Constitution Club

United States v. Haymond/ reflected to the latter kirklands opinion lower comunications

Dwane Eugene kirkland UCC 1-207


Thoughts**

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1672?utm_source=arguments-newsle...

Thank you judges, I have listen to the cases, and I have come to the conclusion , no matter what the statues say, they either are in conflict or not. however I believe by my opinion to keep it to the common thought from a lower communication. love all of you*****************

The sentences should always be a calculated right in the beginning of being put in jail. if he is in violation of committing another crime then he shall be charged for the additional crime, unless there was intent of violations of any provisions guaranteed to the individual.

However, it would not be legal because of the violations of the 8th amendment the provision to be excessive , unless it weight of evil intent has harmed and has more victims.

My opinion is to be fair and impartial unless there is a mala insane crime, with a victim or property damage.

I believe that if you locked up it should be calculated AS THE DAY THEY ARE PUT IN JAIL AND the defendant SHOULD BE PUT BACK INF OR THE REMAINING OF THE SENTECE, THEN THE ADDED SENTENCE FOR THE NEW CRIME, TO RUN IN CORRILATION.


A statute or code must be in harmony and not in conflict with any provisions, according to law actual , if a conflict is or in connection any clause any part is void and null, and is not bound to any office or enforcement.


Thank you, john marshal stated , paragraph phrases and repugnant secondary law would be illogical. a provisions should not be violated and 16th amurj prudent section 97 98 and many more says the beneficiary of the constitution should have liberal favor. byers v united states say no rights can be diminished or denied if set in motion to the conflict of the statues.

Crimes have to have elements of a crime, and if revoked for a victimless crime would be a conflict of actual law. if revoked one should or shall refinished the remaining sentenced, and then either charged or not for the revocation the elements of the intent of the evil crime, or none evil crime or infraction.

No secondary law trumps a actual law. no infraction trumps the actual law, no secondary cod , policies that violated actual law.

Marbury v Madison US say clear in the final disposition of john marshal - any law in conflict or repugnant or infringement or encroachment, then it void null, and the supreme law trumps all other laws.
Dwane Eugene Kirkland U.C.C 1-207 1-308 w/o prejudice

Views: 18

Comment

You need to be a member of Constitution Club to add comments!

Join Constitution Club

Comment by Dwane Eugene Kirkland UCC 1-207 on March 4, 2019 at 2:28pm

Thanks,  There is a distinctive difference to law.  a actual crime must have elements of a crime. if there is a victim or property damage then there is a crime. 

 We the people are guaranteed due process.  If someone already had due process and commits a crime again then its the same process. no matter what. Government promised to govern by Constitution. no mater what no Constitutional rights can be diminished.  

Under the bill of rights at a federal level, and at all state levels.  all states say the same thing but in trickery numbered its chronological orders, but they are the bill of rights of each state.  if any are in conflict then the line of secession has been violated , and this is constructive fraud. 

thanks for your wisdom.

https://youtu.be/4F8iFbYtHqE

Comment by Lewis Bishop, Jr. on March 4, 2019 at 2:02pm

Good Post Kirkland:    You wrote  :  "THE REMAINING OF THE SENTECE, THEN THE ADDED SENTENCE FOR THE NEW CRIME, TO RUN IN CORRILATION."         What we have forgotten in our modern world is that there should never be a prison sentence at all, so the idea of running multiple sentences in Correlation or Co-Relative, or whatever you call it, is a mistake.  Just forget it--NO SENTENCE whatsoever.   A Jail, Slammer, whatever you call it, is to be only for holding an indicted person till he gets a speedy, fair trial.  For any major offence, not a misdemeanor, the trial, by jury, should be for two simple things:  1) to determine whether the defendant is guilty as charged.  2) To decide whether to kill the defendant or let him go free.  That is a simple system that recognizes rights, mercy, love, wishing the best for everyone, letting offenders have the full opportunity to "reform" themselves.  AND, the third time, the same person has the same guilty performance, he has proved himself incapable of functioning as a "socialized" member of the human, humane, race; therefore, he will be eliminated at the firing squad.  I have seen recent evidences, read the Holy Bible, and been exposed to historical anecdotes that all fit together to show that this is the way to structure society to promote peace, eliminate  major fears, promote cooperation, and enjoy freedom.  If need be, I can elaborate on this.

© 2019   Created by Online Professor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service