Murthy v Missouri: Why The Supreme Courts Ruling Was Protecting Article 3 "Standing" & The Common Law System Itself, In No Way Was The Court Siding With Government For Censorship!
Murthy v Missouri: Why The Supreme Courts Ruling Was Protecting Article 3 "Standing" & The Common Law System Itself, In No Way Was The Court Siding With Government For Censorship!
DID THE JUSTICES GIVE A TIP HOW TO RE-DO IT? Yes! The RECORD did not have the ways to overcome the blocks. The Plaintiffs didn't prove enough to win in Supreme Court.
What stands out in the wording of Barrett's Opinion to Reverse and Remand Murthy v Missouri is not that the plaintiffs' didn't prove enough in their argument to persuade the jurists of their standing, as much as it demonstrated the faulty reasoning that lead to Barrett to her conclusion to reverse and remand - which she justified primarily on her own misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances that the plaintiff's raised in their argument. This is no great surprise coming from Barrett, who has shown time and again - in her short time on the bench, that she lacks the sound jurisprudence of law to be sitting on the SCOTUS bench. Furthermore, that Roberts and Kavanaugh agreed with Barrett's opinion tells us all we need to know about their lack of qualifications also - again no surprise here! Neither Sotomayor, Kagan nor Brown are even worthy of mention, as not one of the three should have ever been nominated, no less approved, to sit on the SCOTUS bench.
There is no federal common law. Not since 1938 supreme Court Erie decision.
This situation, arose via Banking Emergency Relief Act of March 9, 1933.
Placing all title and legal interest in trusteeship to two public trustees jointly and severally:
1. Commander-in-Chief
2. Secretary of the Treasury (Alien Property Custodian)
These political situations arose hidden long before their public was made aware by private implication (via sponsorship of Netherlands 1893-1907) of Hague Conferences, made public law....lol.
Unless any native begotten (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5) awake and replevin private "status" most will be farmed from womb to tomb, just to pay for their occupation by foreigners...lol. This is the price of a government at war with its on people via silent weapons for quite wars and this, against an 'enemy' of their own handiwork...., the masses led astray into the very idiocracy necessary to justify emergency war powers occupant ....lol.
It appears to One passing in & out of time, time holds a finality, only from waste, what One puts off till tomorrow what today, One was made perfectly suited. But who amongst ye are perfectly suited, for tomorrow without sojourning in settlement of all accounting, daily? Without equitable arbitration, in service of honor for honor above all else, eternal forevermore.... just judgements are a myth...lol.
Never forget our political, spiritual and binding force by which we seek in good will to serve all walks of life seeking unanimity similarly situated thereby:
"In essentials, unanimity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, honor."
Be wise, safe & blessed,
Arthur
Notice: U.P.C. applicable
Tel: 1-509-862-3119 (text first before call)
Please forgive any syntax or grammatical errors..
P. S.: Please, most graciously grant whatever courtesy for any incorrect scripture, syntax or grammatical errors wherever found throughout our life as unintended clerical errors that all are free to adjust and correct to account properly for remedial recourse our humble efforts intend.
But if grace fails our feeble entreaties, then as Don Corleone says ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
Why?
“We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” < Robert Bork.
Yes, but until the day that US ADMITS the fraud - they need to go by the jurisprudence of Common Law. The Supreme Court is using it - THIS week as a matter of fact in all their rulings.... So there are two sides to the sordid story. WE 100% get your point and the history though!
Wow. So they brought that case without a SINGLE "damaged" party present? And they didn't even ASK for an order enjoining the behavior they wanted to stop? Amazing. I'll have to "note to self" never to hire THOSE lawyers for anything. A simple declaratory relief action with a request for a preliminary injunction, with specific plaintiffs who were in some way INJURED by the actions complained of, would've done the trick.
But then, I've seen federal district courts, and even the 9th Circuit, outright LIE about the ACTUAL contents of the Plaintiff's complaint in order to justify a dismissal for "lack of standing" so,......
In the Control Group lawsuit, they lied and stated that the executive branch of the U.S. government, (POTUS and it's subordinate agencies like the CDC, FDA, etc.) have NOTHING to do with the vaccine programs in America. This outrageous lie was the basis for the lie that we lacked "standing" to sue. They didn't deny that the vaccine programs are KILLING America, via the physical destruction of its people. They denied that the executive branch ever had anything to do with the VACCINE PROGRAMS.
So when they're in a corner, they just LIE. And they're more than happy to outright lie about the actual contents of the pleadings as well as any other known FACT, in order justify dismissing a case that would basically destroy the federal government if it ever reached the EVIDENTIARY stage. You see, the federal courts would be destroying their own PAYCHECK if they did the right thing.
Well they definitely tried to say they were injured. The problem is they insisted it in ways the court was able to wiggle out, while KNOWING they were injured - based on really strict common law technicalities.
The HORRIBLE part about this ruling - is that its DEFINITELY State action and its definitely going to continue, BUT in the courts defense we cant just go on the hypothetical unproven hunch it will continue. In court thats a failure to state a real claim - you THINK you have a future claim to stop future censorship... but its not proven 100% it will continue to a court so its a baseless accusation. It sucks!
OBVIOUSLY there is enough proof to bring in to show the court that these programs are the problem and the investments and mandates to continue the censorship programs continue. THATs proof of a future claim to get he injunction!
The case was super close for the injunction part but an injunction is preliminary and needs all the stuff proven. The case is still going to be remanded back to 5th Circuit and that court is hell bent on it winning. Plus, if it fails there are a few other censorship cases and we are also jumping in soon to sue on this.
9th circuit ALWAYS LIES to make good cases fail. They are the worst! What case was that where they claim the executive branch isn't responsible for the vaccines? Who did they say was responsible? Of course its the Executive branch on the hook! That could be reopened and challenged if tossed on a lie. That dear friend is why we are the PERSISTENCE. Never give up or give in to the lie!
This is super helpful in understanding the Murthy vs. Missouri SCOTUS decision much better. Thank you for breaking it down for lay people. I'll defintiely be sharing it!
Yes - The issue of standing is so important to us because if they change standing for environmental defender plaintiffs, to give GAIA more rights and standing than us we are all doomed! Thats the UN plan with agenda 2030 in the end - it would change rule of law fundamentally if rules on standing were altered, so the strictness sucks in ways but saves us in other ways...
Since this case is consolidated with Kennedy, V Biden, and there are not any standing issues with those plaintiff, can the judge dismiss the Missouri Biden case and allow the Kennedy case to go forward, or will he just allow the Missouri Biden consolidated case to go forward without these plaintiff who have no stand?
Kennedy case is still going forward! They say they hope it overcomes these shortcomings ; ) And there is also the Brighteon case, which to us is the best so far - took a year and a half to draft!
the good thing about the ruling is that it's just for the injunction blocking the Brandon regime from continuing to lean on the platforms to censor while the actual case continues through the judicial process.
the case itself hasn't been rejected on standing and will proceed.
There are also a few other related censorship cases pending to give hope - and now that Chevron was overturned these cases take on new meaning and have a way better shot!
Prayer Helps Save the Constitution
“…and call on Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you will glorify Me.”
— Psalm 50:15 🙏 🇺🇸 ONE NATION UNDER GOD IS THE CURE 🙏 UNITE WITH GOD AND HIS LIKE MINDED SOLDIERS OF JESUS CHRIST PRAY AND PREP 🙏 🇺🇸 💪
Thank you for the excellent explanation team.
As always, you rock .
I suspected that there was a specific glitch in the filing that caused it to be insufficiently prepared.
I wonder if they have someone who can play devil's advocate before the case is filed.
Seems like that would be a smart thing to do.
Agreed!
What stands out in the wording of Barrett's Opinion to Reverse and Remand Murthy v Missouri is not that the plaintiffs' didn't prove enough in their argument to persuade the jurists of their standing, as much as it demonstrated the faulty reasoning that lead to Barrett to her conclusion to reverse and remand - which she justified primarily on her own misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances that the plaintiff's raised in their argument. This is no great surprise coming from Barrett, who has shown time and again - in her short time on the bench, that she lacks the sound jurisprudence of law to be sitting on the SCOTUS bench. Furthermore, that Roberts and Kavanaugh agreed with Barrett's opinion tells us all we need to know about their lack of qualifications also - again no surprise here! Neither Sotomayor, Kagan nor Brown are even worthy of mention, as not one of the three should have ever been nominated, no less approved, to sit on the SCOTUS bench.
Please take note.
There is no federal common law. Not since 1938 supreme Court Erie decision.
This situation, arose via Banking Emergency Relief Act of March 9, 1933.
Placing all title and legal interest in trusteeship to two public trustees jointly and severally:
1. Commander-in-Chief
2. Secretary of the Treasury (Alien Property Custodian)
These political situations arose hidden long before their public was made aware by private implication (via sponsorship of Netherlands 1893-1907) of Hague Conferences, made public law....lol.
Unless any native begotten (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5) awake and replevin private "status" most will be farmed from womb to tomb, just to pay for their occupation by foreigners...lol. This is the price of a government at war with its on people via silent weapons for quite wars and this, against an 'enemy' of their own handiwork...., the masses led astray into the very idiocracy necessary to justify emergency war powers occupant ....lol.
It appears to One passing in & out of time, time holds a finality, only from waste, what One puts off till tomorrow what today, One was made perfectly suited. But who amongst ye are perfectly suited, for tomorrow without sojourning in settlement of all accounting, daily? Without equitable arbitration, in service of honor for honor above all else, eternal forevermore.... just judgements are a myth...lol.
