ROWE REGULATORY REVIEW CAPACITY TO SUE AND BE SUED Public Vs. Private Capacity / State vs. U.S. Citizenship (status) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Title III, Pleadings and Motions, Rule 9(a) Capacity, states, in pertinent part: When an issue is raised as to the legal existence of a named party, or the partys capacity to be sued, or the authority of a party to be sued, the party desiring to raise the issue shall do so by specific negative averment (see (B) below), which shall include supporting particulars (see (A) below). The isue raised is also referred to as Diversity of Citizenship and Conflict of Law. “[T]he tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals entitles each person, regardless of economic or social status, to an unequivocal warning from the legislature as to whether he is within the class of persons subject to vicarious liability. Congress cannot be deemed to have intended to punish anyone who is not plainly and unmistakably within the confines of the statute... Statutory policy and purpose are not constitutional substitutes for the requirement that the legislature specify with reasonable certainty those individuals it desires to place under the interdict of the Act. (United States V Dotterweich 320 US 277; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 628, 10; S.Ct. 625, 626, 33 L.Ed. 1080; United States v. Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476,485, 37 S.Ct. 407, 61 L.Ed. 857. FN1 United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95, 5 L.Ed. 37)). It is well-settled that a person Cannot be held “Criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed. (TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001), nor may he be required to do that which is impossible, immoral, or criminal. The term person includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. A corporation is a person within the meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution. - Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75, Subchapter D, Sec. Sec. §7343: A SUPPORTING PARTICULARS Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person. (Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 36)The natural body or such as is formed by the laws of God, [is] as distinguished from an artificial body or (creature of statute or public office) such as is devised by human laws. (1 Bl. Com. 467). Any human being... is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. “ (Natural Person Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716). Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216. Thus, in law, a body is considered a natural person formed by the laws of God... as distinguished from an artificial body, or corporate person, specifying that an artificial body is devised, and regulated by human laws. And, as such, An artificial body can do only what is authorized by its charter or by law... a natural person or body, whatever is not forbidden by law. (Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 177 (1868.)) This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit ...( Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386 (1798)) [E]very man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions [ unions or licensing boards ] formed by his fellowman without his consent. (Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338, 2 S.E. (1796) [S]tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether state, local, or federal. (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. ( ) ); The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound. (The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825); There can be no limitation on the power of the people of the United States. By their authority the State Constitutions were made, and by their authority the Constitution of the United States was established (Hauenstein vs Lynham 100 US 483 (1879));The people in their capacity of Sovereigns made and adopted the Constitution; and it binds the state governments without the states permission. (4 Wheat, 402); ... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing. (Luther v. Borden 48 US 1) All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with Gods laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process… (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law.” (Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261); “All legislation is prima facie territorial.” (USSC 213 US 347 (1909)) A State Citizen may invoke the rights, immunities, and defenses peculiar to his Sovereign state citizenship, appeal-able to federal court, when State action trespasses the rights of the individual. Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendants behalf. - ( Urtetiqui v. DArcy 34 US 692); The saving clause lets plaintiffs bring some maritime actions in state courts--but the diversity jurisdiction then lets defendants of diverse citizenship (americans who are not U.S. Citizen or Corperate State officers) from the plaintiff remove the actions to federal courts (see Poirrier v Nickols Drilling Co. 648 F 2d 1063, 1982 AMC 1514 (1981)), where they are heard on the diversity side (including jury trial), and not on the non-jury admiralty side.” All cases involving prize capture, salvage, or revenue, are the exclusive Jurisdiction of federal admiralty court, “savings to suitor all other protections and defenses to which they are otherwise entitled.” ( See also Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. D.Puerto Rico 1970)); [O]fficers of the state... clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the state... who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal court of equity from such action. (HASTINGS v. SELBY OIL & GAS CO., 319 U.S. 348 (1943)) B NEGATIVE AVERMENT This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use . . . A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested . . . not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons . . . The law of persons is the law of status or condition. -- American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910.; The word person, in legislation, is employed as a catchall in the courts, when in fact such over broad application in the courts with respect to various classes of persons among the public, exceeds legislative authority for the following reasons: Supreme Court, in numerous instances, has reluctantly overturned the rulings of inferior State supreme courts, maintaining that the word person in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. ( Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice 612 F. 2d 417, 425 (1979)). The term person includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. A corporation is a person within the meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of the United States Constitution. - Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75, Subchapter D, Sec. Sec. §7343: Government admits that often the word person is used in such a sense as not to include the [citizen or] sovereign but urges that... the term should be held to embrace government [and creatures of statute, representatives, employees, agents, officers, and offices, created by government and not by God]. (United States v. Cooper Corp. 318 US 600 (1941); United States v. Fox 94 US 315; United States v. Mine Workers 330 US 258 (1947); The word ‘person’ as used and employed in most statutory language [and civil law] is ordinarily construed to exclude the [citizen or] sovereign, and that for one as such to be bound by statute, they must be specifically named. ( Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653 (1979); Will v. Michigan state Police 491 U.S. 58, 105 L.Ed.2nd 45 (1989); U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530) ; unless the context indicates otherwise - 1 U.S.C. Sec. 1, 2; Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)).
Posted on: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 06:06:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015