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

Re: Nd help on case law on foreign law

Expand Messages
  • tthor.geo
    According to the courts , you have a faulty basic understanding of the law (invalid assumption; error, error; does not compute). [I don t believe you are
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      According to the 'courts', you have a faulty basic understanding of
      the law (invalid assumption; error, error; does not compute). [I
      don't believe you are going to FIND what you are looking for...]

      According to case law I have read: 'Citizens', 'citizens',
      and 'residents' of a state are entitled to all the rights of every
      other Citizen of that state.

      [In other words, you cannot 'import' a right that a particular state
      doesn't recognize within its borders and among its own Citizens.
      According to case law, your birth rights do NOT travel with you.
      {And it doesn't MATTER whether you agree or disagree with that
      position UNLESS you can convince a lot of 'courts' to ignore and
      REVERSE @200 years of 'precedent'.}

      So, in Ohio, you have all the rights that anyone else in Ohio has
      [and NO more].

      The only exceptions that I know of are: (1) IF a particular state's
      law is completely silent on an issue [like: the Statute is too new,
      or has never been examined before], one could bring in previous case
      law from a similarly-organized or neighboring state as 'authority'
      for a 'court' to consider. [Example: California Codes are based on
      New York State Codes, so previous case law, in New York,
      interpreting N.Y. State Codes COULD be 'persuasive', but
      not 'binding' in interpreting similar California Codes.] Note: the
      emphasis is on INTERPRETING/CONSTRUING, not on ENFORCING.

      (2) IF a state has adopted Federal Codes/Statutes/Acts/Codes as
      model legislation, the interpretations/opinions of Federal Courts
      would be 'binding' or 'conclusive' on the interpretation of a
      similar state Code section. Again, INTERPRETING/CONSTRUING, not
      ENFORCING.

      Moderator/Bear: I agree with tthor. His comments reflect my understanding.

      "rd" <nwo@...> wrote:
      >
      > I need help in finding case law.
      >
      > I want to find U.S. S.Ct. holdings or Ohio holdings in which
      foreign law can
      > be imported into one's state.
      >
      > The explanination is as follows:
      >
      > Due Process and Equal Protection. No person shall be deprived of
      life,
      > liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the
      equal protection of the laws.
      > Under U.S. Constitution IV, 2, I am entitled to Georgia, Illinois,
      and California rights.
    • one
      Pursuant to A4s1 & 2, many States require the courts to take judicial notice of the supreme decisions of the judicial department of other States. I have been
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Pursuant to A4s1 & 2, many States require the courts to take judicial
        notice of the supreme decisions of the judicial department of other
        States.

        I have been looking for a list of those which do and those which do not,
        for a while. Why all do not, I don't know. Rebellion to this
        Constitution, probably.

        The privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States are
        guaranteed to the citizens of each State. This is the unifying
        provision in this Constitution.


        Of course, if there are no citizens in the several States appearing in
        courts, this provision is defunct.
      • rd
        SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE PRECEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND DUE PROCESS FOR DEMAND TO QUASH I found from the Ohio Traffic Rules, R. 20, that the
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE PRECEPT OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS AND DUE PROCESS FOR DEMAND TO QUASH

           

          I found from the Ohio Traffic Rules, R. 20, that the rules allow other factors:

          R. 20 Procedure not Otherwise Specified

          If no procedure is specifically prescribed by these rules, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the applicable law apply.

           

          In turn, turning to the ORCr.P, Rule. 27:

          RULE 27. Proof of Official Record; Judicial Notice:  Determination of Foreign Law

          The proof of official records provisions of Civil Rule 44, and the judicial notice and determination of foreign law provisions of Civil Rule 44.1 apply in criminal cases.

          In turn, turning to the ORCv.P, Rule 44.1:

          RULE 44.1. Judicial Notice of Certain Law; Determination of Foreign Law

          (A) Judicial notice of certain law.

          (1) Judicial notice shall be taken of the rules of the supreme court of this state and of the decisional, constitutional, and public statutory law of this state.

          (2) A party who intends to rely on a municipal ordinance, a local rule of court, or an administrative regulation within this state shall give notice in his pleading or other reasonable written notice. The court in taking judicial notice of a municipal ordinance, a local rule of court, or an administrative regulation within this state may inform itself in such manner as it deems proper, and may call upon counsel to aid in obtaining such information. The court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law and shall be made by the court and not the jury. A court may, however, take judicial notice of its own rules or of a municipal ordinance within the territorial jurisdiction of the court without advance notice in the pleading of a party or other written notice.

          (3) A party who intends to rely on the decisional, constitutional, public statutory law, rules of court, municipal ordinances, or administrative regulations of any other state, territory, and jurisdiction of theUnited States shall give notice in his pleading or other reasonable notice. The court in taking judicial notice of the decisional, constitutional, public statutory law, rules of court, municipal ordinances, or administrative regulations of any other state, territory, and jurisdiction of the United States may inform itself in such manner as it deems proper, and may call upon counsel to aid in obtaining such information. The court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law, and shall be made by the court and not the jury.

          (B) Determination of foreign law. A party who intends to rely on the law of a foreign country shall give notice in his pleadings or other reasonable written notice. The court in determining the law of a foreign country may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party. The court's determination shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law and shall be made by the court and not the jury.

