A nisi prius court is a court that was never objected to. As such, the court must be in session in order to be objected to. The entire process is conjecture and in assumsit that jurisdiction has been met on September 6, 2011. The process never even got started on September 6, 2011, otherwise we would have had the opportunity to object.
The question of judicial competency becomes paramount. Article 23 states that everyone is protected from unreasonable search and seizure and that such may only be issued by a compentant judge. What does judicial competency comprise of?
Competency is based upon conduct more than position. Impartiality is based upon action, not position or declaration or opinion. When a question of impartiality arrises, it is correct process that determines the value of the impartiality. For example, when the plaintiff is a NGO and is subcontracted and has political/economic ties with the same entity the judge draws a paycheck, immediately the question of judicial bias becomes paramount.
Understandibly the judge draws his pay from the state, but in order to extinguish any glare of impariality to this obvious UN/state/judge/plaintiff inside relationship, the judge may simply follow guidelines of procedure. Is there a higher predisposition of siding with the state's contrators and UN contractual relationships that affect 99% of the population over the rare and typically unpopular minority such as my family which the judge has no finacial relationship, nor internal ties to? If the answer is yes, which of course it is, then correct procedure is the only way for the judge to move forward. Protocols must be followed, and the judge makes it clear in his resolution that he, "knows the law," which means he is accepting responsibility for his faults in procedure. We shall examine those guidelines as established by internationally accepted norms in tri-parte republics such as the US and Costa Rica.
After all, in order to order a search warrant Carlos Manuel Sanchez Miranda must satisfy the rules of competency.
We shall examine:
That jurisdictional venues are satisfied as one.
That the judge is cognitive of the criminal or civil venue and such knowledge is available to the defendant.
That any negative averments of the defense are attended to by the affiant.
That decisions are not arbitrary and capricious.
That no improprieties are used.
That the tribunal is an actual court of record and not a private commission subcontracting court officers to double as presidents over private ad hoc tribunals.(article 35)
That a judge cannot omit a duty via dereliction of duty.(penal code 332)
That a judge does not advantage or harm a party to a controversy.(penal code 344)
That the semantics of the law are as exact as the spirit of the law as found in exact meanings of every word in the law.
That international law of non derogable rights is not infringed.
That the judge does not frustrate or impede the process of entering testimony by making impossible the testimony of the defense particularly when that testimony affects the status of the affiant/defense relationship.
That no appearance of impartial process is evident due to lack of process.
That the defence is allowed to establish the affiants standing via bill of particulars before action is taken against the defense.
That the court is not acting under 'color of law,' by making believe that codes and statutes are applicable in assumsit that we have given consent to those extra constitutional/scriptural laws.
That the judge has no religious opinion that would subjegate another religious issue.
That the judge is not ruling/acting in ways contrary to the international rules of impartiality by excluding any possibility of doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment