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

a man to trade

Expand Messages
  • one
    UNITED STATES v. RHODES FEDERAL CASES, Case No. 16,151 Book 27, Page 785 Abb. U.S. 28 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22 7 Am. Law Reg. (N.S.) 233 1866 Circuit
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      UNITED STATES v. RHODES



      FEDERAL CASES, Case No. 16,151



      Book 27, Page 785



      Abb. U.S. 28



      1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22



      7 Am. Law Reg. (N.S.) 233



      1866



      Circuit Court, D. Kentucky





      At page 788-790, Circuit Justice Swayne (he also sat on the Supreme
      Court) goes into the history of citizenship as to its relationship with
      the common-law prior to the Revolutionary War and up to and after the
      adoption of Amendment XIII to the Constitution of the United States.



      The thirteenth amendment is the last one made. It trenches directly
      upon the power of the states and of the people of the states. It is the
      first and only instance of a change in the organic law. It destroyed
      the most important relation between capital and labor in all the states
      where slavery existed. It affected deeply the fortunes of a large
      portion of their people. It struck out of existence millions of
      property. The measure was the consequence of a strife of opinions, and
      a conflict of interests, real or imaginary, as old as the constitution
      itself. These elements of discord grew in intensity. Their violence
      was increased by the throes and conversions of a civil war. The
      impetuous vortex finally swallowed up the evil, and with it forever the
      power to restore it. Those who insisted upon the adoption of this
      amendment were animated by no mean spirit of vengeance. They sought
      security against the recurrence of a sectional conflict. They felt that
      much was due to the African race for the part it had borne during the
      war. They were also impelled by a sense of right and a strong sense of
      justice to an unoffending and long-suffering people. These
      considerations must not be lost of when we come to examine the amendment
      in order to ascertain its proper construction.

      The act of congress confers citizenship. Who are citizens, and what are
      there rights? The constitution uses the word “citizen” and “natural
      born citizen;” but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has
      attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so
      much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject. In
      Johnson’s Dictionary, “citizen” is thus defined: “(1) A freeman of a
      city; not a foreigner; not a slave; (2) a townsman, a man to trade;
      not a gentleman; (3) an inhabitant; a dweller in any place.”

      The definitions given by other English lexicographers are substantially
      the same. In Jacob’s Law Dictionary (Ed. 1783), the only definition
      given is as follows: “Citizens (cives) of London are either freemen or
      such as reside and keep a family in the city, etc.; and some are
      citizens and freemen, and some are not, who have not so great privileges
      as others. The citizens of London may prescribe against a statute,
      because their liberties are reinforced by statute.” 1 Rolle, 105.

      Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. “The word
      ‘civis’ taken in the strictest sense, extends only to him that is
      entitled to the privileges of a city of which he is a member, and that
      in some sense there is a distinction between a citizen and an inhabitant
      within the same city. for every inhabitant there is not a citizen.”
      Scot v. Schwartz, Comyn, 677. “A citizen is a freeman who has kept a
      family in a city.” Roy v. Hanger, 1 Rolle, 138, 149. “The term
      ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term
      subject, in the common law; and the change of phrases has entirely
      resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been
      changed from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who
      before was a subject of the king is now a citizen of a state.” State v.
      Manuel, 4 Dev. & B. 26.

      In Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 247, the supreme court of the
      United States said: “During the war each party claimed the allegiance
      of the natives of the colonies of the colonies as due exclusively to
      itself. The Americans insisted upon the allegiance of all born within
      the states respectively; and Great Britain asserted an equally exclusive
      claim. The treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed
      at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All
      those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American
      states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British
      crown, and those who them adhered to the British crown, were deemed and
      held subjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating
      between the states on each side, and the inhabitants thereof; in the
      language of the seventh article, it was a ‘firm and perpetual peace
      between his Britannic majesty and the said state, and between the
      subjects of one and citizens of the other.’ Who then were subjects or
      citizens was to be decided by the state of facts. If they were
      originally subjects of Great Britain and then adhered to her and were
      claimed by her as subjects, the treaty deemed them such; if they were
      originally British subjects, but then adhering to the states, the treaty
      deemed them citizens.”

      All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born
      subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States
      are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is
      the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as
      well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the
      universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in
      theory born in allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and
      slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent,
      Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v. Clarke,
      1 Sand. Ch. 583.

