Lone Star leadership: no crying from this woman of principle

This entry was posted in Freedom, Oppressive government. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Lone Star leadership: no crying from this woman of principle

  1. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    That fascist moron looks like it’s wearing a nappy on its face.

  2. thefrollickingmole

    Hes in an empty courtroom.
    Why does he mask up?

  3. calli

    Virtue signalling.

    Or…it’s the janitor.

  4. Roger

    Hes in an empty courtroom. Why does he mask up?

    Ditto people driving in cars…alone.

    And well said, ma’am.

  5. nfw

    It’s interesting to note that Sissy Morrison’s never worked so hard still being paid public service has issued guidelines for itself which say that wearing a mask is only of use if you have the Wuhan Virus flu to pass on; and that masks won’t stop you from catching it. So under Australian whatever-they-are rules that Judge is admitting he is a carrier. And for all the Karens and Chads out there the same guidelines say if you can’t avoid being closer than 1.5m (is that a Fergusson number?) then try not to do it for longer than 15 minutes. It’s amazing what you can read when bored and watching the economy and your life’s savings and work tank.

  6. Roger

    …wearing a mask is only of use if you have the Wuhan Virus

    The nation’s GPs & dentists disagree.

    Professor of Epidemiology conceded on ABC radio this afternoon that wearing a mask had some protective value. Hope he knows he’s contradicted all Brendan Murhpy inspired government advice since this started.

  7. John Dee

    I rarely – very rarely – donate to causes , the firies and veterans being pretty much the only exceptions in my whole life.
    I might have found another exception but it would only be direct and requires a lot more than a single media report.
    If the report is true this woman has a really gutsy strength we should all aspire to rather than the would-a , could-a, should-a approach so common these days.
    I certainly do.
    This mother recognised the authority of the court but delivered the reasons for her non-compliance in a calm and rational manner with no tears, no hysterics just simple facts.
    So much to admire in this woman and her presentation.
    I claim no expertise in law but I imagine there would have been considerable discretion available to the judge as to how he dealt with this situation.
    So little to admire here – although I need to qualify that.
    This is a media report.

  8. Leo G

    Why does he mask up?

    Oh, it’s a mask?
    I thought he was just wrongly wigging.

  9. Docket62

    Mask? That’s a muzzle @Im with John Dee here – I’ll donate to her!

  10. Docket62

    Oh.. actually – she’s already raised $153 USD Large… I think she’ll be OK with the $3500 fine. 🙂

    https://www.gofundme.com/f/shelley-luther-fund

  11. John Dee

    @Docket62…”she has already raised $153 USD Large”
    Ahhh..I have a grin on my face it would be near impossible to measure.
    But I am always suspicious of anyone that self-selects as an intermediary.
    I am permanently scarred by a certain former PM who travelled the world First Class “helping” others.
    I could offer first hand accounts of Mother Theresa that would bleach your beliefs.
    Not-For Profit organisations often provide the executives travel priviliges and lifestyles that would make Richard Branson blush.
    Richard Branson is the only part I just made up.
    I would never waiver from a direct contribution for well established reasons.
    But for Shelly Luther – sometimes really good things happen to really good people.

  12. Thank God such intelligent people run the government …….. I would rather live in a socialist shit-hole , with fuck all to eat or do …… than live in a world full of people with runny noses ….. And three Cheers to the The Ninja Turtle impersonator who dresses like a Judge .

  13. wal1957

    I hope that was satire Paul???

  14. Hay Stockard

    I thought it said saloon.

  15. John Dee

    @PAUL
    I would rather live in a socialist shit-hole , with fuck all to eat or do …… than live in a world full of people with runny noses
    Who said living in conditions you list above are the only options?
    Medicine has come up with wonderful surprises in its’ short history.
    Many born ostensibly brain dead have survived to what at least outwardly resembles a life form , thanks to modern medicine.
    You should be grateful.

  16. Mak Siccar

    I wonder if this applies in Australia?

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/texas_created_a_wuhan_virus_martyr_by_imprisoning_shelley_luther.html

    There’s good reason to believe that Luther did not commit a crime. According to American Jurisprudence, a legal encyclopedia, unconstitutional official acts are void:

    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

    Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..

    A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

    No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

  17. Shy Ted

    Apparently the governor has ordered her immediate release. Doesn’t address the actual problem though.

  18. Docket62

    Apparently the governor has ordered her immediate release.

