Commercial liens - from research to application

[Satori]

Originally Posted by AndyK

Satori: do you have any clue as to what "sovereign" means in the various references you posted?

I do. It was plainly reiterated by one of the court case cites, above. I will present it again.

"Sovereignty, itself, is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins, 188 US 356 [1886]

What part of that gave you difficulty?

Let me give you a hint: It doesn't mean you, me, or any person that you know or ever heard of.

Rather than hint, perhaps you could support your claim. I agree to a point, that any "person" I know or have heard of is considered not to be sovereign, as persons in law are not considered sovereign. I will accept for the sake of argument that you are not sovereign. I will accept your claim that I am not sovereign once you have proven it, and on the basis that you have just slandered my character if you cannot. Have we ever met, to your knowledge?

Secondly, in interpreting laws, courts view "persons" first by the generally accepted meaning of the term and then by specific legislated amplifications, such as corporations.

I have never known a statutory court to interpret laws, but my experience with them is admittedly limited. I have known them to interpret statutory legislation, and in such cases the legalistic contortions based on the legal definitions of wordage is seemingly endless. I therefore trust that you won't mind proving your assertion; I would be interested in seeing such proof.

In any event, what would, or even could, give a statutory court the authority to "interpret" a group of people they have already stated are sovereign into their jurisdiction? Are we also to assume that they can also "interpret" that because statutes involve "persons", that they also regard people living in Japan, or India? I would suppose not. That, to my understanding, is why the "Supreme Court" said what it did in this case cite, also listed above.

"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ..." Rodriques v Ray Donavan [U.S. Department of Labor,] 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 [1985]

Do you take issue with any or all of this "Supreme Court" determination? If so, what issue?


- Satori

[Satori]

Originally Posted by scooterdog

Here, if you go in screaming I'm a "sovereign", or "your laws don't apply to me", I wouldn't even want to be sitting in the back row!

I generally simply challenge jurisdiction and wait for the prosecuting attorney to be unable to establish it. There is therefore no case.

These laws apply to everyone,

See my above comment to AndyK regarding Japan and India.

and THEY "the court" will apply it no matter what.

Perhaps, but not with impunity. Each time they violate the law and my rights, it's more of a financial claim on my part. Additionally, criminal claims often apply.

It's interesting that those of us that want to "go against the grain", used to be patriots, now we're "extremest". This country was founded on rebelion, and look at it now! The founding fathers HAVE to be rolling over in their graves.

Agreed. If we rigged them up to an electrical turbine, we could probably use the rotational force to power most of the continent.

But thats here, so like I said, I hope that works where you are, perhaps there would be a little justice left in this world.

Ultimately, injustice is impossible in metaphysical terms. It just often doesn't appear so. Nobody "gets away" with anything, ultimately. Law attempts to apply those spiritual principles on earth, and the degree to which it models them is the degree to which interim justice is achieved. It's what judicial types refer to as "harmony" with a higher law. Consider: if there were absolutely no justice, no righteousness, no law-abidance anywhere, life on this planet would be impossible. So there's no getting away from it completely. Be of good cheer.


- Satori

[Shoonra]

also "interpret" that because statutes involve "persons", that they also regard people living in Japan, or India? I would suppose not. That, to my understanding, is why the "Supreme Court" said what it did in this case cite, also listed above.

{quote:}
"All codes, rules and regulations are applicable to the government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking in due process ..." Rodriques v Ray Donavan [U.S. Department of Labor,] 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 [1985] {unquote}

Do you take issue with any or all of this "Supreme Court" determination? If so, what issue?

- Satori

This is about a reliable as anything else I've seen on this thread.

It would help, of course, to get the case name right: Rodrigues v. Donovan (9th Cir 1985) 769 F.2d 1344.

It would also help not to attribute it to the wrong court: It's the Ninth Circuit, not the Supreme Court. The case did not go to the Supreme Court.

And then, of course, it would help if the words enclosed in quotation marks had actually been said. Even with a pin cite to a page, neither of the two sentences in the quotation marks appear anywhere in the court decision. In fact, WestLaw couldn't find them in ANY court decision, state or federal, anywhere in the US at any date.

As a matter of fact, the case itself held that a former federal employee, whose Workers Comp benefits were suspended when he was investigated for filing false disability reports, could not sue for resumption of his benefits until he had exhausted his administrative remedies. Even the losing plaintiff did not use the words enclosed in quotation marks; they are nowhere in the decision.

