42 usc 659(i)(4) Private person The term "private person" means a person
who does not have sovereign or other special immunity or privilege which
causes the person not to be subject to legal process
The person on whom the wrong to be punishable must be inflicted is
described as a citizen. In the Constitution and laws of the United States,
the word "citizen" is generally, if not always, used in a political sense,
to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state
or of the United States. It is so used in § 1 of Article XIV of the
amendments of the Constitution, which provides that.."no state shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States." But it is also sometimes used in popular
language to indicate the same thing as resident, inhabitant, or person.
Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678 (March 7, 1887)
. . . But it has long been settled that residence and citizenship are
wholly diffe ent things within the meaing of the Constittion and the laws
defining and
regulating the jurisdi tion of the Circuit Courts of the United States; and
that a mere averment of residence in a particular State is not an averment
of citizenship in that State for the purposes of [diversity of citizenship]
jurisdiction. Parker v. Overman, 18 How. 137; Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S.
646; Everhart v Huntsville College, 120 U.S. 223; Timmons v. Elyton Land
Co., 139 U.S. 378; Denny v. Pironi, 141 U.S. 121, 123; Wolfe v. Hartford L.
& A. Ins. Co., 148 U.S. 389.” Steigleder v. McQuesten: 198 U.S. 141, at
143 (1905).
Private Attorney General
A private citizen who commences a lawsuit to enforce a legal [or lawful]
right that benefits the community as a whole [with the power of the
attorney general. CARDINALE, v. KEANE, CARDINALE, v. JONES et al. Nos.
A21A1718, A21A1719 [[February 15, 2022]].
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale
Group, Inc.
A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or
obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be
no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the
right depends, and as this doctrine is not confined to full sovereign
powers, it extends to those, such as the territories of the United States,
which in actual administration originate and change the law of contract and
property. Kawananokoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907)...City of College
Park v. Clayton County, 830 SE 2d 179 (June 24, 2019)
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring in the Court's opinion except as to Part
VII:...It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the *443 citizen to keep the
Government from falling into error. American Communications Assn. v. Douds,
339 U.S. 382 (May 8, 1950)...COMBS, C.J., CONCUR:..The People are, after
all, the parent of this government, not its child, and it is "the function
of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error,"[33]
OKLAHOMA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM v. Potts, 414 P. 3d 351 (March 21, 2018)
Justice SOUTER, STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER (Supreme Court of the United
States, 1999) join, dissenting:
"[***] The principle is, that all human law must be prescribed by a
superior. [***]
The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man." Id.,
at 458. 1 Blackstone Commentaries. pp 241, 242. ALDEN v. MAINE, 527 U.S.
706 (1999)
alden v maine...Held: The Court of Appeals erred in denying the attorney
general's motion to intervene. Pp. 1008-1014..Indeed, it is the attorney
general who is deemed Kentucky's "chief law officer" with the authority to
represent the Commonwealth "in all cases." Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§
15.020(1), (3). Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, PSC, 142 S.Ct. 1002
(March 3, 2022)
Justice Ginsburg, delivered the opinion of the Court: It is a federal crime
under 18 U. S. C. § 844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV) to damage or destroy, "by
means of fire or an explosive, any . . . property used in interstate or
foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign
commerce." This case presents the question whether arson of an
owner-occupied private residence falls within § 844(i)'s compass.
Construing the statute's text, we hold that an owner-occupied residence not
used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as property "used in"
commerce or *851 commerce-affecting activity; arson of such a dwelling,
therefore, is not subject to federal prosecution under § 844(i). Our
construction of § 844(i) is reinforced by the Court's opinion in United
States v.Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that
constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided where possible,
see Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr.
Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988). JONES v united states 529 U.S.,
146 L Ed 2d 902, 120 S.Ct. (may 22, 2000)...SELYA, Circuit Judge:A. "Use"
under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i).US v. Troy Appellant. No. 09-2121 (August 26,
2010)...OWENS, Circuit Judge OPINION: B. The Diversity Office's Nexus to
Interstate Commerce..According to Mahon, the Diversity Office "was a
municipal government entity engaged in classic governmental functions," and
thus could not possess the requisite interstate commerce nexus under §
844(i). In so arguing, Mahon relies, in part, on two cases: Jones v. United
States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United States v. Lamont, 330 F.3d 1249
(9th Cir. 2003). A review of those cases — as well as other cases applying
§ 844(i) — confirms that the Diversity Office satisfies the statute's
interstate commerce requirement.
Jones addressed if and when § 844(i) applied to a private residence that
did not actively engage in interstate commerce — "a dwelling place used for
everyday family living
," and not a rental, "a home office or the locus of any commercial
undertaking." Jones, 529 U.S. at 856, 859. The Court set out a two-step
inquiry to answer this question — first "into the function of the building
itself, and then a determination of whether that function affects
interstate commerce." Id. at 854 (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Court stressed that the statute requires "active employment for commercial
purposes, and not merely a passive, passing, or past connection to
commerce." Id. at 855.
Jones held that § 844(i) did not apply to the traditional private home. The
residence in Jones had only passive links to interstate commerce: a
mortgage, an insurance policy, and the receipt of natural gas from sources
outside Indiana. Id. at 855-56. Applying § 844(i) to a purely private home
would mean that "hardly a building in the land would fall outside the
federal statute's domain," as "[p]ractically every building in our cities,
towns, and rural areas is constructed with supplies that have moved in
interstate commerce, served by utilities that have an interstate
connection, financed or insured by enterprises that do business across
state lines, or bears some other trace of interstate commerce." Id. at 857.
Lamont addressed § 844(i)'s application to an "ordinary church building"
that was "used for religious purposes, and not for other activities of a
commercial or economic character." 330 F.3d at 1254. Recognizing the
"peculiarity of hunting for commerce in a house of worship," the panel
reasoned that the church's business was not commercial, but "to provide
spiritual guidance, comfort, and charity to its members and to others who
may wish to take advantage of its services." Id. at 1253, 1255. A church
generally did "not function in a manner that places it in any significant
relationship with commerce, let alone interstate commerce. . . . Indeed, a
church's function and operations could not be further removed from what we
ordinarily understand as comm
ercial activity." Id. at 1254-55.
Nor was there anything about the church's activities in Lamont that would
bring it within § 844(i)'s jurisdictional scope. Like the private residence
in Jones, the church lacked active involvement in interstate commerce — all
of its connections were passive: (1) it received gas from Canada, (2) an
out-of-state company insured it, (3) it purchased goods from out of state,
(4) it received funds from out-of-state members, and (5) it received and
distributed publications that traveled interstate. Id. at 1250, 1253. These
attenuated connections to interstate commerce, like those in Jones, were
insufficient to satisfy § 844(i)'s requirement. Id. at 1255-56 US v. Mahon
No. 12-10273 (October 20, 2015)...The DTSA provides a federal cause of
action for "[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated ... if the
trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for
use in, interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1). "The
Supreme Court observes a distinction between legislation invoking Congress'
full power over activity substantially `affecting [] commerce' and *381
legislation which uses more limiting language, such as activities `in
commerce,' and thereby does not purport to exercise the full scope of
congressional authority." United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71, 81 (2d
Cir. 2012) (quoting Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 856, 120 S. Ct.
1904, 146 L. Ed. 2d 902 (2000)).
While "the Supreme Court has broadly construed the phrase `involving
interstate commerce' ... to mean `the functional equivalent of the more
familiar term `affecting commerce' — words of art that ordinarily signal
the broadest permissible exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power[,]'"
Aleynikov, 676 F.3d at 81 (quoting Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539
U.S. 52, 56, 123 S. Ct. 2037, 156 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2003)), the actual language
used in the DTSA is "used in, or intended for use in, interstate ...
commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1) (emphasis added). The words "in commerce"
are not as broad as the words "involving commerce," or "affecting
commerce," and cover "only persons or activities within the flow of
interstate commerce." Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S.
265, 273, 115 S.Ct. 834, 130 L.Ed.2d 753 (1995) (emphasis omitted); see
also Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56, 123 S.Ct. 2037, 156
L.Ed.2d 46 (2003) (holding that the term "involving commerce" "encompasses
a wider range of transactions than those actually `in commerce' — that is,
within the flow of interstate commerce"); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.
Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 118, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001) ("The
plain mean
ing of the words `engaged in commerce' is narrower than the more open-ended
formulations `affecting commerce' and `involving commerce'"); Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., Inc., 419 U.S. 186, 195, 95 S.Ct. 392, 42 L.Ed.2d
378 (1974) (interpreting the "in commerce" language to "denote only persons
or activities within the flow of interstate commerce — the practical,
economic continuity in the generation of goods and services for interstate
markets and their transport and distribution to the consumer").
Despite the fact that Congress did not invoke its full power over activity
substantially affecting commence when it enacted the DTSA, the proposed
amended complaint in this matter adequately pleads the required nexus to
interstate commerce. Specifically, in the proposed amended complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that it "is engaged in the business of selling,
warehousing, freight, and installation services of furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E) to the hospitality industry and others in the eastern
United States. Plaintiff's products and services are utilized in interstate
commerce." Dkt. No. 50-2 at ¶ 9. Upon termination, the proposed amended
complaint alleges that Defendant Gross provided Suddath with confidential
bid information relating to projects that Plaintiff was actively seeking,
including several projects in and around New York City. See id. at ¶¶
11-15. Although discovery could call into question whether Plaintiff can,
in fact, satisfy the interstate commerce requirement, at this stage, the
Court finds that the proposed amended complaint sufficiently alleges that
the alleged misappropriated trade secrets relate to a product or service
used it, or intended for use in, interstate commerce. See Intertek Testing
Servs., N.A., Inc. v. Pennisi, 443 F. Supp. 3d 303, 327 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)
Executive Trim Construction, Inc. v. Gross, 525 F. Supp. 3d 357 [United
States District Court, N.D. New York.] (March 10, 2021)
[3-6] The right to use and enjoy one's property is a fundamental right
protected by both the State and Federal Constitutions. N.H. CONST. pt. I,
arts. 2, 12; U.S. CONST. amends. V, XIV; Town of Chesterfield, 126 N.H. at
68, 489 A.2d at 602-03. Part I, article 12 of the New Hampshire
Constitution provides in part that "no part of a man's property shall be
taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that
of the representative body of the people." We have indicated that part I,
articles 2 and 12 of our State Constitution limit the police power of the
State and its municipalities in their regulation of the use of property. L.
Grossman & Sons, Inc. v. Town of Gilford, 118 N.H. 480, 482, 387 A.2d 1178,
1180 (1978). "Property" in the constitutional sense has been interpreted to
mean not the tangible property itself, but rather the right to possess,
use, enjoy and dispose of it. Burrows v. City of Keene, 121 N.H. 590, 597,
432 A.2d 15, 19 (1981). A "taking" of property occurs if the application of
a zoning ordinance to a particular parcel denies the owner an economically
viable use of his or her land. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980).
Buskey v. Town of Hanover, 133 NH 318...The right to use and enjoy one's
property is a fundamental right protected by both the State and Federal
Constitutions. N.H. CONST. pt. I, arts. 2, 12; U.S. CONST. amends. V, XIV;
Buskey v. Town of Hanover, 133 N.H. 318,
322, 577 A.2d 406, 409 (1990). "A `taking' of property occurs if the
application of a zoning ordinance to a particular parcel denies the owner
an economically viable use of his or her land." Buskey, 133 N.H. at 322,
577 A.2d at 409. Spengler v. Porter, 144 NH 163 (September 2, 1999)...The
rights associated with property ownership include the rights to possession,
use, and enjoyment. See Buskey v. Town of Hanover, 133 N.H. 318, 322
(1990). State v. Nelson, 150 NH 569 (February 20, 2004)
JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join,
concurring:..The Ninth Amendment reads, "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people." The Amendment is almost entirely
the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him and passed
the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in
language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of
specifically enumerated rights[3] could not be sufficiently broad to cover
all essential *489 rights and that the specific mention of certain rights
would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected. Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 US 479...In determining whether to order ECT for Ms., M.,
the Court is mindful of the holding of Justice William O. Douglas that
"specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that held give them life and substance.
Various guarantees create zones of privacy . . . The Fourth Amendment
explicitly affirms the right of the people to be secure in their persons.'"
(Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 484 (1965). The New York State Court
of Appeals, in analyzing whether a person suffering from a mental illness
has a liberty interest in deciding upon a course of treatment that can
affect their privacy, held in the leading case of Rivers v Katz (67 NY2d
485), at 493-494, that: We conclude however, that neither the fact that
appellants are mentally ill nor that they have been involuntarily
committed, without more, constitutes a sufficient basis to conclude that
they lack the mental capacity to comprehend the consequences of their
decision to refuse medication that poses a significant risk to their
physical well-being. Indeed, it is well accepted that mental illness often
strikes only limited areas of functioning, leaving other areas unimpaired,
and consequently, that many menta
lly ill persons retain the capacity to function in a competent manner . . .
Nor does the fact of mental illness result in the forfeiture of a person's
civil rights . . . including the fundamental right to make decisions
concerning one's own body. IN THE MATTER OF McCUE 2010 NY Slip Op 51798(U)
(September 28, 2010)...D. Griswold v. Connecticut: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
THE HEARTLAND, INC., and JILL MEADOWS, M.D., Appellees,
v.
KIM REYNOLDS ex rel. STATE OF IOWA and IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellants
No 21-0856 [Supreme Court of Iowa] (June 17, 2022)
[15] Madison's comments in Congress also reveal the perceived need for some
sort of constitutional "saving clause," which, among other things, would
serve to foreclose application to the Bill of Rights of the maxim that the
affirmation of particular rights implies a negation of those not expressly
defined. See 1 Annals of Cong. 438-440 (1789). See also, e. g., 2 J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 651 (5th ed. 1891).
Madison's efforts, culminating in the Ninth Amendment, served to allay the
fears of those who were concerned that expressing certain guarantees could
be read as excluding others. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 US
555 (July 2, 1980)...VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER authored the opinion of the
Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL and JUSTICES LOPEZ, BEENE,
MONTGOMERY, and KING joined. JUSTICE BOLICK concurred. VICE CHIEF JUSTICE
TIMMER, opinion of the Court:..(holding the Sixth Amendment public trial
guarantee is personal to the accused). But because the First Amendment "was
enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being
presumptively open," Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555,
575 (1980) (plurality opinion), to "enhance[] both the basic fairness of
the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public
confidence in the system," Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court
(Press-Enterprise I), 464 U.S. 501, 508 (1984), and the expli
cit guarantees of free speech and a free press necessitate the ability to
gather information by observing proceedings, the First Amendment implicitly
guarantees the press and public a coextensive right to attend criminal
trials, Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 575-77, 580; see also Globe
Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982) ("And in the
broadest terms, public access to criminal trials permits the public to
participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process—an essential
component in our structure of self-government.").
¶9 The access right guaranteed by the First Amendment is not absolute, but
qualified. See Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 606-07. Criminal trials are
presumptively open to the public, and the court can close the proceedings
only if the state shows a compelling state interest for doing so and that
closure is a remedy narrowly tailored to serve that interest. See id.
Morgan v. Dickerson (June 14, 2022)
The Lockdown DOGS (11 mins)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kEzVsHJUdq4
EU TYRANNY CONTINUES - Covid Pass RENEWED Despite 99% DISAPPROVAL! - JUST
The Beginning (26:19)
https://odysee.com/@WAM:0/eutyrannycontinueswam:6
UN & DNH Team Up With Big Tech To Rollout QR Code App For Global Vaxx
Passport (9:56)
https://rumble.com/v1a7hb6-big-brother-tyranny-un-and-dnh-team-up-with-big-tech-to-rollout-qr-code-app.html
(8:13)
https://t.me/marksteele5g/7506
40,000 National Guard Troops Face Unemployment As Jab Deadline Imminent
(1:50)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mliwfNdr5hQ
While US Economy Crumbles, Biden Promises $200 Billion for Solar Panels,
Vaccine Plants and Communication Links Around the World
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/us-economy-crumbles-biden-promises-200-billion-solar-panels-vaccine-plants-communication-links-around-world/
Texas Mayor Resigns After Soliciting Sex From Teen Under 14 Online
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/texas-mayor-resigns-soliciting-sex-teen-14-online/
Tamara Lich was just arrested in Medicine Hat, Alberta (1:41)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/tkMAVFCaicM/
January 6th Committee Announces Surprise Hearing for Tuesday: “Recently
Obtained Evidence…Witness Testimony”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/january-6th-committee-announces-surprise-hearing-tuesday-recently-obtained-evidence-witness-testimony/
