Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot can move forward, an appeals court rules

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I've read the actual law. Have you?

No you haven't.
There are details behind that that took years of negotiations to craft what you Google last week.
No you haven't.
You had no idea what it was just a week or so ago.
And you think you can make me jump through hoops for your petty goals.
Yes I have.
And been reading commentary on it for 3 decades.
Go bag to chatgpt with that weak sauce.
You simply have no clue and come here pretending to be a scholar from a Google search

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You've read commentary on the law, but have you actually read the law?

Here is the actual text. Please quote the parts that support your claims.

originally posted by: LeXoXeL
The Constitution recognizes two categories of branch officers: “principal” officers, who must be nominated by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who serve at the president’s pleasure; and “inferior” officers, the appointments of which “Congress may by law vest... in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.” The Supreme Court has never drawn a bright line between the two, but the difference usually depends on how much independent authority the officer has. So Cabinet secretaries are principal officers, whereas their deputies and subordinates are inferior officers. But all government officers exercise significant federal authority in their own right. A majority of civilians who work for the executive branch for example are not officers, however, but simple employees. Again, the line between employees and inferior officers is not self-evident. But for folks who are clearly employees and not officers, most are protected by federal civil service laws, which, among other things, impose limits on when and how they can be terminated.

In a nutshell, the president is not a king, does not even have the ability to fire anyone he wants. The judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches of the government do not have unilateral control over any other branch. They do not have the power to fire anyone for any reason in another branch of the government, and the POTUS does not have the ability to fire or remove anyone for any reason in any one of these separate branches without consent from Congress. This was not done accidentally. History states that a majority of if not all of the original signers of the Constitution agreed on one thing. They didn't want a king.

Trump is going to go down not because of a vast conspiracy to get the man who would be king, but because his mouth and his own devices. He is just a man, a man who for 40+ years has never been held accountable for his actions. Remember, before he was president, he was known as a ruthless businessman who enjoyed the company of mob bosses, corrupt government officials by his own admissions in "The Art of The Deal". Both Trump Tower and Trump plaza were built with the help of Fat Tony Salerno and Paul Castellano. If you lived in New York for any amount of time in the 80's, Trump and Mafia were typically spoken in the same sentence.

Side note: did you guys know that man has written 39 books about himself?

And now you are aware of the deepest corruption that has interfered with Presidential powers.
The unelected, cannot be fired deepstate bureaucrats that literally control the Executive Branch are what we have been talking about in this thread.
These are the cronies that Trump is going to fire them, and they say, replace them. But downsize not replace is more accurate.
Most of what you described is the result of USA INC and over a century of making laws to support government.
In the beginning of the IRS, still even, only these employees are required to pay income tax.
Only Federal employees.
But these unelected bureaucrats actually get to interprete far reaching generic laws passed where it leaves depth. Heads to interprete and implement.
EPA for a good example.

Here is where all the furor is about.

These 3 letter corporate positions and entire depts. are actual private corporations acting in Federal government capacity.

It is this right here that the war with Trump is being fought.
And if it is accurate this is the plan to rid us of this parasite 5th estate.
I hope this is true.
I believe it is true.
Trump issued PEAD'S just before he left office.
Trump signed off on Continuation of Government and declared a National Emergency.

We are witnessing what's called devolution of government.

When authority is fully restored back to civilian control, none of the 3 letter deepstate, unelected, hired for life need be rehired.
Not fired, just not rehired.

Now you know why it is best Congress does not get funded.
It has to be crashed.
The stock market will crash.
Currency will crash.
Crypto will crash.
The printing presses turned on to make trillions from nothing to pay for receivables until nobody in the world will want to trade with us.
And the corrupt gathered up and arrested.

All on Bidens watch.
I admit. Trump did it.
But you can never attack me for supporting it because then you will have to admit Trump IS THE MAN BABY.
And you guys will have to cheer Trump when the GCR is completed, the QFS begins and the biggest tecovery in amazing time happens that leads to a boon economy that is going to stun the world.
The greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen.



But 1st we have house cleaning to do.
You are all fired.
Isn't that Trumps reality TV catch phrase?

"YOU'RE FIRED!!"

There are more millionaires in D.C. than any other city.
Because the deep state married politics and corporate interests.
That's who makes them all millionaires.

And that is ending.
Not later, now.

And they are panicked just hoping they can kill him or destroy him financially to stop him.
Poor Biden.
All this gets blamed on him

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You've read commentary on the law, but have you actually read the law?

Here is the actual text. Please quote the parts that support your claims.

I should probably add some context for you so you can understand what you are reading.
This is the first Congress assembled after the Civil War.
The North and South could not agree on anything.
So they soon realized we could never be united again.
So per the proposal from the British East India Co. They considered forming a corporation.
This, your link, is what was presented to the House and Senate to consider.

It wasn't ratified by Congress until 1876. So if you are trying to be lawyery and scholarlarly and it's the lawww"ly.
This isn't the law in full that was ratified.
Remember, this was right after the Civil War.
In fact it was a really big deal because the democrats kept rigging the votes.
It was a sh** show.
There were heavy debates and changes made from this to get it passed.
And they cheated to do it.

So I reiterate.
This isn't what was passed. But it will do to satisfy the arg.

The very first line...
"An Act to provide a government for the District of Columbia"

And then section 2.
They are forming a corporation.
How can you read that in any other way?
Notice in these documents the US is spelled United States.
It was in title the United States for America.

When you get to the actual law you want me to address you will find it spelled,
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
All corporations are spelled with All capital letters.

I think you question is where did they say it was a corporation?
First sentence.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The law was ratified in 1871. In 1874, Congress got rid of the section that has the district presided over by a governor, instead opting for a three person panel, after Alexander Robey Shepherd bankrupted the city.

This setup remained in place until 1973 with the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

Section 2 of the law pertains to establishing the office of the aforementioned governor. The part you're trying to claim turns the US into a corporation is in Section 1.

Corporation has multiple definitions. Have you ever noticed when you drive into a town there's a sign that says "Corporate Limits?" That's a municipal corporation. The same as DC as established by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The best gift The East India Company ever got was The United States 😎✔️

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The law was ratified in 1871. In 1874, Congress got rid of the section that has the district presided over by a governor, instead opting for a three person panel, after Alexander Robey Shepherd bankrupted the city.

This setup remained in place until 1973 with the passage of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

Section 2 of the law pertains to establishing the office of the aforementioned governor. The part you're trying to claim turns the US into a corporation is in Section 1.

Corporation has multiple definitions. Have you ever noticed when you drive into a town there's a sign that says "Corporate Limits?" That's a municipal corporation. The same as DC as established by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

Stay with it, you might get it.

What happened in 1973 was needed because they only give out 99 year charters for corporations with 24 or 49 year extensions.
That ended in 1975. The 24 year extension took it to 1999 the year it ended. We went into our 3rd bankruptcy.
NESARA was to go into law Sep.12 2001.
But something happened the day before that stopped Congress from enacting it.
Bush and Clinton had plans with what to do with our bankruptcy condition.
Well mostly Bush at that time but the Clinton's were earning their stripes.

I personally live in an unincorporated township.
Do me a favor and Google that and tell me what that means.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The best gift The East India Company ever got was The United States 😎✔️

Yup.
They had us too.
We went into our 3rd bankruptcy and in Rothschild world its 3 and done.
And then 70 Generals and Admirals, Whitehats, recruited a Bankruptcy expert to run for POTUS and stole the election to get him in.
Trump screwed them silly and confiscated their assets instead through EO.
Now we have all the gold. I believe he has been made Exchequer.
The empire of the 3 city states (The Corporation) was defeated.
The FED is dead.
Long live the New Republic.

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
a reply to: tanstaafl
Lol

The created can never be greater than the creator.

Lol

I agree. Neither Congress, the Executive or the Judicial branches can become greater than what created them - The Constitution.

The legislative body created the SC

Nope, again, it was created by the Founding Fathers via The Constitution.

and established

Yes, pursuant to Congress delegated power in - what was that little document again? Oh, right - The Constitution.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: FarmerSimulation
a reply to: tanstaafl
Lol

The created can never be greater than the creator.

Lol

I agree. Neither Congress, the Executive or the Judicial branches can become greater than what created them - The Constitution.

The legislative body created the SC

Nope, again, it was created by the Founding Fathers via The Constitution.

and established

Yes, pursuant to Congress delegated power in - what was that little document again? Oh, right - The Constitution.

The Constitution was derived from the Constitutional ConventionConstitutional Convention where they gathered together to decide what form of government. We already had the Articles of Confederation.

Men created the Constitution.
The Constitution created the 3 branches of government.
One of the main topics was

; and whether judges should be chosen by the legislature or the executive.

The judicial was the lesser branch of government.
Once the Legislature was formed they decided on the structure of the Judicial system.
The Executive and legislative made all the laws.
If you want deeper read the discussions in the Federalist Papers.

Yes I read them. Years ago.
Boring as he'll.
I do not care if you don't.
I am not going fishing.
They were quite clear in their intent for the 3 coequal branches.
But the Judicial does not legislate.
They adjudicate. Only.
The Declaration of Independance came before all of it and is the greater document deriving our core liberties.

Before that the military was formed in 1871 and was governed by the Law of War Manual.
It is this that governs the military in times like this.
The other 2 times was the Revolution and civil war.
We are at war now.
CIC in charge. When we have our next Constitutional Congress, it will be the Legislature that corrects the flaws in the lower courts that has lead to our present crisis where CIC can be censored and the courts rule and legislate from the bench like what is happening in NYC.
The SC does not have that power.

The gamechanger in all of this is while under admiralty law.
The judges do play a greater role as the Constitution does not supercede the admiralty courts.
Which is where we were practically the entire last century.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The judicial was the lesser branch of government.

Which is a greater burden; writing laws or making sure the laws are enforced?

What good are laws if there is no accountability for those who break them?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

The judicial was the lesser branch of government.

Which is a greater burden; writing laws or making sure the laws are enforced?

What good are laws if there is no accountability for those who break them?

Your arguments are becoming circular.
You want me to say something that isn't true so it can be argued further.
The problem today is too many activist judges are legislating from the bench.
During the Corporate years they could get away with it.
Now we have to go back and reaffirm the Constitutionality of this mess.
This present SC is doing just that.
Notice just about every decision they are now addressing is reaffirming the States are sovereign and they have the rights, the State Legislatures, to make and create the laws that govern the states.
Roe v Wade for instance.
I am certain we are heading towards another Consitutional Convention.
The corporation is over. Which is a good thing.
But now we have to correct our path from the diversion of the last 100 years.

Oops. In my post above I stated the military was formed in 1871. I meant 1771


What good are laws when the focus is to create lawbreakers so they can be prosecuted for political purposes?
We need to go back to common law courts asap for domestic applications.
While under admiralty courts which use the U.C.C. as the law of the land where everything is commerce instead of Blackstones Law Dictionary and the Constitution we have no liberties.
In name only.
Everything becomes commerce.
For example. Marriage used to be a Covenant agreement between a man/woman and God.
Now it is between 2 parties and the state and the offspring or fruit belongs to the state as commerce.

The U.C.C. is the law atm. Not Blackstones Law. Not the Constitution.
It is the law of the sea, commerce

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Your arguments are becoming circular.

So is your premise.

The USA is like a three legged stool, take one leg away and the stool is useless. There is no government branch, of the three the Constitution mandates, that is greater or lesser than the other two.

The problem today is too many activist judges are legislating from the bench.

Perhaps. But that isn't going to stop any time soon. As a matter of fact, Trump's assertion of absolute immunity is going to require SCOTUS to legislate from the bench whether or not a president is above the law. If SCOTUS rules that the president is above the law, then you may have a case that the Executive Branch of the government is greater than the other two.

We'll see.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Your arguments are becoming circular.

So is your premise.

The USA is like a tree legged stool, take one leg away and the stool is useless. There is no government branch, of the three the Constitution mandates, that is greater or lesser than the other two.

The problem today is too many activist judges are legislating from the bench.

Perhaps. But that isn't going to stop any time soon. As a matter of fact, Trump's assertion of absolute immunity is going to require SCOTUS to legislate from the bench whether or not a president is above the law. If SCOTUS rules that the president is above the law, then you may have a case that the Executive Branch of the government is greater than the other two.

We'll see.

Somewhere in here you assume I am wanting something different in regards to the 3 branches of government.
I want it reformed to original mandates.
There is no accountability in our judicial system anymore.
They are bought and sold as commerce tools.
And you give a great example in using POTUS as an example of being above the law.
He is not.
But notice everything brought at him through the courts is about commerce and not anything Constitution related towards his Presidential duties.
How and why can the House vote themselves the right to insider trade and become multi-millionaires?
But Trump gets prosecuted for choosing an estimate of property values for loans he repaid.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Somewhere in here you assume I am wanting something different in regards to the 3 branches of government.

Dude, I don't care what you want. You're simply wrong about the balance of the US Government, its three branches and their equal value and burden.

Well if true, it is not from anything you have presented. You are hoping you are right, not proving it.
I have been a Constitutionalist for 33 years.
Nothing new you have enlightened us to.
Just a lot of hope you are correct.
Lots of circular reasoning.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Somewhere in here you assume I am wanting something different in regards to the 3 branches of government.

Dude, I don't care what you want. You're simply wrong about the balance of the US Government, its three branches and their equal value and burden.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Your arguments are becoming circular.

So is your premise.

The USA is like a tree legged stool, take one leg away and the stool is useless. There is no government branch, of the three the Constitution mandates, that is greater or lesser than the other two.

The problem today is too many activist judges are legislating from the bench.

Perhaps. But that isn't going to stop any time soon. As a matter of fact, Trump's assertion of absolute immunity is going to require SCOTUS to legislate from the bench whether or not a president is above the law. If SCOTUS rules that the president is above the law, then you may have a case that the Executive Branch of the government is greater than the other two.

We'll see.

Can you point out how and why SCOTUS must rule AND legislate from the bench against POTUS?

That is an absurd claim for me.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Somewhere in here you assume I am wanting something different in regards to the 3 branches of government.

Dude, I don't care what you want. You're simply wrong about the balance of the US Government, its three branches and their equal value and burden.

They all have different Constitutional mandates.
Executive and Legislative make all the laws.
Judicial only adjudicate those laws.
Time we go back to original Constitutional intent, right?
Judges have zero Constitutional mandate to create laws.
ZERO

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Can you point out how and why SCOTUS must rule AND legislate from the bench against POTUS?

First of all, Donald Trump isn't POTUS.
Secondly, I never said that SCOTUS must rule against Donald Trump. Trump's whole defense is that, when he was POTUS he enjoyed absolute immunity, therefore, he is exempt from any 14th Amendment disability and any Jan 6th charges. That defense is playing out in the lower courts, and ultimately will be heard and resolved by SCOTUS.

I hope they rule against him. I think they will. But nothing says they MUST rule against him.

I have been a Constitutionalist for 33 years.

Says who? You?

Judges have zero Constitutional mandate to create laws.

Judges have a Constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution, and to overrule laws that violate the Constitution.

Lawmakers worked long and hard to enact the Voting Rights Act, and SCOTUS has gutted it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

Can you point out how and why SCOTUS must rule AND legislate from the bench against POTUS?

First of all, Donald Trump isn't POTUS.
Secondly, I never said that SCOTUS must rule against Donald Trump. Trump's whole defense is that, when he was POTUS he enjoyed absolute immunity, therefore, he is exempt from any 14th Amendment disability and any Jan 6th charges. That defense is playing out in the lower courts, and ultimately will be heard and resolved by SCOTUS.

I hope they rule against him. I think they will. But nothing says they MUST rule against him.

I have been a Constitutionalist for 33 years.

Says who? You?

I am 100% convinced SCOTUS already has ruled on just about all of it with precedence.
For an example the Brunson Brothers SC ruling.
Just like the SEC ruling in favor of Ripple was decided about 1 year before it was officially announced.
So is the reasoning for the delay in this announcement.
To avoid chaos and economic disruption and avoid civil war.
Which is VERY important under the COG plan.
I know you cannot like it, but all the cases against POTUS is creating "standing" and paves the way for all the evidence into the court system to be used for all the cases that are soon to happen.
It is not the cornucopia you believe it to be.
You didn't "finally catch him".
You were all set up like a basketball player that can only dribble to his left.
Really easy to predict and defend against.
This was all seen coming and prepared for.
Trump and all those prosecuted now have standing.
And evidence is being entered into the courts to be legally and legitimately used for all the cases to follow.
You have been completely outwitted.
Your teams frivolous acts are about to haunt you for a very long time to come.
And I actually think most of you know it too.