Probably the same percentage as members of Congress. My guess would be over 80%. Remember, there are people out there appointed by Biden, Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes. There might be some Reagan appointees who still have a pulse.
Think about it Brain, the majority are corrupted , even in higher courts these judges are giving Trump a lot of work. Everybody is suing him or blocking him everything he does. We had the Carter’s The Bushes The OBosos, The Clinton’s Can you imagine how many judges since then and on top Congress blocking every person President Trump wants to put in all the agencies. They are super corrupt and NY, CA , Michigan, Boston, etc (blue states) All those states definitely have 💯 corrupted judges all over.
We did not get brain_dead .... Certain judges did.
Here is a group of migrants, who want to live according to Sharia. (I'm not saying sharia law as it is the same thing) and their religious death cult of moral depravity. The power differential between man and woman is quite obvious.
There is freedom to contract.
However, certain contracts cannot be made. Other provisions might stand. So, from a contract perspective, certain agreements can be allowed, others cannot. It is not about the reason for a provision, but whether a provision is against the Constitution, even though a person might have underwritten something: wittingly or unwittingly.
For instance, if they move from the position of: woman is property => no such relationship can ever gain legal recognition. As a matter of fact, it would be against the foundational idea of the Constitution: i.e. to protect the rights of the people.
Infiltration
One of the most pernicious infiltration methods is UNIDROID.
It may not be a well known item, but it was set up around 1945/1946, and incorporated into the UN. Overtime, judges left and right of the pond, would confer together, to "harmonize" what certain items of law mean.
It introduces a way of consideration that is destructive to a constitutional view.
historical
This is not the first time. When studying where things come from, like maritime law, in and of itself, the idea of it is not wrong. However, what happened is that the Uni of Bologna (Italy) had a disproportionate influence on what items of law mean.
On top, many scholars in the early 11th and 12th century, started to translate local laws (think Visby sealaw, Lübeck law, etc) into Latin. This meant that both Roman Law and Canon Law because the driver or the lens through which certain matters were viewed.
For instance: a man = the living individual endowed with inalienable rights.
Person = per sona = by means of sound can refer to two things:
actor with a mask
declaration of will by sound: yes or no.
Think marriage. No marriage will be executed if there is not first a declaration of will by sound. Only then enters the contract, either common law or civil law.
However, in civil law, the person can only be recognized IF identified ( = look a like) as such UNDER that law, meaning: the man and woman, by their very nature being the embodiment of rights, become the corpses, the corporate representation under statute, and are no longer the living.
This same idea is encompassed in canon law, but then with the view of babtized in the RKK or not. Reason? Unam Sanctam. What? 12th century global religious trust encompassing everybody. If not babtized in RKK, you, the living man, are considered an animal.
Another nicety thanks to Roman law, this time from the Justinian Law (6th century). It effectively says: if I can take your stuff, you are my slave. Very very christian of you Justin. It is quite easy to see how this view seeps down into maritime law/ commercial law.
It effectively negates the declaration of will towards the point: You did not say no, so I went ahead and moved from implied consent.
Doesn't the yellow-fringed flag behind her not represent a specific nation unless it's used at a military base gathering? She's right in front of a sign indicating she's at a congressional representatives office (in DC it appears).
Office is that of Congressman Keith Self, Texas. (Plaque is on the wall behind the reporter in yellow dress). Congressman Self is a military veteran so I'm assuming he knows the proper display of our flag. There should be other anons here who know all the specifics about the question and statements you've made - whether or not any of them notice your comment and can clarify for us is another matter.
Found at flags.com --
"What Does Fringe on The American Flag Mean?
Gold fringe on an American flag, or any other flag, is an ‘honorable enrichment’ or a signal of honor and respect. The addition of fringe to a flag creates a more elegant look, which is ideal for displays during formal events. Armed Forces branch flags that are used during parades or ceremonies are required to have fringe. These events are meant to celebrate the branches their flags represent, so it is only appropriate to use the ceremonial versions. A common myth about the American flag with gold fringe is that it is a sign that maritime or martial law is in effect. This is untrue; the use of fringe is simply used as a way to show respect to the country or organization it represents."
Thanks for the clarification. After finding out the country was essentially "sold out" to DC through the Organic Act of 1871 ("USA, Inc.", and Admiralty law instead of Constitutional law therefore takes precedence, with DC becoming it's own "sovereign nation"), you start to notice how the Deep State actors seem to have no problems making oaths to flags with the fringe AND TASSLES, as the latter implies Admiralty law takes precedence.
Thanks for that. I'll read it tonight when I have fewer interruptions. It's hard to tell what, exactly, is going on sometimes with so much happening behind the scenes, so many bad players still embedded in institutions and companies, etc. Edit: For all I know flags.com could be run by a bunch of leftists like Wikipedia is, skewing information to suit their corrupt agendas. I'm not implying they are. But you just never know these days.
I know there was some good discussions about the flag fringe issue quite some time ago. Here's one from a couple months ago --
We should have removed the first judge who ever relied on non Constitutional authority to make a decision.
I think many judges will need to go. Might be half?
Probably the same percentage as members of Congress. My guess would be over 80%. Remember, there are people out there appointed by Biden, Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes. There might be some Reagan appointees who still have a pulse.
Wow. That's a high percentage.
There’s a lot of criminality in all 3 branches.
Think about it Brain, the majority are corrupted , even in higher courts these judges are giving Trump a lot of work. Everybody is suing him or blocking him everything he does. We had the Carter’s The Bushes The OBosos, The Clinton’s Can you imagine how many judges since then and on top Congress blocking every person President Trump wants to put in all the agencies. They are super corrupt and NY, CA , Michigan, Boston, etc (blue states) All those states definitely have 💯 corrupted judges all over.
