Written by W'Lawpsh   

WHY:

According to the Supreme Court’s precedent that binds the current generation of the Court Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 163, 176-179 (1803), the Court has no choice. Its constitutional duty is to declare unconstitutional and void evasions of the constitution’s commerce, defence and treaty clauses’ intent that the United States, foreign Nations and Indian tribes mutually are obliged to respect each other’s sovereignty and subject to that each can regulate its own citizen’s commerce with the others.

The existing government’s foreign policy flouts the constitution’s foreign policy. The Appropriations Act of 1871 and the War Powers Act of 1973 assume sovereign power to make war upon and commit genocide against Indian tribes and foreign Nations in virtue of the commerce clause’s delegation to the government of jurisdiction, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” It is long and well settled constitutional law that the commerce clause can not legally be read in isolation as if it were a delegation of sovereignty over foreign Nations and Indian tribes.

The constitution’s original jurisdiction clause vests trial level jurisdiction over jurisdiction disputes with foreign Nations and Indian tribes in the Supreme Court of the United States under the original jurisdiction clause.

Seen in this light the Supreme Court will perform its duty.


THEREFORE:

1stly. Video the bogus offender-protesters going violent and try to get the record past the clean up crew (which will take care of the arresting and the disposition of evidence incriminating the offender-protesters and exonerating the defender-protesters).

2ndly. Give to the arresting officers (when things are calm enough to permit it) this page to explain why you believe they have to justify to themselves and for the record that their jurisdiction is not conflict with the constitution’s constitutional supremacy and jurisdictional duty clauses Article VI ¶1 & ¶2.

3rdly. Give the judge at your trial copies of the video(s) and this note and ask her on the basis of the legislation and precedents at http://mightisnotright.org/ to do her duty under Article VI ¶1 & ¶2. (It is always a good idea to refuse to plead when asked to plead in which event a “not guilty” plea automatically is entered with no fuss about it. This reduces the chance your appeal will be rejected on the ground that by expressly pleading not guilty you implicitly accepted the court’s jurisdiction to put you on trial. For appeal purposes the matter is not relevant to the sentence but only to the absence of the jurisdiction to convict.)