Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/06/06 17:57

On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:37:31 GMT, "PTravel"
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:

>No, spoken like a lawyer who understands the Constitutional framework for
>this country and has no agenda.

LOL.

You don't even realize that the Constitution is suspended. It was
suspended by Lincoln and has never been restored.

For the Constitution to be restored, each and ever unconstitutional
law, including unconstitutional amendments, must be repealed. The
reason is very simple. You cannot have two sets of laws that conflict.
Either unconstitutional laws must be repealed for the Constitution to
be restored to its proper place as the law of the land, or the
Constitution remains suspended because you can't have it serve as the
law of the land when there are unconstitutional laws still on the
books.

>> Zeig Heil!

>Yes, that's right. I'm a Nazi because I understand the law.

You are a statist because you do not know common law.

>Consent of the governed has nothing to do with statutory preemption of
>copyright common law.

Common law does not allow "statuatory preemption". You cannot trump
common law. You can only ignore it.

>There have been lots of copyright infringement jury trials. None of them,
>since 1978 when the law was changed, recognize common law copyright and,
>indeed, they can't since Congress precluded it.

Then the time has come to fix that.

Segregation was in effect for centuries until it was challenged on
common law basis. The black did not consent to be governed by
segregation laws. The matter went to court and Little Rock High School
admitted its first black student. That set the precedent for the
eventual overthrow of statuatory segregation.

>I don't know where you're getting your information, but you're completely
>wrong. It was the Civil Rights Act of (I think) 1968 that made segregation
>illegal.

That is not what caused segregation to fall. It was common law
precedent. Little Rock was in the 1950s.

>> You are full of it. A juror can vote his conscience if he wants to. It
>> is against the law to hold a juror accountable for his decision.

>No, son, I am not "full of it."

Don't be condescending. I am old enough to be your grandfather.

>You, however, are rude and insulting,
>precluding any kind of rational conversation with you.

You are not rational. You are so bigoted and prejudiced that is
stinks.

>This is basic high school civics which, either, you haven't yet taken or
>didn't pay much attention to.

Is that the same high school civics that supported statuatory
segregation? Yes, I did study it but I never accepted it.

>Perhaps if you had actually studied the Constitution

Do you mean the suspended Constitution? The one where the 14th
Amendment destroys the 10th Amendment?

>And, with that, it's back to your trailer with you.

FOAD, asshole.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow

[Back to original message]