rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[rottweiler]

JOHNSON, JUSTICE, delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, the defendant contended that his right to a trial by jury, as secured to him by the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Maryland, has been violated. The question is one of the deepest interest, and if the complaint be well founded, the claims of the citizen on the protection of this Court are peculiarly strong.
The 7th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is in these words: Page 17 U. S. 241
"In suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of the trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law." The 21st article of the Declaration of Rights of the State of Maryland is in the words of Magna Charta.
"No freeman ought to be taken or imprisoned, &c., or deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Bank of Columbia v. Okely 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 235
http://supreme.justia.com/us/17/235/case.html

[rottweiler]

The principle that a punishment should be proportionate to the crime is deeply rooted and frequently repeated in common law jurisprudence. In 1215, three chapters of Magna Carta were devoted to the rule that "amercements" [Footnote 8] may not be excessive. [Footnote 9] And the principle was repeated and extended in the First Statute of Westminster, 3 Edw. I, ch. 6

Page 463 U. S. 285

(1275). These were not hollow guarantees, for the royal courts relied on them to invalidate disproportionate punishments. See, e.g., Le Gras v. Bailiff of Bishop of Winchester, Y.B.Mich. 10 Edw. II, pl. 4 (C. P. 1316), reprinted in 52 Selden Society 3 (1934). When prison sentences became the normal criminal sanctions, the common law recognized that these, too, must be proportional. See, e.g., Hodges v. Humkin, 2 Bulst. 139, 140, 80 Eng.Rep. 1015, 1016 (K.B. 1615) (Croke, J.) ("imprisonment ought always to be according to the quality of the offence").

The English Bill of Rights repeated the principle of proportionality in language that was later adopted in the Eighth Amendment: "excessive Baile ought not to be required nor excessive Fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall Punishments inflicted." 1 Wm. & Mary, sess. 2, ch. 2 (1689). Although the precise scope of this provision is uncertain, it at least incorporated

"the longstanding principle of English law that the punishment . . . should not be, by reason of its excessive length or severity, greatly disproportionate to the offense charged."

R. Perry, Sources of Our Liberties 236 (1959); see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16-*19 (1769) (hereafter Blackstone); see also id. at *16-*17 (in condemning "punishments of unreasonable severity," uses "cruel" to mean severe or excessive). Indeed, barely three months after the Bill of Rights was adopted, the House of Lords declared that a

"fine of thirty thousand pounds, imposed by the court of King's Bench upon the earl of Devon was excessive and exorbitant, against magna charta, the common right of the subject, and the law of the land."

Earl of Devon's Case, 11 State Tr. 133, 136 (1689).

When the Framers of the Eighth Amendment adopted the language of the English Bill of Rights, [Footnote 10] they also adopted the

Page 463 U. S. 286

English principle of proportionality. Indeed, one of the consistent themes of the era was that Americans had all the rights of English subjects. See, e.g., 1 J.Continental Cong. 83 (W. Ford ed.1904) (Address to the People of Great Britain, Sept. 5, 1774) ("we claim all the benefits secured to the subject by the English constitution"); 1 American Archives 700 (4th series 1837) (Georgia Resolutions, Aug. 10, 1774) ("his Majesty's subjects in America . . . are entitled to the same rights, privileges, and immunities with their fellow subjects in Great Britain"). Thus our Bill of Rights was designed in part to ensure that these rights were preserved. Although the Framers may have intended the Eighth Amendment to go beyond the scope of its English counterpart, their use of the language of the English Bill of Rights is convincing proof that they intended to provide at least the same protection -- including the right to be free from excessive punishments.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/463/277/case.html#284

[indio007]

Claiming Constitutional rights acts as a waiver of sovereignty. It is the administrative admiralty document for commercial claims. The bill of rights is a nothing more than the enumeration of valid commercial claims against someone that subrogates those rights with others.

[netwrkranger]

That's a heavy statement, indio007.

Would you happen to have any treatises, writings, or case cites on your position? It is a very interesting opinion indeed.

- netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

Each court has multiple jurisdictions except for JP or municipal courts. Not only that but the lower courts, especially in the states, are a cesspool of corruption and ignorance so it hard to get a read on what is going on. The higher you go the less corrupt and ignorant they are. That is the whole purpose of the chain of command.

The case on post #33 was about a guy who had a writ of habeus corpus filed for him to get a set prison term instead of the original sentence of life in prison for writing a bogus check. It was granted by the district court but overturned on appeal. That was considered cruel and unusual under the eighth amendment by the supreme court on writ of certiorari.

The other case (post #32 ) was a writ of error.

So, they were both court of record common law cases. That's why common law rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta were addressed by the court.

Originally Posted by indio007

Claiming Constitutional rights acts as a waiver of sovereignty. It is the administrative admiralty document for commercial claims. The bill of rights is a nothing more than the enumeration of valid commercial claims against someone that subrogates those rights with others.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

That's a heavy statement, indio007.

Would you happen to have any treatises, writings, or case cites on your position? It is a very interesting opinion indeed.

- netwrkranger

Not speaking for Indio, but rather just expressing an opinion of what might be happening with that line of thought. The Constitution mentioned, has been converted (albeit within a probability of unlawfulness) into a 'corporate charter', therefore, when you 'claim' rights associated with that 'corporate charter', then you are equally acquiescing to the subsequent codes, rules, and regulations that pertain thereto.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[netwrkranger]

The reason I posed the question to indio007 is because George Gordon mentioned in a radio archive of his that USA is a federal corporation and the US Constitution is its corporate charter.

Historically, the Constitution itself was inspired in part due to creditor-debtor issues and Shay's Rebellion as well as the issues of commerce between States.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

That's a heavy statement, indio007.

Would you happen to have any treatises, writings, or case cites on your position? It is a very interesting opinion indeed.

- netwrkranger

Article VI of the Constitution forms the cestui que trust.

(3) Oath to support constitution. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound, by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

I have a couple articles that speak of it, attached and:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety1.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety2.mp3
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.doc
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...leSociety3.mp3


FDR formed a public trust commonly known as The New Deal where the people of America became chattel to save the bankers.

“Recognized Government bonds are as safe as Government currency. They have the same credit back of them. And, therefore, if we can persuade people all through the country, when their salary checks come in, to deposit them in new accounts, which will be held in trust and kept in one of the new forms I have mentioned, we shall have made progress.” The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt; 1933 The Year of Crisis; Random House 1938; page 19. Excerpt from the Address before the Governors’ Conference at the White House. March 6, 1933.

Regards,

David Merrill.

[netwrkranger]

Between this information and the Commerce Clause, I'll need to take a breather =D.

- netwrkranger

[rottweiler]

We all agree the United States of America is a corporation/trust.

Where we disagree is when I say the original Citizens surrendered none of their sovereignty to it and it was created for their benefit. They are sovereign over it and are the only ones that can dissolve it.