Thank you!Mary Ann
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 10:23:35 AM EDT, veritas ghost
<guyettedamien8@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
commercial 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 meaning 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 mentally 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 explicit
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 ;
