rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[Notorial dissent]

Well, I’ve got to give you credit for one thing, you have managed to come up with as big a class A collection of nonsense as I have seen in a long time.

You can object to Illinois demands all you want for all the good it will do you. I’m sure they are shaking in their boots at your righteous indignation.

The NW Ordinance did not in any way shape or form address tollways, so your claims are at the least useless and at most comical.

While this may come as a shock to you, the Magna Charta ceased to be law or in force a very long time ago, and that aside, it never had any force or affect here as it had been supplanted in English law long before the colonies were established.

The last time I checked, Exodus was not considered part of the civil code of any of the states, so no help there.

You can demand, stamp your foot, and pout for all the governors of Michigan or Illinois are concerned, and other than providing material for their whack job collection, you have accomplished not one thing, well not exactly true, you have provided the Illinois AG’s office with an address to send their process servers and arrest warrant officer’s. I would suspect that they will also be forwarding a writ to the WI Dept of Motor vehicles to have your license suspended, and if you don’t have a valid WI license, how long will it be before they issue an arrest warrant for driving without a license. Real clever there. Nothing like irritating people to make sure they do take notice of you.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The navigable highways and paths between the same were the highways of their day, Today the roads serve the same function.

That may be true, But there's no indication that the Northwest Ordinance intended to guarantee as "free forever" paths, much less technologies, that didn't exist in 1787. Were the communities, and then the states, supposed to carve out and build roads, pave them and maintain them, without any sort of monetary return on that enormous responsibility?

Using that sort of logic, since railroads mostly replaced riverboats and then airplanes replaced railroads, all the roads leading to railway stations, or airports, ought to be free. Not just tolls but also parking spaces (bet you didn't think of parking spaces, Rott).

I don't care for either tolls or parking meters, but without them roads wouldn't be built or maintained.

And this doesn't even touch on whether "forever free" means that buses and taxis can't charge a fare to take someone to the docks ... or to the airports.

[rottweiler]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

"Whether insisting on the careful scrutiny of emergency claims or on a vigorous reading of §4001(a), we are heirs to a tradition given voice 800 years ago by Magna Carta, which, on the barons’ insistence, confined executive power by “the law of the land.”

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Well, I’ve got to give you credit for one thing, you have managed to come up with as big a class A collection of nonsense as I have seen in a long time.

You can object to Illinois demands all you want for all the good it will do you. I’m sure they are shaking in their boots at your righteous indignation.

The NW Ordinance did not in any way shape or form address tollways, so your claims are at the least useless and at most comical.

While this may come as a shock to you, the Magna Charta ceased to be law or in force a very long time ago, and that aside, it never had any force or affect here as it had been supplanted in English law long before the colonies were established.

The last time I checked, Exodus was not considered part of the civil code of any of the states, so no help there.

You can demand, stamp your foot, and pout for all the governors of Michigan or Illinois are concerned, and other than providing material for their whack job collection, you have accomplished not one thing, well not exactly true, you have provided the Illinois AG’s office with an address to send their process servers and arrest warrant officer’s. I would suspect that they will also be forwarding a writ to the WI Dept of Motor vehicles to have your license suspended, and if you don’t have a valid WI license, how long will it be before they issue an arrest warrant for driving without a license. Real clever there. Nothing like irritating people to make sure they do take notice of you.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

"Whether insisting on the careful scrutiny of emergency claims or on a vigorous reading of §4001(a), we are heirs to a tradition given voice 800 years ago by Magna Carta, which, on the barons’ insistence, confined executive power by “the law of the land.”

In that quotation above, is it safe to presume that the emphasized text is in reference to the Constitution and the International Treaties, etc.?

That is a poor evidence of some 'right' or another 'right', when considering that the 'Constitution' has been abridged in so many ways it is unbelievable. As example; there is no Constitutional requirement to be licensed to get married; there is no Constitutional requirement to be licensed to 'bear arms'; there is no Constitutional restriction that forbids men from forming their own brand of 'militia' apart from that of the government; not even mention the favorite subject around here, the requirement that the states are required to use gold and silver to pay their debts; need I go on?

Besides the above mentioned, I must also add that the newest 'buzzword' among the politicians of today is "Rule of Law", not "law of the land". So in reference to their new 'buzzword', I would ask, Where is the Law?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

I tried to show you the law but you weren't interested.

We are heirs but if you don't know how to claim your inheritance you won't get it. What makes it even worse is fewer and fewer people even know there is an inheritance and more and more of them are paid to keep you from it. Their paychecks depend on not understanding the people they got the authority from in the first place.

Today the people own the government and the government owns the citizens. The original Citizens had surrendered none of their sovereignty to the United States of America, but the new class are completely subject. That's the law. The law becoming common knowledge is another story. The law being respected is another.

Justice Joseph Story on Common Law and Constitutional Origins of the United States Constitution

§ 78. The doctrine of Mr. Justice Blackstone, may well admit of serious doubt upon general principles. But it is manifestly erroneous, so far as it is applied to the colonies and plantations composing our Union. In the charters, under which all these colonies were settled, with a single exception, there is, an express declaration, that all subjects and their children inhabiting therein shall be deemed natural-born subjects, and shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof; and that the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, shall be in force there; and no laws shall be made, which are repugnant to, but as near as may be conveniently, shall conform to the laws of England. Now this declaration, even if the crown previously possessed a right to establish what laws it pleased over the territory, as a conquest from the natives, being a fundamental rule of the original settlement of the colonies, and before the emigrations thither, was conclusive, and could not afterwards be abrogated by the crown. It was an irrevocable annexation of the colonies to the mother country, as dependencies governed by the same laws, and entitled to the same rights.

§ 855. It is observable, that the language is, that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity," arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What is to be understood by "cases in law and equity," in this clause? Plainly, cases at the common law, as contradistinguished from cases in equity, according to the known distinction in the jurisprudence of England, which our ancestors brought with them upon their emigration, and with which all the American states were familiarly acquainted. Here, then, at least, the constitution of the United States appeals to, and adopts, the common law to the extent of making it a rule in the pursuit of remedial justice in the courts of the Union. If the remedy must be in law, or in equity, according to the course of proceedings at the common law, in cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States, it would seem irresistibly to follow, that the principles of decision, by which these remedies must be administered, must be derived from the same source. Hitherto, such has been the uniform interpretation and mode of administering justice in the courts of the United States in this class of civil cases.

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/jos...titution .htm

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

In that quotation above, is it safe to presume that the emphasized text is in reference to the Constitution and the International Treaties, etc.?

That is a poor evidence of some 'right' or another 'right', when considering that the 'Constitution' has been abridged in so many ways it is unbelievable. As example; there is no Constitutional requirement to be licensed to get married; there is no Constitutional requirement to be licensed to 'bear arms'; there is no Constitutional restriction that forbids men from forming their own brand of 'militia' apart from that of the government; not even mention the favorite subject around here, the requirement that the states are required to use gold and silver to pay their debts; need I go on?

Besides the above mentioned, I must also add that the newest 'buzzword' among the politicians of today is "Rule of Law", not "law of the land". So in reference to their new 'buzzword', I would ask, Where is the Law?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I tried to show you the law but you weren't interested.

We are heirs but if you don't know how to claim your inheritance you won't get it. What makes it even worse is fewer and fewer people even know there is an inheritance and more and more of them are paid to keep you from it. Their paychecks depend on not understanding the people they got the authority from in the first place.

Today the people own the government and the government owns the citizens. The original Citizens had surrendered none of their sovereignty to the United States of America, but the new class are completely subject. That's the law. The law becoming common knowledge is another story. The law being respected is another.

Justice Joseph Story on Common Law and Constitutional Origins of the United States Constitution

§ 78. The doctrine of Mr. Justice Blackstone, may well admit of serious doubt upon general principles. But it is manifestly erroneous, so far as it is applied to the colonies and plantations composing our Union. In the charters, under which all these colonies were settled, with a single exception, there is, an express declaration, that all subjects and their children inhabiting therein shall be deemed natural-born subjects, and shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof; and that the laws of England, so far as they are applicable, shall be in force there; and no laws shall be made, which are repugnant to, but as near as may be conveniently, shall conform to the laws of England. Now this declaration, even if the crown previously possessed a right to establish what laws it pleased over the territory, as a conquest from the natives, being a fundamental rule of the original settlement of the colonies, and before the emigrations thither, was conclusive, and could not afterwards be abrogated by the crown.[u/ It was an irrevocable annexation of the colonies to the mother country[/u], as dependencies governed by the same laws, and entitled to the same rights.

§ 855. It is observable, that the language is, that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity," arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. What is to be understood by "cases in law and equity," in this clause? Plainly, [b]cases at the common law, as contradistinguished from cases in equity, according to the known distinction in the jurisprudence of England, which our ancestors brought with them upon their emigration, and with which all the American states were familiarly acquainted. Here, then, at least, the constitution of the United States appeals to, and adopts, the common law to the extent of making it a rule in the pursuit of remedial justice in the courts of the Union. If the remedy must be in law, or in equity, according to the course of proceedings at the common law, in cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States, it would seem irresistibly to follow, that the principles of decision, by which these remedies must be administered, must be derived from the same source. Hitherto, such has been the uniform interpretation and mode of administering justice in the courts of the United States in this class of civil cases.


http://www.belcherfoundation.org/jos...titution .htm

Last sentence, first paragraph. So the American revolution was for naught. We are, as seen in that sentence and according to one of those wise 'black robes' still bound by that "irrevocable annexation of the colonies to the mother country", and further still bound to the mother country "as dependencies governed by the same laws, and entitled to the same rights."

So this is what you refer to as the 'common law'? You need to be a little more specific in your explanation, as opposed to simply quoting someone. What does all of those quotations mean to you?

While you are putting together an explanation, also put one together on 'what source of evidence you have in your possession that determines that I have ever had my "a$$ kicked by the police"'. You might also want to conjure up an explanation relating to 'why' you have invited me to this thread by bringing my name into this thread in a manner in which you cannot prove by records of this forum that I would have been subject to the conditions of your claim.

PS. 'Common Law' is still 'secular law' and does not stand the litmus test of Gods' Law.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Shoonra]

Even if the Northwest Ordinance were still applicable law, which I doubt, and even if the waterways and roads leading to them were guaranteed toll-free by the Northwest Ordinance and that was still in effect, I think that the Northwest Ordinance was only making promises about either (1) the roads that existed in 1787 or else (2) the type of roads tht existed in 1787 - namely just wide paths in the dirt, unpaved, unpoliced, unmaintained by any state or municipal govt.

I think it's too much to expect the Founders to have promised something in 1787 that they couldn't possibly foresee; namely elevated highways, graded, banked, bulldozed, paved and kept in repair, capable of carrying hundreds or thousands of heavy vehicles for hundreds of miles.

[rottweiler]

You are taking things out of context again. The irrevocable annexation was absolutely revoked upon the repeated violation of the law, the crown and king went away but the law stayed, the difference is that instead of one king, each one of us are king.

Besides that, what about this?

§ 73. If an uninhabited country is discovered and planted by British subjects, the English laws are said to be immediately in force there; for the law is the birthright of every subject. So that wherever they go, they carry their laws with them; and the new found country is governed by them.

And this.

§ 75. Even as thus stated, the proposition is full of vagueness and perplexity; for it must still remain a question of intrinsic difficulty to say, what laws are, or are not applicable to their situation; and whether they are bound by the present state of things, or are at liberty to apply them in future by adoption, as the growth or interests of the colony may dictate. The English rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries, the rights secured by Magna Charta, and the remedial course in the administration of justice, are examples as clear perhaps as any, which can be stated, as presumptively adopted, or applicable. And yet in the infancy of a colony some of these very rights, and privileges, and remedies, and rules, may be in fact inapplicable, or inconvenient, and impolitic. It is not perhaps easy to settle, what parts of the English laws are, or are not in force in any such colony, until either by usage, or judicial determination, they have been recognized as of absolute force.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Last sentence, first paragraph. So the American revolution was for naught. We are, as seen in that sentence and according to one of those wise 'black robes' still bound by that "irrevocable annexation of the colonies to the mother country", and further still bound to the mother country "as dependencies governed by the same laws, and entitled to the same rights."

So this is what you refer to as the 'common law'? You need to be a little more specific in your explanation, as opposed to simply quoting someone. What does all of those quotations mean to you?

While you are putting together an explanation, also put one together on 'what source of evidence you have in your possession that determines that I have ever had my "a$$ kicked by the police"'. You might also want to conjure up an explanation relating to 'why' you have invited me to this thread by bringing my name into this thread in a manner in which you cannot prove by records of this forum that I would have been subject to the conditions of your claim.

PS. 'Common Law' is still 'secular law' and does not stand the litmus test of Gods' Law.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

You want to accuse me of "taking things out of context", yet you present a scenario that is obviously fragmented and spread across what is conceivably numerous pages and possibly even chapters. The numbered section identifiers are a dead give away that you are not presenting the whole picture, but rather picking and choosing what you want the audience to read. To my knowledge, you have not even cited the name of the document from which these 'quotations' come from.

And You still do not address the issue of the former claims you have made in regard to me and the 'police' or in regard to 'why' you have invited me to this thread.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You are taking things out of context again. The irrevocable annexation was absolutely revoked upon the repeated violation of the law, the crown and king went away but the law stayed, the difference is that instead of one king, each one of us are king.

Besides that, what about this?

§ 73. If an uninhabited country is discovered and planted by British subjects, the English laws are said to be immediately in force there; for the law is the birthright of every subject. So that wherever they go, they carry their laws with them; and the new found country is governed by them.

And this.

§ 75. Even as thus stated, the proposition is full of vagueness and perplexity; for it must still remain a question of intrinsic difficulty to say, what laws are, or are not applicable to their situation; and whether they are bound by the present state of things, or are at liberty to apply them in future by adoption, as the growth or interests of the colony may dictate. The English rules of inheritance, and of protection from personal injuries, the rights secured by Magna Charta, and the remedial course in the administration of justice, are examples as clear perhaps as any, which can be stated, as presumptively adopted, or applicable. And yet in the infancy of a colony some of these very rights, and privileges, and remedies, and rules, may be in fact inapplicable, or inconvenient, and impolitic. It is not perhaps easy to settle, what parts of the English laws are, or are not in force in any such colony, until either by usage, or judicial determination, they have been recognized as of absolute force.

[Livefire]

Here's an interesting treatise concerning common law jurisprudence (specifically Florida)

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...sprudence.html

It goes into detail concerning the relationship of common law to statutory law. Common law can be abrogated by statute if the statute specifically states so and isnt repugnant to the constitution.