State of Maine – 1963 Resolve, Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution to Revise Article VI Relating to the Judicial Power

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Acts and Resolves as passed by the One Hundred and First Legislature of the State of Maine.

View 1963 Resolve, click here.

Advertisements
Published in: on February 12, 2014 at 8:40 pm  Comments (11)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/state-of-maine-1968-resolve-proposing-an-amendment-to-the-constitution-to-revise-article-vi-relating-to-the-judicial-power/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

11 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    Why was there a resolve to “repeal and replace” the entire judicial power in 1963?

    Was there a “hidden” agenda?

    Do you suppose that this resolve converted the whole state-wide court system here in Maine into a “corporate” system?

    I do have to wonder.

    In 1959 the common law procedures were replaced by “rules” established by the state-wide supreme judicial court. Law schools no longer taught the common law procedures (see the 100 years booklet on this forum).

    In 1961 the district court system was established “for the state” with NO commissioned judges and NO trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers.

    So why a resolve to “repeal and replace” the ENTIRE judicial power in 1963?

    It is very interesting indeed!

    Does anyone know?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • These are good questions for a FOIA.

  2. Hi!

    Send the FOIA to whom?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Hi

    If something needed to be change regarding the judicial power, each issue could have been done “separately” by a statute ONLY.

    No need of a resolve to change all of it UNLESS it was meant to “hide” something.

    No doubt whatsoever that this resolve changed the “whole” state-wide court system.

    To what?

    I highly suspect it was changed to incorporate a “corporate” system.

    Any thoughts anyone?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. For one thing, the Amendment added, to Section 2, “for their services as justices or judges” after “shall receive no other fee or reward”. Secondly, it provided for the election of judges and registers of Probate by people in the respective counties, instead of their appointment by the Governor as provided in Article V, Section 8. Thirdly, it limited the length of the terms served by all judicial officers to seven years, instead of merely restricting that time to age 70, death or impeachment. This incidentally, allowed for future governors to “load the bench” with advice and consent of the Council (which advice and consent was later usurped by the Legislature). Maybe wise, maybe not?? Maybe evil, maybe not??

  5. I believe some of the reason for repealing and replacing was due to the fact that numerous things were changed, but some were not, and it seemed easier to rewrite it, leaving the few unchanged portions as they were.

  6. Hi!

    In the “original” judicial department (Article VI) of the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine it was placed there by the representatives of the Constitutional Convention of 1819.

    The “whole” judicial department does not need the revamping of a resolve UNLESS it is meant to become “something else.”

    If it is “something else,” then what is that “something else?”

    In other words, to “eliminate” the whole department and replace it with “something else” is a fraud on its face.

    By the way, “who” were the “electors” that voted on this 1963 resolve?

    Were they “citizens of the United States of America” as mentioned on the voter application form? These are “foreign agents.”

    What are they doing voting in the State of Maine UNLESS the State of Maine is also a “foreign entity” such as the “codified” state that was created in 1875 and went into effect in 1876, one hundred years after the American Revolution?

    An accident? I don’t think so.

    The said citizens are NOT 14th amendment citizens since those are “citizens of the United States.”

    A very “different” citizen indeed.

    What happened to the “state” electors? Where did they go?

    The original use of the term “citizen of the United States” prior to the fraudulent civil war meant a citizen of “one of these” United States since all States are free and independent.

    Not so today as it relates to Maine, the codified state – see the definition of State in Title 1, MRSA and Title 19, MRSA. It says that State is a “territory of the United States” but in the “codified” constitution it continues to say “free and independent State.”

    How can this be?

    These are opposites.

    How can the “codified” State be free and independent and at the “same time” be a “territory of the United States?”

    A play on terms?

    I think so.

    And the voters are “citizens of the United States of America.” See voter application form in your town, city or plantation.

    Are you confused yet?

    Voting is a part of the “state power” in the states and not the general government nor a foreign government such as the “second” United States of America.

    The “powers that be” do, indeed, enjoy using “similar terms” to the original terms in order to “fool” some of the people, and it works marvelously for the most part.

    I came across this time and again in my research, and it takes much deciphering in order to discover the fraud and treason involved.

    More investigation is needed in this matter.

    More thoughts on this subject?

    If you are confused, so be it. I was confused many times in my research but finally “got it” over time.

    Keep reading and studying and you will eventually “get it.”

    This “whole” thing by the “powers that be” is meant to confuse.

    This is no accident.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  7. This was voted on by the People, The results were Nov. 3, 1964
    Yes 143,614
    No 79,095
    Enacted with Amendment S-292 as Resolves 1963, c. 111

  8. This link takes you to a list of all amendments that have been enacted.:http://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/const.htm

    • I think the amendments must be attached to the constitution as the 1840 constitution shows.

      If amendments had been attached to the constitutions, we wouldn’t have spent years researching.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: