Juries have to be unanimous, yet the s.ct. rules 5 to 4. But people still don’t see the scam.

The feds have a backup plan prepared if the supreme court "rules against them".

Apparently the feds have a backup plan prepared if the supreme court “rules against them”.

The Supreme court” has now “heard arguments” in the Obamacare case and it is no secret that the court is “divided”. There are 4 liberal “justices” on board 3 “conservatives” against, and 2, “swing votes”.   So now 330 million people wait to find out what they “must” do.  

I am not going to waste your time or mine going over cooked up absurd legal arguments that the federal government has funneled everyone into “having to make”.  That is just playing their game.  If you want that, there is plenty of that available on the web by countless “legal analysts” and on Fox or CNN or Newsweek etc..  Of course Obamacare is unconstitutional.  All anyone has to do is go look at Art. 1 Sect. 8 of the constitution to see that.   I want to talk about things that are much more FUNDAMENTAL.  Things that can ACTUALLY make a difference if you understand them.

First, everyone simply ACCEPTS that the supreme court has the RIGHT to “decide” this issue for the whole country.  Without getting into a big discussion about the power of “judicial review” let me just ask you:

Have you ever agreed to allow some group of 9 people you have never met or had a chance to vote for, who can never be fired, “decide” whether Obamacare OR ANYTHING ELSE can be imposed on you?

Many of the "Top constitutional law" attorneys really don't make as much money as you would think.  Washington is expensive.

I asked this “top constitutional attorney” for the secret to why he was “so good”.   He said it was all about keeping your perspective.   The man was at the top of that field for a reason.

I doubt it. I know I haven’t. People never even question THIS.  Legal analysts that the MEDIA and government/education system give you never question THIS.  Do you see the box they have ALREADY put you in before the game even begins? lol.  YOU HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OR FIGHT.  I will leave the topic of “judicial review” for another day. But I have another simple question for you.


Have you ever thought about that?  I mean c’mon, 5 to 4? That is ridiculous.  It is already ridiculous enough that in a “free country” where the people “are in charge” that just 9 unelected people could ever make such a decision. But it is beyond ABSURD that such a decision could be made by just ONE VOTE CHANGING ON THE COURT??  Well they can do that because the CON stitution is “silent” on it. So they just make their own rules up about it.  Does this sound like a republic to you?


Surely, IF we are going to be ruled by some star chamber of unelected untouchable oracles then at least all of their decisions that create more government or limit the people or the individual STATES’ rights NEED TO BE UNANIMOUS and EVERYTHING about their deliberations NEEDS TO BE PUBLIC!

Yet the people are so brainwashed they don’t even see how silly the entire construct that is IMPOSED ON THEM is, and how antithetical to any sense of a free republic IT IS. They actually think their system is the HEIGHT of freedom because they have been TOLD that it is. This is the 1984 world we live in. Slavery is Freedom. lol.

Only the elite of the elite get into the supreme court as "clerks to the court".  Here a couple of newbies are being shown what their duties will include when assisting in writing the opinions.

Only the elite of the elite from the “top law schools” get into the supreme court as “clerks”. Many later go on to become justices themselves. They are chosen for their keen minds of course.  Here a couple of eager newbies receive instruction on what their job responsibilities will be when assisting the court.

So what does the “holy constitution” the great “protector of the peoples’ rights” say about these issues?  NOTHING.  That’s right not a damned thing.  Go look. The entire section creating the “judicial branch” is only a few sentences. Go read it.

Think about that.  I have already showed you that the number of justices being set at “9” is just a number made up by Congress. It isn’t set in the constitution. Now I am telling you that the “manner” of deliberation and the “method” for “determining” a “decision” is also not discussed in the constitution. That’s right. Nowhere mentioned.

Think about it.  In a criminal trial the 12 man jury has to be unanimous in order to convict just ONE person of shoplifting! Yet our great system of a “free republic” allows a split verdict by those 9 “juror/judges” to BIND 330 million for “all time”.

Beyond the unanimous decision that is required by a jury to convict, there are OTHER analogies in the law that show the 5 to 4 “rule” that the  “esteemed” institution has put in place is a sham.

