Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

[David Merrill]

Who is MYSTICONE?

I think it safe to presume Mysticone is an associate of sorts with Motla68. For a moment I thought Motla was clowning around with double-registration. The posts, albeit I am only skimming seem rather informative albeit like I posted herein, irrelevant for affecting remedy. This part is revealing:

I AM THE HUMAN BEING, thus im SUING YOU AS A ARTICLE 3, EVEN THOUGH I AM NOT SIGNATORY TO THE CONSTITUTION, yOU WERE NOT ONE OF THE 39 SIGNERS-

To stay on topic first and foremost I just have to say, all seriousness aside, that I do not think the 'saving to suitors' clause is asinine. Which is to say silly like a donkey. I don't think is arsine or even essene.

The whole premise in this thread is the stuff headaches are made out of because there is nothing so asinine as this notion that only the original 39 signors are party to the Constitution in a couple court cases where the courts speak of being party to the Constitution. I should just blurt the obvious - these guys are dead!

How anybody can interpret this to mean those dead guys is beyond me! Read carefully:

How is the Constitution going to hurt me? A nasty papercut?

Here are some parties to the Constitution who can hurt me with it!

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...9;_AG_oath.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/2...amelson103.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9...amelson209.jpg
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8332/hansenoath.jpg

Well, actually they are not parties to the constitutions because they are poor examples. [Am I to be faulted for only collecting faulty oaths?] The first one is obviously to a vacant office because he waited sixty days too late to subscribe and publish. The second one is valid but the last two are swearing without proper form - that is to say you cannot swear unless you state by what punishing authority - like God, a stack of bibles or My Mother's Grave. But I think any thinking person realizes that to consider the original representatives of the twelve states to be parties to the Constitution absurd... no, wait, the key typo here is asinine.

Whereas the 'saving to suitors' clause is still found in the Statutes at Large and is codified at Title 28 U.S.C. §1333. You might have a little trouble recognizing it because Congress doesn't seem to want to admit that the Constitution itself is originally an international document between twelve independent nation-states.

The “saving to suitors” clause in sections 41 (3) and 371 (3) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was changed by substituting the words “any other remedy to which he is otherwise entitled” for the words “the right of a common law remedy where the common law is competent to give it.” The substituted language is simpler and more expressive of the original intent of Congress and is in conformity with Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolishing the distinction between law and equity.

So to entertain myself I conjure up a seminar lecture where Mysticone is teaching this to a few people and somebody raises their hand and stops his lecture; But... aren't those 39 men all dead by now?

There is a lot of stuff being posted and I watch mainly because it is fascinating that people get drawn into it - and the thread takes off and gets a lot of attention. It is almost like people would rather be confused and then arise out of the abracadabra a pontiff able to recite and belch it just to fascinate others.



Regards,

David Merrill.