ROWE REGULATORY REVIEW I think I can finally write this thing thats been on my desk for nearly two years. I found the citation Ive been looking for for so long. Bear in mind, a state cannot judge in any action in which it is also a party to suite, and cannot sue on behalf of the people, unless there is a real injured or damaged party, or you may file a counter complaint for deprivation of due process... which should result in what ??? The US Supreme Court ruled in Urtetiqui v. DArcy 34 US 692: 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. The saving clause lets plaintiffs bring some maritime actions in state courts--but the diversity jurisdiction then lets defendants of diverse citizenship 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.” Its the old Bait and switch trick. State citizens with constitutional claims against a state court can invoke federal jurisdiction, while state courts railroad those supposed officers they presume to be U.S. citizens, with limited rights and official duties to perform in accordance with commercial statutory obligations, that state citizens are not subject to, and do not by status in law qualify for violating. All those common law myths are true, but dont stand alone. You just have to put all the pieces of the puzzle together and see the whole picture. .
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 00:05:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015