Click to Join the American Christain Liberty Society Newsgroup |
|
Member Login |
Current Actions
Recent Actions
of Interest
McDonald
v. Alabama
Department
of
Public
Safety
Recent Articles
TOLERATING
ANYTHING
BUT
LIBERTY
Links of Interest
Phone: (757) 850-1245
ACLS
P.O. Box 4096
Hampton, Virginia
23664-0096
Web
Master
Web Design by
David Alan Carmichael
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr of Truth
To: acls@christianliberty.org
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 10:41 AM
Subject: exhausting administrative remedies case
David, the below case is under current 42USC1983 annotated which would be controlling legal authority. With respect to driving, since property rights (being defined as just about anything of personal value) are civil rights (see Lynch V. Household Finance 405 US 538 (1972), have you considered taking an action under 42USC1983?
Peace & Blessings, (name redacted)
4383. ---- Exhaustion of remedies, considerations governing, persons
entitled to maintain action Patients and former patients of state mental
institutions did not lack standing to challenge constitutionality of Maryland
involuntary commitment statutes, Code Md.1957, art. 59, §§ 1,
21; Supp. art. 59, §§ 14, 15, because they had not exhausted
available state remedies. Anderson v. Solomon, D.C.Md.1970, 315 F.Supp.
1192.
David's reply:
I have the Annotated USC, including 42 USC 1983 and subsequent codes relating to civil rights remedies. We are deliberately focusing on Virginia law rather than invoke US jurisdiction. Virginia law stands strongly in our favor. It will take a clearly lawless act of the judiciary to rule against us if this goes to court.
We don't believe a case resting on 42 USC §1983 will prevail in a federal court on the basis of recent United States Court rulings at the appellate level. It is not something that we have ruled out. However, we do not want to go there unless we hit a brick wall in Virginia.
I am convinced that 42 USC §1983 has no constitutional authority except where a state law might intrude upon the rights of a person of color on the basis of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution (Consider Printz v. United States shows the US has no express Constitutional authority over state law). 42 USC §1983 is another means the US is using to absorb every free person in America to submit to a single national government in usurpation of the Constitutional government. 42 USC §1983 can only be valid in those US territories that are not part of the several sovereign states. Otherwise, 42 USC §1983 will require a US Constitutional amendment to give it effect outside of the federal sector. Not to be a hypocrate, I have to make sure I do not try to invoke it unless I can clearly see that invoking federal jurisdiction can be in support and defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America and Virginia.
Keep the good comments, advice and questions coming.
In the King's service,
Bro. David