      The common law has made no distinction on account of race or color.
      None is now made in England, nor in any other Christian country of
      Europe. The fourth of the Articles of Confederation declared that the
      “free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and
      fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges
      and immunities of free citizens of the United States,” &c. On the 25th
      of June, 1778, when these articles were under consideration by the
      congress, South Carolina moved to amend this fourth article by inserting
      after the word “free” and before the word “inhabitants,” the word
      “white.” Two states voted for the amendment and eight against it. The
      vote of one was divided. Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 575. When
      the constitution was adopted, free men of color were clothed with the
      franchise of voting in at least five states, and were part of the people
      whose sanction breathed into it the breath of life. Scott v. Sanford,
      Id. 573; State v. Manuel, 2 Dev. & B. 24, 25.

      “‘Citizens’ under our constitution and laws means free inhabitants born
      within the United States or naturalized under the laws of congress.” 1
      Kent, Comm. 292, note. We find no warrant for the opinion that this
      great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United
      States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject
      only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

      It is further said in the note in 1 Kent, Comm., before referred to:
      “If a slave born in the United States be manumitted or otherwise
      lawfully discharged from bondage, or if a black man born in the United
      States becomes free, he becomes thenceforward a citizen, but under such
      disabilities as the laws of the several states may deem it expedient to
      prescribe to persons of color.”

      In the case of State v. Manuel, supra, it was remarked: “It has been
      said that by the constitution of the United States, power of
      naturalization has been conferred exclusively upon congress, and
      therefore it cannot be competent for any state by its municipal
      regulations to make a citizen. But what is naturalization? It is the
      removal of the disabilities of alienage. Emancipation is the removal of
      the incapacity of slavery. The latter depends wholly upon the internal
      regulations of the state. The former belongs to the government of the
      United States. It would be dangerous to confound them.” Id. p. 25.

      This was a decision of the supreme court of North Carolina, made in the
      year 1836. The opinion was delivered by Judge Gaston. He was one of
      the most able and learned judges this country has produced. The same
      court in 1848, Chief Justice Ruffin delivering the opinion, referred to
      the case of State v. Manuel, and said: “That case underwent a very
      laborious investigation by both the bench and the bar. The case was
      brought here by appeal, and was felt to be one of very great importance
      in principle. It was considered with an anxiety and care worthy of the
      principle involved, and which give it a controlling influence upon all
      questions of similar nature.” State v Newsom, 5 Ired. 253.

      We cannot deny the assent of our judgment to the soundness of the
      proposition that the emancipation of a native born slave by removing the
      disability of slavery made him a citizen. If these views are correct,
      the provision in the act of congress was unnecessary, and is
      inoperative. Granting this to be so, it was well, if congress had the
      power, to insert it, in order to prevent doubts and differences of
      opinion which might otherwise have existed upon the subject. We are
      aware that a majority of the court, in the case of Scott v. Sanford,
      arrived at conclusions different from those we have expressed. But in
      our judgment these points were not taken before them. They decided that
      the whole case, including the agreed facts, was open to their
      examination, and that Scott was a slave. This central and controlling
      fact excluded all other questions, and what was said upon them by those
      of the majority, with whatever learning and ability the argument was
      conducted, is no more binding upon this court as authority than the
      views of the minority upon the same subjects. Carroll v. Carroll, 16
      How. [57 U.S.] 287.

      The fact one is a subject or a citizen determines nothing at to his
      rights as such. They vary in different localities and according to
      circumstances. Citizenship has no necessary connection with the
      franchise of voting, eligibility to office, or indeed with any other
      rights, civil or political. Women, minors, and persons non compos are
      citizens, and not the less so on account of their disabilities. In
      England, not to advert to the various local regulations, the new reform
      bill gives the right of voting for members of parliament to about eight
      hundred thousand persons from whom it was before withheld. There, the
      subject is wholly within the control of parliament. Here, until the
      thirteenth amendment was adopted, the power belonged entirely to the
      states, and they exercised it without question from any quarter, as
      absolutely as if they were not members of the Union.

      The first ten amendments to the constitution which are in the nature of
      a bill of rights, apply only to the national government. They were not
      intended to restrict the power of the states. Barrow v. Mayor, etc., 7
      Pet. [32 U.S.] 247; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. [61 U.S.] 84; Murphy
      v. People, 2 Cow. 818.

      Our attention has been called to several treaties by which Indians were
      made citizens; to those by which Louisiana, Florida, and California
      were acquired, and to the act passed in relation to Texas. All this was
      done under the war and treaty making powers of the constitution, and
      those which authorize the national government to regulate the territory
      and other property of the United States, and to admit new states into
      the Union. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. [26 U.S.] 511; Cross v.
      Harrison, 16 How.[57 U.S.] 164; 2 Story, Const. 158.

      These powers are not involved in the question before us, and it is not
      necessary particularly to consider them. A few remarks, however, in
      this connection will not be out of place. A treaty is declared by the
      constitution to be the “law of the land.” What is unwarranted or
      forbidden by the constitution can no more be done in one way than in
      another. The authority of the national government it limited, though
      supreme in the sphere of its operation. As compared with the state
      governments the subjects upon which it operates are few in number. Its
      objects are all national. It is one wholly of delegated powers. The
      states possess all which they have not surrendered; the government of
      the Union only such as the as the constitution has given to it,
      expressly or incidentally, and by reasonable intendment. Whenever such
      an act of that government is challenged a grant of power must be shown,
      or the act is void.

      “The power to make colored persons citizens has been actually exercised
      in repeated and important instances. See the treaty with Choctaws of
      September 27, 1830, art. 14; with the Cherokees of May 20, 1836, art
      12; and the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, of February 2, 1848, art. 8.”
      Scott v. Sanford, 19 how. [60 U.S.] 486, opinion of Curtis, J.

      See also, the treaty with France of April 30, 1803, by which Louisiana
      was acquired (article 3); and the treaty with Spain of the 23rd of
      February, 1819, by which Florida was acquired (article 3). The article
      referred to in the treaty with France and in the treaty with Spain is in
      the same language. In both the phrase “inhabitants” is used. No
      discrimination is made against those, in whole or in part, of the
      African race. So in the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo (articles 8 and
      9), no reference is made to color.

      Our attention has been called to three provisions of the constitution,
      besides the thirteenth amendment, each of which will be briefly adverted
      to.

      1. Congress has power “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
      Article 1, § 8. After considerable fluctuations of judicial opinion, it
      was finally settled by the supreme court that this power is vested
      exclusively in congress. Collet v. Collet, 2 Dall. [2 U.S.]294; U.S.
      v. Velati, Id 370; Golden v. Prince [Case No. 5,509]; Chirac v.
      Chirac, 2 Wheat. [15 U.S.] 259; Houston v. Moore, Id 49; Federalist No.
      32.

      An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born
      subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth;
      denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D.
      Until the passage of a late act of parliament, naturalization in England
      was effected by a special statute in each case. The statutes were
      usually alike. The forms appears in Godfrey v. Dickson, Cro. Jac. 539,
      c. 7. Under the late act a resident alien may accomplish the object by
      a petition to the secretary of state for the home department.

      The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an
      indispensable element of the process. To make one of domestic birth a
      citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise
      of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this
      subject. Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story. Const. 44.

      In the exercise of this power congress has confined the law to white
      persons. No one doubts their authority to extend it to all aliens,
      without regard to race or color. But they are not bound to do so. As
      in other cases, it was for them to determine the extent and the manner
      in which the power given should be exercised. They could not exceed it,
      but they were not bound to exhaust it. It was well remarked by one of
      the dissenting judges, in Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 586, in
      regard to the African race:

      “The constitution has not excluded them, and since that has conferred on
      congress the power to naturalize colored aliens, it certainly shows
      color is not a necessary qualification for citizenship under the
      constitution of the United States.”

      It may be added that before the adoption of the constitution, the states
      possessed the power of making both those of foreign and domestic birth
      citizens, according to their discretion. This power, as to the former
      they surrendered. They did not as to the latter, and they still possess
      it.

      “The powers not delegated to the United States by this constitution, nor
      prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
      or to the people.” Const. Amend. What the several states under the
      original constitution only could have done, the nation has done by the
      thirteenth amendment. An occasion for the exercise of this power by the
      states may not, perhaps cannot, hereafter arise.

      2. “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges
      and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Const. art. 4, § 2.
      This provision of the constitution applies only to citizens going from
      one state to another. “It is obvious that if the citizens of each state
      were to be deemed aliens to each other, they could not take or hold real
      estate, or other privileges, except as other privileges.” “The
      intention of this clause was to confer on them, as one may say, a
      general citizenship, and to communicate all the privileges and
      immunities which the citizens of the same state would be entitled to
      under the same circumstances.” 2 Story, Const. § 187.

