Jade Helm 15, Part II

[Squire Robertsson]

Yeup, normally when the NG\ANG is called out, it's called out by the respective state governor or the equivalent for state duty. On such duty, it is not covered by the PCA. And you left out the Coast Guard. The maritime law enforcement is one of the USCG's duties and has been since its founding of its parent service the Revenue Marine Service.

No, people have said that the National Guard and the Air National Guard are not covered under Posse Comitatus. You've ignored that and prattled on about "magical words." Address the fact that most of your videos involved the National Guard, which don't fall under Posse Comitatus.

 

[TCassidy]

As for the 9th CA, it well known as a bastion of liberal jurisprudence. The Supreme Court regularly sets the 9th's rulings aside. Ansd no I don't have an index or catalog. I am recalling what I read in my local papers.

The 9th is the most overturned of the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

 

[poncho]

The 9th is the most overturned of the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

If that statement is true then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to prove it. Show us the dates, times and docket numbers of each case that has been overturned. Then make a comparison chart with each of the other courts that have had cases overturned by the supreme court.

Then show us with documented incontrovertible proof why we should believe the supreme court with it's panel of "activist and liberal judges" should be taken any more seriously than any other court in this country.

And have it done by 5 PM EST.

 

[TCassidy]

If that statement is true then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to prove it.

LAW v. SIEGEL, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 12–5196. Argued January 13, 2014—Decided March 4, 2014
Holding: Reversed and remanded

WALDEN v. FIORE ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 12–574. Argued November 4, 2013—Decided February 25, 2014
Holding: Reversed and remanded

UNITED STATES v. APEL
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 12–1038. Argued December 4, 2013—Decided February 26, 2014
Holding: Reversed and remanded

Stanton v. Sims
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
12-1217 9th Cir. Not Argued Nov 4, 2013 TBD Per Curiam OT 2013
Holding: Reversed and remanded

Daimler AG v. Bauman
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-965 9th Cir. Oct 15, 2013
Tr.Aud. Jan 14, 2014 9-0 Ginsburg OT 2013
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I am see these five citations are from the 2013-14 term. Considering the number of cases the SC accepts, five is a goodly not to be ignored percentage. More digging into previous terms would I think show much the same result.

 

[TCassidy]

More digging into previous terms would I think show much the same result.

Yes, it doesn't get any better no matter how far back you go. And the chart deals with the 5 year period from 2005-2010 and the 9th Circuit came out #1 for reversals for that period. At least they are consistent!

 

[poncho]

Then show us with documented incontrovertible proof why we should believe the supreme court with it's panel of "activist and liberal judges" should be taken any more seriously than any other court in this country.

 

[InTheLight]

Then show us with documented incontrovertible proof why we should believe the supreme court with it's panel of "activist and liberal judges" should be taken any more seriously than any other court in this country.

Deflect, obfuscate, deny, change the subject.

Will you admit that the National Guard is not covered by Posse Comitatus?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I be a bit more pointed:
Will you admit that the National Guard when under state control is not covered by the PCA?

 

[poncho]

Deflect, obfuscate, deny, change the subject.

Will you admit that the National Guard is not covered by Posse Comitatus?

Laugh Sorry, irony always makes me laugh.

Sure I will. The NG isn't covered by posse comitatus. There. Now that I have admitted to being wrong on one point are you guys going to address the other questions and concerns over military drills (that I brought up earlier that you guys ignored while you were looking for a chink in my armor) or are we going to overlook those now and declare victory after scoring one point?

I'd like to hear you guys address the instances in which the military has performed drills in cities without permission from the civil authorities, and attempting to bribe and/or intimidate the civil authorities into granting permission and participating in these drills.

Yeah I'd really like to get your expert opinions on that.

I'd to hear you're take on having foreign military taking part in drills to confiscate weapons and detain American citizens behind barbed wire fences.

In other words I'd like to hear the expert's opinion on all the other instances you chose to cast spells on in order to dismiss them.

 

[poncho]

I be a bit more pointed:
Will you admit that the National Guard when under state control is not covered by the PCA?

Whatever you say. I was wrong on one point.

Are you experts going to gloat and call it game over now or are you going to address the rest of the points I brought up?

And don't ask me to post them by day and date and give a summary. It's already all in the videos. I don't know what kind of spell you'll have to cast on them to un-dismiss them now so I'm leaving that job up to the magicians.

I'll list my concerns that I have already backed up by clear video evidence.

1. Military performing drills in cities without permission from the civil authorities.

2. Military or civilians working for the military attempting to intimidate civil authorities into compliance.

3. Military or civilians working for the military attempting to bribe civil authorities into compliance.

4. Foreign military training on US soil with American military practicing the confiscation of weapons and detaining America citizens behind barbed wire fences.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

You answered my question in your post #50. This part of your post is superfluous.

Whatever you say. I was wrong on one point.

SNIP

 

[poncho]

You answered my question in your post #50. This part of your post is superfluous.

I wasn't done editing it yet. Have another look now. The thread is about Jade helm 15 and military drills in general not just whether the NG violated posse comitatus. That's one concern of many.

I already listed my other concerns that are backed up by actual documentation and video evidence.

1. Military performing drills in cities without permission from the civil authorities.

2. Military or civilians working for the military attempting to intimidate civil authorities into compliance.

3. Military or civilians working for the military attempting to bribe civil authorities into compliance.

4. Foreign military training on US soil with American military practicing the confiscation of weapons and detaining American citizens behind barbed wire fences.

The real question here is will the experts have to resort to more magic to get out of addressing these other documented concerns now?

Stay tuned folks this could be good.

 

[TCassidy]

Then show us with documented incontrovertible proof why we should believe the supreme court with it's panel of "activist and liberal judges" should be taken any more seriously than any other court in this country.

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

 

[poncho]

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Wonderful, thank you, thank you, thank you!

I'm going to bookmark this page and bring this up every time you or any other "conservative" on this board disagree with a supreme court ruling because of liberal and/.or activist judges.

Now about those other concerns I outlined . . . yes, the ones you were so quick to dismiss without looking at them. Those concerns.

I don't care how you do it. One can address all of them or you can take turns addressing them. One can take the first, another can take the second, another can take the third and so on.

Don't be shy ITL. You don't need the other two to draw blood before you act. There's plenty of concerns to go around. I'd like to see you address them without using magic. Can you?

 

[TCassidy]

I'm going to bookmark this page and bring this up every time you or any other "conservative" on this board

Once again you just make up your "facts." I am not a "conservative." I have made it very clear I am a Classic Liberal.

 

[TCassidy]

Don't be shy ITL.

Did you forget who you were replying to?

 

[poncho]

Once again you just make up your "facts." I am not a "conservative." I have made it very clear I am a Classic Liberal.

Okay. If you say so. Maybe it was just that "conservative" accent that fooled me.

But anyway Is this the start of the magic show or are you guys going to seriously address those four documented and video taped concerns mentioned earlier?

 

[poncho]

Did you forget who you were replying to?

No, ITL knows who I was talking to. And why.

Three of you four concerns. Without using magic. Can you do it?

 

[TCassidy]

No, ITL knows who I was talking to. And why.

Right. You were talking to me, which is why it says TCassidy said: ↑ at the top of your post! LOL!