|
The Talmud is the Law of the Land
I’m going to comment later on the whole Anna Nicole Smith
debacle, but in watching the probate hearing live on television, I
find myself in grave danger of popping an aneurysm. This is exactly
what is wrong with our country today. Anyone with cable access
should tune in and watch this hearing.
It’s a perfect example of how our system of laws, laid down by
our Gentile founding fathers, has been completely subverted by
Talmudic shysters.
|
|
|
Who Is Anna's Next Of Kin
The issue before the court today is who is Anna Nicole Smith’s
legal next of kin, and who, therefore, has the right to claim her
remains for burial. I have so many observations fighting to come out
in this post that I fear I won’t be able to capture them all before
succumbing to the above-mentioned aneurysm.
Therefore, I’ll address this single issue: Howard K. Stern’s
lawyer is arguing that he should be considered her next of kin
because he was her “best friend in the world” and was with her ’til
the end (notwithstanding the fact that she might not have met her
untimely end had he not been with her, but that’s another story).
|
|
|
|
|
Vergie Arthur's Lawyer
Then you have the lawyer for Anna Nicole’s mother citing a
Florida statute that clearly provides that if an adult dies
unmarried, then the children shall be next of kin, unless they have
not reached majority age, i.e., 18 years, in which case a parent can
make the claim.
|
|
|
When Judges Push The Law Aside
Anna Nicole’s daughter is only five months old, ergo, her
daughter cannot be considered her next of kin for purposes of
disposal of her remains. Her will has not been submitted into
evidence and apparently did not make any stipulations in this
regard. She has a living mother who wants to bury her daughter. So
case closed, right? Wrong! Not in America today where the laws are
merely ideas meant to be interpreted by sages in black robes, at
their discretion, even if said “discretion” actually turns the
statute upside down!
|
|
|
|
|
Stern's Lawyer Says Howie Is Next Kin
Howard K. Stern’s lawyer is arguing that in a prior, similar case
(I believe she cited Cohen v. Cohen), the judge ruled that the
decedent’s girlfriend could be considered next of kin over a blood
relation because they had been living together and had a wonderful
relationship.
Out the window go marriage and blood relations, i.e., family,
effectively nullifying traditional Christian values. So what we have
in America today is a tiny minority of people who dominate our legal
system and whose values are at odds with - and inimical to - the
values the vast majority of Americans hold dear.
|
|
|
Is This Talmudic Law?
Do The Talmud is an unspeakably hate-filled book that purports to
assign the “real” meaning of the Torah that God supposedly revealed
to rabbis in some sort of esoteric way. Therefore, if the Old
Testament says “thou shalt not kill,” the rabbis can magically
interpret that to mean that the best of the Gentiles can all be
killed. No contradiction there, right? And if the Torah dictates
that descendency should be patrilineal and the Talmud makes it
matrilineal, then God must cede to rabbinic interpretation, since
He’s been known to lose debates to rabbis!
|
|
|
|
|
"OyVey" Yells the Judge
The judge in this case, by the way, could not be more Jewish if
he were wearing a yarmulke. He alluded to his Bronx accent and runs
his courtroom like everything’s a joke, and isn’t he the greatest
sage since Maimonides!
Anna Nicole Smith’s attorney, Ron Rale, who sounds more like he
really represents Howard K. Stern, just happened to mention to the
judge that although he’s from California, his parents are from
Brooklyn, i.e., I’m Jewish too, Your Honor. To which the judge
replied: I think we’re going to be good friends.
|
|
|
The Mother Should Get Her Child
Our naive but well-intentioned forefathers codified a set of laws
and tried to make them as clear as possible, for example,
stipulating who the designated next of kin shall be in the case of
an unmarried, adult decedent. But since a judge in a prior case
arbitrarily decided a girlfriend can be the next of kin over a blood
relation, that ruling then becomes “precedent” and can trump the
actual statute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What’s wrong with this picture?
So in future, similar cases, the statute is second in
importance to the ruling the prior judge made, even if said ruling
bears no resemblance to the actual statute! This is called “case
law,” or more specifically, legislating from the bench.
That is Talmudic law. That is not the American way.
Joanna Francis Website
|
|
|
|
|
|
|