There is something called a “judgment as a matter of law”. It is a standard that is used when a court determines that “no reasonable juror” could find against the party. Lawyers and judges use the phrase, “reasonable minds could not differ” as a short hand way to discuss it. Get it?

Long considered the gold standard in jurisprudence, the "weigh the same as a duck" standard lost favor for years.  The court has recently hinted in dicta however, that it might bring the standard back for the Obamacare ruling.

Long considered the gold standard in jurisprudence,  “weigh the same as a duck” lost favor for years. The court has recently hinted in dicta however, that it might be appropriate in the Obamacare ruling.

That standard is used to grant a motion that ends the case WITHOUT a trial. It is called a summary judgment in most jurisdictions and in federal court.  Yes you CAN be denied a jury trial. Did you know that? Well despite what you “were taught” in your government indoctrination center, YOU ARE NOT entitled to a trial by jury. Again, it is just a power the courts have seized. It is not IN the constitution.

The point is this. Look at the standard that is used to do that. “Reasonable minds could NOT DIFFER”. But look at the STANDARD that the holy supreme court uses as it “protects” the people.

By definition in a 5 to 4 or 6 to 3 or 8 to 1 decision, reasonable minds ACTUALLY DIFFER, since the justices DON’T agree. Yet DESPITE that disagreement, they still IMPOSE the “decision” on 330 million people for all time.

Certainly no REASONABLE system can have justices differing. That makes NO SENSE. If it is un-reviewable and we are all going to be bound, then AT A MINIMUM in order to UPHOLD a law, the decision needs to be UNANIMOUS, just like for a criminal trial, and just like the “as a matter of law” standard.  Don’t you see that?  If ONE justice thinks it is UNconstitutional, then it should be struck down.  That is the ONLY thing that makes sense.

Virtually ALL CONTROVERSIAL supreme court cases are SPLIT, not unanimous. So virtually all of the mischief could have been avoided. It is not an accident that unanimity is NOT required.

Think about Obamacare. AT BEST even the collaborator polling propagandists have to admit that the country is DEEPLY divided. And of course the COURT is “supposedly” divided. So there would be NO chance for a binding decision.  The issue wouldn’t be “decided” for all times by whether “justice” Kennedy got some action the night before.  Do you see how you have already given up your most important RIGHTS by playing inside THEIR GAME? lol 

Sure the oligarchs just open the gate and walk in.  But it isn't like they haven't "provided" a system to get the constitution amended for the people. We just have to slip through the hole.  Nothing to it.

At least this dog is smart enough to understand that the system he has been put into is RIGGED.  He sees his owner use the GATE..

Oh but there is still more.

Now think about this. In order to get a “constitutional amendment” the “people” are required to go through this complex process that takes years and requires all of these “SUPER MAJORITIES”.  Not a mere majority. It is basically IMPOSSIBLE for the PEOPLE TO GET WHAT THEY WANT SLIPPED INTO THE CONSTITUTION.

Yet the oligarchs only have to pack the court with ONE EXTRA GUY and BAM we’re all stuck. Lol. What does it take for you to see that the system is RIGGED? You are being played.

They will give you whatever level of abuse you “the people” will accept. Your rights are not protected by the constitution. The obligation to protect the peoples’ rights is in THE PEOPLES’ hands. They have abdicated, so those who seek power have filled that void. It isn’t complicated.

And if what I have said already is not sufficient to show you what a FRAUD the system is let me make one more point to demonstrate how absurd the arbitrary “best of 9” standard is.

Is there anything in the constitution that would prevent the supreme court from making a rule that said a 1 to 8 decision was “binding”?

Do you see what I am asking? What if 8 justices vote that Obamacare is NOT constitutional, and ONE votes that it IS constitutional. Is there anything IN THE CONSTITUTION that prevents the supreme court from determining that it IS therefore CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE AT LEAST one justice voted for it?

The answer is NO. There is NOTHING in the constitution that would prevent that because there is nothing in the constitution that describes ANY of the process.  So  “using their logic”, we the people “AGREED” to that as well. Lol

This woman won a landmark discrimination case after being turned down for employment at the supreme court due to concerns that she would violate the secrecy policy regarding the court's deliberations.  The government had claimed that loose lips sink ships.

