dictatorship, I'd be on board with you.

>>123975
Yeah elective absolute is my preferred type of monarchy.

>>123977
Then you and I are going to get along swimmingly.

>>123928

>Reveals how dumb you are about how courts function. They never put in the books what they are doing in their legal legesse mumbo jumbo.
On the contrary, all of their "legalese mumbo jumbo" is on the books. At the federal level (and on the state level in every state but Louisiana), the US uses a common law system, whereby precedent from previous court decisions is used to form new court decisions. If none of this shit were written down, it would be impossible to cite in court.

The site I linked to you, law.justia.com, is one resource for looking up any US court decision, whether it be state or federal. If you want to cite a court decision, you would go there. If you wanted to cite a statute, you should look at law.cornell.edu, which hosts both the US Code, and the Uniform Commercial Code, among other important legal texts.

>That is because you cannot challenge them on jurisdiction while you accepted to be tried under their ship retard. You know nothing.
It wasn't a ship, it was a courthouse. In Amarillo, Texas. Around 550 miles away from the nearest body of water that could actually hold a US Navy ship. And the jurisdictional challenge was not denied on the grounds that he had accepted to be tried there, but on the grounds that, in the judge's own words, "decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction." In other words, the gold fringe on the flag does NOT imply that it is an admiralty court.

>>123933

A clue? I'm not here to play guessing games.

>>123983
>It wasn't a ship, it was a courthouse
I think he was using a metaphor

Also, I may know the lawyer who tried the case you are talking about

>>123984

The prosecutor, I presume? Is he based?

>>123986
The attorney I know was a city attorney in what I think was a civil matter or a basic traffic fine. The story I got about his encounters with these people claiming these were Admiralty courts was pretty based

So here's something interesting I just learned. I was trying to figure out where a case would be tried for admiralty jurisdictions and the answer is... in federal district courts!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1333

So yes, a federal court is an admiralty court... in addition to its normal functions for dealing with federal law. It would therefore make sense for it to have the gold-trimmed flag.

Thank you , MLPOL. I have regained my confidence in this site.

>>124047

I'm too autistic to let some retarded Korean talk like an idiot about US law and not prove him wrong.

>>124047
>>124049
And I'm not going to let some retard shill get away without derailing his thread with porn.

>>124047
We just need something to argue over, a project to throw autism into, and some faggots to try and raid this place and then we'd be much more lively.

>>124054
So, we're basically in a meme war economy?

>>124047
>tfw when you tried rule 10ing, but image uploadin wouldn't work

>>123944
What a childish assertion. While you're away, I suggest cuz, I'm not arrogant enough to "assign homework" under a pretense may I suggest "The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner?
I love it when anons act like they're "leaving" and then lurk their own threads

>>124068
Leslie Faire would be a better pic choice for that book. I'm planning on reading it once I get through Mein Kampf.

We need another book thread.

>>124074
The other book thread is still in the catalog.

>>124074
Fair point, though the pic was intended to express my amusement at Koreanon's petulance

Okay, koreanon, I was being nice in your last thread, extending the olive branch like that, and now you've gone and trodden all over my very nice horsefuckers-in-arms. Not the best way to introduce yourself.
Apologize for your rudeness, make nice with the anons you've insulted, and make an effort to discuss things like a real person, mister.
Otherwise, I shall send you to your room without supper. And you will live to see man-made pasta horrors beyond your comprehension
Also fuck I missed the drama I'm so sorry fellas please forgive me

>>124088
he's at it again
>>124258 →

>>124263

You freaks still posting trash on this thread hey?

>>123998

Yes, Federal courts are admiralty courts.

>>123974

What monarchy will work and not turn into a despot rule such as China and communist countries?

>>124267

*in addition to their other roles.

>>123983
>At the federal level (and on the state level in every state but Louisiana), the US uses a common law system, whereby precedent from previous court decisions is used to form new court decisions. If none of this shit were written down, it would be impossible to cite in court.

