Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your Next Jury Duty Should Ask For Proof That Federal Law Currently Exist
March 17, 2013 | Uncle Sham

Posted on 03/17/2013 6:56:40 PM PDT by Uncle Sham

Jury duty is something we all are asked to serve at one time or another in our lives. In a just society, where the enforcement of law is critical to maintaining civility and order, jury duty is an honor. In an unjust society, where the enforcement of law is simply a charade, jury duty reduces those who are called upon to nothing more than actors and actresses helping to maintain the fraudulent facade of authenticity being put forth by the state.

In my opinion, since it is evident that the Federal laws having to do with the eligibility of the President are currently being ignored by those assigned to enforce them, that there is no law at the top, thus, there can be no law at the bottom.

If the person who supposedly is the chief law enforcement officer in the nation is illegal, how on earth can the rest of any of it be made to seem "legal"? If I were asked to be a juror on a Federal case, I would refuse to render a verdict until the Federal government can prove to me BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the current person claiming to be my President is in fact legally eligible to serve. I would have them quote the evidence that was used to determine his eligibily as required under the Constitution in the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3.

If I were a defense attorney in a Federal case, I would force the Federal government to prove to my jury beyond that same reasonable doubt that it is enforcing the laws at the top and not just the laws at the bottom.

If there is no law at the top of the current Federal government, the current Federal government is outlaw and should be dealt with by the Armed Services, County Sheriffs, and the states.

We the People own this country and we are not actors from Hollywood. We need a few of us to start acting like the citizens we are.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: birftards; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; juryduty; naturalborncitizen; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last
To: edge919

Looking at the fact that Obama was given murky passage through the nominating process and given benefit of deceptive electoral voting actions and that all along in the process/procedures there was no action taken by responsible persons in the government anywhere along the line to clear the issues, it is apparent people will use and be enabled to forge such a political path for future situations unless such are stopped by some unsuspected means. The Constitution as worded just doesn’t seem to be useful as of now to many people.


61 posted on 03/19/2013 11:39:59 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

In NONE of those cases was a decision based upon an actual real-life birth certificate. Hearsay evidence is not allowable in court. Have your handlers supply a better set of fraudulent excuses.


62 posted on 03/20/2013 5:54:46 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

The sad part is that Obama proved that as long as he has his irrational supporters en masse, then the Constitution can simply be ignored.


63 posted on 03/20/2013 11:38:31 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham

But there is no state that requires a birth certificate in order to be eligible for their state’s ballot. Arizona tried to pass such a law but Governor Jan Brewer vetoed it.
If any judge wanted to see a real-life birth certificate, all he or she need do is issue a court order for it.
I’ve only got one “handler,” not plural, “she who must be obeyed!” :-)


64 posted on 03/20/2013 7:34:23 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
"If any judge wanted to see a real-life birth certificate, all he or she need do is issue a court order for it."

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi did just this. Obama's attorney didn't even show up in court, much less that "birth certificate". I have already PROVEN that the CONSTITUTION itself requires that a President elect prove his eligibility to Congress or Congress has to name a replacement who can prove eligibility. This doesn't require a court. It requires a Congress obeying its oath to support the Constitution. They didn't do their job. That does not make an ineligible person eligible, or legal. It makes an ineligible person who fakes being a legal President a USURPER. That's what we have.

Congressional nullification of Federal law at the top. Jury duty nullification of All Federal law at the bottom is the proper response.

65 posted on 03/21/2013 5:42:10 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sham; PistolPaknMama
I have sent, yesterday, a message to my congress critters:
The Oath of Office

Why do you, and others, raise your right to God and place your left hand on His Holy Word and swear to "uphold and defend the Constitution?" What should happen when someone deliberately ignores this oath?

I don't expect an answer...

66 posted on 03/23/2013 6:41:18 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson