Quote:
What if the courts wouldn't penalize the police who arrested people for wearing blue shirts and the congress and the president wanted to make life tougher for those who wear blue shirts? What if the courts wouldn't even allow cases regarding blue shirts to be heard?
|
This is an odd comparison since UT and Juju both linked to sites that had court chalenges to Tax cases.
Quote:
It can come up because Philander Knox fraudently claimed it had been ratified and the courts and politicians have conspired to prevent people from challenging it and have kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.
|
See above.
Quote:
I have gone over my beliefs thousands of times from every angle and discussed them with thousands of people which has fine tuned them.
|
I've seen some of your 'discussions' and you use alot of the same words and phrases that didn't convince anyone back then. Why not express your opinions better? I saw a two year old thread where you use that same swahili line that made a lot of us roll our eyes. If you've 'fine tuned' your arguments so much why do at least four or five people on this thread not get it?
Forgive me for not understanding how a case can not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect.
Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
Quote:
kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.
And it comes up because judges will say, "Don't you know everyone gets arrested for wearing blue shirts? Why should you be any different?"
|
How the hell can the Judges say this if it's not in the courtroom??? Either it's in or out of the courts, which is it?
Also, let me reask something. How can a case not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect?