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

Fw: U S v. LEE, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

Expand Messages
  • lookin
    Opppsssssss here it issssssss U S v. LEE, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights,
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 4 8:04 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Opppsssssss here it issssssss 
       
       

      U S v. LEE, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

       

      Under our system the people, who are there called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him when it is well administered. When he, in one of the courts of competent jurisdiction, has established his right to property, [106 U.S. 196, 209]   there is no reason why deference to any person, natural or artificial, not even the United States, should prevent him from using the means which the law gives him for the protection and enforcement of that right.

       http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=106&invol=196
       
      ____________________________________________________
        IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
    • Occupant Family
      Greetings, Nice case quote... doesn t apply anymore, but nice case quote. I say it does not apply for the simple reason that we no longer have our system as
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 8 12:42 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings,
         
        Nice case quote... doesn't apply anymore, but nice case quote.
        I say it does not apply for the simple reason that we no longer have "our system"
        as established via Constitution, but a "New World Order" established by
        "corporate government". The "Workers of Iniquity" could not change the
        "money of account" with constitutional states, so they created corporate states
        under the authority of the "United States, Inc." established in 1868 and amended  
        in 1871 I think it was. We have not had "sovereign people" since that time...
        and most all have "contracted into subservience" via social security and etc.
         
        For another outdated quote see:

        Doe ex dem. Gaines et al. v. Buford; FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY – OPINION of JUDGE UNDERWOOD, 1825

         

        “The constitutions of the different states likewise contain many prohibitions and limitations of power. The tenth article of our state constitution, consisting of twenty eight sections, is made up of restrictions and prohibitions upon legislative and judicial power, and concludes with the emphatic declaration,  “that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto or contrary to this constitution shall be void.” Those numerous limitations and restrictions prove, that the idea of a sovereignty in government, was not tolerated by the wise founders of our systems. “Sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is an appropriate phase when applied to an absolute despotism. I firmly believe, that the idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and permanent foundation of civil liberty, and the rights of property. The history of man in all ages has shown the necessity of the strongest checks upon power, whether it be exercised by one man, a few or many.  Our revolution broke up the foundations of sovereignty in government; and our written constitutions have carefully guarded against the baneful influence of such an idea henceforth and forever. I can not therefore recognize the appeal to the sovereignty of the state, as a justification of the act in question.”

         

        Partial quote:

        “Sovereign state” are cabalistic words, not understood by the disciple of liberty, who has been instructed in our constitutional schools. It is an appropriate phase when applied to an absolute despotism. I firmly believe, that the idea of sovereign power in the government of a republic is incompatible with the existence and permanent foundation of civil liberty, and the rights of property.

         

        Doe ex dem. Gaines et al. v. Buford; FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CAMPBELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY – OPINION of JUDGE UNDERWOOD, 1825

         

        We now have "sovereign states of" with the people as their subjects/slaves!

        I have more that enough evidence to substantiate that statement!


        Deo volente,
        Jim

         

        Would those who say it cannot be done...
        Please get the hell out of the way of those doing it!
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 23:04:33 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) "lookin" <lookinout@...> writes:
         
        US v Lee_
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.