rottweiler's supreme court original action at law

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

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

No, actually we don't all agree on that.
The United States government does not have limited liability; it has sovereign immunity. It is governed by general elections not by sales of shares.

[rottweiler]

You don't count.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

No, actually we don't all agree on that.
The United States government does not have limited liability; it has sovereign immunity. It is governed by general elections not by sales of shares.

[rottweiler]

I am talking about a interstate not a state or county road.

Why don't you show me what exactly in the Northwest Ordinance is not in force for the people? I am not talking residents, I said people. Give me an example like there is no right to the common law.

256 U.S. 113
41 S.Ct. 409
65 L.Ed. 847
ECONOMY LIGHT & POWER CO.
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 104.
Argued Dec. 17, 1921.
Decided April 11, 1921.

The public interest in navigable streams of this character in Illinois and neighboring states, and the federal authority over such as are capable of serving commerce among the states, does not arise from custom or implication, but has a very definite origin. By article 4 of the compact in the Ordinance of July 13, 1787, for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, it was declared:

9
'The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory, as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other states that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.' 1 Stat. 51, 52, note; Rev. Stat. U. S. (1878 Ed.) pp. 13, 16.

10
This was under the Confederation; but the first Congress under the new Constitution expressed a design to have it continue in full effect, in the Act of August 7, 1789 (chapter 8, 1 Stat. 50). A purpose to preserve the rights of public highway in the navigable rivers was again manifested in section 9 of Act of May 18, 1796 (chapter 29, 1 Stat. 464, 468 [Comp. St. § 4918]). The territory of Indiana (including what is now Illinois) was set apart and organized by Act of May 7, 1800, which in section 2 reiterated that purpose (chapter 41, 2 Stat. 58, 59); and in an act providing for the disposal of the public lands therein (Act of March 26, 1804, c. 35, § 6, 2 Stat. 277, 279, 280), it was again declared 'that all the navigable rivers, creeks, and waters, within the Indiana Territory, shall be deemed to be and remain public highways.' Illinois was set apart and a separate territorial government established therein by Act of February 3, 1809 (chapter 13, 2 Stat. 514). By section 2, the government was to be 'in all respects similar' to that provided by the Ordinance of 1787 and the Act of August 7, 1789, and the inhabitants were to enjoy all the rights, privileges, and conditions granted by the Ordinance. An act to enable the people of Illinois to form a state government, approved April 18, 1818 (chapter 67, 3 Stat. 428), contained a proviso (section 4, p. 430) that such government should not be repugnant to the Ordinance of 1787. The state constitution declared its purpose to be consistent with the Ordinance, and the resolution of Congress declaring admission of the state into the Union (Res. Dec. 3, 1818, 3 Stat. 536) acknowledged that the constitution and state government were 'in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact' in the Ordinance of 1787.

Originally Posted by Livefire

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! :-)

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You don't count.

Au contraire, Shoonra does indeed count.

Shoonra has two things you lack:

1) sanity;
2) a law school education.

Shoonra is correct. The United States of America has a government that is neither a business corporation nor a trust.

[Shoonra]

The Economy Light case is very interesting but ... it dealt with the building of a dam that would have blocked off otherwise navigable water.

Moreover, the court's reference to the Northwest Ordinance does not say it is, itself, still in force. It said that when the Constitution was adopted, the first Congress perpetuated some of the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance -- itself an indication that the Ordinance itself did not persist after the adoption of the Constitution. The court further notes that the provision carried forward from the Northwest Ordinance was not considered absolute; Congress had further legislated in 1899 procedures for considering ways of chipping away at the freedom of navigable water.

But water is water and the Mississippt and the Saint Laurence changed their configuration only by natural and mostly gradual processes. Highways are a different story. What had been wide places in the dirt when the Ordinance was written were replaced, or at least added to, by deliberately graded and paved roadways.
Some of these routes didn't even exist in 1787.

Now, as far as I can read, the Ordinance promised freedom of the navigable waters and of the roads giving access to the navigable waters. There is nothing that says that newer roads cannot be laid that are not so free. In the case at hand, about the Illinois Tollway, (1) the Tollway does not, itself, go to the water's edge, (2) there are alternative toll-free roads that do lead to the water's edge, and (3) Congress, whose 1899 exception to the terms of the Ordinance was upheld in the Economy Light decision, also authorized the building of the interstate highways that became the Tollway and authorized the collection of tolls on it.

If, indeed, the provision of the Ordinance persisted to this day, and if it could be interpreted as a guarantee of no tolls, even so the existence of other roads to the water that are toll-free is a sufficient compliance so as to allow the collection of tolls on the Tollway.

[indago]

rottweiler posted: "We all agree the United States of America is a corporation/trust."

Shoonra wrote: "No, actually we don't all agree on that. The United States government does not have limited liability; it has sovereign immunity. It is governed by general elections not by sales of shares."


Justice Henry Billings Brown, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, in the opinion of the Court in the case of US v Perkins in 1895, declared that the United States is a corporation; political, or governmental in nature.

[rottweiler]

One man's garbage is another man's treasure. Bon appetite s***bag.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Au contraire, Shoonra does indeed count.

Shoonra has two things you lack:

1) sanity;
2) a law school education.

Shoonra is correct. The United States of America has a government that is neither a business corporation nor a trust.

[Shoonra]

First, it helps if you give a proper citation to court decision; US v. Perkins was decided on May 25, 1896, not 1895.
US v. Perkins, 163 US 625, 16 S.Ct 11073, 41 L.Ed 287.

Second, the tenor of the case wat that the United States -- presumably the federal govt, but that is not crystal clear - was a corporation within the terms of NY law that exempted certain corporations from taxation. The holding was that it was not such a corporation:

In addition to this, however, the United States are not one of the class of corporations intended by law to be exempt rom taxation. What the corporations are to which the exemption was intended to apply are indicated by the tax laws of New York, and are confined to those of a religious, educational, charitable, or reformatory purpose. We think it was not intended to apply it to a purely political or governmental corporation, like the United States. Catlin v. Trustees, 113 N. Y. 133, 20 N. E. 864; In re Van Kleeck, 121 N. Y. 701, 75 N. E. 50; Dos P. Inh. Tax Law, c. 3, § 34. In Re Hamilton, 148 N. Y. 310, 42 N. E. 717, it was held that the execution did not apply to a municipality, even though created by the state itself.

The govt, any govt, is certain a body corporate because it is not an individual. But the federal govt, unlike, say, municipal corporations and other corporations, has sovereign immunity, not limited liability.

[indago]

Shoonra posted:
---------------------------------------------
But the federal govt, unlike, say, municipal corporations and other corporations, has sovereign immunity, not limited liability.
---------------------------------------------

There is no sovereignty in America. "sovereign immunity" is a conjure edicted by government itself.

The States are artificial persons. The federal government was created by the States, and is, therefore, a second degree artificial person. The State was created by Natural Persons, who retain all rights and powers not granted to either artificial person.



-