rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[rottweiler]

Constitution
Article VI/supremacy clause

“In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.”
Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.), 210–211 (1824)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht....html#art6_hd5

Originally Posted by 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.

[Jerry Pitts]

One more time. I concur. You are showing case law in support of your convictions (beliefs). I know that there are thousands of case law and statutory law that support the same. My only contention, is that no-one of recent years have been able to show any enforcement capability.

Example... Income Tax laws.. What appears to be very sound and solid arguments on the side of the People, yet when people acting on those beliefs regarding those taxes find themselves in prison, then one has to wonder... WHERE IS THEIR ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY?

I know, I have heard it before... "I will enforce it"; "they will have to kill me first", and a sundry of other declarations, yet no positive enforcement. If the law is not working to their advantage, they simply change the law, or make a new law in mid-stream in order to protect the Corporation.



Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Constitution
Article VI/supremacy clause

“In argument, however, it has been contended, that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject, and each other, like equal opposing powers. But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it, by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the Constitution, is produced by the declaration, that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties, is to such acts of the State legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to the laws of Congress, made in pursuance of the Constitution, or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.”
Gibbons v. Ogden 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.), 210–211 (1824)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht....html#art6_hd5

[rottweiler]

It is supposed to exhaust my administrative remedies before filing suit. I am objecting to the Illinois State Tollway Authorities notice and demand and noticing them back to cease and desist their collection activities. If they will not they run the risk that the tollway becomes a freeway.

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

What exactly is this supposed to accomplish?

When is it going to accomplish it?

What are you doing about your injury?

[rottweiler]

That just goes to show that laws are made to be broken.

NW Ordinance
Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

One more time. I concur. You are showing case law in support of your convictions (beliefs). I know that there are thousands of case law and statutory law that support the same. My only contention, is that no-one of recent years have been able to show any enforcement capability.

Example... Income Tax laws.. What appears to be very sound and solid arguments on the side of the People, yet when people acting on those beliefs regarding those taxes find themselves in prison, then one has to wonder... WHERE IS THEIR ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY?

I know, I have heard it before... "I will enforce it"; "they will have to kill me first", and a sundry of other declarations, yet no positive enforcement. If the law is not working to their advantage, they simply change the law, or make a new law in mid-stream in order to protect the Corporation.



Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 10 How. 82 82 (1850)

But it seems to be supposed in the argument, that the law of Ohio upon this subject has some peculiar force by virtue of the Ordinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern territory, Ohio being one of the states carved out of it.

One of the articles of this Ordinance provides that

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than in punishment for crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, provided always that any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in anyone of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

And this article is one of the six which the Ordinance declares shall be a compact between the original states and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent.

The argument assumes that the six articles which that Ordinance declares to be perpetual are still in force in the states since formed within the territory and admitted into the Union.

If this proposition could be maintained, it would not alter the question. For the regulations of Congress, under the old Confederation or the present Constitution, for the government of a particular territory could have no force beyond its limits. It certainly could not restrict the power of the states within their respective territories, nor in any manner interfere with their laws and institutions, nor give this Court any control over them. The Ordinance in question, if still in force, could have no more operation than the laws of Ohio in the State of Kentucky, and could not influence the decision upon the rights of the master or the slaves in that state, nor give this Court jurisdiction upon the subject.

But it has been settled by judicial decision in this Court that this Ordinance is not in force.

This decision was based on an earlier case, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 3 How. 589 589 (1845). After the states were admitted into the Union, the Northwest Ordinance became null and void from a legal standpoint and the type of claims that rottweiler is making are cognizable only under the constitution and laws of the state in question. Rottie, you need to shepherdize these old laws to see if there are rulings out there that amend, nullify, or supersede them.

I'm not trying to rain on the parade, I want you to be able to make viable claims. If Lawdog and Notorial Dissent can shoot down the Magna Charta by stating the fact that most of it has been superseded by later English law, a state attorney can do the same with the NW ordinance like I have here. I can also shoot down your biblical defenses with ease....

Deu 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
(Mat 17:25-26)


Rottweiler, if you claim Wisconsin nationality, the state of Illinois is within its right to charge tribute i.e. toll under Kingdom principle to a foreigner within its borders. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate to test your reasoning before you have to deal with it in real life. From what I see here, is that the state attorney would simply move to dismiss any federal suit you might bring due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and obtain it successfully.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Is objecting the way that you are provided for by the administration or the statutes defining the administration?

If not then it is not an "administrative" remedy but rather "your" remedy.

"Your/Judicial" remedy dos not become ripe until AFTER the administrative remedies are exhausted.

It appears however you are laying out a personal injury claim or a trespass claim. Neither of which require you to exhaust any "Administrative remedies", but rather only that you make a claim.

I think this would fall into the category of claim of debt. In that case, law merchant kicks in and conflict should be handled administratively. The common law incorporates the custom of merchants when deciding bills of exchange. Administrative remedy must be exhausted. A notary works wonders. Finding one to do their duty is the bitch of it. He started at the top. The AG is the finally authority on the administration of corporatized justice in any de facto state.

I agree with you that someone merely needs to make a claim if they're claiming injury by way of a false claim of debt.

[indio007]

Just wanted to add when the State is using legal tender fiat currency it loses it's sovereignty it falls down to that of a private citizen. Law Merchant falls under the law of nations and there are no princes or kings.

[rottweiler]

You took that case out of context. Strader v. Graham is similar to the Dred Scott case and actually confirms the NWO. Listen, I want to do what is right but if I am the sovereign plaintiff and I decree the law why would I grant a motion to dismiss for such an offpoint argument? Your motion will be denied unless you can show cause within 24 hours why I should reconsider.

NW Ordinance
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, SUCH FUGITIVE MAY BE LAWFULLY RECLAIMED AND CONVEYED TO THE PERSON CLAIMING HIS OR HER LABOR OR SERVICE AS AFORESAID..

Originally Posted by Livefire

This decision was based on an earlier case, Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 44 U.S. 3 How. 589 589 (1845). After the states were admitted into the Union, the Northwest Ordinance became null and void from a legal standpoint and the type of claims that rottweiler is making are cognizable only under the constitution and laws of the state in question. Rottie, you need to shepherdize these old laws to see if there are rulings out there that amend, nullify, or supersede them.

I'm not trying to rain on the parade, I want you to be able to make viable claims. If Lawdog and Notorial Dissent can shoot down the Magna Charta by stating the fact that most of it has been superseded by later English law, a state attorney can do the same with the NW ordinance like I have here. I can also shoot down your biblical defenses with ease....

Deu 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
(Mat 17:25-26)


Rottweiler, if you claim Wisconsin nationality, the state of Illinois is within its right to charge tribute i.e. toll under Kingdom principle to a foreigner within its borders. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate to test your reasoning before you have to deal with it in real life. From what I see here, is that the state attorney would simply move to dismiss any federal suit you might bring due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and obtain it successfully.

[rottweiler]

You are right, it is not an administrative remedy, but it buys me time.

Originally Posted by Right to the Castle

Is objecting the way that you are provided for by the administration or the statutes defining the administration?

If not then it is not an "administrative" remedy but rather "your" remedy.

"Your/Judicial" remedy dos not become ripe until AFTER the administrative remedies are exhausted.

It appears however you are laying out a personal injury claim or a trespass claim. Neither of which require you to exhaust any "Administrative remedies", but rather only that you make a claim.

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You took that case out of context. Strader v. Graham is similar to the Dred Scott case and actually confirms the NWO. Listen, I want to do what is right but if I am the sovereign plaintiff and I decree the law why would I grant a motion to dismiss for such an offpoint argument? Your motion will be denied unless you can show cause within 24 hours why I should reconsider.

NW Ordinance
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, SUCH FUGITIVE MAY BE LAWFULLY RECLAIMED AND CONVEYED TO THE PERSON CLAIMING HIS OR HER LABOR OR SERVICE AS AFORESAID..

Rottweiler,

The court exercises the power of judicial interpretation as detailed in Marbury v Madison. This power is implied in the Constitution, not the court decision. The court decision merely codifies that power.

The facts behind cases like Strader and Permoli are not the issue here. The fact remains that the court declared the NW ordinance to be no longer in force once a state had drafted its constitution and entered the union. Bringing up issues like slavery and the like are mere red herrings. Please reread the highlighted part of the Strader case......

But it has been settled by judicial decision in this Court that this Ordinance is not in force.

The word "but" nullifies every thing else state before it. Thats just basic English. BTW there is some doubt among legal scholars of the validity of the NW ordinance in the first place. At best, it served as an interim constitution until the territories entered the Union.

http://candst.tripod.com/nwo1d.htm

Shoonra and Lawdog will probably find it an interesting read.

Since you didnt rebut my asservations concerning Kingdom law, we will consider those as stare decisis in your court! :-)