• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

All ye who have the capacity to comprehend draw close and know....

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,102
Reaction score
8,184
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
that you have been duped!
CONTEXT: there has been a certain court tussel. It dealt with procedures and such. This court tussel was appealed and the appeal was denied. The appeal was denied because of ORS 221.360. ORS. 221.360 deals with an appeal from a 'non court of record.' BUT, I think it matters not if the court is or is not of record. in order for the court of appeals to hear a case it has to have a 'CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTION.' Meaning it had to have a constitutional objection from the start. So, what would be this 'objection?'

It would be the 4th amendment. In that: arrest shall be by warrant based upon probable cause.
Ore-Gone does not have a 4th amendment written as such. So, Ore-Guun applies the 'doctrine of competing harms' very copiously. BUT, the doctrine of competing harms does not outweigh the CONSTITUTION. tHE doctrine of competing harms is 'statute law.'; it is a way out and over when a constitutional challenge is applied to it.

Quite a bit of fines were riding on this appeal and the appeal was structured upon the changing of codes aka laws that had nothing to do with the actual charge. The actual charge was: unlawful entry upon one's own property. The code used in this charge was the 'application of placards,' placards of NO TRESPASSING. In fact in the city codes that were applied "unlawful entry was and is a definition of 'car prowling.'" As it is not defined in this city's codes this means it falls on the STATE definition of such. And, it is that definition that was appealed.

And, the ship went down in flames. The ship went down in flames because of "NO" constitutional challenge-is but only challenges on procedure. Yeah, even some high priced lawyers missed this one.

So what does this mean to you and yours? Code, statute, and even TAX arrests are subject to the fourth amendment. AND, what does the 4th amendment intimate? It intimates "ARREST SHALL BE BY WARRANT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE."

aN arrest is the stoppage of the freedom of 'movement.' Be it a stoppage upon the right of ways or a stoppage of a day and time in having to appear or be at a court. BE IT KNOWN: if you have not caused a harm to a people the 4th amendment applies to you because you cannot harm 'PERSON'; PERSON is the STATE. DO NOT CONFUSE AN ARREST WITH BEING TAKEN INTO CUSTODY.

So, read ORS 221.259 through whatever and look for iTR in the STATE statues of which in whatever bounds you live in. Rest assured it will be there in one form or another. OH, and if you decide to view the statutes of the bound in which you live remember there is a text of the words AND there is an annotation of that text: annotation is the gist of the text.

So happies livings and .... well just get with it and make the fiction pay; I mean you already pay a tax to support it so might as well make sure it does not tax U again.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
67,263
Reaction score
136,800
Sounds just like all the law suits brought related to the 2020 election fraud. None of then were heard because of procedure, not because of merit. Even the SCOTUS used the same tactic to avoid hearing it and having to rule on it. Nice little trick they have there huh?
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
12,102
Reaction score
8,184
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Yep, in that procedure is not cause to object and appeal...;;.only CONSTITUTIONAL need apply.

procedure seems to be only relevant in CONTRACT.