Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Natural Law

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on Natural Law







I’m not saying you’re wrong Jugde. I’m not saying I’m right.

I am saying that I can point to a version of Chisholm vs Georgia on which I relied and which is available to all to see, examine, accept or refute.

So far, those who dispute the validity of the source on which I relied have yet to produce copies or easy access to whichever sources on which they have relied.

It’s like playing poker. Sooner or later, unless you’re able to successfully bluff your opponents with lies, if you want to win the “pot,” you’ve got to show your hand. You might claim to win with just a pair of nines, but you’ve actually got to have two nines. You can’t win with one nine and another nine that you remember having held in another hand of poker, lessee, was it two years ago? Or was it three?

There’s a document that’s floating around on the internet that lists several court cases that declared the practice of law to be a “common law right”. I’ve seen that same list of cases for at least twenty years, although the document was first spread on paper by mail or faxes. For the past 20 years, I have assumed that the document’s argument was true and the court case cites were legitimate.

But I have had a serious mental defect for some time. I actually tend to trust people to tell the truth. It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would lie about such things. And yet, I keep finding evidence that lies are far more common than I’m inclined to believe.

A few months ago, I actually compared some of the court cases cited against computer data bases like Findlaw and learned to my great surprise that the text quoted in at least three of cases that alleged the practice of law to be a “common law right” could not be found in the particular cases cited.

I still don’t know if that proves that original document distributed on paper 20 years ago was an intentional falsification or if the document was real and so widely scattered that somebody has taken time to delete the relevant texts from some or all of the nation’s electronic data bases of court cases.

I do know that if you’re going to play this game, you’ll have to show your hand from time to time, and when you do, you’d better have something to rely on that’s more tangible than your dim recollection of something that you’re almost certain took place sometime in the past.


I just revisited the Cornell University data base page for Chisholm v. Georgia at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419 and I saw this:

Chisholm v. Georgia
2 U.S. 419

Chisholm v. Georgia ()

Argued:

Decided:

___

Syllabus
Opinion, Iredell
Separate, Blair
Separate, Wilson
Separate, Cushing
Separate, Jay
Syllabus

[p429]

TOP
Opinion

IREDELL, J., Opinion of the Court

Iredell, Justice.

This great cause comes before the Court on a motion made by the Attorney General that an order be made by this Court to the following effect:

. . . .

I added the bold highlights.

I agree that something is “screwy”–but it’s not clear to me what that “something” is. I see at least two differing opinions on the subject of Chisholm vs Georgia. I’m assured by you that the opinion published by Cornell University is wrong. Maybe so, but what are the odds?

Why would Cornell publish a false opinion? What would the perpetrators behind the false opinion conspire to diminish the power of Justice Jay’s opinion (which alone used the word “collective”) and increase the power of Justice Iredell’s opinion?

You are quoting a mere book by a private author about the Chisholm vs Georgia case as the authority for your contentions. That book was published in A.D. 2011–just three years ago. Cornell University appears to be quoting the actual case as written circa A.D. 1793–over 200 years ago. If you were an historian, which source would you guess to be more reliable?

If you were a conspiracy theory advocate, which source would you suppose was more likely to be perverted–what appears to be the “original” from A.D. 1793 or what has been published in the last three years?

I don’t know which source is mistaken, but if Cornell University has published a falsified version of Chisholm v Georgia (one of the most important cases in American history), there should be some authoritative old books or even other data bases that would quickly expose that error. If Cornell is wrong about its copy of Chisholm, that error should be as glaring and easily refuted as seeing a California “smiley face” in the place where we normally see George Washington on a $1 bill.

If I had to speculate, I’d suppose that the Cornell University’s presentation of the text of the Chisholm vs. Georgia case was more accurate than that of a privately written book that’s just 3 years old.

Incidentally, according to Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, Books-a-Million, and IndieBound the book you’ve relied on has “no price” and “no seller rating” (see, http://books.google.com/books?id=wb_2tgAACAAJ&sitesec=buy&source=gbs_atb). Oh–and, according to Google, there’s also “no e-book available” of the book you’ve quoted.

How odd. This suggests that the 3-year-old book you’re relying on to support your opinion may not be for sale and that we will simply have to take your word for the “fact” that the book offers an accurate interpretation of Chisholm vs. Georgia, and you are offering and accurate representation of a few sentences of text from that book. If the book you’re quoting is for sale somewhere, it’s at least not listed among the New York Times “Best Sellers”.

Am I correct in understanding that you want me and my readers to base our understanding of Chisholm vs Georgia on the text of a 3-year old book that’s at least not easily purchased or even found rather than Cornell University’s data base of Supreme Court cases?

Anyone can easily find the Cornell Website and copy of Chisholm vs Georgia that I’m relying on. Can anyone besides you find a copy of the book that you’re relying on?

According to the copy of Chisholm v Georgia at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419, you are mistaken. The case expressly and specifically begins with the “Opinion of the Court” attributed to Justice J. Iredell. Below that “Opinion of the Court,” the document expressly lists four more “Separate Opinions“–one by Justice Blair, another by Justice Wilson, a third by Justice Cushing, and a fourth by Justice J. Jay.

Neither the “Opinion of the Court” nor the following three “Separate Opinions” contain the word “collective” or “collectively”. Those words appear only in the last “Separate Opinion” attributed to Justice Jay.


As currently defined, a “collective” is a fictional entity and (usually) a sovereign. I.e., under the collectivist forms of government like communism, socialism, and democracy, the “sovereign” is all of the people combined into a single sovereign: the “collective”. Under the “republican form of government” established for the States of the Union by our Constitution, the people are sovereigns as individuals rather than as a single collective. Under the “republican form of government,” I have the rights of a sovereign and so do each of you. Under a collectivist form of government I have no standing or rights as a sovereign, and neither do any of you. In a collectivist form of government, I am at best a subject and at worst a slave or animal.

Therefore, I am very wary of the word “collective” as was used in the Chisholm v Georgia case previously quoted by Toland.

According to the copy of Chisholm vs. Georgia at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419, the words “collective” and “collectively” were each used twice (four times, altogether) by Justice John Jay in his “separate” opinion. I doubt that Justice Jay used those “c-words” in the same sense they are used today (as a single political entity/sovereign). But even if he did,the “c-words” were not included in the Opinion of the Court (which is the law), or in any of the other three “separate” opinions by Justices Blair, Wilson, and Cushing but only in Jay’s separate opinion.

The quoted excerpt from Chisholm vs Georgia that Toland provided (above) is part of the total commentary on that case by the Supreme Court, but it is not part of the actual case law presented by the court. It’s part of a “separate opinion” written by Justice Jay alone. It’s useful information, but it’s not an authoritative part of the case law.

In essence, all I’m trying to say is that you should be very wary, whenever you see the word “collective” because, if you can be presumed to live in a collective (like democracy) you can be presumed to be a subject, slave or animal.

As an aside, it’s also interesting that Findlaw.com–which has a massive, free database of case law, statutory law and regulations from both the federal and state levels–does not currently list the Chisholm vs Georgia under either parties’ names. This may be an oversight, but it might also be evidence that “somebody” doesn’t want you folks to read one of the most important cases in American history.