You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: As the left screams Trump intimidated a witness the democrats are attacking our free speech.
Thanks for the info on what people can do to counter legal corruption, etc. Now, personally speaking, YouTube terminated at least three of my YouTube channels as of 2019, this year. So, I deleted each video that would receive the copyright claims. Yet, they still terminated three of my channels. I love law. So, I didn't know about chancery. I love history. So, I love how chancery goes back to the Roman Empire. I may consider writing articles about some of these things in the future.
I am not a video content producer per se. But once youtube registers 3 strikes on your account, I guess that is their limit. Many censored people are moving over to bitchutte for a better experience, I don't know if bitchutte offers monetization. There used to be others that issued monetization, but I don't know if they still do. It is possible to store an entire video on the steem block chain spread throughout numerous 48k [after encoding] comment chunks, but that is anything but ideal at this point. Even if specialized video software engineers could load the 48k chunks individually for streaming purposes then they would still have to decode it.
You may rarely hear things about a court of chancery these days. All states except delaware have unified their court of law and chancery so they are heard in the same courts. Today, you'll often seen a state (or federal) rules of civil procedure covers the rules for chancery. "Chancery" may be seen from many different names: chancery; equity; injunction/injuncti, and: restraining order. Despite the merging of the courts there is still a jurisdictional wall that separates them, and that wall exists to protect our jury trial rights-and that is seen in the 7th amendment as to civil cases, and one can presume article 3 of the constitution for federal cases. Eugene Volokh and I [on twiiter, back when I had an account] disagreed about whether this applies to the states through the 14th amendment; I would argue it does, and he provided no authority to the contrary. It isn't to say that he wouldn't argued that position. You'll see the arguments in favor of my position inherited from the simplified rules of equity themselves.
You will often see 3 simplified, 4 at the modern federal level and in some states, to invoke chancery jurisdiction. 1& 2. That a moving party faces an irreparable injury in the absence of the issuance of equity, but is likely to succeed on the merits of it's issuance. 3. That there must be a balancing of interest. 4. And it must not to contrary to the public interest. You'll see other things not often expressed in these simplification. To invoke a constitutional challenge you often have to serve a state attorney general of the government unit. An irrepararable injury must be real, and not just the apprehension of injury. That a case can be dismissed for mootness the moment the problem has been remedies outside of court. I am sure there are many more, entire books have been written on the subject, But going back to the first two rules, when there exist a remedy in law or in many cases nature (averting the eyes to an unwanted mailing or throwing it away) then equity doesn't have jurisdiction. That said, When there exists an adequate and complete remedy at law, then, aside from petty offenses where there is no jury, the defendant is expected to have a jury trial[-less he waives it for a bench trial]. Even in a petty offense, a prosecutor would have meet a higher burden of proof to meet than a petitioner in equity. So there is also an inherent due process issue when chancery attempts to replace the criminal law as is happening in our modern family court star chambers (the original house of stuart star chamber was also a court of Chancery).
-https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=205
-with two footnotes. If you can't read the image, click the link above.
Unfortunately, our own USDOJ working for feminist/Marxist agents, are instructing trial judges to dissolve this jurisdictional wall and they also advocate for ex parte injunctions against speech-in defiance of scotus rulings as applied to the klan against ex parte injunctions against speech on due process grounds. Despite the wall being a contracts I subject, the judges (often really bad attorneys who turn to a state's welfare system by sitting on a bench) ignore the law and do the USDOJ and by extension feminist bidding. As a result, we are in the present danger of letting the courts of chancery swallow up all of our constitutional and natural rights-and people have been disappeared and tortured due to these courts for expressing political ideas just like the original house of Stuart star chamber.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on equity to Phillip Mazzei in 1785 that goes into greater details about its application in England, He too warned that chancery could swallow up the then common law in England, and notes that some state legislatures have opted to do without such a court. But also noted that they would inevitably return.
Walls:
I value walls. So, I've not heard of this kind of wall before but it makes sense. I also don't know much about the 7th amendment for example. I should study them more. we make money on Steem, on this website, Steemit.
Dtube Video
So, you can upload videos to Dtube and make some money from it.
Ignoring Laws
You mentioned something and that makes me wonder how often lawyers and judges may ignore the constitution and certain laws. I'm not a lawyer and yet I do spend time thinking about the law.
Vietnam
I was teaching English in Vietnam for five years to 2017 and I spend some of my time studying Vietnamese law. While living in Saigon, I was extending my visa with no problem.
Visa Extensions
I would make new visas and extend them again and again until I was suddenly unable to extend a visa in 2015. So, I began trying to figure out what happened. So, that took me down a path of trying to understand some of their laws.
Travel Agencies
I started reading about how it seems that travel agencies are required to educate their customers as they are buying visas. However, in reality, it seems to me that a travel agency actually gave me the wrong kind of visa. I was asking for one kind and they told me that I should get a different kind.
Wrong Visa
Long story short, I believe they persuaded me to get the wrong kind of visa. At the time, I didn't really know that. I believe that they broke the law. But I didn't really want to go to court to fight that. I don't have that kind of money or time.
Trials
Well, I guess I don't enjoy courtrooms. I'm more interested in educating other people who may go to court or whatever the case might be.