          So we see here that we have the beginnings of the statutory basis for the importation of foreign law of other jurisdictions, the several states.  See 44.1(A)(3) at “give notice” of reliance upon other state’s public policy.  Although, this rule states that the decision lies w/ the corrupt court “deems proper”.  (this should be consistent in all the state’s rules of court evenCalifornia )

          Now we apply the other hammer, the supreme law of the land, otherwise known as the Constitution of the United States of America , 1787. (Incidentally the presiding blk robe should have already given public notice of his solemn oath and also the prosecutor and claimant, perhaps at this point one should accept the pub. offering to contract to make it an indiv. & personal contract, like Spooner said)

          Article IV, Clause 2:

          The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

          This means obviously, the black letter is clear, that I here in Ohio do have the same privileges and immunities and rights as someone over there on the left coast does, like California .  Is there any question here?  Is there any question that each citizen shares the same rights etc. as any other no matter where they live?  Do you detect any discretion in the matter?  Do you think the reverse is true?

          Then coupled with an amendment to the same supreme law:

          Amendment 9:

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          Obviously, from the wording and more importantly the meaning that even though some rights are enumerated or stated in the fundamental instrument, the people of the several states have more rights that cannot be cut off or denied by only the mere mention of only a few of them.  So therefore, if someone is entitled to something as a right or privilege then that same property is shared and belongs to another in another state.

          As an example of these 2 precepts working together, since the right to breathe is not enumerated in the foundational law of the land, nevertheless, we the people do retain and possess it.  Further, should it be enjoyed or exercised in one state, it is to be enjoyed in another state.  I don’t believe it can be more fundamental than this and so obvious.  This lawful and fundamental principle is then carried to its logical conclusion as so well stated in Article IV, Clause 2 and the Ninth Amendment.  We all possess the same rights, etc. wherever we choose to live. The only exception may be within the Federal democratic states.

          The definition for immunity:

           

          Immunity: Exemption as form serving in an office , or performing duties which the law generally require other citizens to perform; e.g. exemption from paying taxes.  Freedom from duty or penalty. Special privilege.  See also Exemption; judicial immunity; privilege; sovereign immunity.  Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., pg.676-7

           

          Consider this example, suppose a motorist in California is exempt[1] or immune to securing a so-called Driver’s License by the mere fact that he is not engaged in commerce.  Therefore, by the principles defined and outlined above, then someone in N.Y. is equally as immune to the so-called Driver’s License if he in fact is not engaged in commerce.

           

          The definition of privilege:

          Privilege:  Latin privilegium law affecting a specific person, special right, from privus private + leg- lex law

          1: a right, license, or exemption from duty or liability granted as a special benefit, advantage, or favor: as

          a: an exemption from liability where an action is deemed to be justifiable (as in the case of self-defense) or because of the requirements of a position or office

          also
          : the affirmative defense that an action is privileged
          (compare
          excuse)

          b: an exemption from a requirement to disclose information (as for trial) that is granted because of a relationship or position that demands confidentiality
          Example: the attorney-client privilege
          Example: the doctor-patient privilege
          Example: the marital privilege
          Example: the priest-penitent privilege
          (see also
          confidential communication)

          c: something specially permitted or granted as a matter of discretion that may be limited or taken away
          Example: right to . . . mooring permit is not necessarily created because discretionary state privilege was generously granted in [the] past -- National Law Journal
          (compare
          right)

          din the civil law of Louisiana
          : a right of a creditor conferred by the nature of a debt to have priority over the debtor's other creditors

          2: any of various fundamental or specially sacred rights considered as particularly guaranteed to all persons by a constitution and esp. by the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.

           

          Privilege:  A particular and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class. Beyond the common advantages of other citizens, an exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.  A right, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, against or beyond the course of the law.  Black’s, 2d Ed., pg. 942.

           

          Consider this, privilege is just a right, license, or exemption from a duty or liability or favor. Should one be exempted from the duty of acquiring a so-called Driver’s License like say in California , then the exemption is equally possessed by someone in any other state.

           

          Therefore, isn’t that exemption or favor already and clearly said in Article IV, Clause 2?  That someone in California is enjoying or entitled to a privilege is also to be entitled by someone in the other several states?

          Furthermore, all decisions, statutes, ordinances or public policy that is exercised by one state is rightfully held by another in a different state.

           

          Additionally, the state statutes, codes, etc. are merely prima facie the law until it is demonstrated to be otherwise as we do hereinabove.  Look at the preface to the volumes of the codes or statutes of each state.

           

          The words and principle is explicit in the supreme law of the land.  All rights, privileges and immunities belong to all people in the several states.  The presiding judge has no latitude and has no discretion in the matter of equal rights as demonstrated and proven here.  This is especially true since the blk robe did swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America .  Further, you bind him into a contract to do so by you accepting his pub. offer to contract.

           

           

          So in order to perfect this argument we need relevant case law, preferable is U.S. S.Ct. holdings.  I’m looking for a universal solution or remedy for this question of dr. lic.  So where is the case law, guys?



          [1] Several have shown that in California one is exempt (immune) to the driver’s license if he does not engage in commerce on the public right of way and only for the movement of his personal property.

           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: one
          Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 6:14 AM
          Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Nd help on case law on foreign law

          .

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.