This woman won a landmark discrimination case after being turned down for employment at the supreme court due to concerns that she would violate the secrecy policy regarding the court’s deliberations. The government had claimed that loose lips sink ships and that she could not “reasonably be expected” to control her lips.

Do you see that if you take their argument to its logical extreme about “separation of powers” and the supreme court being able to “make its own rules” for how it deliberates and decides a case, and if you simply look at the constitution, there is nothing “unconstitutional” about that 1 to 8 rule? The only reason they don’t do stuff that blatantly is because the sleeping fools might actually catch on TO THAT, lol. So they pretend the whole thing is this “established” system with fancy robes and all sorts of formality and your honor this and your honorableness that. Lol.

They have convinced the people that IT IS NORMAL that if just one MORE justice says yes, well, too bad so sad, thanks for playing, now you’re all bound. lol

To be fair to the framers, even Jules Verne didn’t have a wild enough imagination to visualize a day when the federal government would even discuss legislation as absurdly BEYOND any of their powers as Obamacare.  Still you might want to go read this and this that I wrote about our great founding to give you a perspective on our REAL founding.

Look if we’re going to have an untouchable star chamber “making decisions” for the whole nation “for all times” then we need to AT LEAST have group of say 25 or 50 judges up there representing all sorts of groups.  There can’t be any discrimination you know!! AND ALL OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS NEED TO BE PUBLIC. Then they have to give ONE unanimous decision. I mean at this point, I could probably live with that concept.  And doing that would not require a “constitutional amendment” so it should happen TOMORROW. lol

With that type of court they could only agree if there REALLY WAS NO CONTROVERSY.  Get it?

As it is, the whole thing is a laughable sham. Yet the pundits and experts all sit around discussing ridiculous points like whether Kennedy and Roberts are each getting enough fiber and how that might “affect their decision”. Laughable distractions. The MEDIA makes sure the public never gets wise to the whole game. And they RICHLY reward all of their collaborators who help to cover it all up with bs that sounds impressive to a dumbed down populace.

The court will now take questions.  Are there any questions?  Anybody?  Okay since nobody has any questions, the court will now rule.

We will now take questions. “Yes back here I have a question.”  Are there any questions? Anybody? “Yes I have a question.”  Okay since nobody has any questions, we will now let the court rule.

Look my fellow inmate, I have tried to tell you, there is never any REAL questioning of the SYSTEM ITSELF BECAUSE the system cannot withstand ANY REAL scrutiny,

As long as the people think that someone else or something else is going to be sure they get their justice they will get no justice.  It is up to the PEOPLE to INSIST on their OWN JUSTICE.

Step one is for the people to learn how to  SEE and UNDERSTAND the game they have been put into so they can start to DEMAND justice. That’s what this site is FOR.

Hopefully you now see what a joke the idea of a “split” supreme court “decision” is on Obamacare or ANYTHING else, and how pathetic it is that a country of supposedly “free men” has been reduced to a bunch of helpless children.

I hope you have learned something.  Maybe you are starting to see the scale of the scam.  As I always say, never under estimate the power of a SINGLE QUESTION my friend. 

This reporter certainly learned the power of a single question when she asked this man his name.   His answer reminds me a lot of some legal arguments I have read. Actually he is MORE COGENT than most supreme court opinions, lol.  Enjoy. 

That’s all for now, my brainwashed Brethren.  Take care, live in the light and tell someone about the truth about the law.

Legalman IS the law

Legalman IS the law

14 thoughts on “Juries have to be unanimous, yet the s.ct. rules 5 to 4. But people still don’t see the scam.

