Possible Sovereign on People's Court

[webhick]

Just caught today's episode and the second case featured a broker who said that he is not a citizen of NY, but a resident and then stated that he discovered that he didn't need a broker's license to do what he was doing. The judge read a bit of the contract that applied to the case and it sounded a bit like word salad to me. He lost. In the hallway with Curt, he said that a supreme court decision from 1906 stated that he has unlimited power to contract. Curt cut him off and told him to read another contract.

Sounded like the guy had been drinking some kool-aid.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Which of the growing plethora of shows are you talking about?

[webhick]

Which of the growing plethora of shows are you talking about?

It's in the title: People's Court.

[The Observer]

How could it be a People's Court if the hearing wasn't held at a Denny's? Don't these TV people understand the sovrun movement?

[Dezcad]

Just caught today's episode and the second case featured a broker who said that he is not a citizen of NY, but a resident and then stated that he discovered that he didn't need a broker's license to do what he was doing. The judge read a bit of the contract that applied to the case and it sounded a bit like word salad to me. He lost. In the hallway with Curt, he said that a supreme court decision from 1906 stated that he has unlimited power to contract. Curt cut him off and told him to read another contract.

Sounded like the guy had been drinking some kool-aid.

I saw that too. he said "I am not a resident of the state of New York but a citizen of New York state".

The case he cited in the hallway was Hale v. Henkel for the proposition that his ability to contract is unlimited so NY cannot limit his contract rights by requiring a broker's license. In typical TP/sovereign fashion, he completely takes a quote from that case out of context. Read the Hale case if you want but suffice it to say, it does not even come close to the proposition that this guy thought it did. It is primarily a question of whether a corporation has the same 4th and 5th Amendment rights as a person.

Quote mining at its best.

[Pottapaug1938]

Here is the relevant excerpt from the majority opinion:

"[w]e are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction... between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.... He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation."

In other words, Mr. Sovrun Broker, the word "unlimited" in your quote is meant to be contrasted with the contract rights of a corporation, which are limited by its charter; and in any event your contract rights -- if that concept even applies here -- can and have been limited "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution".

Congratulations, Pal. You just made an ass of yourself on national TV.

[notorial dissent]

Congratulations, Pal. You just made an ass of yourself on national TV.

Not I'm sure an unfamiliar situation for the person in question, and I am equally certain that the State of New York will want to have some serious words with this "citizen not a resident of New York State", in the very near future to disabuse him of his current delusions.