Proud Boys Proven INNOCENT in Newly Released VIDEO Hidden from Public — DOJ
Tried to Hide This Leaked Evidence BLOWS UP CONSPIRACY Charges – THEY HID
THIS FROM PUBLIC (of all of the BETTER things YOU COULD have been SO
exaggerated about from just TODAYS posts this is NOT the one it SHOULD have
been.)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/exclusive-proud-boys-proven-innocent-newly-released-video-hidden-public-biden-doj-tried-hide-leaked-evidence-blows-doj-liz-cheneys-bogus-seditious-conspiracy-charges/
Footage Reveals Ballot Traffickers Forging Signatures and Trafficking
Ballots But RINO AG Brnovich Dropped Forgery Charges (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/breaking-exclusive-footage-reveals-ballot-traffickers-forging-signatures-trafficking-ballots-rino-ag-brnovich-dropped-forgery-charges-video/
Biden Admin Signs Five Year Lease to House Illegal Alien Children at Luxury
$42K Per Year Private School Campus in North Carolina
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/biden-admin-signs-five-year-lease-house-illegal-alien-children-luxury-42k-per-year-private-school-campus-north-carolina/
Kamala Harris, Biden HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra Admit Regime “Looking
Into” Using Taxpayer Dollars to Fund Abortion-Related Travel Expenses
(VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/kamala-harris-biden-hhs-secretary-xavier-becerra-admit-regime-looking-using-taxpayer-dollars-fund-abortion-related-travel-expenses-video/
Government Body Used False Data To Approve The COVID Jab For Children
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/cdc-exposed-using-false-data-approve-covid-jab-children/
Baby Denied Heart Transplant Due To Vaccine Status: Medical Complex
Sentences Baby To Death (18:36)
https://rumble.com/v1a7gqc-baby-denied-heart-transplant-due-to-vaccine-status-medical-complex-sentence.html
Immunobridging To Nowhere: FDA Cons America, Rushed & Untested Vax Updates
Prove They Don't Serve US (27:36)
https://odysee.com/@TimTruth:b/immunobridging:0
Could gain-of-function research wipe out humanity? (7:52)
https://www.rebelnews.com/could_gain-of-function_research_wipe_out_humanity
Comirnaty Is Approved and Made To Take Out Military (29:24)
https://rumble.com/v1a7hyb-comirnaty-is-approved-and-made-to-take-out-military.html
Hospitals Paid to Kill - Dr. Russell Blaylock (2:12)
https://odysee.com/@Robert-Self:a0/Hospitals-Paid-to-Kill---Dr.-Russell-Blaylock:1
have already spent $2.6 billion on COVID rapid tests, another $2 billion to
come (3:17)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sHlR8Ltlo48/
Grand Canyon Reports 118 Cases of Gastrointestinal Illness that Closely
Resembles with Highly Contagious ‘Norovirus’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/grand-canyon-reports-118-cases-gastrointestinal-illness-closely-resembles-highly-contagious-norovirus/
(7:48)
https://t.me/marksteele5g/7505
Dr. David Martin Calls For Prosecutions: Fauci Knew Remdesivir Would Kill
Thousands (14:10)
https://rumble.com/v1a7gwj-dr.-david-martin-calls-for-prosecutions-fauci-knew-remdesivir-would-kill-th.html
Grand Jury Final Statement - "VAX" Premeditated Depopulation - Dr. Reiner
Fuellmich (35:20)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uFpOC93RvrkK/
Techno Fog: Supreme Court Upholds 1A Freedoms of a High School Coach –
Sotomayor Dissent: Coach “Not Entitled to First Amendment Protections At
All”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/techno-fog-supreme-court-upholds-1a-freedoms-high-school-coach-sotomayor-dissent-coach-not-entitled-first-amendment-protections/
Hate Crime Investigation Launched After NYC Catholic Church Vandalized With
Slogan of Pro-Abortion Extremist Group ‘Jane’s Revenge’
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/hate-crime-investigation-launched-nyc-catholic-church-vandalized-slogan-pro-abortion-extremist-group-janes-revenge/
GETTING A JOB FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER (9 mins)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YIAb__1kdNk
Attachment:
Screenshot_20220623-130252_Firefox.jpg
Description: JPEG image
Attachment:
Screenshot_20220623-125716_Firefox.jpg
Description: JPEG image
Attachment:
Screenshot_20220623-125439_Firefox.jpg
Description: JPEG image
Attachment:
Screenshot_20220628-091031_Firefox.jpg
Description: JPEG image
Attachment:
Screenshot_20220628-091318_Firefox.jpg
Description: JPEG image
