Последние посты
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP 🏦 pinned «Interested in a grant? Upfront fees apply. Disbursement takes 48 hours. Grant can be filed Twice in a year Also available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds. Cash delivery and tracking available Direct contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauser»
13 нояб., 11:04
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
11 нояб., 15:00
Interested in a grant? Upfront fees apply. Disbursement takes 48 hours.Grant can be filed Twice in a yearAlso available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.Cash delivery and tracking availableDirect contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauserTelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSERChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com59,300Открыть в TelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
10 нояб., 12:53
The “American experiment” have you heard this term before? What does it really mean? And is it a real experiment?The Supreme Court brings fire and the scholars are backed against the wall telling what’s happening behind the scenes.The administrative state is breaking with the help of separation of powers and the Supreme Court going all the way back to the Constitutions!59,300Открыть в TelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
7 нояб., 11:29
Interested in a grant? Upfront fees apply. Disbursement takes 48 hours.Grant can be filed Twice in a yearAlso available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.Cash delivery and tracking availableDirect contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauserTelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSERChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com59,300Открыть в TelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
7 нояб., 01:32
Interested in a grant? Upfront fees apply. Disbursement takes 48 hours.Grant can be filed Twice in a yearAlso available: assistance with clearing inheritance bonds.Cash delivery and tracking availableDirect contact ::: T.me/RealChristopherhauserTelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSERChristopherAHauser@protonmail.com88,900Открыть в TelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
6 нояб., 00:58
https://youtube.com/post/UgkxVctwJPj_MX6anWSpWb0wIryWGTcuXhkz?si=NFB7o1oRzWYfJdAD35,900Открыть в TelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
22 сент., 17:08
HelloCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
21 сент., 02:08
T.me/RealChristopherhauserTelegramCHRISTOPHER HAUSERChristopherAHauser@protonmail.comCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:55
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:54
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:54
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:54
CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
Please double check my work never ever use these cases I post without verifying them for yourself.Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 48 U.S. 1.Summary: This case arose from the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island, addressing whether a state’s government was "republican" under the Guarantee Clause. The Court held that such questions are political, not judicial, and that sovereignty resides with the people, who can alter their government. The document uses this to argue that the people hold ultimate authority over government.Status: Not overturned. The case’s core holding on the political question doctrine remains intact, though its application has been refined in cases like Baker v. Carr (1962).Relevance to Document: Reinforces the claim that the respondent, as one of "We the People," holds sovereign authority superior to government entities.CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
I am working on building a Memorandum at the moment, just taking the time to share what I believe to be critical decisions with all of you for your benefit and use.State v. Doheny, 60 Me. 504 (1872) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 60 Maine 504.Summary: A Maine state case holding that "due process of law" and "law of the land" refer to the common law as it existed when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The document uses this to argue that the court must adhere to common law principles, not statutory or administrative law.Status: Not overturned. As a state court decision, it has limited precedential value outside Maine but remains good law within its jurisdiction for interpreting due process under the Maine Constitution.Relevance to Document: Bolsters the argument that the court’s jurisdiction must align with common law due process, not administrative or statutoryCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
Due process of law;Tayler v. Porter, 4 Hill 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1843) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 4 Hill 140 (New York Supreme Court, 1843). The document also references 4 Hill 773, which appears to be a typographical error or misinterpretation.Note: The correct case is Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill 140, not "Tayler." The document’s reference to 4 Hill 773 is incorrect, as no such case exists in that volume.Summary: The New York Supreme Court held that a state statute allowing summary eviction without a jury trial violated due process under the state constitution’s "law of the land" clause, which mirrors common law principles from Magna Carta. The document uses this to argue that "law of the land" means common law due process.Status: Not overturned. As a state court decision, it remains persuasive authority in New York and is consistent with federal due processCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
Common law and due process of lawState v. Simmons, 2 Spears 761 (S.C. 1844) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 2 Spears 761 (South Carolina, 1844). The document misspells "Simmon" as the case name; the correct name is Simmons.Summary: The South Carolina court held that "law of the land" refers to the common law, emphasizing that due process requires adherence to traditional legal protections. The document cites this to reinforce that the court must operate under common law.Status: Not overturned. As a state court decision, it is binding in South Carolina and persuasive elsewhere, consistent with common law due process principles.Relevance to Document: Reinforces the argument that the court’s jurisdiction and procedures must align with common law, not administrative law.CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
Major case here for all of you, rember if you have relied on a prior supreme court case you have a perfected affirmative defense and cause of action for willfulness.Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC, 143 S. Ct. 890 (2023) Citation Verification: Correctly cited as 143 S. Ct. 890.Summary: The Supreme Court held that district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to agency structure before administrative proceedings conclude. Justice Thomas’s concurrence, cited in the document, argued that core cases involving life, liberty, or property must be resolved by Article III courts, not administrative bodies.Status: Not overturned. A recent case, still good law.Relevance to Document: Supports the claim that the court, if acting administratively, is incompetent to handle issues of life, liberty, or property.CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:53
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.” U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346“Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.” Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250CHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:52
AWESOME IF EVERYONE POINTS OUT THEIR NUANCES IN THEIR OWN STATES.The distinction between "arms" and "firearms" is rooted in the foundational separation between natural rights and regulated privileges. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a direct recognition of natural law, not as a government-granted privilege.In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to bear arms predates the Constitution and does not depend on it for existence. Meanwhile, statutes like the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 introduced the term "firearm" to define weapons commercially — transforming the carrying, selling, or possessing of weapons into a licensed, taxable privilege under federal regulation for 14th Amendment corporate citizens. The terminology shift was intentional:thCHRISTOPHER HAUSER STUDY GROUP
20 сент., 19:52
Бот обратной связи для своего канала — бесплатно
Подписчики пишут боту, вы отвечаете реплаем, ваш аккаунт скрыт. Создаётся в одно касание.
Как это работает →
