Thursday, June 05, 2008

A-1: For The Verbally Filleted!

John Haskins of the Underground Journal had some eye-opening facts for Gary, one of my many readers of my blog. Gary claimed that the U.S. Judiciary System can "expand" our laws and that "when a court makes a ruling that interprets the law, the legislative and executive branch are required to enforce that law." Well, Mr. Haskins gave Gary an educational lesson on what our court system can and CAN NOT do in regards to enforcing laws when it comes to controversial topics such as same-sex "marriages".

Gary wrote the following on May 22nd, 2008 in my post titled "Still Illegal Coast to Coast".
"The judicial branch does not technically make law, but by interpreting current law, their rulings (obviously) change how law is applied."
John Haskins:
"No, not "obviously" to the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, (and)many top professors of jurisprudence and anyone who bypasses the lies of mercenary ABA-approved courtroom prostitutes (who) dare to read our constitutions.
It is mainly cowardly pseudo-conservative lawyers and law professors who prop up these lies so adamently and stubbornly. A court opinion is an impotent abstraction, utterly without force. In itself it changes nothing. Constitutionally, nothing will change unless and until the executive (or the legislative branch in the case of opinions about the constitutionality of existing statutes) agrees and acts accordingly. The executive branch has the EXCLUSIVE power of the sword and the Legislature has the EXCLUSIVE power of the purse. Even the most liberal justices in communist states like Massachusetts freely admit this. They have recently ruled that the executive branch MUST continue to enforce the statutes until they are revoked by the LEGISLATURE!
Every member of the executive branch from governors and presidents down to town clerks swear a solemn oath in God's Holy name to uphold state and federal CONSTITUTIONS and to execute the STATUTES as written. Licensed attorneys swear the same oath! No one anywhere swears any oath to execute judge's rulings and opinions. In every case the executive branch is absolutely and solemnly obliged to determine whether a court finding is in conformity with the Constitution and statutes or not. If not, it is legally a dead opinion, even if the executive branch believes and acts otherwise."
"A court's ruling can "expand" the law. This isn't really something to debate since it's happened over and over again."
John Haskins:
"It's not something for courtroom prostitutes to debate because they have lied to themselves so many times they can't think straight. No matter how smart you think you are or how "conservative" you think you are Gary, you are a robotic, mindless drone for the totalitarian left.
The fundamental distinction between what the law is and what merely happens on the street because members of the executive branch use the power of the sword is being blurred by cowardly, mercenary fake "conservatives" who are ruthlessly subverting constitutional rule of law because they want only to be free to pursue their own monetary and professional advancement while still being admired as principled "conservative" heroes.
A court has absolutely zero power to "expand" the law. The day they pretend to "expand" the law to sieze your property Gary, your children or you as a person and deprive YOU of your unalienable rights as enumerated in the Supreme Law of the United States and the fifty states will be the day your absurd, self-serving pseudo-pragmatism will come to a sudden halt."
"Also, based on some of your (Scia's) conclusions, I'm guessing that you're not a law professor."
John Haskins:
"Also, based on your cowardly lies and confusion of dictatorship with the rule of law, I'm guessing you are a lawyer. As a nationally known former law dean told me "The last people to ask about constitutions and separation of powers are lawyers. Most are brainwashed and have no clue."
"And marriage has been termed a "civil right" (or "fundamental" right) for quite a while. While the court cases obviously don't reference marriage for gays and lesbians, the decisions do refer to the right to marry as a civil right. So, there's your answer. This isn't debatable. It's just historical fact."
John Haskins:
"Thanks, Gary. If you had a clue about the basic principles of law you'd know that every term in a statute or constitution has a meaning determined by the intent at the point of ratificiation by those who ratified it. "Marriage" is a pre-defined legal concept with thousands of years of affirmation of its precise meaning. That legal term in the MA and CA constitutions and statutes has a fixed meaning that no judge or executive can fudge. "Marriage" as a legal term in English, Canadian and American common law and in American state and federal constitutions means one man-one woman. This is settled. If "marriage" is a civil right between an unrelated adult man and woman that does not constitutionally or statutorilly include a totally contrary or counterfeit concept that judges or anyone else can cleverly merge into the actual right of marriage as plainly defined in actual law ratified by the people or their elected representatives in the exclusively empowered law-making body.
A man and a dog do not qualify as a legal "marriage" under statutes and constitutions that may countenance marriage as a fundamental right that may be exercised between an adult man and an unrelated adult woman. A flower and a bicycle and a rock do not qualify for a legal "marriage." A father and his daughter don't qualify constitutionally or statutorilly as a marriage. Two persons of the same sex do not qualify. That does not fit the LEGAL definition of "marriage."
Many courts have affirmed this. Mixed-race male-female couples DO qualify, for obvious reasons that do not apply to two persons of the same gender. What a number you have done on your own brain in order to stay abreast of the waves of perversion and tyranny. This selling of the soul culminates in taking the Mark of the Beast, selling one's soul for short-lived earthly security and riches. That's quite a deal you've got yourself, Gary!"
"Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) The U.S. Supreme Court first referred to the right to marry as "one of the basic civil rights." Perez v. Sharp (1948) In this case, the California Supreme Court was the first in the 20th century to declare that its state law prohibiting marriage between interracial couples was unconstitutional. The Court said: "Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men."Loving v. Virginia (1967) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that laws prohibiting marriage between interracial couples were unconstitutional. The Court said: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
John Haskins:
"Your entire argument is not at all funny, but it is superficial and bogus. Your bending over backwards to oblige the frightful powers of this creeping dictatorship that cloaks itself in the thinnest veneer of legality. You are a dangerous man.
Go back to storing up earthly treasures, Gary. But hurry up and get what you can before the world ends and we are all judged for our dishonesty, greed and ruthless moral cowardice."
Now, that was a verbal filleting that will go down in the record books.
Anyone wish to refute Mr. Haskin's facts? I look forward to all of your comments and I will respond to them quickly as my team and I are back in MA after taking part in a blogging seminar in Colorado last week.
Good to be back!!!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Mr. Haskins is an A-hole!! Does he generally brow beat people until they give up or agree with him? He sounds like a lawyer that has been the target of a few lawyers’ jokes I’ve heard and gotten tired of it and decided to be a bully instead.

If the legislature passes a law to deny people with black hair the right to vote, the judiciary will look at how the law interacts with current laws and the constitution. Once they do that they’ll tell the legislature the law is unconstitutional and will not be enforced by the executive branch, whether or not it is supported by a majority of the population.

Abortion was illegal in many states for years. However one day a case was brought before the Supreme Court and the law that had been enforced for years banning abortion was declared unconstitutional. No longer were the states permitted to enforce that law. The judiciary had just flexed its muscles and what had been the law for decades was no longer illegal. And all they did was interpret existing law. No new law was created; it was entirely a new way of looking at current law. And the executive branch had NOTHING to say about it. If a state court determines that laws requiring marriage be of opposite gender couples are unconstitutional… guess what?? Same gender couples will be allowed marriage in that state! Regardless of how many people disagree.

Am I wrong Mr. Haskins? Are you going to accuse me of being a coward because you think these are lies? Am I a “robotic, mindless drone for the totalitarian left” Am I as confused and inept about how law is applied as you accuse Gary of being? If you disagree with what I’ve written I suggest you go talk to a real lawyer that actually listened in the class on constitutional law.

Ken Weaver

5:17 PM, June 05, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Wow. Mr. Haskins obviously (and I do mean "obviously") has some issues with lawyers.

He also demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of American law and jurisprudence, and the effect of case law in America.

He's not actually trying to make his point. Rather, he is using the same right wing extremist histrionics that have become so much babble to try to bully anyone with an opposing view.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

6:53 PM, June 05, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...


Are you going to refute any of Mr. Haskin's points or are you going to sit on the sidelines and whimper??

Make your point and stop crying in your law books!!

7:26 PM, June 05, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Why would I bother trying to refute anything Mr. Haskins says? I find generally find it useless to argue with the delusional.

I've already made my point. I'll go back to laughing at you and your ignorance.

6:23 AM, June 06, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

I was so unsatisfied with my response that I thought I would poke a few holes in that windbag Haskins, for your edification. Let me make a few points here.

"A court opinion is an impotent abstraction, utterly without force. In itself it changes nothing."

-- Absolutely untrue. Court opinions carry the weight of law as to the interpretation of statutes and their constitutionality, and, in the case of common law, do actually create law.

"Every member of the executive branch from governors and presidents down to town clerks swear a solemn oath in God's Holy name to uphold state and federal CONSTITUTIONS and to execute the STATUTES as written"

-- More of a misstatement then a patent falsehood. The oath of office of the President of the United States contains no reference to God.

Also, the federal oath of office is, by statute, "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." No mention of upholding statutes there! Seems like Mr. Haskins is making up facts to fit his arguments.

"If you had a clue about the basic principles of law you'd know that every term in a statute or constitution has a meaning determined by the intent at the point of ratificiation by those who ratified it."

-- Again, not so much. Half the time, the courts have to delve into legislative intent to try to figure out what the statue actually means. And if this were really true, why would we have an entire body of case law consisting only of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

"This selling of the soul culminates in taking the Mark of the Beast, selling one's soul for short-lived earthly security and riches."

-- How do you argue with this? If we get the seven daggers, maybe we can kill Damien! This guy is a conspiracy-theory looney spewing the same old John Birch Society/Ruby Ridge wacko pap.

6:53 PM, June 06, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Tell me if the comments from John Haskins sound anything like "Gregg" to you. Lol, the elaborations become more an more obvious! Scia, you should hire a "staff" that can keep your untruths more believable.

4:57 PM, June 07, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken Weaver

7:29 AM, June 13, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was away for a bit and came back and read this post. I will agree with one thing, Haskins' response to my comments was eye opening. It was eye opening and sad to see how much hostility and negativity Haskins put into his response to my posts. And this was just a back-and-forth about how the judicial system work and the right to marry being a civil right. I can only imagine if it went into territory that's more based on opinion.

It showed me that it's best that I spend my time elsewhere than posting on this blog. Talking to people who have differing opinions on same-sex marriage is one thing. But I feel like I just swam in a sea of negativity after that post.
I know that Scia and others had very different opinions than mine, but I felt that it was kept somewhat civil. However I feel that the decision for Haskins to write that post and Scia to post it sadly shows how extreme their opinions are. The amount of venom contained in that post was disturbing to say the least. So, I'm fairly certain that I'm not being helpful in the discourse here -- and it certainly doesn't make me feel too good inside after reading so much of this super anti-gay stuff.

It's worth noting that I don't necessarily agree with every single thing that the pro-gay rights movement does. And I have tried to keep an open mind to some of the stuff posted here. But I don't generally feel that this was done by Scia and his supporters for me and others with my viewpoint. There was a rare exception but it was as I said, rare.

So, I'd like to wish you all well. And I hope that Scia, Haskins, and their supporters keep an open mind and might perhaps take an objective look at their overall goal. Honestly any goal that causes this much negativity seems questionable at best. And this may seem corny, but any goal that is not truly based on LOVE (and not your version of tough love that forces others to follow only your morals) is not a worthwhile goal.

I do wish you all the best and hope that you work toward positive goals for everyone.

Best wishes,

7:59 PM, June 17, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Gary et al, whomever still lurks here. I thought the wording was suspect in how much Haskins sounded like Gregg. I had not clicked on the link for Underground Journal until now. What do I find? A story written by both Haskins and Gregg Jackson, and a link directly to

Scia, are you SURE your not part of that officially named hate group? ;)

1:39 PM, June 20, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...


Mr. Haskins was a little harsh in his presentation of the facts, but when the lies of the "left" are constantly being told, a little sarcasm tends to bring the truth across with a laugh on the side.

Sorry that the truth left a bad taste in your mouth, but you need to understand the garbage that the "drive-by" media spills everyday tends to get on people's nerves.

Good luck and try to keep an "open mind" to the facts and not the presentation.

6:45 PM, June 23, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...


Go to bed and rest that head of yours.

6:45 PM, June 23, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, Scia proves that he is just a complete dog fucker. What a waste of bandwith.

6:54 PM, June 23, 2008  
Anonymous Rufus said...

SCIA, you telling Gary to have an "open mind" had me rollin gon the floor! Best laugh I've had in a while.

Take a little of your own advise, and open your mind...

5:19 AM, June 24, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

Scia, once again you completely miss the point.

Haskins did not present any facts; most of his alleged facts were just plain fallacy.

Your response sounds like you've been listening to too much Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the right-wing mouthpieces.

