LostHeads have already misread week old court decision.

[Quixote]

The Supreme Court published the slip opinion for Bond v US, No. 09–1227, last Thursday. Skankbeat has already misinterpreted the decision. I think that must be a record.

[Famspear]

SkankBeat wrote:

A deeper issue in this case is addressed regarding the jurisdiction of international treaties.....

At first you would think this would stop foreign law from overtaking the US Constitution. Not so. If you understand the income tax scam, you realize that the pattern of fraud contained in USC 26 extends to USC 18 and elsewhere. USC 18 is constitutional if it is intended to be the private law of the federal government's limited jurisdiction......

What an idiotic, flaming, clueless, useless windbag!

.....Those not subject to the federal government must voluntarily contract into the private law in order to come under its control. Here evidence of such contract is esablished by the petitioner's invoking statutory remedy for appeal. The petitioner basically consents to the jurisdiction of USC 18 contract but bickers over one small piece of it. USC 18 applies to all government subjects, the 10th amendment notwithstanding. Considering most of the 300+ million Americans unknowingly create presumption of subject status, foreign law effectively overtakes the US Constitution as being the "law of the land". This should be a concern to all.

This is another example of what LPC has described as an "indecipherable tapestry of legal jargon woven together into an unintelligible mess".

[Pottapaug1938]

Here's the opinion itself:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

[LPC]

Here's the opinion itself:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

For our purposes, the most important point comes in the first three paragraphs:

This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.

[...]

Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to challenge the federal statute on these grounds, this Court now reverses that determination [by the Court of Appeals]. The merits of petitioner’s challenge to the statute’s validity are to be considered, in the first instance, by the Court of Appeals on remand and are not addressed in this opinion.

(Emphasis added for Skankie's benefit, if he should happen to read this forum.)

[notorial dissent]

The Supreme Court published the slip opinion for Bond v US, No. 09–1227, last Thursday. Skankbeat has already misinterpreted the decision. I think that must be a record.

Hardly surprising, very possibly a record, but then Skanks is a record class holder in the jumping to conclusions catagory, and continues to prove his proficiency in the field. Too many big words and Skanky got confused and lost, which is also Skanky's normal state, so the end result was the usual.

Unfortunately I am equally certain that that opinion will be fodder for the ignoricenti to make even more looney claims since it isn't real obvious in what it is saying.