Posted on 05/04/2012 4:07:25 PM PDT by freeliberty21
Good grief! I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this....
Sounds like a spammer. Also the whole thing sounds pretty far fetched. There has to be a lot more to this than meets the eye.
What an outrage!!!
I hope you brought enough pancakes for everyone!
The problem with this story is the words...there are just too many of them!
Is there a Cliff Note version of it....or maybe it can be served up in a nutshell?
I’d even settle for courtroom reporter etchings-might make more sense with pictures....
;)
My beeber is stuned
that sounds series!
Hugh and series.
Thailand?
This judge needs to be impeached and more...
Read the letter to Congress and the attachment at http://www.federalethicscenter.com/5thCirFEC.pdf
This starts to explain the situation more clearly.
The judge in the case was appointed by Clinton, but the law will soon apply to all courts.
Basically, a judge will now be able to deny your right to trial and right to a lawyer for any reason the judge dreams up. This is how the court systems in China, Iran, Syria operate. It’s a really bad thing for America.
That is one big freeking bumper sticker.
ping
Constitutional Rights, sorry but you have none in a Federal Court or weren’t you aware of that fact?
From what I can tell this is a case about corporate law and the actions of someone, a CEO, a CFO, I don’t know, perhaps a single corporate owner who is refusing to follow the law.
A single, solitary federal judge does indeed have sufficient power to take down the largest corporation in the USA. Sure it will go to appeals but one judge can force you to close your doors, place soldiers outside them and block all financial transactions.
Bingo!
Sorry to post again. I am not defending this judge in any way, just correcting some legal notions. What makes this even more eggregious is that the person HAD due process by the fact that it was decided in court, however cockeyed the decision. So now it must be corrected (hopefully) in the upper court(s). Should even that fail, the legislature can then pass a special law to correct it - extremely rare so big fat chance of that occurring.
It's old news what he demanded from Barry's sock puppet Holder, regarding Marbury v Madison and the powers of SCOTUS re the Constitution. It occurred after Barry once again tried to INTIMIDATE the SCOTUS and its ObamaDeathCare ruling.
Nothing 'unethical' about it.
Surprise, surprise. Billy Jeff's leftist judges strike again. It's no wonder he considers people chattel owned the state. They know less about the Law and Constitution than Obama. And that's a LOT!
Thank you for posting this.
(OT: I don’t enjoy many movies these days but I did like Tombstone a lot. Val Kilmer’s finest Daisy of a performance, IMO.)
——could result in a higher mortality rate for judges. Unfair treatment by a judge is a definite career shortener. In the same fashion that presidents do their dirtiest work on the last day in office maybe this judge is about to retire to Aruba?
His 'Huckleberry' line really got me. Reminded me of similar sayings we had 'way back when' in Chi before we'd fight. BUT was much snappier than: 'Okay. When you feel froggy, jump.'
And I researched it (NOT Wiki) to see if it was used and correct for that era, and it was. So I used it when that punk Hoffa threatened conservatives.
>Sure it will go to appeals but one judge can force you to close your doors, place soldiers outside them and block all financial transactions.
Hm, wasn’t there a city where some soldiers were stationed to “keep the peace” and enforce such mandates... I think it was... no, it couldn’t be... Boston, and then there was the whole riot/massacre thing, and then John Adams defended the soldiers in court... but the whole incident poured fuel on the fire for independence.
My point, rulings like you describe WILL feed CWII sentiment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.