Actually, yes we should, it is against the supreme law of the land.

That is a perfectly idiotic statement and a total miscomprehension of the subject matter. In fact a total miscomprehension of natural and constitutional law in general.

So how did more than 1600 get to be 1700, more freeloaders in the woodwork somewhere?

But where in the constitution does it define "prosecutors"? It doesn't. And where in the natural law does it state that a fiction can be an injured party? It doesn't.

Prosecution is where an injured party, having received no relief from an injury from the responsible party seeks remedy from the court. It is the responsibility of the injured party to seek that remedy, not the state. The state is to but provide the forum, a place for the case to be heard, and a magistrate to control the flow of the case. If the case cannot be resolved by mutual agreement before the magistrate, then the matter is referred to a tribunal, a jury of peers that decides the matter completely, both to fact and law.

What we have today is a totally hijacked law system based on money and greed, justice not allowed.

where in the 'supreme law' does it say criminals shouldn't be prosecuted?

what 'criminal prosecution' does the sixth amendment refer to,,, I must be misunderstanding the term that is 'against' the supreme law,,,

Nope, not in this instance just the tyrannical rule of government.

Doesn't change matters one iota, still a matter of no personal responsibility, just entitlements.

U.S. restaurant and retail workers, many of whom earn minimum wage and live below the poverty line, have helped spark a national debate over income inequality. Their efforts are backed by U.S. organized labor, which has experienced plummeting membership in recent decades.
another head of the Hydra!

of course there was personal responsibility,,

the 'person responsible' for causing my injuries
and the 'person responsible' for stalking and assaulting me

were both HELD to their responsibility

So what you are saying is that you haven't a clue of what the constitution says, actually par for the course.

The constitution is based on enumerated powers, if they weren't given, they can't be taken.

These enumerated powers are 18 in number and listed in Article 1, Section 8. And just to insure that Section 8 was not misunderstood, they added Section 9 that added clarity of what can't be done with the powers enumerated in Section 8.

But in the case of the court system, that is covered in Article 3, Section 1 that establishes one Supreme court and other inferior courts as established by Congress better known as Article 3 courts but then even that power is clause 8 of section 8 of Article 1.

And you have absolutely no clue of the "Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, they give the people nothing.

And Amendment 6 refers to no "criminal" prosecution. Criminal refers to a crime and that has no meaning in today's world. But according to Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968:



The word crime in Black's goes on for more than 2 columns, more than a page. But at the bottom of the first full column is the definition as understood by the founders:



Of course I would not expect that the entitlement crowd would understand any of this. That is what makes them the perfect victim of the system.

so , what you just stated, in laymans terms is that

you understand 'enumerated powers' and 'bill of rights'

and I am glad for you and impressed, seriously


but the questions were ,,,

where in the 'supreme law' does it say criminals shouldn't be prosecuted?

and

what 'criminal prosecution' does the sixth amendment refer to?


please don't answer by denying the existence of a thing (Crime) by including the legal definition of what that thing is (blacks law definition of crime)




when citizen breaks penal law (blacks definition of crime) should hey NOT be prosecuted?

if not, what is the purpose of Article 3 or any of the amedments pertaining to 'crime' or 'criminal'?

Yeah, the Odumbo effort to have the minimum wage raised to $10.10 an hour. A few of the states have already done this on their own.

But what is really funny is a statement I read the other day stating in general that 16 million or so would benefit but that approximately 500,000 would lose their jobs. But that was ok with Odumbo, just go ahead and sacrifice the 500,000 for the benefit of the masses without considering the total impact of another 500,000 totally unemployed.

Seems if experience is any judge then the 500,000 would have a material impact on the overall outcome and more job loss would be likely. Miracle how that seems to happen isn't it?

But then the government is good and can do anything, especially ruin a country with entitlements.

And that would only be one side of a story and that side from personal experience seems to be tainted. But if you would like to post case numbers I would gladly check them out.

nah, I truly believe there are sickos in these threads that wouldn't hesitate to rejoice in bringing harm to those they feel are 'entitled' or 'thugs' or any of the other labels signifying someone's inferior status to themselves,,

my stalker is no longer imprisoned,,,I have no intention of some sicko informing him of how to find me,,,

All of this has already been answered, it is not my problem if you do not comprehend. Do your own research, all the paths have been laid out. I do not subscribe to entitlements, so my time is my own to do as I wish and I wished to provide clarity. It is your responsibility to proceed beyond that as provided by me.

So we remain with a one sided story that from experience can be considered tainted and within the scope of reasonable doubt as to the facts.

dude, I totally understood your pedantic 'look how intelligent I am' rant

but it still doesn't address the questions it was allegedly supposed to be answering,,,lol

I see plenty in the 'supreme' law about crime and criminal and all I asked was where that law states that criminals cant be prosecuted

I see you have no actual direct answer to 'provide clarity' so I will assume my responsibility to not expect that to change and to move on,,,,

I think his CONVICTION alleviates the notion of a 'reasonable doubt'

and I am yet again not disappointed

continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,,