There is no such thing as "Communitarian Law".
E-mail from Bobby Garner to subscriber list
December 15, 2009
For those who may not know, on December 3, 2009, I withdrew my support
for the Anti-Communitarian League because one of the founders stated
publicly that it was "our club" which can only be understood as
private. To my knowledge, the comment has not been explained or
retracted, and my questions about it were avoided. It may appear that
the following is a reaction to that, but I can assure you that what
follows was derived from my research on the matter of public v.s.
private money.
I discovered that we not only have both private and public money, but
public and private law as well. That fact changes the whole dynamic of
the argument concerning "Communitarian Law". As I have stated many
times before, I am not averse to throwing out old understandings which
are no longer sustainable in light of new information.
So called "Communitarian Law" (defined as such only by opponents of
U.N. Agenda 21) does not exist. It's a failed argument. There is
no
such thing as "Communitarian Law".
Note: I - Bobby Garner - have no credentials to practice
law or give legal advice except to say that if you are incompetent to
understand the law, then seek the representation of an attorney.
What is real is the administrative actions of commercial enterprises
(incorporated cities, counties and states) backed up by a system of
administrative law courts and administrative law judges, all of which
is authorized under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The actions of federal and local governments in support of U.N. Agenda
21 sustainability programs identifies those governments with The
Unconstitutional "Fourth Branch of Government
which was authorized and legitimized by the U.S. Congress via the
Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA). The Administrative
Procedure Act defined the limits on infringement of constitutional
rights by unconstitutional government agencies created under Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal beginning in 1933. The Patriot acts and the Real
ID Act of 2005 overrides most of those specified limits by granting the
Department of Homeland Security sweeping new powers to waive any or all
APA provisions.
Federal government agencies are required by congress to write their own
rules/regulations. Such regulations constitute private law, and they
apply to and are legally binding on anyone who willingly takes
advantage of their provisions.
Administrative law judges (ALJs) are Article I (legislative) judges
under the constitution whose function is solely administrative. Legal
issues regarding government
agency regulations are heard by administrative
law judges.
When acting to enforce a statute and its subsequent
amendments to the present date, the judge of the municipal court is
acting as an administrative officer and not in a judicial capacity;
courts in administering or enforcing' statutes do not act judicially,
but merely ministerially"'. Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 583.
Administrative court judges rule on the basis of fact. Therefore, a
principled argument - such as might be made in the defense of
constitutional rights - will likely fail because it will be decided on
the basis of the facts presented by the plaintiff, and the defendants
response. If for instance - the defendant - either in positive and
express terms or by the
character and nature of his pleadings, admits the cause of action
alleged by the plaintiff - he thereby absolves the plaintiff from the
necessity of making any proof in support of his claim. In such cases
the
burden
of proof
is automatically transfered to the defendant. The defendant must then
prove his innocence, but that is not possible on constitutional grounds
because he has already admitted to the fact of the plaintiffs charge.
That legal fact controls the judges decision.
Constitutional arguments must be made in Article III courts which
constitute the judicial branch of the government. "The Supreme
Court has ruled that only Article III courts may
render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private
property rights, with limited exceptions...". - Article III Judge.
Alleged infractions of government agency regulations are prosecuted in
administrative courts and heard by administrative judges. Any
constitutional argument presented there will likely not be heard, and
will certainly loose.
< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >
none
|