  1. Kram

    The land that we occupy 2 to 5 hundred years ago was a GOLD mine of untapped potential! There is some serious spiritual payback for some really bad acts then up through now… if you were ambitious, smart and ruthless enough you would be able to amass wealth in a single generation and if you started with generations of wealth you could manipulate multiple levels of wealth generation by control… CONTROL has always been key in the processes. Just try “out of control” no harm, no victims as a social experiment… see how long you can go announcing that you are no longer under control… It will not be long before you are locked up! Take your new found freedom ideologies and dispense them in small doses, so as the masses will not have a collective meltdown. Gotta love ur neighbor. Thanks for the pearls Legalman.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Most welcome Kram. Glad you enjoy the bare truth. I think it was JP Morgan who said own nothing control everything. The education we, meaning me, received was such a mockery of knowledge. Actually directed me down a dead end. A fools errand so to speak. Took a long time to figure it out. But it sure is sweet now. Lol — L

  2. Mark

    Unfortunately all of you missed the point. However, “Legalman” has got it right about the Supreme Court is supposed to be a watch dog for “Federal” misbehavior and is the original jurisdiction for any controversies involving individuals and their respective States.

    In regards to something being either “constitutional” or “unconstitutional”, that is available in “black and white” and not subject to “interpretation”, which is something that is more of an “art”, for which many special interests groups are “coloring” our Constitution with a very broad brush. This is where all the controversy has all its beginnings.

    The ACA or “O’Care” is really all about is “contract” or “administrative” law, which simply means our signature is required to make the “contract” valid. There is no way Obama was going to sit on his hands and wait for a “constitutional convention” to take place, which would overtly expose the true nature of the ACA, which is control over the masses. Obama desperately needed a “success” in order to secure another election. We were warned by Sarah Palin what Obama Care was going to do to us and I also put out a warning as to the nature of this so-called “law of the land”.

    Everything the government puts out to the public are all “contract law”, for the simple reason our signature is required to claim our “benefits”, the Constitution notwithstanding. Your “Driver’s license”, marriage license, Social Security, “W-4” and “1040” are all government contracts.

    Hey Legalman, you look very much like a former roommate I had in Albuquerque, NM, 1994-1996

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I have never lived there although I like the state itself. Beautiful. People are surprised when I tell them that the picture was taken of me in my early 30’s.

  3. Tania

    You can earn some additional money from your blog, i see several opportunities here.

    You should search in google for:
    Yoogurn’s money making

  4. PTM

    How many times a day does the ‘average’ person violate some statute or another? Do such violations constitute crime as that has traditionally been viewed by the people? How can there be so many statutes that no one may have a firm grasp of them let alone understand them? I agree with the poster who discusses intent v word. Law is written for a reason: that the meaning be clear and unambiguous. If two people do not agree on something, how could it be ‘reasonable’? If the law is ambiguous, how can it be legitimate?

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I think the system is of course set up to be sure that EVERYONE is in violation of SOMETHING all the time. Thus the people are always “in danger” of arrest and threats. That is the control system of course.

  5. T.J. Thomas

    “It is already ridiculous enough that in a “free country” where the people “are in charge” that just 9 unelected people could ever make such a decision.”

    That would be Article III Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well not sure if you’re kidding or serious, quite honestly. lol If serious, then I can only assume that you believe that everything the federal government is doing is in fact authorized by the constitution, including O’care if the court approves it. And I would ask some simple questions. If it is so “clearly” in the constitution then why was Marbury v. Madison such a big deal and so controversial? If it is true, then how could ANYTHING the feds ever do NOT be constitutional SO LONG AS the court “finds” that it has “passed muster”? How can the court have ever “reversed” itself in the past? I mean the constitution didn’t change. When and how did anyone alive ever have an opportunity to agree or disagree to the system you are now saying is the law? In other words what is the fundamental basis to exercise any authority over a free man without HIS actual consent? I could go on and on. But my point is the same as the point I make in most of my posts. ONCE you accept that rules they want to impose on what you or I are allowed to challenge, as far as what is legitimate, well, then of course you’re right. If it is “legitimate” because it says it is legitimate, well, then there is nothing else to say. Your statement, just like what they teach everyone simply ASSUMES away all of the KEY points without any basis. It is just a rhetorical trick. It isn’t a real argument. That is the central point of what I try and get across.
      You understand once you go down the road you are going down, there is NO even THEORETICAL limit on the feds powers? So long as they pass it and the courts okay it then IT IS constitutional under your argument about “art. III” etc. If all it takes is for the feds to go through a “process” then the idea of a limitation is out the window.
      And remember, under your “art III” argument, there is nothing to stop the feds from putting one person in a coma on the court and just ONE other person they like. They don’t have to have 9 they can have just 2. Maybe just ONE person. There is nothing to prevent them from instituting the 1 to 8 I discussed. Once you say that the feds are the only ones who are entitled to challenge and “check” the feds, it is over. A party can never be left in charge of limiting ITSELF. That can never work. I have written extensively on these issues. It is a perspective change that is necessary to see it.

