Cody's Right to _____

[palani]

The above act is considered to be the remedy provided under Law for the trespass committed by the United States on the body politic of each of its' member 'foreign' states.

Do you need to have 'remedy' spelled out for you too, Codee. If so, check with Dr TheIncuBus, the thorozine expert.

[palani]

And another cite, this one discussing the difference between a de jure and a de facto sovereign

Blackstone, Book 4, Chapter 6
The king here intended is the king in poffeffion, without any refpect to his title: for it is held, that a king de facto and not de jure, or in other words an ufurper that hath got poffeffion of the throne, is a king within the meaning of the ftatute; as there is a temporary allegiance due to him, for his adminiftration of the government, and temporary protection of the public: and therefore treafons committed againft Henry VI were punifhed under Edward IV, though all the line of Lancafter had been previoufly declared ufurpers by act of parliament. But the moft rightful heir of the crown, or king de jure and not de facto, who hath never had plenary poffeffion of the throne, as was the cafe of the houfe of York during the three reigns of the line of Lancafter, is not a king within this ftatute, againft whom treafons may be committed l. And a very fenfible writer on the crown-law carries the point of poffeffion fo far, that he holds m, that a king out of poffeffion is fo far from having any right to our allegiance, by any other title which he may fet up againft the king in being, that we are bound by the duty of our allegiance to refift him. A doctrine which he grounds upon the ftatute 11 Hen. VII. c. 1. which is declaratory of the common law, and pronounces all fubjects excufed from any penalty or forfeiture, which do affift and obey a king de facto. But, in truth, this feems to be confounding all notions of right and wrong; and the confequence would be, that when Cromwell had murdered the elder Charles, and ufurped the power (though not the name) of king, the people were bound in duty to hinder the fon's reftoration: and were the king of Poland or Morocco to invade this kingdom, and by any means to get poffeffion of the crown (a term, by the way, of very loofe and indiftinct fignification) the fubject would be bound the his allegiance to fight for his natural prince to-day, and by the fame duty of allegiance to fight againft him to-morrow. The true diftinction feems to be, that the ftatute of Henry the feventh does by no means command any oppofition to a king de jure; but excufes the obedience paid to a king de facto. When therefore a ufurper is in poffeffion, the fubject is excufed and juftified in obeying and giving him affiftance: otherwife, under a ufurpation, no man could be fafe; if the lawful prince had a right to hang him for obedience to the powers in being, as the ufurper would certainly do for difobedience. Nay farther, as the mafs of people are imperfect judges of title, of which in all cafes poffeffion is prima facie evidence, the law compels no man to yield obedience to that prince, whofe right is by want of poffeffion rendered uncertain and difputable, till providence fhall think fit to interpofe in his favour, and decide the ambiguous claim: and therefore, till he is entitled to fuch allegiance by poffeffion, no treafon can be committed againft him. Laftly, a king who has refigned his crown, fuch refignation being admitted and ratified in parliament, is according to fir Matthew Hale no longer the object of treafonn. And the fame reafon holds, in cafe a king abdicates the government; or, by actions fubverfive of the conftitution, virtually renounces the authority which he claims by that very conftitution: fince, as was formerly obferved o, when the fact of abdication is once eftablifhed, and determined by the proper judges, the confequence neceffarily follows, that the throne is thereby vacant, and he is no longer king.

Any rebuttals coming anytime soon, or just more jive?

[palani]

Here is how Bouviers' Law Dictionary of 1856 defines de jure and de facto

DE FACTO, i. e. in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done; a president of the United States de facto is one in the exercise of the executive power, and is distinguished from one, who being legally entitled to such power is ejected from it; the latter would be a president de jure. An officer de facto is frequently considered as an officer de jure, and his official acts are of equal validity. 10 S. & R. 250; 4 Binn. R. 371; 11 S. & R. 411, 414; Coxe, 318; 9 Mass. 231; 10 Mass. 290; 15 Mass. 180; 5 Pick. 487.

DE JURE, by right. Vide De facto.

After you have turned down the presumed 14th amendment privilege of citizenship do you really think that any of the laws implemented by a de facto body politic really apply?

If you answered yes to the previous question can you give me your reasoning for presuming this?

Your attention is directed to the following maxim of Law:

FrustrÖ feruntur legis nisi subditis et obedientibus. Laws are made to no purpose unless for those who are subject and obedient. 7 Co. 13.

I previously posted a part of section 4 of the 14th amendment in which the de jure government of the United States disclaims the debts of the de facto (insurgent) government, thereby eliminating any claim to there being a national debt owed by the de jure government. Are you still digesting this thought?

[Codee]

DE FACTO, i. e. in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done; a president of the United States de facto is one in the exercise of the executive power, and is distinguished from one, who being legally entitled to such power is ejected from it; the latter would be a president de jure. An officer de facto is frequently considered as an officer de jure, and his official acts are of equal validity. 10 S. & R. 250; 4 Binn. R. 371; 11 S. & R. 411, 414; Coxe, 318; 9 Mass. 231; 10 Mass. 290; 15 Mass. 180; 5 Pick. 487.

According to your weak argument.... YES they still apply.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by palani

And another cite, this one discussing the difference between a de jure and a de facto sovereign


Any rebuttals coming anytime soon, or just more jive?

And you talk to me about sspelling. Try turning some of those Fs into Ts and Ss. I can barely follow.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by palani

And another cite, this one discussing the difference between a de jure and a de facto sovereign


Any rebuttals coming anytime soon, or just more jive?

I missed the part where it says that a defacto govarnment is to be treated like it is not there at all and that nothing it does has validity.

Do you think that a foreign power has a right to collect on a contract made while the countr was under rule defacoroly.

I would think so.

[Codee]

FrustrÖ feruntur legis nisi subditis et obedientibus. Laws are made to no purpose unless for those who are subject and obedient. 7 Co. 13.

Where is 'law" found... Please tell me it is in another dictionary.

I will tell you this for the last time. Your quotes form journals and dictionaries ARE NOT LAW.

What word is being defined? What code is this from? How does this statement apply to me in California or any other state.

It is not maxim of law for my state.

[weishaupt1776]

Cody, he is quoting common law maxims, which are adopted by English Common Law

Unless abrogated by statute, the common law maxims apply

SC justices still use bouvier's, BTW

Regarding your prior request, i will be offering my position in piesemeal right now, and will then assemble it into one shot

That is all I have time for right now

Here is an issue raised in an earlier post regarding the significane of the Law of Nations (L/N, herein)

(a) Is Vattel’s “The Law of Nations” considered to be authoritative in the several states which compose the United States according to the Supreme Law of the Land (The Constitution for the United States of America?)
(1) Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 10 says that a duty of Congress is “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
(2) Since Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 10 says that Congress is to punish offenses against the Law of Nations, then the Law of Nations is the Supreme Law regarding international law amongst the several states
(3) Therefore Vatell’s “The Law of Nations” is authoritative and cognizable throughout the several states of the Union

Now, it was declared that the original Cali state was to be a republican form of government as recognized by the U.S. Congress in 1850

Since it has been demonstrated that the L/N is cognizable througout the Union here is another issue:

(a) Vattel’s Law of Nations BOOK I. OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES. CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES § 10. Of states forming a federal republic : Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.”.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Cody, he is quoting common law maxims, which are adopted by English Common Law

Unless abrogated by statute, the common law maxims apply

Maxims are not absolute and are not law.

Please prove that maxim is part of of common law.

On top of that what does it mean "subject." Does it mean subject to the law??? Or Subject to the governemnt making the law. I am not subject to my government but I am subject t olaws that it may make on behalf of the people in their right.

Please prove that the state adopted that common law because in California we adopted the "rule of common law" as the decission for courts!!!! It does not extend to the legislature nor anyone else. The statutes of England as they existed at the time of the declaration of independence is ofter included in the state constitutions but to say that every common law maxim was incorporated as law has not been made clear.

[Codee]

WRONG!!!!

Originally Posted by Weis

(1) Art. 1 sec. 8 cl. 10 says that a duty of Congress is “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

The real amendment says that it is a POWER of congress. That means that congress has no need to do it at all. Just like creating inferior tribunals. They do not need to. Congress has the power to define and punish for those offenses HOWEVER HAS NO DUTY whatsoever.

I really am expecting more then this.

Originally Posted by US Constitution

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

The semi colon means other items following in the same subject area as this.

No mention of a duty anywhere in this article 8.