      Chancellor Kent says: “If citizens remove from one state to another,
      they are entitled to the privileges that persons of the same description
      are entitled to in the states to which the removal is made, and to none
      other.” 2 Kent, Comm. 36. This provision does not bear particularly
      upon the question before us, and need not be further considered.
    • Moisha Pippik
      Here are some other good cases regarding citizenship, and that of private citizens, and substantive rights. Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce,
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are some other good cases regarding citizenship,
        and that of private citizens, and substantive rights.

        Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce, from
        public to private)
        Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights, even
        as a public official)
        Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
        official)

        The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
        that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
        convenience. I can withdraw at any time, as well as
        engage at any time, and only I can determine this
        fact. Regarding the citizenship concept, we can be
        private citizens of public citizens, but not at the
        same time. And if we don't know the difference, we
        cannot claim one or the other, and the enemy will
        always classify you as a citizen they can regulate,
        which is a public citizen. This is commerce. Private
        property cannot be in commerce, only public property.
        We must expand our minds with the definition of
        property, that property as defined by the [Scriptures]. It
        is also defined and described any many great court
        cases, that property being life, liberty, and the
        pursuit of happiness. Our claim of citizenship(or
        distinction of citizenship) can and should be part of
        our property.

        Moisha


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • paradoxmagnus
        Maybe people should consider the POSSIBILITY that real & personal property does NOT INCLUDE private property . Just as public rights does NOT INCLUDE are
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 5, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Maybe people should consider the POSSIBILITY that "real & personal
          property" does NOT INCLUDE "private property".

          Just as "public rights" does NOT INCLUDE are UNALIENABLE RIGHTS which
          are "private rights".

          Patrick in California

          "Those who are SLAVES to DEFINITIONS are SUBJECT to REGULATION."--PKM
        • Frog Farmer
          ... It used to be that the people knew that The Merchants were a special class with their own law, and not of the people . The Law Merchant was applicable
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Moisha Pippik [mailto:moishanb@...] wrote:

            > Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce, from
            > public to private)

            It used to be that "the people" knew that The Merchants were a special
            class with their own law, and not "of the people". The Law Merchant was
            applicable only to merchants. Now they've gotten everyone to want to be
            a merchant, and under their international law.

            > Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights, even
            > as a public official)
            > Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
            > official)
            >
            > The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
            > that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
            > convenience.

            In other words it is possible, but in today's world, improbable if only
            because most cannot see any dichotomy. You and I and a few others could
            do it because we know the indicia of the two paradigms. Most couldn't
            see it if you handed out brochures and 8x10 glossies with pictures and
            arrows.

            > I can withdraw at any time, as well as
            > engage at any time, and only I can determine this
            > fact.

            This is because little goes on between your ears without you knowing
            about it! You are in command of the Time & Space Vessel Moisha Pippik.
            You can see the edge and decide which side you will operate upon. Most
            see no edge, no sides. Most do not see themselves as "in command".
            They do as they are told, and do not "make waves". The FRN economy is a
            wonder to behold.

            > Regarding the citizenship concept, we can be
            > private citizens of public citizens, but not at the
            > same time.

            Or our citizenship can be nobody's business until somebody can prove
            it's their business, which will be hard to do, and is hard to do now.

            > And if we don't know the difference, we
            > cannot claim one or the other, and the enemy will
            > always classify you as a citizen they can regulate,
            > which is a public citizen. This is commerce.

            Beautiful, isn't it? "VISA. It's where you want to be."

            > Private
            > property cannot be in commerce, only public property.
            > We must expand our minds with the definition of
            > property, that property as defined by the [Scriptures]. It
            > is also defined and described any many great court
            > cases, that property being life, liberty, and the
            > pursuit of happiness. Our claim of citizenship(or
            > distinction of citizenship) can and should be part of
            > our property.

            Yes, all rights are property. Labor is property, but people part with
            it for nothing and say they abhor slavery. Many say, "I may be being
            robbed, but I can just as easily rob somebody else." America has lost
            its old morality.

            Regards,

            FF
          • Michael Noonan
            ... Maybe there is something I am missing, but in reading Munn, all it seems to say is if one uses their private property for public purposes, a license is
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:

              > Here are some other good cases regarding
              > citizenship,
              > and that of private citizens, and substantive
              > rights.
              >
              > Munn v. Illinois(right to withdraw from commerce,
              > from
              > public to private)
              > Owens v. City of Independence(substantive rights,
              > even
              > as a public official)
              > Jersey City v. Hague(fiduciary duty of public
              > official)
              >
              > The reason I provide these cases is because it shows
              > that we can go in and out of the matrix, at our
              > convenience.

              Maybe there is something I am missing, but in reading
              Munn, all it seems to say is if one uses their
              private property for public purposes, a license is
              required. If not used for public purposes, no license
              is required.

              That is going "in and out of the martix?"

              My reading of Hague informs me that public officials
              have a fiduciary obligation to those who elected them.

              My impression in reading this post was that some sort
              of revelation was to be had. Perhaps my reading is
              too literal, but I fail to see the significance?





              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              TV dinner still cooling?
              Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
              http://tv.yahoo.com/
            • Moisha Pippik
              ... I believe what you are asking for is the silver bullet. You are searching for something that says, Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Michael Noonan <mn_chicago@...> wrote:


                > That is going "in and out of the martix?"
                >
                > My reading of Hague informs me that public officials
                > have a fiduciary obligation to those who elected
                > them.
                >
                > My impression in reading this post was that some
                > sort
                > of revelation was to be had. Perhaps my reading is
                > too literal, but I fail to see the significance?


                I believe what you are asking for is the silver
                bullet. You are searching for something that says,
                "Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
                specific question". Right?

                Well, I'll tell you my experience in using anything,
                if it doesn't make sense to me, but someone who truly
                cares has given me this information, I read, then
                reread, then break down each and every segment of what
                I have read, until I become completely convinced that
                it either has significance or is completely useless to
                me. Your statement reminds me of me not too long ago.
                Maybe it's youth and exuberance. I know I had to
                break my old way of thinking. I had to open up my
                mind to knew concepts. If these cases do not help you
                in whatever pursuit you are endeavoring, then I have
                taught you something, either that these cases have
                merit to you or they are simply a complete waste of
                your time. Either way you gained something.

                Munn v. Illinois tells me that we can withdraw from
                the public at any time, whether that be our body, or
                any other property that has been registered for public
                use. Kind of like being an employee of a company from
                8:OOam to 5:00pm, but not before or after. I for one
                don't even claim to be an employee for that long, but
                surely no longer that 8:00am to 5:00pm. My deed that
                was registered with the county recorders office, makes
                my home a commercial property, as residence is a
                commercial term. If I want to take my home out of the
                public realm, then I have to declare it to be private
                property. Private property cannot be regulated, nor
                can it be in commerce. Think of your body as
                property. Your birth certificate makes your body
                commercial, registered and regulated through the
                public government. However, you can dismiss this
                presumption/assumption/fact because you are in control
                of your body.

                I hope this lets you in on my thinking regarding this
                topic.

                Moisha





                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
                with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
                http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
              • Michael Noonan
                ... No. I stated that I may be too literal in my reading the cites provided, which is not the same as asking for the silver bullet. ... Being
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 16, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Moisha Pippik <moishanb@...> wrote:

                  > I believe what you are asking for is the silver
                  > bullet. You are searching for something that says,
                  > "Michael Noonan, here is the specific answer to your
                  > specific question". Right?

                  No. I stated that I may be too literal in my reading
                  the cites provided, which is not the same as asking
                  for "the silver bullet."

                  > I read, then reread, then break down each and every
                  > segment of what I have read, until I become
                  > completely convinced that it either has significance

                  > or is completely useless to me.

                  Being literal-minded, sometimes even several readings
                  does not lead to a break-through, but that is my own
                  dilemma.



                  > Maybe it's youth and exuberance.

                  I'm probably older than you.

                  I know I had to


                  > Munn v. Illinois tells me that we can withdraw from

                  > My deed that was registered with the county
                  > recorders office, makes my home a commercial
                  > property, as residence is a commercial term. If I
                  > want to take my home out of the public realm, then I

                  > have to declare it to be private property.

                  Thank you for the explanation. I will re-read Munn to
                  see if I gleaned that, or if I can now.

                  My point to you is that some, like me, are reading
                  challenged, as it were, when it comes to reading
                  between the lines. It is not laziness or being
                  unwilling to do the work, but I do appreciate your
                  input.


                  > I hope this lets you in on my thinking regarding
                  > this topic.

                  Thank you.

                  Cheers!



                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
                  with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
                  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.