      REMEMBER, Art III says NOTHING about the court being the SOLE arbiter of what is constitutional. It just “vests the judicial power” in that court. What THAT definition means is what Marbury is all about and WHY it was so controversial. The court CLAIMED the EXCLUSIVE power to tell the people what the constitution SAID. I don’t see the words stare decisis in Art. III. Where does that come from? They are there to decide cases. Only. Not to take the power from the people. EVEN the framers selling this snake oil knew that if the branches got together to “approve” a bunch of garbage that the people would be in trouble. Here from Federalist 78:
      It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments;

      The discussion regarding the s.ct. that was had during ratification was the concern that the judiciary would STRIKE down laws that were valid, because IT WAS A GIVEN that if the branches collaborated, as I just showed in the quote, that the whole system would fall apart and there would BE NO LIBERTY. Which of course is what your Art III argument actually SUPPORTS doing. Do yousee that? The bottom line is always the same. The only defense the people have against overreaching government does not lie with the government preventing ITSELF from overreaching. The PEOPLE have to wake up to realize that is THEIR obligation. As long as they continue to believe that the court limits its own employer or ITSELF there will continue to be a slow and gradual loss of liberty. Which of course is EXACTLY what the entire history of the country and the court is.

      I only wrote on this so extensively in this comment b/c so very few people ever comment compared to how many read. And I have to assume that any comment represents some greater portion than one person.

      Hopefully I made my point a bit clearer. My material is all there. If you were just joking, then I hope you understand that I am not directing this to you. I wrote it for the reason just stated. Regardless of how you feel, I am glad you stopped by and hope you come back. All are welcome. –L

  6. Billyjack

    The court is only allowed to exist to provide legitimacy to the illegal acts of the central government. The last time the courts attempted to deny federal power was when FDR threatened to flood the court to get approval of the New Deal.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well that is certainly at least somewhat true. You might want to ready my article about legal tender and the court “packing” etc. I discuss that issue. Glad you’re here. Hope you come back and tell your friends. It is all a process. Until people see the scope of the problem it won’t change. They have to see how the system itself prevents significant change. — L

  7. the doctor

    Good post. The most interesting point of this to me is the idea that “intent” is the point of law in some cases and “word of law” is the point in other cases. In contract all the “word” is it and one word can destroy a contract. It seems with congress their “intent” is just fine, yet their intent isn’t clear, in which case a normal case would send it all into the toilet because there was a failure but here it just means sorry, oops.

    My guess is this whole case is a sham by the plaintiffs. This, by the argument, is a STATUTE, which is “law only by consent, failure to consent means you are free to ignore it.” But, should this be determined by a judge, the presumption is it now becomes law, as the only real way to get law in maritime law is to get a judge to rubber stamp it, prior to that everything is a suggestion. My guess this was an end around to get the entire “statute” made into law. Sadly, even if they “reject” the intent argument, there is no recourse anyway so the whole thing is a sham just to give the impression that the court has meaning – millions of laws and they only validate a few a year.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I would say that to the extent the entire thing was not a scam from the beginning that it has at a MINIMUM morphed into a scam for at least 150 years. There are many other issues with the courts that people simply do not consider because they are not told about them. And lawyers don’t bring up or discuss because they have to stay WITHIN the system otherwise they lose their “license”. The whole thing is very effective. But it is only effective as long as people don’t see it. Once they see it, poof, it loses its power. We don’t need everyone. I suspect that just 5 to 10% would be more than enough to create significant change. But that is still a lot of people, lol. So the key is get the word out in whatever manner people can accept. — L


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *