Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

venue

Expand Messages
  • one
    Are you saying, I have the power to declare that you live in foreign country? No, but Congress has that power. It s called naturalization. It can be
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "Are you saying, I have the power to declare that you live in foreign
      country?"

      No, but Congress has that power. It's called naturalization. It can be
      performed individually or collectively. A collective naturalization
      could even be a National Secret, after 1947, if not before.

      Here are important little known facts of law precedent:
      1. An answer to be good and valid must justify at the place name or
      venue at which the plaintiff hath complained: Wright v. Ramscot, 1
      Saunders, 84, King's Bench, 1667.
      2. venue now (around Bacon's time) means "the place of trial for an
      action". 40 Cyc. 11. though it originally meant the place from which
      the jurors came.
      3. Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brockenborough, 203, Fed. Cas. No.. 8411
      United States Circuit Court, Virginia 1811. Jefferson as President
      seized Livingston's land in New Orleans, a territory, on the legal
      theory, in virtue of the French law then obtaining in Louisiana, that
      title to it lay in the United States. Livingston served Jefferson in
      Virginia seeking recovery. The question was personal jurisdiction
      (cognizance) in the court for the District of Virgina whose local
      jurisdiction was the boundaries of that State. Local is distinguished
      from transitory. The significance of local here lies in the cause
      being a trespass of land close or quare clausem frigit. Facts of
      transitory nature may be stated as having occurred at one place and
      proved as occurring at any other.

      Marshal: The rules of venue is a fiction of unwritten law invented by
      the judges in the interest of justice (in the change from all actions
      being local to all personal actions being subject to the King's jury if
      within the realm). It has no statutory authority.

      4. McKenna V. Fisk , 1 How. 241, 11 L. ed. 117, Supreme Court of the
      United States, 1843. The venue for trial is a legal fiction, devised
      for the furtherance of justice, and cannot be traversed. (It is an
      established rule that, in transitory actions, a venue is only necessary
      to be laid to give a place for trial. Such a venue is indispensable;
      for without, it would not appear in what county the trial was to take
      place, nor could a jury be summoned to try the issue. [Authorities many
      omitted]) "Crimes are in their nature local, and the jurisdiction of
      crimes is local. And so as to the rights of real property, the subject
      being fixed and immovable. But, personal injuries are of a transitory
      nature and sequuntur forum rei. And, though, in all declarations of
      trespass, it is laid contra pacem regis, yet that is only matter of form
      and not traversable. " Rafael v. Verlst. 2 W. Bl. 1055 The same
      doctrine with respect to local and transitory actions has been
      repeatedly affirmed in the courts of the States of this Union. Glen v.
      Hodges, 9 Johns 67; Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. 134; 7 Am. Dec. 445.
      In a transitory action of trespass, it is only necessary to lay a venue
      for a place of trial, and that such venue is good without stating where
      the trespass was in fact committed, with a scilecet of the county in
      which the action is brought.

      5. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowper, 161, King's Bench, 1775. It [venue] is a
      fiction of form; every country has its forms, which are invented for the
      furtherance of justice; and it is a certain rule that a fiction of law
      shall never be contradicted so as to defeat the end for which it was
      invented, but for every other purpose it may be contradicted. " Mansfield

      6. There is exception to the venue rule where the place is matter of
      description. That is, In Mostyn v. Fabrigas the trespass was alleged to
      have happened at Minorea, to wit, at London. But a part of the injury
      complained of was the banishment of the plaintiff from the island of
      Minorea to Carthagena, which made it necessary for the plaintiff in
      declaring to notice the real place where the wrong was done. But for
      that circumstance the plaintiff might have stated it to be in the county
      of Middlesex.
      ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
      Now, Congress has created fictitious places for purposes of taxation,
      such as WA, VA, TX, MA, ME and for purposes of carrying on the business
      of the post office and, as they say in all these statutes, "for other
      purposes", unspecified.

      So, I said, "there is no real choice or condition for election for a
      person to be bodily in or on Texas and not resident in STATE OF TEXAS
      and TX." You are put there for trial by the venue fiction of law.

      Yet, it's true that it has been held Congress cannot naturalize a
      natural born Citizen. However, the 14th amendment declares "All persons
      born or naturalized" . And Congress can enforce it by appropriate
      legislation. Further, after the civil war, Congress expanded the power
      of naturalization from its original grant to naturalize persons into a
      several State to naturalizing persons into "the United States". This
      has been noticed indirectly by the Supreme Court in US v NY, where it
      was noted States under this Constitution retained the right to determine
      who shall be citizens thereof. That is, naturalization ought to proceed
      upon application for State Citizenship under a uniform Congressional rule.

      There is another consideration, too. There are statutes which have no
      force and effect, such as the statute which declares federal reserve
      notes can be redeemed for lawful money. Maybe, Congress did erect all
      this verbiage in Title 26 to give the legal appearance of a remedy just
      as the statute for redemption of notes give the legalappearance of a
      remedy. Until, a statutory remedy is vindicated by a court, though,
      it's just verbiage. And courts enforcing statutes do not act judicially
      and, generally, defer to the agency. And there is no remedy I know of
      for a court enforcing statutes which ignores them.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.