Тёмный

Civil Procedure II review: Erie doctrine (Spring 2016), Professor Nathenson, Part 4 of 4 

Professor Nathenson
Подписаться 5 тыс.
Просмотров 4,3 тыс.
50% 1

Опубликовано:

 

21 окт 2024

Поделиться:

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист
Посмотреть позже
Комментарии : 3   
@tricktaylor1983
@tricktaylor1983 5 лет назад
I heart prof nathenson.
@crackerjax4330
@crackerjax4330 4 года назад
The tenth amendment would help clarify this on a common sense level. Though it’s pretty clear we are now a corporate democracy, instead of a free constitutional representative republic, the courts still follow the concept of state sovereignty. So, as long as a state is following the supreme law of the land (which was written to restrain government, not the people) than state law was designed to trump federal law. The general gov was supposed to be limited to its 20 enumerated powers. But the joining of the court of law and court of equity into a pseudo-admiralty jurisdiction (statutory jurisdiction) circumvents the constitutional restriction that defines the three types of courts authorized under Article III of the constitution. The phasing out of common law was/is fully designed to usurp power from the people by enslaving them under their corporate strawman and making them US citizens (14th amens); subjects to the corporate democracy, instead of state citizens. And when you accept the benefits offered by the corporate democracy you now contract yourself right into slavery by making yourself a subject to that Democracy, instead of keeping the government subject to you under the representative republic (We the People). Democracy is not synonymous with freedom! But as long as people are fat, drunk, and entertained, they voluntarily hand over their freedom to despotism. There is nothing new under the sun... Jefferson warmed about everything this country has plunged headfirst into. He also spoke about law being written so the common man could understand and afford; so he could defend himself. Now, the people are forced to depend on lawyers they can’t even afford. And attorneys, who are all part of a fraternity called the bar, answer to their superiors of the bar, not rule of law; at least, if they want to have any sort of career they do. Their loyalty is to the bar, not justice. And when the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and even the cop, are all receiving pay and pension from the same treasury, it’s absurd and naive to call it a fair, just, or unbiased system. They are all officers of the court, and we are their subjects. When you read the Declaration of Independence, beyond that first paragraph, you find we are far worse off than before the war. Congressional Act of 1871 Federal reserve Act 1913 And the handing over of courts to the banking elite by merging law and equity (I believe 1938?) put us right back under the ruling elite. “Justice” is only for the rich and the powerful. Just wait and see what happens when the ruling elite want to squash the little guy over even the tiniest of issues simply because they have all the power and money and just because they can! And try to find any bar member willing to take up that fight and help that little guy out. Incredible how they are all too busy the instant they find out an opposing party is one of their bar-buddy elites. There’s a selling of the soul when you join yourself to such associations. Your allegiance is to the bar association, not the rule of law as intended under the Republic, and certainly not to the common man or justice. Luke 11:46-52 Freedom is an illusion. “A nation that expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, expects what never was and never will be.” - Thomas Jefferson
@jasonbernard5468
@jasonbernard5468 3 года назад
Hey Cracker Jax, though the main force of your argument has weight, there are some lawyers who are willing to do what is right. Many lawyers work for npo's for quite pathetic wages to actually help people. many others are public servants who sincerely work for the benefit of the people- judges, defense attorneys. Your use of Luke 11:46 is inappropriate; "Lawyer" there is specific to those devout persons who occupied themselves with interpreting the divine law; Those people in other words, were honorable persons who everyone considered devout. Modern lawyers are much more like the publican of Luke 18:9; persons who have secular honor, but who everyone considers sinful and self-serving. A better scripture to correct the modern lawyer is Matthew 6:24: "Ye cannot serve both God and mammon."
Далее
Joinder for the MBE (Professor Nathenson, May 2015)
26:59
How To Tackle Erie
7:27
Просмотров 37 тыс.
Erie Doctrine Explained in 8 minutes
8:27
Civ Pro essay exams, basic tips and techniques
21:10
Просмотров 4,2 тыс.