Taking the pretended quotation itself, codes such as the United States Code apply generally to everyone inside or outside the government, as appropriate to the particular provisions involved, whether citizen or non-citizen, etc. Rules, such as court rules, apply to everyone participating in a court case, both sides and the judge (and the jury, if there is one).

Regulations usually refer to the rules adopted by an executive agency for its operations, and apply to the agency itself and its employees, and to anyone involved in a transaction with the agency, as appropriate to the particular regulation involved.

Naturally, none of these may contravene the Constitution.

None of these can be said to apply only to the government and never to humans. None of these are intrinsically or inherently unconstitutional or lacking in due process.

In the Treaty of Paris, the King of England conceded all of his sovereign rights, in America to the ‘people’ not to the Government.

"People of a state are entitled to ***all the rights*** which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wend. 9, 20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansing...)_4_Wend._9,20

Julliard v. Greenman 110 U.S. 421 Opinion by J. Gray?J. Field dissenting March 3, 1884, Justice Field:

Congress can exercise no power by virtue of any supposed inherent sovereignty in the general government...The power to commit violence, perpetrate injustice, take private property by force without compensation to the owner, and compel the receipt of promises to pay in place of money, may be exercised, as it often has been, by irresponsible authority, but it cannot be considered as belonging to a government founded upon law. But be that as it may, there is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, intrusted to it; all else is withheld." [110 U.S. 421 at 466-7]

http://www.ark-of-salvation.org/julliard_2003.htm

[Satori]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

This is about a reliable as anything else I've seen on this thread.

It would help, of course, to get the case name right: Rodrigues v. Donovan (9th Cir 1985) 769 F.2d 1344.

It would also help not to attribute it to the wrong court: It's the Ninth Circuit, not the Supreme Court. The case did not go to the Supreme Court.

And then, of course, it would help if the words enclosed in quotation marks had actually been said. Even with a pin cite to a page, neither of the two sentences in the quotation marks appear anywhere in the court decision. In fact, WestLaw couldn't find them in ANY court decision, state or federal, anywhere in the US at any date.

Credit where it's due, Shoonra. I found the case cite online (there are several pages citing it, accessable via a Google search), and, lacking the ability to access WestLaw and Lexis-Nexis [sp?], and not finding a transcript of the case anywhere on the net, I had no known means of checking its accuracy. As I still don't, I must rely on the research you appear to have done. I appreciate your sharing the results of it here. I presume that when you searched for the "the two sentences in the quotation marks", you did not include the elipsis, despite the fact that doing so would have in all liklihood made your statement technically accurate. What did you find at that pin cite? I have no access to it.

Shoonra, my understanding is that your background makes you better and more able to effectively navigate statutes and case cites than I, who have no formal experience. We are each presented with difficulties in life which vary from one of us to the next. Counterintuitively enough for someone with an interest in law, I am currently learning the peace that accompanies making it an elevated priority to minimize bitter contention and acrimony as I interact with others. I share that fact with you simply to give you an opportunity to experience that peace as well should you find it worthwhile upon consideration to make such a choice yourself. Whatever you choose, thanks again for sharing the research you've done on this.

- Satori

[weishaupt1776]

Watch The Bogus Case Cites, guys. You will look like a complete ass if you put those things in your papers

[UGA Lawdog]

Shoonra is quite correct. I just happen to be at a law library, and I read the entire text of the Rodrigues v. Donovan case in its entirety. The purported quote appears nowhere in the text thereof.

In all due fairness, the Joe Sixpacks of the world do not have access to online legal documentation and law libraries as do the legal beagles with their multitude of staff researchers. Perhaps, in the future, it would be wise to refer to the court cites found on the internet as ‘caveat emptor’ with no guarantee of either being accurate or authentic.

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by free_martha

In all due fairness, the Joe Sixpacks of the world do not have access to online legal documentation and law libraries as do the legal beagles with their multitude of staff researchers. Perhaps, in the future, it would be wise to refer to the court cites found on the internet as ‘caveat emptor’ with no guarantee of either being accurate or authentic.

Perhaps, in the future, it would be wise to VERIFY material being cited, to save the time of other people to research and correct it.

One of many excellent free sources for case citations and text of laws is http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/

Perhaps the Administrator could establish a thread or other resource which would identify good links to other free sources of verified information.

[scooterdog]

Thats why we have "law libraries" to look this stuff up. There are ALOT of cases that aren't online. Of course, if you live in a town like I do, which they have refused to update the libraries since 1995, then you have to rely on the net. 11 years behind, that is a fact people.

If you read close on sites like "Findlaw" or "Megalaw", they admit the cases my be "inaccurate". I've not ran into a problem yet, but one darn sure could.