Re: Statutes Derogatory To The Rights Of Property-Construed Strictly...
- --- In email@example.com, "Legalbear" <bear@...> wrote:
>Bear uncovers yet another gem!
> 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
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,
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
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
"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
I read that to a cryptic acknowledgment of the
controlling de facto government. Others may see
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!!