-
the clause itself
The 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789 is that basis for diversity of citizenship in America. The standard mental model, used in the federal court system would be if a Wyoming man and myself, a Coloradoan, had a binding contract and fell into a dispute about it we might be having some trouble deciding whether or not the laws of Wyoming or Colorado apply. We would go into any federal court for a federal judge to examine the contract and remand the cause to Wyoming or Colorado, as he saw fit.
Several other mental models can be applied. For example notice in the footnotes how embassies are an international form that may cause diversity to arise:
As YOU, You and First Middle you all know, diversity between different characters operating in contract/trust exist too. These occasions of diversity of citizenship exist in fact albeit are not recognized within the scope of the federal judiciary. The distinction between a man or woman on the land and legal entities created in commerce are not recognized until one redeems lawful money, for one example. That gives rise to the mental model that the only real distinction worth trying to utilize in the courts of the US is between one who is in contract with the Fed (endorsement) and one who is not (redeeming lawful money by noticed demand).
This is why I am populating this section of the forum with Topics of my choosing as a lesson plan. Take this short lesson with you to the other opening posts and learn a bit of the other facets that will help you build a court of competent jurisdiction at your kitchen table when you bring in the mail.
Regards,
David Merrill.
