|Moderated by: Joe Kelley|
|It occurs to me while listening to the presentation on Court of Record that the term ex parte is another word that can confuse, beguile, and render powerless the human being that is unable to take command of such a legal term.
It also occurs to me that a reader of my words may not be able to grasp the significance of the concept of LAW at it's base, due to measurable difficulties associated with the meanings of words in general.
Therefore I can offer a few words that may be able to convey accurate meaning in such a way as to then be able to inspect the term ex parte with intense focus of effort to reach a common, agreeable, and mutually useful definition of that term, and to then be able to defend against any abuses that may involve an abuse of the meaning of that term: ex parte.
Any claim by anyone whereby the claim is such that an innocent victim who is pleading for mercy is then a cause for the person causing the injury to the innocent victim to willfully, and even gleefully, increase the intensity of the injury upon the innocent victim who is pleading for mercy, and the claim, by the criminal, is such that the innocent victim deserves the injury, in the first place, and the criminal claims further, that the increase in injury resulting as a result of an appeal for mercy, is a claim by the criminal that the innocent victims deserves increased injury, is, by definition, criminal insanity.
This should be understood by all potential victims, any victim who is innocent of any wrongdoing, and even if the victim is not innocent of any wrongdoing, the fact remains that a human being who is inspired to greater destruction targeting another human being, because the target of injury is begging for mercy, is understandable as a danger to be understood.
An example may help illustrate enough information, as an offer, and as a competitive offer, from one human being to any other human beings, whereby the idea is to understand the significance of just exactly how a criminally insane person will define the meaning of criminal insanity as the criminally insane person speaks and acts in time and space, relative to the innocent victims who are suffering at the hands of those criminally insane monsters.
There was a Trail after the insanely criminal monsters burned the people alive in the church in Waco, and the trial was not conducted by the victims who were pleading for mercy as they survived the days of torture, survived the chemical attacks, survived the bullets, survived the grenades, survived the tank treads, survived the bombs, and survived the experiments, and survived the mental torture, and survived the physical torture, and even survived the fire that consumed everything, and survived the small arms fire aimed at any survives, and despite all that destruction raining down on those innocent people, some of those innocent people survived, and it was a Jury of PEERS, who pleaded for their mercy, by the Juries Judgment that the innocent victims of all that torture, and all that mass murder, were, in FACT, innocent.
What did the criminally insane "Judge" do, when the criminally insane "Judge" overturned the judgment of the Jury, and instead of recognizing that it is no crime at all to survive torture and mass murder, by government "employees," it is not a crime to survive torture and murder, and if anything is true, in FACT, it was the people who ordered the deaths of those many innocent people, by torture, and by murder, that constitutes willful crime, by criminally insane criminals?
What did the "Judge" do in this exemplary case that may help in understanding the meaning of the term ex parte?
I can look to find NEWS of this exemplary case, but the actual work to be done by an actual Grand Jury would be more extensive, if the idea is to be less inaccurate when wielding the force of Man Made Laws.
End Note on Trial:
Despite their acquittal for murder, a number of the Branch Davidians were convicted of lesser charges; some were sentenced to as much as 40 years in jail. On August 5, 1996, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Draconian sentences.
Again, the idea here is to illustrate a point, and why would I choose a less obvious case if the idea is to work at making the point obvious?
When a single person gains the power of Law to such an extend that the single person can pile injury upon injury, while the innocent victims are pleading for mercy, and then those pleas for mercy inspire the "Judge" to increase the injury, what is that called?
What is it called when a human being (so called) enjoys, or profits from, and is made happier, when the victims that the human being (so called) is torturing are victims that are screaming in pain, and screaming for mercy, and the level of fun inspires the torturer into a frenzy of greater injury to the targeted, innocent, victim?
Is that not the definition of criminal insanity being defined by the criminal upon the targeted, innocent, victim?
Does that exemplary case not prove the point?
If you can't see it, and I can see it, then is it possible that I am the one seeing things that do not exist?
I can admit that it is very possible, and therefore it is my considered opinion that there must be more than 1 person involved in the process that is due anyone, if such a process reaches for the true meaning of the term Due Process.
So what does ex parte mean?
A statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) may not second guess the judgment of a common law court of record. The Supreme Court of the USA acknowledges the common law as supreme: “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]