All common law courts were shut-down prior to the U.S. Civil war, which never ended. Now all federal courts are admiralty courts as we are in secret martial law and state of emergency. You still do not get it. Try to defend yourself under the Constitution and common law in a Federal Admiralty court and you will fail.

"It wasn't a ship, it was a courthouse. "

You do not understand the concept how court houses under Admiralty law are ships and you are the carcass on their ship. So you cannot challenge jurisdiction while you are on the ship of the admiralty court. I bumped the clue again.

>>123992

They are admiralty courts but do not come-out and admit iit.

See this here, confirmed:

>>123998

>>124049

I am not Korean and I have already proven you wrong porn fags.

>>124068

You are the one making childish assertions.

>>124088

You ignored all the anons attacking and insulting me. They get back what they ask for. So stop it now.

>>124285

Ya, like stealing land and then creating a patent on it using their foreign title of nobility, defending criminals like the AWAN brothers and other things.

I am the one who has been proven correct so everyone who offended and attack me, OWES ME THE APOLOGY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

Back for more delicious pony pussy? I know you are.

Rail-roading attempts still not working...only helps visibility, thanks.

>>124298
We don’t owe you shit. Just give your info and leave. Have a nice day.

>>124301

Just leave and have a nice day, you will do yourself a favor.

>>124307
The key to any nice day is enjoy the board and not be autistic about your position. So please continue, it’s down right funny.

>>124289
Upon being questioned in your first thread, you insulted the anons.
Upon being questioned in this thread, you insulted the anons.
And now you're surprised when they insult you back?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I'll expect your apology in your next thread.

>>124310

Yes, you are downright funny for sure.

>>124311

I don´t owe you any satisfaction nor to any of you shit posters who have offended others nor the shit posters who are spamming this board in an attempt to derail it. Get lost.

>>124286
>>124289
>>124290

I love how you make 3 fucking posts to respond to what I have to say despite the fact that /mlpol/ allows posts as large as 6000 characters.

Now look, you clearly don't understand anything about how the law works. You're not a lawyer, and you don't read any legal texts. While I will disclose that I am also not a lawyer, and nothing I say should ever be construed to be legal advice, I can say that all the shit you are talking about is nonsense and contradicts not only the laws on the books, but also the laws that are practiced. The very fact that the Supreme Court makes judgments based on the constitution, and that all federal courts interpret the US Code as is, rather than by the rules of admiralty, should give you a clue to the fact that you are very much wrong.

Yes, federal district courts do have the ability to hold admiralty cases. That might be why they have the gold fringed flag. But that does not mean that all cases tried there are held under the jurisdiction of admiralty law. In the case I cited for you, the judge denied the right to challenge jurisdiction on the grounds that the reasoning for the challenge was fallacious. Which law is employed in the court is not determined by the courthouse's decorum. If it were based on the fact that you can't challenge jurisdiction while in the courthouse, he would have said so. Except that would contradict existing precedence. There have been successful challenges to federal jurisdiction in the past. This would not be possible if, as you so claim, all federal courts are exclusively admiralty courts, and that it is not possible to challenge jurisdiction in an admiralty court.

>>124316
>Yes, federal district courts do have the ability to hold admiralty cases.

They are admiralty courts by definition. I am not going to waste any time arguing with you. Get lost.

"Which law is employed in the court is not determined by the courthouse's decorum. "

You liar piece of shit get lost.

All Federal courts are admiralty courts you piece of shit liar you.

>>123858
>i'm totally not a south korean my ip is just spoofed i'm an american really
>candada

>>124321

blah blah blah

>>124316
B-but relation-SHIP, birth CANAL, NAVAL, birth CERTIFICATE, which according to a banking terms dictionary implies ownership, therefore we MUST be boats right? It's the only explanation that makes sense, and if you disagree you're just a shill.

>>124334

You only become owned if you agree to their shit. You can separate yourself from their ship.

>>124341
Just like your constant shit threads

>>124343

Spammer, you are the true spammer.

>>124297
I'm sure if you repeat it enough times, it'll eventually come true.

>>124349

I'm sure if you repeat it enough times, it'll eventually come true.

>>124352
I'm sure if you repeat it enough times, it'll eventually come true.

>>124353

I'm sure if you repeat it enough times, it'll eventually come true.

>>124319

>They are admiralty courts by definition. I am not going to waste any time arguing with you. Get lost.
Article III of the US Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 both confirm that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the cases of admiralty, but neither makes any claim that admiralty law is the only law practiced in those courts. The very fact that so many cases tried in US courts every day use common law precedent to draw their conclusions means that we cannot be under admiralty law. Simply put, we would all be running our cases by an incorrect procedure if that were the case.

>You liar piece of shit get lost
I literally pulled that straight from judicial precedent.

>>124334

I remember once being told that my birth certificate had a bond number associated with it that could be found on the back or whatever. Looked all over that damn thing front and back, couldn't find anything.

People believe way too much horse shit, and should probably take a BAR exam before trying to spout that everything the layman understands about law is incorrect.

>>124354
I,ɯ snɹǝ ᴉɟ ʎon ɹǝdǝɐʇ ᴉʇ ǝuonƃɥ ʇᴉɯǝs' ᴉʇ,ll ǝʌǝuʇnɐllʎ ɔoɯǝ ʇɹnǝ˙

>>124355
>Article III of the US Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 b

Because the treason took place after the Civil War is why.

"I literally pulled that straight from judicial precedent."

Sorry, but you are pulling things from the wrong place.

And yes your birth certificate is associated with a TDA account. Get lost with your lies.

Well, I've got to get off for now. Family is coming over and I fear they wouldn't take too kindly to horsepussy. Fellas, keep up the porn dumping, will ya?

>>124356

I,ɯ snɹǝ ᴉɟ ʎon ɹǝdǝɐʇ ᴉʇ ǝuonƃɥ ʇᴉɯǝs' ᴉʇ,ll ǝʌǝuʇnɐllʎ ɔoɯǝ ʇɹnǝ˙

Even upside down, the chant should work.

>>124359

derail fag.

>>124316

Again, you cannot challenge the captain while you are on his ship. Get lost at sea.

>>124363
Have you ever read about mutinies?

>>124360
˙ǝnɹʇ ǝɯoɔ ʎllɐnʇuǝʌǝ ll,ʇᴉ 'sǝɯᴉʇ ɥƃnouǝ ʇᴉ ʇɐǝdǝɹ noʎ ɟᴉ ǝɹns ɯ,I

I do believe it's time for a thread theme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgwmnCMpGKw

>>124364

All need to exit the ship by re-instating the Constitution of 1787 - 1789.

>>124358

Do you have any evidence of this treason occurring? Do you have any evidence of a standard US legal case being tried under admiralty law? How would the 1.22 million lawyers in the US keep secret the fact that everything they have read in the US constitution, the US Code, and the Supreme Court's judicial precedent, are all completely illegitimate and not actually usable in a court of law?

>>124363

Did you even read my post? Like actually process the meaning of the individual words put together within the context of each other? Or did you just see that I contradicted you and somehow felt the need to repeat what you just said (which I had countered), rather than addressing the points I made?

>>124366
Or set up something better.

>>124365

˙ǝnɹʇ ǝɯoɔ ʎllɐnʇuǝʌǝ ll,ʇᴉ 'sǝɯᴉʇ ɥƃnouǝ ʇᴉ ʇɐǝdǝɹ noʎ ɟᴉ ǝɹns ɯ,I

Maybe if you say it in Russian enough times, you will make your delusion come true.

>>124279
>What monarchy will work and not turn into a despot rule such as China and communist countries?
>China and communist countries
I think you answered your own question anon. China isn't a monarchy its a single party dictatorship which both have very different forms of legitimacy and succession.

/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

Archived thread