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

Re: Statutes Derogatory To The Rights Of Property-Construed Strictly...

Expand Messages
  • Michael
    ... Bear uncovers yet another gem! This case is an interesting read, for two reasons: 1. If you scroll down to page 307, left side of the margin, the fifth
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 23, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Legalbear" <bear@...> wrote:
      >
      > Every statute, derogatory to the rights of property, or that
      > takes away the estate of a citizen, ought to be construed
      > strictly. Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304, 316 (1795).
      >
      > Whole case is here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17377606670094711725&q=%22despotic+authority%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60


      Bear uncovers yet another gem!

      This case is an interesting read, for two reasons:

      1. If you scroll down to page 307, left side of the
      margin, the fifth paragraph starts with:

      "The power and jurisdiction of Parliament, says
      Sir Edward Coke, is so transcendant and absolute,
      that it cannot be confined, either for causes or
      persons, within any bounds. And of this high court,
      he adds,..."


      While discussing the unbounded authority of English
      Parliament, without a written constitution to bind
      it in any way, I cannot help substituting the
      corporate FEDERAL government and what it has created
      by way of the FEDERAL ZONE, via the Disctict of
      Columbia and its creation of STATE franchises, with
      which everyone must contend in some way, and within
      that ZONE, CONGRESS has "plenary" power over all of
      its 14th Amendment "citizens" "born" and/or
      "naturalized."

      The Parliamenetary status was the blueprint for the
      Rothschilds cum New World Order for its conquered
      USA, now more aptly called "Unionized Socialization
      of Amerika," in an editorial dig.

      In the paragraph just above it, Justice PATTERSON,
      [spelled in all capitalized letters. Isn't that
      interesting...] states, and my emphasis is in all
      caps letters:

      "Legislation is the exercise of sovereign authority.
      High and important powers are necessarily vested in
      the Legislative body; whose acts, UNDER SOME FORMS
      OF GOVERNMENT, are irresistible and subject to no
      controul. In England, from whence most of our legal
      principles and legislative notions are derived, the
      authority of the Parliament is transcendant and has
      no bounds."

      I read that to a cryptic acknowledgment of the
      controlling de facto government. Others may see
      it differently.

      That said, he, or I should state HE spends quite
      a lot of time in expounding on the constitution
      and has quite a lot to say that can be used very
      effectively in arguments, today, and I would urge
      everyone to read the fruits of Bear's labors.

      It has been said that while under General Orders
      100, the constitution is given lip service to
      keep the masses ignorant of the non-existence of
      the organic one in favor of the de facto FEDERAL
      government "constitution," and that goes back to
      my initial observation of the lack of a Parliamentary
      constitution and the existence of the FEDERAL one
      is like not having one at all.

      Who really rules this country beyond Executive Orders?
      But that is another story.

      Great find, Bear. Merci!!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.