Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Author! Author!
See other Author! Author! Articles

Title: Why can't/don't those States affected by the BP oil mess sue the Federal Gov't over not rescinding the Jones Act or Law?
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://freedom4um.com
Published: Jun 30, 2010
Author: me
Post Date: 2010-06-30 18:16:09 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 190
Comments: 15

?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

#2. To: Itistoolate, Lod (#0) (Edited)

Why can't/don't those States affected by the BP oil mess sue the Federal Gov't over not rescinding the Jones Act or Law?

The feds and the states have what is known as "sovereign immunity" or in some cases "qualified immunity" and in either case you must seek their permission before suing. But, even if a federal judge agrees that there's a cause of action the US Govt can and will appeal up to the SCOTUS or until they get a favorable ruling.

"Sovereign immunity" was the ultimate protection that European royalty invoked, and (because our legal system has been corrupt since the first day of this new nation through the defacto adoption of British law) the US govt considers itself the sovereign.

The people are the sovereign and the govt, servants, but this is not reflected in our legal system. This is also why judges can summarily punish contempt without a hearing or trial. We were told that it's legal despite there being no constitutional basis for any exceptions to the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments. And, ("they decided" that) they can jail you for up to a year despite no statutory support for this power. This and other judicial powers were simply usurped and not challenged in a timely manner by the lawyers (schooled in British law) who formed this country.

It's a little known fact that even supreme court cases were decided by juries when John Jay was the 1st Chief Justice of the United States. In one of the first SCOTUS jury trials, Jay told the jury that they had the power to judge the law and the facts!

But now, we're not even told of our power to check bad law as well as decide cases on the evidence. They've decided that even though we have the power it's best if jurors "aren't told about it". (The OJ jury figured it out)

This one dirty little secret is all the evidence I need to offer of the institutional bad faith and corruption that is American jurisprudence.

In cases where the costs would be unacceptable or where the power of the govt weakened federal judges show their true colors and they become political hack lawyers who hunker down and protect their licenses to steal.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2010-06-30   18:53:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#4. To: HOUNDDAWG (#2)

In one of the first SCOTUS jury trials, Jay told the jury that they had the power to judge the law and the facts!

Yeah, Georgia v. Brailsford. A lot of people don't believe it when you tell them that the SC had jury trials when the nation was new.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-06-30   19:22:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Replies to Comment # 4.

#5. To: James Deffenbach (#4)

A lot of people don't believe it when you tell them that the SC had jury trials when the nation was new.

Well I learned something today.

Pinguinite  posted on  2010-06-30 19:26:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: James Deffenbach (#4)

Yeah, Georgia v. Brailsford. A lot of people don't believe it when you tell them that the SC had jury trials when the nation was new.

Thank you!

I'm really happy that you posted the cite in a timely manner because I couldn't remember it. The last 8 months or so I've really been afflicted BY CRS syndrome.

It really bothers me because all my life I've been a virtual Encyclopedia of worthless trivia.

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2010-06-30 19:45:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest