« operation "jade helm" ..... and, who is to say that the population isn't being acclimated to the presence of military occupation .... | Main | the peculiar genius of islam .... »

April 21, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Good morning, John, the compliation is unexpected, and I offer my thanks for your efforts in assembling it. :) I'll peruse(heh)all your notes over the rest of the week.

As an aside, I found this scribd document at the Vulgar Curmudgeon:



with your legal experience and USC/DoI knowledge, would you be willing to read it and share your thoughts?

Thanks in advance,


john jay


you are very welcome.

(take a look at the post about using my case for a 6.5mm cartridge. it would be a good one, way better ballistics than the grendel. as for reliability in feeding, extraction and those issues, no one will know until someone makes it.)


john jay


re: the links to clark v. porter in the usdc, ndga case.

i am afraid that i can say nothing intelligible about any of this. i accessed the home page for the court, but could not gain access to any of the pleadings in the case.

such access is granted by the court upon application by those who practice before it.

i am not such a person. i was able to tell from the home page of the court that filings are performed electronically.

i do not know what the case is about, nor do i know what the plaintiff alleged as a cause, nor what the request for redress was.

i know only this. private persons who seek to appear and act before the court are held to the same legal standards as lawyers. that means that if they seek redress from a federal court, they have to allege jurisdictional grounds sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court. they are also expected to follow the dictates of the rules of the court, and to follow the demeanor of lawyers before the court.

as to the subject matter jurisdiction alleged by the plaintiff, i can tell nothing of this from the papers set forth in the links. this affidavit does not fall under what most lawyers would consider pleadings.

nor would a licensed lawyer admitted to practice in that court ever file a paper such as this, without being subject to summary contempt by the court, in my estimation.

i don't know whether the judge involved will invoke contempt, or cite her to appear before the court on contempt proceedings, .... , this is a matter of discretion on the part of the judge, but i would not be too surprised to see this happen.

she might be subject to arrest by the u.s. marshall's service, and this is something that she should see a lawyer about, who is well versed in this sort of thing.

i do not know at all about the case is about, nor is the affidavit a source of such knowledge. it is a indecipherable rant to me.

and, it is not legal argument under the court rules for reversal of the order of dismissal. that is governed by the court rules seeking such a reversal, which the lady is obviously unfamiliar with.

as far as her opinion that she has become "well versed" in constitutional law & history w/ a couple months of intense study, well that is pretty ridiculous on its face. neither the law nor the history are that easily mastered ... she has a way to go, in that regard.

the best advise i could ever give to her, is to seek competent and good help from an attorney. both as to her case, in the chance it might be properly filed somewhere, and with regard as to how to proceed going to jail for contempt.

it is a rant the likes of which i have never seen, i will give her that, but it is open to debate whether she will get much pleasure from it in the long run. federal judges are not noted for having much sense of humor about such matters.

john jay

john jay

p.s. (grog letter.)

when one seeks relief from a court, one seeks to invoke the authority of that court for that redress. in other words, by definition, one asks the court to exercise power over the person who has allegedly done something wrong, and over ones self as well.

a pleading is to inform the court of circumstances that authorize the court, under the law, to exert its power over the litigants.

by doing so, you implicitly do so agreeing to play by the court's rules, and by the rules imposed by the law on those who come before the court.

to state the matter directly, you agree to allow the court to define the controversy, and to define the relief granted, if any.

in the absence of proven bias (and allegation does not constitute proof), you agree to be bound by the result of the court's deliberation.

in short, you've asked for the court's determination.

it is best that you enter such a process knowing what you are doing.

this may seem harsh, but, it is reality.

if you do not accept this, then you have no business being before the court.

if you disagree that the court has this authority over you, then history suggests that you are going to be very disappointed by seeking court intervention.

in short, your remedies are best sought sourced in history, and in political struggle. it is fruitless to seek your remedy where you are convinced it does not lie.


The comments to this entry are closed.