RSS The Daily Climb-Daily Posting Of Relevant Content

RSS BeforeItsNews Feed

RSS The Economic Collapse

RSS Zero Hedge Feed

RSS Confounded Interest Feed

RSS The Pete Morin Blog Feed

RSS Evil of indifference Feed

RSS The Thinker Feed

RSS Modeled Behavior Feed

RSS Politics and Computers Feed

RSS BlackListedNews Feed


RSS Franke Schein Survival Feed

RSS Homelessness In Savannah Feed

RSS Ye Olde Soapbox Feed

RSS The Daily Bail Feed

RSS Chaos Sweeps Away …. Feed

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 186 other followers


Legal Reality Newsletter 27 November A. D. 2011

27 November A.D. 2011

The greatest number are so quick to criticize.

This follows, apparently, from the presumption of “knowing the law.”

If they “knew the law,” there wouldn’t be “any” discussion about the “constitution,” at all, save that which intends to show why there’s no value in discussing the “constitution” for any other reason.

But, let’s go with this one a little bit farther down the road.

It’s quite correct that there is no “Art. 28,” thus, no Art. 28, section 144, in the document that most people consider to be “the” “constitution.”

However, there IS a Title 28, and a Section 144 in Title 28, that addresses bias of judges.

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and
files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom
the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either
against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall
proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to
hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the
belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less
than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the
proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure
to file it within such time. A party may file only one such
affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of
counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

Clearly, this deals with trial courts, not the Supreme Court.  So, it’ll be a leap to get this applicable to the issues with Justice Kagan.

But, to stop there is to miss the point.

There are a few of us who see that Titles 1 – 5 and Title 28 are treated as the “constitution” for that system that is known today as “United States of America.”

This one isn’t read by this author as an “error” of galactic proportion.  It’s more like a “clue” to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Those fixated on “constitution” and 1776, and 1789, and Bill of Rights, and all that, are very like to dismiss this as “error” of galactic proportion and never thing against about it.

This author encourages those so inclined to think, again, about this one.  The “FOX” people are actually right on top of this one, although it is coming in from the outfield.  Those seeing a “myth” are those who “see” the “constitution.”

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe :


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s