    Checked this morning and she’s at $370,000 USD. I just hope as John Dee put it, that the funds actually do something worthwhile. Good for her though, serious middle finger to the cowardly judge

  19. Roger W

    Re comment by Mak Siccar:
    Interesting to apply this to Australia. Anyone know to what degree we also suffer from illegal “laws” in this lock-down? I’m thinking, for example, of the state border shutdowns. Wouldn’t they in fact be unconstitutional?

  20. Wozzup

    America is f#cked. When deep state operatives can get away with perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning the law, denying others their constitutional rights, breaching an untold number of statutes and enriching themselves at the public’s expense while ordinary people are jailed without much thought or reason, just for feeding their kids, I say again America is f#cked.
    It is not far from the state that Rome was in before it collapsed. When Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has a haircut defying her own rules about lock down and then looks the public in the eye and essentially says “tough titties” – ” I am the Mayor so suck it up” (and is allowed to get away with it), you can see the corruption in everything they do….big and small. I say one more time, America is f#cked. The corrupt ruling class backed by a corrupt legal system do not even bother to hide their contempt for ordinary people. And in almost every case, the ones defying the law while oppressing others are……….you guessed it, the “luvvies”. Unless America wakes up to these scum, it will go the way of Rome. It is almost there now.

  21. Chris M

    the state border shutdowns. Wouldn’t they in fact be unconstitutional?

    I wondered about that. They would probably argue you can cross the border still but require 14 days mandatory detention. A bigger issue would be individuals freedom of movement in Eastern States ie going for a walk in the street etc. If you are not sick or committing a crime what goes? Why is it safe for cops to be about, notably with no masks or protective equipment. Quarantine is for sick people, house arrest is for criminals.

  22. Terry

    @John Dee
    ‘Many born ostensibly brain dead have survived to what at least outwardly resembles a life form’
    And call these…Leftards.
    Prominent in the Public “Service” and from the video, common amongst judges, it would seem.

  23. Wozzup

    “Re comment by Mak Siccar:
    Interesting to apply this to Australia. Anyone know to what degree we also suffer from illegal “laws” in this lock-down? I’m thinking, for example, of the state border shutdowns. Wouldn’t they in fact be unconstitutional?”

    There are a few provisions in the Constitution which would seem to be relevant. Section 92 for example relating to trade between states may be relevant as regards flow of commerce across state borders to the extent that this may be affected by border closures. Section 117 also comes to mind. This section states “…… resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.” It would appear to be particularly relevant.

    Section 92 has been tested quite a lot but I am not sure about Section 117. But I suspect there are various ways around these provisions…. for example if citizens of all states are similarly restricted in relation to crossing a border, the courts might well be inclined to regard it as permissible (I seem to recall that something like this happened with Section 92 in relation to road taxes for example). And on general principles, the High Court might be inclined to read that section down in any event in circumstances where they perceive it as a temporary and proportionate measure due to a major threat to the Commonwealth (public health, defense in time of war etc). At least I would think the argument would run that way. Also it is clear that in practice citizens do suffer some kinds of “disability or discrimination” at least in a general sense. Money for example is taken from taxes paid by citizens in richer states and redistributed to citizens in less wealthy states. “Fiscal equalization” has many critics for some good reason but I don’t know that the High Court would necessarily prohibit it on the grounds that it discriminates against certain citizens in other states. (Has it been tested – I would be surprised if it has not but I am not sure.)

    Until someone takes a case to the High Court we may not know for sure. But I would be very surprised indeed if the Commonwealth has not taken high level legal advice on this point. It’s what they do to manage their risks (AKA cover their butts) when implementing these kinds of measures.

  24. She’s now at USD$417,000
    That’s $650 in our South Pacific Pesos.

  25. cuckoo

    Nicely done. She remains calm and respectful of the court throughout. As soon as Judge Token in a D-cup realizes he is being spoken back to, instead of listening with reciprocal respect, he begins a pantomime of paper shuffling to flag his contempt.

  26. Zatara

    Hes in an empty courtroom. Why does he mask up?

    For the same reason bank robbers and terrorists wear masks, to hide his identity.

    He has to run for re-election.

  27. Your right wal1957 it’s satire ….. Don’t tell the leftards though !

  28. Zatara

    Until someone takes a case to the High Court we may not know for sure. But I would be very surprised indeed if the Commonwealth has not taken high level legal advice on this point.

    Would this high level legal advice have come from lawyers who will make a fortune trying the case no matter win or lose?

Comments are closed.