Never forget our political, spiritual and binding force by which we seek in good will to serve all walks of life seeking unanimity similarly situated thereby:
"In essentials, unanimity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, honor."
Be wise, safe & blessed,
Arthur
Notice: U.P.C. applicable
Tel: 1-509-862-3119 (text first before call)
Please forgive any syntax or grammatical errors..
P. S.: Please, most graciously grant whatever courtesy for any incorrect scripture, syntax or grammatical errors wherever found throughout our life as unintended clerical errors that all are free to adjust and correct to account properly for remedial recourse our humble efforts intend.
But if grace fails our feeble entreaties, then as Don Corleone says ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
Why?
“We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” < Robert Bork.
Yes, but until the day that US ADMITS the fraud - they need to go by the jurisprudence of Common Law. The Supreme Court is using it - THIS week as a matter of fact in all their rulings.... So there are two sides to the sordid story. WE 100% get your point and the history though!
Wow. So they brought that case without a SINGLE "damaged" party present? And they didn't even ASK for an order enjoining the behavior they wanted to stop? Amazing. I'll have to "note to self" never to hire THOSE lawyers for anything. A simple declaratory relief action with a request for a preliminary injunction, with specific plaintiffs who were in some way INJURED by the actions complained of, would've done the trick.
But then, I've seen federal district courts, and even the 9th Circuit, outright LIE about the ACTUAL contents of the Plaintiff's complaint in order to justify a dismissal for "lack of standing" so,......
In the Control Group lawsuit, they lied and stated that the executive branch of the U.S. government, (POTUS and it's subordinate agencies like the CDC, FDA, etc.) have NOTHING to do with the vaccine programs in America. This outrageous lie was the basis for the lie that we lacked "standing" to sue. They didn't deny that the vaccine programs are KILLING America, via the physical destruction of its people. They denied that the executive branch ever had anything to do with the VACCINE PROGRAMS.
So when they're in a corner, they just LIE. And they're more than happy to outright lie about the actual contents of the pleadings as well as any other known FACT, in order justify dismissing a case that would basically destroy the federal government if it ever reached the EVIDENTIARY stage. You see, the federal courts would be destroying their own PAYCHECK if they did the right thing.
Well they definitely tried to say they were injured. The problem is they insisted it in ways the court was able to wiggle out, while KNOWING they were injured - based on really strict common law technicalities.
The HORRIBLE part about this ruling - is that its DEFINITELY State action and its definitely going to continue, BUT in the courts defense we cant just go on the hypothetical unproven hunch it will continue. In court thats a failure to state a real claim - you THINK you have a future claim to stop future censorship... but its not proven 100% it will continue to a court so its a baseless accusation. It sucks!
OBVIOUSLY there is enough proof to bring in to show the court that these programs are the problem and the investments and mandates to continue the censorship programs continue. THATs proof of a future claim to get he injunction!
The case was super close for the injunction part but an injunction is preliminary and needs all the stuff proven. The case is still going to be remanded back to 5th Circuit and that court is hell bent on it winning. Plus, if it fails there are a few other censorship cases and we are also jumping in soon to sue on this.
9th circuit ALWAYS LIES to make good cases fail. They are the worst! What case was that where they claim the executive branch isn't responsible for the vaccines? Who did they say was responsible? Of course its the Executive branch on the hook! That could be reopened and challenged if tossed on a lie. That dear friend is why we are the PERSISTENCE. Never give up or give in to the lie!
This is super helpful in understanding the Murthy vs. Missouri SCOTUS decision much better. Thank you for breaking it down for lay people. I'll defintiely be sharing it!
Yes - The issue of standing is so important to us because if they change standing for environmental defender plaintiffs, to give GAIA more rights and standing than us we are all doomed! Thats the UN plan with agenda 2030 in the end - it would change rule of law fundamentally if rules on standing were altered, so the strictness sucks in ways but saves us in other ways...
Since this case is consolidated with Kennedy, V Biden, and there are not any standing issues with those plaintiff, can the judge dismiss the Missouri Biden case and allow the Kennedy case to go forward, or will he just allow the Missouri Biden consolidated case to go forward without these plaintiff who have no stand?
Kennedy case is still going forward! They say they hope it overcomes these shortcomings ; ) And there is also the Brighteon case, which to us is the best so far - took a year and a half to draft!
👏🏻👌🏽👏🏻🙏
Canadian, Maurice Strong (deceased), was in charge of setting up Costa Rica's constitution!
That would make a lot of sense.. and CIA involvement...
the good thing about the ruling is that it's just for the injunction blocking the Brandon regime from continuing to lean on the platforms to censor while the actual case continues through the judicial process.
the case itself hasn't been rejected on standing and will proceed.
There are also a few other related censorship cases pending to give hope - and now that Chevron was overturned these cases take on new meaning and have a way better shot!