<looks at basically every judge appointed since FDR>
That’s right. Those judges do no belong here and definitely more than 80% needs to go and leave the courts.
Hmmmm....
How to work my screen name into a post title?
Human candle burns down to ash, lives long enough for wounds to fester.
Howls.
So…. um…. how did you think of these things… if you only had a brain? 😂😂 Courage? Heart? Or are you wearing the Ruby Slippers?!
Sent to me by higher power? LOL
"Unified patriot actions take down the Deep State, because We Are the Plan."
Mine was easy.
We did not get brain_dead .... Certain judges did.
Here is a group of migrants, who want to live according to Sharia. (I'm not saying sharia law as it is the same thing) and their religious death cult of moral depravity. The power differential between man and woman is quite obvious.
There is freedom to contract.
However, certain contracts cannot be made. Other provisions might stand. So, from a contract perspective, certain agreements can be allowed, others cannot. It is not about the reason for a provision, but whether a provision is against the Constitution, even though a person might have underwritten something: wittingly or unwittingly.
For instance, if they move from the position of: woman is property => no such relationship can ever gain legal recognition. As a matter of fact, it would be against the foundational idea of the Constitution: i.e. to protect the rights of the people.
Infiltration
One of the most pernicious infiltration methods is UNIDROID.
It may not be a well known item, but it was set up around 1945/1946, and incorporated into the UN. Overtime, judges left and right of the pond, would confer together, to "harmonize" what certain items of law mean.
It introduces a way of consideration that is destructive to a constitutional view.
historical
This is not the first time. When studying where things come from, like maritime law, in and of itself, the idea of it is not wrong. However, what happened is that the Uni of Bologna (Italy) had a disproportionate influence on what items of law mean.
On top, many scholars in the early 11th and 12th century, started to translate local laws (think Visby sealaw, Lübeck law, etc) into Latin. This meant that both Roman Law and Canon Law because the driver or the lens through which certain matters were viewed.
For instance: a man = the living individual endowed with inalienable rights. Person = per sona = by means of sound can refer to two things:
Think marriage. No marriage will be executed if there is not first a declaration of will by sound. Only then enters the contract, either common law or civil law.
However, in civil law, the person can only be recognized IF identified ( = look a like) as such UNDER that law, meaning: the man and woman, by their very nature being the embodiment of rights, become the corpses, the corporate representation under statute, and are no longer the living.
This same idea is encompassed in canon law, but then with the view of babtized in the RKK or not. Reason? Unam Sanctam. What? 12th century global religious trust encompassing everybody. If not babtized in RKK, you, the living man, are considered an animal.
Another nicety thanks to Roman law, this time from the Justinian Law (6th century). It effectively says: if I can take your stuff, you are my slave. Very very christian of you Justin. It is quite easy to see how this view seeps down into maritime law/ commercial law.
It effectively negates the declaration of will towards the point: You did not say
no, so I went ahead and moved fromimplied consent.Slippery slopes? O yes, quite so.
Public schools.
💯
Absolutely.
"But how did we get so brain-dead??"
Years of Brain-Washing..
Doesn't the yellow-fringed flag behind her not represent a specific nation unless it's used at a military base gathering? She's right in front of a sign indicating she's at a congressional representatives office (in DC it appears).
https://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/gold-fringe-flag/ Yellow Fringe on Flag: Not authorized on a Title 4 USA Codes Chapter 1 § 1 & 2 flag; it is a mutilation and represents no nation or constitution.
Office is that of Congressman Keith Self, Texas. (Plaque is on the wall behind the reporter in yellow dress). Congressman Self is a military veteran so I'm assuming he knows the proper display of our flag. There should be other anons here who know all the specifics about the question and statements you've made - whether or not any of them notice your comment and can clarify for us is another matter.
Found at flags.com --
"What Does Fringe on The American Flag Mean?
Gold fringe on an American flag, or any other flag, is an ‘honorable enrichment’ or a signal of honor and respect. The addition of fringe to a flag creates a more elegant look, which is ideal for displays during formal events. Armed Forces branch flags that are used during parades or ceremonies are required to have fringe. These events are meant to celebrate the branches their flags represent, so it is only appropriate to use the ceremonial versions. A common myth about the American flag with gold fringe is that it is a sign that maritime or martial law is in effect. This is untrue; the use of fringe is simply used as a way to show respect to the country or organization it represents."
Thanks for the clarification. After finding out the country was essentially "sold out" to DC through the Organic Act of 1871 ("USA, Inc.", and Admiralty law instead of Constitutional law therefore takes precedence, with DC becoming it's own "sovereign nation"), you start to notice how the Deep State actors seem to have no problems making oaths to flags with the fringe AND TASSLES, as the latter implies Admiralty law takes precedence.
https://thehypothyroidismchick.com/2024/07/29/the-organic-act-of-1871-unveiling-the-hidden-transformation-of-america-by-a-l-childers/ The Organic Act of 1871
Thanks for that. I'll read it tonight when I have fewer interruptions. It's hard to tell what, exactly, is going on sometimes with so much happening behind the scenes, so many bad players still embedded in institutions and companies, etc. Edit: For all I know flags.com could be run by a bunch of leftists like Wikipedia is, skewing information to suit their corrupt agendas. I'm not implying they are. But you just never know these days.
I know there was some good discussions about the flag fringe issue quite some time ago. Here's one from a couple months ago --
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASZf4ibH0/bqqm-it-is-right-there-to-see-th/c/
... and one from a couple years ago --
https://greatawakening.win/p/17sP1sUi84/no-gold-fringe-last-nightthe-u/c/
Neat.
Now do the Civil Rights Act and Administrative Law.
What in the world is happening here? Sharia Law? Are you friking kidding me?