View Poll Results: DOES THE 11TH AMENDMENT REFUTE SAVING TO SUITORS?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes, you are an abscounding debtor and have no immunity against the state as a trustee/

    0 0%
  • No. Davids Saving to Suitors Trumps the 11th amendment and grantee/trustee equity law

    3 100.00%
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 90

Thread: Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

  1. #1

    Cool Why saving to suitors is an asine methodology

    NO OFFENSE DAVID, AS YOUR A LONG STANDING BUDDY OF MINE.

    BUT I DOUBT YOU CAN REFUTE THIS CASE LAW, AND THUS
    THIS MAKES YOUR SAVING TO SUITORS CLAUSE A MOOT
    POINT IN MORTMAIN LEGISLATION AND EQUITY.


    Are you the "grantor" or beneficiary of the Trust? No. Under Grantor-Grantee Law....take a wild guess as to who is in control. And, since it is "their Posterity" that are the trustees....if you screw with "their best interest"; then you are a bad trustee/grantee and considered by the Grantor and Beneficiaries to be an absconding debtor...and the Grantor will un-Grant your Granted Civil Rights and toss you in for being a bad Trustee/Cow/Slave.


    Citizens are subjects...period. No rights...only privileges granted by the President. Patrick Henry stated that once the Constitution was ratified that the Prez would have the powers of a King. What is it that you don't get about the word: King? He's an Emperor and if the Roman Emperor request or decrees that you die....then you're a dead man. This is not rocket science. ONE KEY...ONE DOOR. Did you see the MATRIX? THEY told you the truth.
    You are a slave and the sooner you wake up to that fact the easier this is going to be for you.
    The answer is in wiki

    The Eleventh Amendment, the first amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, was adopted following the Supreme Court's ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In Chisholm, the Court ruled that federal courts had the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states and that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from suits made by citizens of other states. Thus, the amendment clarified Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, which gave diversity jurisdiction to the judiciary to hear cases "between a state and citizens of another state."

    This means that the U.S. and all the "states" have sovereign immunity over citizens.

    The amendment's text does not mention suits brought against a state by its own citizens. However, in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment reflects a broader principle of sovereign immunity. As Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five Justice majority, stated in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999):

    [S]overeign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the structure of the original Constitution itself....Nor can we conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.[1]

    They were telling you here that the "Federal Government" controlled the decision as to whether or not the States could be sued by citizens. It was a given that the U.S. (federal) Government could not be sued by citizens or the States...because the States agreed to become Suzerains under the Powers of the President and US Congress, while sitting at the Seat of Government. "While sitting" means "as long as the President allows them to sit".

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    The eleventh amendment, inasmuch as that amendment only prohibits suits against a state which are brought by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state.

    " a state may be sued in the federal courts by its own citizens "

    HANS V. LOUISIANA 134 U.S. 1 (1890)


    Court opinions can be overturned, it's all relative.
    Last edited by motla68; 04-22-11 at 03:28 PM.

  3. #3
    Thats not what it Says " You paraphrased wrong Motla, Read the Final Conclusion "
    Hans v. Louisiana
    From Professor William B. Fisch’s web page, Constitutional Law Assignment #6: Theories of Interpretation at the University of Missouri School of Law.
    Web site: http://www.law.missouri.edu/fisch/hans.htm
    (View printer-friendly version)

    2. Intent of the Framers and Adoption History

    HANS V. LOUISIANA

    134 U.S. 1 (1890)

    [A citizen of Louisiana sued that State in federal circuit court in Louisiana, to recover interest due on state bonds. The State answered with the defense of sovereign immunity.]

    Bradley, J.

    ....

    That a state cannot be sued by a citizen of another state, or of a foreign state, on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is clearly established by the decisions of this court in several recent cases.... Those were cases arising under the constitution of the United States, upon laws complained of as impairing the obligation of contracts, one of which was the constitutional amendment of Louisiana, complained of in the present case. Relief was sought against state officers who professed to act in obedience to those laws. This court held that the suits were virtually against the states themselves, and were consequently violative of the eleventh amendment of the constitution, and could not be maintained. It was not denied that they presented cases arising under the constitution; but, notwithstanding that, they were held to be prohibited by the amendment referred to.

    In the present case the plaintiff in error contends that he, being a citizen of Louisiana, is not embarrassed by the obstacle of the eleventh amendment, inasmuch as that amendment only prohibits suits against a state which are brought by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign state. It is true the amendment does so read, and, if there were no other reason or ground for abating his suit, it might be maintainable; and then we should have this anomalous result, that, in cases arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, a state may be sued in the federal courts by its own citizens, though it cannot be sued for a like cause of action by the citizens of other states, or of a foreign state; and may be thus sued in the federal courts, although not allowing itself to be sued in its own courts. If this is the necessary consequence of the language of the constitution and the law, the result is no less startling and unexpected than was the original decision of this court, that, under the language of the constitution and of the judiciary act of 1789, a state was liable to be sued by a citizen of another state or of a foreign country. That decision was made in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, and created such a shock of surprise throughout the country that, at the first meeting of congress thereafter, the eleventh amendment to the constitution was almost unanimously proposed, and was in due course adopted by the legislatures of the states. This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the supreme court. It did not in terms prohibit suits by individuals against the states, but declared that the constitution should not be construed to import any power to authorize the bringing of such suits. The language of the amendment is that 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.' The supreme court had construed the judicial power as extending to such a suit, and its decision was thus overruled. The court itself so understood the effect of the amendment, for after its adoption Attorney General Lee, in the case of Hollingsworth v. Virginia, (3 Dall. 378,) submitted this question to the court, 'whether the amendment did or did not supersede all suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits, against any one of the United States, by citizens of another state.' Tilghman and Rawle argued in the negative, contending that the jurisdiction of the court was unimpaired in relation to all suits instituted previously to the adoption of the amendment. But on the succeeding day, the court delivered an unanimous opinion 'that, the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.'

    This view of the force and meaning of the amendment is important. It shows that, on this question of the suability of the states by individuals, the highest authority of this country was in accord rather with the minority than with the majority of the court in the decision of the case of Chisholm v. Georgia; and this fact lends additional interest to the able opinion of Mr. Justice IREDELL on that occasion. The other justices were more swayed by a close observance of the letter of the constitution, without regard to former experience and usage; and because the letter said that the judicial power shall extend to controversies 'between a state and citizens of another state;' and 'between a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects,' they felt constrained to see in this language a power to enable the individual citizens of one state, or of a foreign state, to sue another state of the Union in the federal courts Justice IREDELL, on the contrary, contended that it was not the intention to create new and unheard of remedies, by subjecting sovereign states to actions at the suit of individuals, (which he conclusively showed was never done before,) but only, by proper legislation, to invest the federal courts with jurisdiction to hear and determine controversies and cases, between the parties designated, that were properly susceptible of litigation in courts. Looking back from our present stand-point at the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, we do not greatly wonder at the effect which it had upon the country. Any such power as that of authorizing the federal judiciary to entertain suits by individuals against the states had been expressly disclaimed, and even resented, by the great defenders of the constitution while it was on its trial before the American people. [Quoting from FEDERALIST 81 (Hamilton).]

    The obnoxious clause to which Hamilton's argument was directed, and which was the ground of the objections which he so forcibly met, was that which declared that 'the judicial power shall extend to all * * * controversies between a state and citizens of another state, * * * and between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.' It was argued by the opponents of the constitution that this clause would authorize jurisdiction to be given to the federal courts to entertain suits against a state brought by the citizens of another state or of a foreign state. Adhering to the mere letter, it might be so, and so, in fact, the supreme court held in Chisholm v. Georgia; but looking at the subject as Hamilton did, and as Mr. Justice IREDELL did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of the latter were clearly right, as the people of the United States in their sovereign capacity subsequently decided.

    [Further quotes from the ratification debates.]

    It seems to us that these views of those great advocates and defenders of the constitution were most sensible and just, and they apply equally to the present case as to that then under discussion. The letter is appealed to now, as it was then, as a ground for sustaining a suit brought by an individual against a state. The reason against it is as strong in this case as it was in that. It is an attempt to strain the constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of. Can we suppose that, when the eleventh amendment was adopted, it was understood to be left open for citizens of a state to sue their own state in the federal courts, while the idea of suits by citizens of other states, or of foreign states, was indignantly repelled? Suppose that congress, when proposing the eleventh amendment, had appended to it a proviso that nothing therein contained should prevent a state from being sued by its own citizens in cases arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, can we imagine that it would have been adopted by the states? The supposition that it would is almost an absurdity on its face.

    ....

    The suability of a state, without its consent, was a thing unknown to the law. This has been so often laid down and acknowledged by courts and jurists that it is hardly necessary to be formally asserted. It was fully shown by an exhaustive examination of the old law by Mr. Justice IREDELL in his opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia; and it has been conceded in every case since, where the question has, in any way, been presented, even in the cases which have gone furthest in sustaining suits against the officers or agents of states.

    ....

    The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

    Harlan, J.

    I concur with the court in holding that a suit directly against a state by one of its own citizens is not one to which the judicial power of the United States extends, unless the state itself consents to be sued. Upon this ground alone I assent to the judgment. But I cannot give my assent to many things said in the opinion. The comments made upon the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia do not meet my approval. They are not necessary to the determination of the present case. Besides, I am of opinion that the decision in that case was based upon a sound interpretation of the constitution as that instrument then was.

  4. #4
    I am assuming you meant asinine? Other wise you are talking about a city in Greece. I can't really opine much on this as it seems written for David but as far as I am concerned my sovereignty comes from God and goes from there. I have a question are all individuals citizens of the eState?

  5. #5
    Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
    You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
    Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
    you are a Citizen of.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Within the confines of my own skin.
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTICONE View Post
    Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
    You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
    Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
    you are a Citizen of.
    Who is the Citizen though technically, the man or the paper?

    The word "person" in legal terminology normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than man. See e.g. 1 U.S.C. sec 1. ; Church of Scientology v. U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

    Disparata non debent jungi ~ unequal things ought not to be joined.

  7. #7
    Maybe Arsine? Hydrogen atom replaced by a radical renders certain compounds gaseous and highly poisonous...

    I have been through this in a variation about this - that is that this entire book, written by the Senate in 1976 if effectively ending the force and effect of the Lieber Code in America.



    The effects of the Emergency being in place from 1861 to 1976 are many but the Stipulation that the Secretary and/or President can jump in and save the Fed with another Bankers' Holiday is the prominent code still in full force and effect.

    http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
    http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

    This whole domain though, is avoidable by not contracting (endorsement) with the Fed. David Merrill's broken record around here.

    Mostly though, when somebody is not going to even bother correcting a key word in the Title of a Thread, I do not deem it much worth my time. Also this reminds me of an official from the Fed calling Ron PAUL a pinhead. Ron's response was that using names was a sure sign that the namecaller had lost all intellectual arguement. I view calling the 'saving to suitors' clause asinine (presuming that is what the member meant) a very silly thing to do. I am not bothering to study up on the Eleventh Amendment over it.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. The Poll at the top is quite misleading. It offers a choice like that is the scope of the topic. By considering the question in the first place one is subjecting themselves to being narrow-minded; accepting the misdirection suggested in the narrow scope of the question and choices of the answer.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by David Merrill; 04-22-11 at 03:39 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by MYSTICONE View Post
    Read the Lieber Code. Read Case Law... The Lieber Code implicity States you are not to question the Debts of the United States.
    You are a Trustee/ grantee.. YOu are not signatory or Posterity to the Original Compact/Constiution, thus you have no access to Article 3.
    Read the Law of Nations and the right of Self Determination. You are a Citizen and you can not question the Debt, nor Sue the State
    you are a Citizen of.
    So, citizens are plebiscites?
    Doesn't citizenship predicate on volunteerism?
    "Savings to Suitors" refers to admiralty/maritime courts which are district courts. District courts are Article I courts created by legislature.

    One can decline to be surety/constitutor for the debt of another.
    Last edited by shikamaru; 04-22-11 at 04:11 PM.

  9. #9
    That Would be all fine and Dandy about the Compelled force of Lieber Code Ending.
    but Senate Resolution 62 says all property is vested in the State.
    Furthemore , The Case Laws pertaining to Amendment 11 answer all these questions.
    And... In conclusion, Just because you are a human being not person, that doesnt make one Sovereign.
    If you want to Understand what makes someone Sovereign Read the Law of Nations. ONly a state
    can be Sovereign, not a human being.

  10. #10
    It is Also, Noteworthy, if you do take the time to Read Case Law pertaining to the 11th Amendment,
    A citizen can not BE a SUITOR AND SUE THE STATE HE IS A MEMBER OF.
    ONLY A STATE HAS STANDING TO BE SOVEREIGN OR HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.-- NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
    a HUMAN BEING CAN NOT BE A "SOVEREIGN CITIZEN- THAT ARGUMENT IS TIRED.
    READ THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE UN CHARTER-- THE RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION WHO IS ALLOWED TO MAKE COMPACTS.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •