Some good cases etc for Contracts. Everything revolves around contracts! The truth is to be found in the Constitution for the United States of America at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, “No state shall pass any law impairing the Obligation of Contracts”. There are more U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this constitutional provision than any other. This is not at all surprising because it applies to all of the states and to the United States Government and to all nations of the world. It is the basis of world trade, and the reason the Constitution, as a binding international trade treaty, was written. Modification of Private Contracts: The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law conforms with the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983). First, the state regulation must not substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem. 459 U.S. at 411-13 Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. This test is similar to rational basis review. If someone makes a legal, or lawful, claim and it is not disputed, then the assertion is construed to be true. Mitchell v. United States - No. 97-7541 Argued December 9, 1998. Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward (1819). In the summer of 1816 the legislature of New Hampshire had removed Dartmouth Colleges charter and given it a new one. The issue before the Court was whether a corporate charter was a contract. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that it was and that, according to the Constitution, no state could impair the obligation of a contract. This decision had far-reaching effects. It freed corporations once and for all from state interference with their charters, and investors became more willing to invest in such enterprises. It thus directly promoted the growth of American corporate capitalism. A Lien is defined as an Affidavit of Obligation of Contract. Legitimately established Liens, unchallenged during the first three months of their existence, are said to be default matured to the rank of an account receivable. Liens unchallenged for three years on the international money market are said to be seasoned three years, and a solid asset. “ Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments” United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61. Where a person can prove that he or she would likely have received a gift or a specific profit from a transaction, but for Defendants interference, he or she would be entitled to damages for tortuous interference. Harmon v. Harmon, 404 A.2d 1020, 1024 (Me. 1979). The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906): Liability in damages for unconstitutional or otherwise illegal conduct has the very desirable effect of deterring such conduct. Indeed, this was precisely the proposition upon which 42 USC section 1983 was enacted. Judges may be punished criminally for willful deprivations of constitutional right on the strength of 18 USC Section 241- 242. (Civil Rights) (Imbler vs Pachtman, U.S. 47 L.Ed. 2nd 128, 96 S.Ct.) This section was passed to enforce U.S.C.A. Constitution Amendment 14 and to protect form interference the rights secured thereby, as well as other constitutional rights; it is directed against conspiracies of private persons; and there is no requirement that conspiracy be under color of law. (Civil Rights) U.S.C.A. 1972 Pocket P. 1675, Title 42, Sec. 1995, Note 28.242-248 The Seventh Circuit of Appeals has held that a public official does not have immunity simply because he operates in a discretionary situation. It indicated that public servants are to be held liable when they abused their discretion or acted in a way that is arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly unreasonable. (Civil Rights) Littleton v. Berbling (1972, Ca. 7 Ill.), 468 F.2d 389.36.304-308 Governmental immunity is not defense in suits brought under this section making liable every person who under color or state law deprives another person of his civil rights. Westberry v. Fisher, DC Me., 1970, 309 F.Sup. 95.18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 241-242- Crimes and Criminal . ..law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991). Purpose: Generally, this section further protects civil action for deprivation of rights protects constitutional rights from invasion by persons acting under state or federal authority. (Civil Rights) Weise v. Reisner, DC Wis. 1970, 318 F.Sup. 580, quoted from U.S.C.A. 1972 pocketpart, P. 40 Title 42, Sec. 1983, Note Paragraph 8,,,,,. An conspiracy is actionable under 42 USC 1985, when there has been an actual of denial of due process.(Civil Rights) Jennings v. Nester (1954, Ca. 7 Ill.) 217, F.2d 153, CERT DEN 349 U.S. 958, 99 L.Ed. 1281, 75 S.ct. 888.Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425. As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. “Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. ” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752… Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened. ” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. Labor is property. Bowers v. Kerbugh Empire Co. 271 US 170, 174. The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the fruit. The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed... and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit. Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.}. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: Article One Section 10 of the United States Constitution Clause 1: Contracts Clause; No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. The Supreme Court stated in summary:The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to long before the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47(1905). All government officials and agencies, including all State legislatures, are bound by the Constitution and Shall NOT create any defacto 1871 1933 banking act laws which counter the Constitution: The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1895, ruled unconstitutional a federal law... containing unlawful income taxes, senate and house Bills ones birth certificate , statutes and codes with arguments concerning class warfare and the definition of a direct tax. Herein...Ohios Doctrine of Governmental Immunity was held unconstitutional and others to numerous to mention. (Civil Rights) (Krause vs Ohio, app 2d 1 L.N.W. 2d 321 1971.) Reich vs State Highway Dept. 336, Mich 617: 194 N.W. 2d 700 197Employees of a city or state are not immune from suit under statute relating civil rights for deprivations of rights on ground that officials were acting within the scope of their ground that officials were acting within the Scope of their responsibilities of performing a discretionary act. (Bunch vs Barnett 376 F.Sup. 23.)Title 28 Section 1391, this section makes it possible to bring actions against government officials and agencies in district court outside D.C. (Civil Rights) (Norton vs Mcshane 14 L.Ed. 2d 274.)A suit in detinue or replevin in personam should lie to gain possession of property seized by the state. (Civil Rights) Stephen, Pleading (3rd Am ed) p. 47, 52, 69, 74; Ames Lectures on legal history, p. 64, 71; Wilkins v. Despard, 5 Term Rep- 112; Roberts v. Withered, % Mod. 193, 12 Mod. 92. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby... The Senators and Representatives and members of the State legislature, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and the several States, shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The Constitution of the united States of America, Article VI, Cl 2, 3.5 U.S.C. 2906, 3331,The oath of office taken by an individual under section 3331 of this title shall be delivered by him to, and preserved by, the House of Congress, agency, or court to ..Sec. 3331-3333. Oath of office - Subchapter II - Oath of Office - U.S. Code - Title 5: Government Organization and Employees - January 01, 2011 - Order: 2 - 19265805 ...To protect the people from their elected and public employees,,Many of our people seem to believe that their state government has jurisdiction to stop the common law Grand Juries. However,the state government only has authority over statutory (ie. State) law, not common law. The common law of England was used to establish the U.S. Constitution, so it existed before it and, thus, it is superior to it. The common law is time immemorial. 18 USC § 2381 - Treason | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal … law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) The liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes economic liberty. Also the defendants took an oath to the constitution to uphold the constitution they failed. Article 1 sec. 10 states clearly their can be no interference with contract yet the defendants have done show by refusal to uphold their own contract to enforce and uphold the constitution. Mitchell v. United States - No. 97-7541 Argued December 9, 1998 If someone makes a legal, or lawful, claim and it is not disputed, then the assertion is construed to be true. Within the Admiralty” Admiralty Extension Act Title 46 U.S.A. Appendix chapter 19-A § 740 1. a matter must be expressed to be resolved. 2. in Commerce Truth is sovereignty. 3. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit. 4. An un-rebutted Affidavit stands as Truth in commerce. 5. An un-rebutted Affidavit becomes the Judgment in Commerce. The freedom of contract is implicit in the Due Process. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905). The Contract Clause of the Constitution applies to both public and private corporations. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). The separate source of substantive law must constitute a “money-mandating constitutional provision, statute or regulation that has been violated, or an express or implied contract with the United States.” Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.3d 1545, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order for a claim against the United States founded on statute or regulation to be successful, the provisions relied upon must contain language which could fairly be interpreted as mandating recovery of compensation from the government.” Cummings v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 475, 479 (1989), aff’d, 904 F.2d 45 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976). (stating that a “grant of a right of action must be made with specificity”). Additionally, a plaintiff “who seeks redress in the Court of Federal Claims must present a claim for ‘actual, presently due money damages from the United States.’” Terran v. Sec’y of HHS, 195 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting King, 395 U.S. At 3). Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action {Volenti non fit injuria}; Consent makes the law {Consensus facit legem}. When state and government engage in business, the laws of business apply, as in a corporation law. Bank of US. v. Planters Bank 22 US. 904. By observation we can deduce how something, anything works (Victor Scauberger) 1. You can only control that which you create. (Create a child) 2. You can not control that which you did not create. (State has no control over child) 3. All of commerce is based on Title. (Birth certificate, MSO, copyright) 4. The only true Title to anything is the MSO. (Geneses 1 verse 1) 5. When you register anything anywhere you give up Title. (Car, Child, vote) 6. There is no Money/ (there is no Spoon). (Only credit in circulation Public, and private) 7. There is no involuntary Servitude. (Amistad, Joseph) 8. First in line is first in time. (Recorded into public record at county) 9. Do not interfere with commerce. 10. Allow nothing to come between you and your Creator. (Eliminating paganism)(Examples) A. My Divorce B. Biker Billy Lane C speeding with MCO Applying these rules can help us to understand and even master commerce. A. Commerce as we know it began in Babylon; we see how commerce began with Daniel’s interpretation of king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream B. The dream is about a body and the body is clad in various metals from head to toe, each metal represents a civilization from Babylon to present, the important part of the dream is the body, or corp. C. The body has to do with all of commerce as we know it, Corporations are dead bodies. I can just picture reptiles like komodo dragons, all fighting each other for a bigger piece of the body. Commercial rules are in Probate because dead bodies, dead corporations are all in probate. (All commercial contracts are in Probate (except) a will is the only commercial agreement that survives death)The reptile mind creates an illusion of a shortage and sells the solution at an exorbitant price. David Icke – “getting living beings to worship corps is a bonus”. D. How many people have an interest in Real estate? Homeowners, Renters?Give examples of selling an interest in real estate. “New York apartments” E. Here is how the rules of commerce in probate apply to Real estate the buying and selling of interests in Land begins with a landing, and then a survey, and finally a selling of an interests in the survey, and never has anything to do with the Earth. Commerce Under The UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) UNITED STATES vs. MESSIER & ROBINSON — Case No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH Commerce under the UCC utilizes a mode of interacting and resolving disputes wherein all matters are executed under oath by sworn Affidavits executed under the penalty of perjury as true, correct, and complete. 1. Any written statement above your signature is a Commercial Affidavit. People utililize written or oral Affidavits (statements) every day whether they realize it or not. 2. An affidavit is one’s solemn expression of his truth. 3. When you issue an affidavit you get the power of an affidavit. You also incur the liability involved. 4. An unrebutted affidavit becomes judgment in commerce. 5. Proceedings consist of contests of commercial affidavits wherein the unrebutted points in the end stand as truth to which judgment of law applies. 6. Commercial Law is pre-judicial and non-judical. 7. A claim can be satisfied only through (1) rebuttal by affidavit point by point; (2) resolution by jury; or (3) payment or performance of the claim. 8, The conflict between Commercial Affidavits gives a clean basis for resolving disputes. Per quod /pgr kw6d/. Lat. Whereby. When the declaration in an action of tort, after stating the acts complained of, goes on to allege the consequences of those acts as a ground of special damage to the plaintiff, the recital of such consequences is prefaced by these words, per quod, whereby; and sometimes the phrase is used as the name of that clause of the declaration or complaint. At the common law, per quod acquired two meanings in the law of defamation: when used in the frame of reference of slander it meant proof of special damages was required and when used in the frame of reference of libel it meant that proof of extrinsic circumstances was required. General Motors Corp. v. Piskor, 27 Md.App. 95, 340 A.2d 767, 783. Words actionable per quod are those not actionable per se upon their face, but are only actionable in consequence of extrinsic facts showing circumstance.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:28:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015