Maybe they’re getting away with something because no one can friggin’ understand what this means!
A law, by definition, cannot strip one of their Constitutional rights; only a Constitutional Amendment may change one’s Constitutional Rights. That said, a compliant Supreme Court can redefine what is Constitutional, but only if Congress declines to Impeach.
It would just codify that which has been in effect for decades, if not centuries.
Which law is it that you think Judge Smith disregarded? One from this planet?
What an absolutely godawful post. It makes absolutely zero sense and doesn’t even approach making a point.
BLUF, dude, BLUF—Bottom Line Up Front. Don’t expect me to click through three dozen links. Outline your issue, argument, and the supporting facts. Supply links as extra resources so your analysis can be verified independently.
This s**t ain’t rocket surgery.
just bear in mind this is a press release. somebody paid someone to write it and someone to publish it.
Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 is “No Bill of Attainder or
ex post facto Law shall be passed”.
Bill of Attainder. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group
for punishment without a trial.
Me not understand
The Office of the President-Elect... Isn't this the phoney title Obama's campaign staff created for him with even a fake emblem to put on the podium?
Is this far Left wing propaganda?
it’s actually not possible for the government to strip our rights. if you think it is, you’ve missed the fundamental point of our Constitution
the most they can do is try and deny our rights, trampling on them.
but then again, they’ve been doing that for a number of years already
Please see the site devoted to Mr. Baron’s case.
http://www.lawinjustice.com/d7/
Case overview
http://www.lawinjustice.com/d7/node/2
Federal judge puts Internet pioneer in civil lockdown
Opinion piece - last paragraph:
A former multimillionaire doesn’t get much sympathy nowadays. But if Jeff Baron can be held in this weird form of civil lockdown even though he’s never been charged with any crime and never had any judgments against him, what are you going to do when they come for you?
Good grief! I knew I shouldn’t have clicked on this....
This judge needs to be impeached and more...
ping
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.
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!