6:49 AM, June 24, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Isn't it interesting how SCIA will say we can't answer his questions, yet he openly runs from ours.

Is this what you mean when you say you have a staff? You have a bunch of bigots all in bed with massresistance, and you among them? The trail of bread crumbs leads right to your door, you are every part of that hate group and you know it as well as anyone who posts or reads this blog.

Know thy facts, what a hoot! Your whole platform is based on lies and deception. You are the company you keep.

1:21 PM, June 24, 2008  
Blogger SCIA said...


Your interpretation of the role of the judicial system is completely and utterly wrong.

Laws are not made from the bench. It is that simple.

8:56 PM, June 28, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

I guess, Scia, that if you say it enough, some day you'll be right.

I won't even bother. It seems that when you can't win an argument based on facts, you stomp your foot and stand in the corner yelling "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right" like a child throwing a tantrum.

7:03 PM, June 29, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...

But one last request, then, since you're always right and I'm so wrong.

Could you cite me the statutes enacted by a legislature, either Federal or Massachusetts, that establish, define, and regulate the tort known as "negligence?"

Thank you for your anticipated reply.

7:05 PM, June 29, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ken weaver says:

"If a state court determines that laws requiring marriage be of opposite gender couples are unconstitutional… guess what?? Same gender couples will be allowed marriage in that state! Regardless of how many people disagree.

Am I wrong Mr. Haskins?"

Well, I am not "Mr. Haskins," Ken but I have actually read the Massachusetts Constitution and know that what you say is 100% innacurate. So yes Ken, you are wrong. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. First of all the Goodridge court didn't even have subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the case according to Article 5:

"All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision." (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)

Romney should have impeached all of the judges for violating this specific article but we all know Romney had already agreed to not oppose any ruling the court issued and in doing so actually violated his oath by violating at least 8 articles of the Mass Constitution.

Rregardless Ken, courts can't make law. According to Article 10:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)

And the bottom line Ken is that the court's legally null and void opinion didn't alter the current marriage statute Chap 207 which limits marriage to one man and one woman in any way.The marriage statute has not changed and it is still illegal for same sex couples to marry one another. The licences that were illegally altered and issued are as null and viod today as they were in 2005 when they were first issued.

The Constitution also disproves your assertion that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges deeming heterosexual marriage "unconstitutional":

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)

Furthermore Ken, if you ever take the time to actually read the Mass Constitution, which is the oldest constitution in the world which served as the model for our federal constitution and which was authored by John Adams, instead of flapping your gums in between bong hits you will realize that under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.

"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)

In summary, while the four judges asserted that Chapter 207 is unconstitutional, they did not suspend the marriage statute and were powerless to do so. The legislature has not changed or repealed it.

1. The marriage statute is still in effect.
2. The statute continues to prohibit same-sex marriages.

Sorry Ken. But you are 100% wrong. Next time please do your homework.

You're welcome Ken.

Oh, and by the way, homosexual "marriage' is not legal in California either for the same reason that the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman has not changed and can't unless and until the sovereign people of California revoke it or amend it via another initiative statute. Constitutions trump statutes, which trump laws, which trump court opinions.

For more info, read Federalist #78 by Alexander Hamilton. You will learn a great deal about why the Founders intentionally designed the judiciary to be the least powerful of the 3 branches of govt.


7:20 PM, July 03, 2008  
OpenID dmurphy98 said...


Wrong. You fail to address or analyze the interaction of the Massachusetts and Federal Constitutions and the body of case law interpreting them and applying them to state and Federal statutes.

Nice try, but, in the end, your statements are incomplete and unsupported.

Have a nice day.

8:30 AM, July 04, 2008  
Blogger John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Hi Gregg! Long time no hear from. Sorry... I mean "annonymous". Nice website you and Haskins have. I think it is so cute you have a massresistance link on your front page. It sits real nice with your little club as if to say "I'm a hater too!"

Anyway, when you're done acting like a smarmy 15 year old that thinks he knows everything and condecends to everyone, you might want to look around. In spite of your critique of the Goodridge decision we are living in a state where same sex couples can marry.

If the judges have it all wrong and you have all the answers why don't you take them to court and prove what you're saying. You want people to believe what you say, step up to the plate and take a swing.

1:49 PM, July 04, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from