Anyone know about the law of status?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Just wondering what books or people I should look up to explore this section more.

[Pottapaug1938]

Why do you ask -- or are you just trolling, once again?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Thought it was obvious, trying to learn about the law of status. I'm halfway done with one book and looking for more to check out.

Interesting stuff this status is, I have come to learn a person is a man with a status.


. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Polydore v prince sheds some light on status, but I would like to see more.

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/re ... 0950.4.pdf

[Patriotdiscussions]

Oh yeah I am reading status in the common law by R.H. Graveson, so if you have anything else besides that please let me know.

[Pottapaug1938]

Thought it was obvious, trying to learn about the law of status. I'm halfway done with one book and looking for more to check out.

Interesting stuff this status is, I have come to learn a person is a man with a status.


. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

Without knowing what the HOLDING in the Cruden case is, it's tough to evaluate this piece of dictum; but what it tells me is that, if you don't like the political system under which you live, you are free to leave the jurisdiction in which it operates. You CANNOT simply say "I do not consent, and refuse my allegiance", and thus exempt yourself from its laws.

As for the Bouvier quote, I'm not interested in what an antique legal dictionary says. I'm much more interested in the holdings of appellate courts, concerning the subject, which have not been modified or overruled (which is why you should be able to do better than cite a 1796 case in support of your premise).

[LPC]

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

Without knowing what the HOLDING in the Cruden case is, it's tough to evaluate this piece of dictum;

The full text of the opinion can be found at this debt elimination website.

'Nuff said.

[Pottapaug1938]

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

Without knowing what the HOLDING in the Cruden case is, it's tough to evaluate this piece of dictum;

The full text of the opinion can be found at this debt elimination website.

'Nuff said.

Indeed, if I Google the citation, I get pages of links to debt elimination, detax and sovrun web sites. What an excellent example of quote-mining....

[Patriotdiscussions]

Thought it was obvious, trying to learn about the law of status. I'm halfway done with one book and looking for more to check out.

Interesting stuff this status is, I have come to learn a person is a man with a status.


. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

Without knowing what the HOLDING in the Cruden case is, it's tough to evaluate this piece of dictum; but what it tells me is that, if you don't like the political system under which you live, you are free to leave the jurisdiction in which it operates. You CANNOT simply say "I do not consent, and refuse my allegiance", and thus exempt yourself from its laws.

As for the Bouvier quote, I'm not interested in what an antique legal dictionary says. I'm much more interested in the holdings of appellate courts, concerning the subject, which have not been modified or overruled (which is why you should be able to do better than cite a 1796 case in support of your premise).

Correct you can leave their jurisdiction, in the polydore case we see we have to cut the LEGAL connection, not the physical connection.....

every nation having the exclusive right to regulate its own internal polity, and to determine the personal state or capacity of its members, all other nations are bound by the jus gentium, or by national comity, to take notice of, and recognize this personal status as it would be recognized in the forum of their original domicil, while they remain members of that community; that personal qualities impressed upon them by the law of their original domicil as to their civil capacities, or incapacities, travel with them wherever they go, until their legal connection with that country is dissolved.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The text can also be found in status in the common law by a London law professor... Nuff said.

[notorial dissent]

Yawn!!!

[Pottapaug1938]

Correct you can leave their jurisdiction, in the polydore case we see we have to cut the LEGAL connection, not the physical connection.....

every nation having the exclusive right to regulate its own internal polity, and to determine the personal state or capacity of its members, all other nations are bound by the jus gentium, or by national comity, to take notice of, and recognize this personal status as it would be recognized in the forum of their original domicil, while they remain members of that community; that personal qualities impressed upon them by the law of their original domicil as to their civil capacities, or incapacities, travel with them wherever they go, until their legal connection with that country is dissolved.

All this means is that, in 1837, Polydore's status as a slave was recognized in US courts. It has nothing to do with modern American law.

You've got to do MUCH better than this, PD. So far, you've maintained your perfect record of saying nothing of substance.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Look, not here to debate the law of status with people who have no clue about status, which if you did know about it, you would of directed me to where you learned about it.

Clearly we see the case is about a slave and a slave is a STATUS in law, funny how you missed that.

[Pottapaug1938]

Look, not here to debate the law of status with people who have no clue about status, which if you did know about it, you would of directed me to where you learned about it.

Clearly we see the case is about a slave and a slave is a STATUS in law, funny how you missed that.

I'm not going to debate the "law of status" with someone who uses quotes mined from long-obsolete cases to buttress a point which he has, so far, not deigned to fully reveal to us. As for "a slave being a STATUS in law", I fail to see how that bears the slightest relevance to us.

I'm not going to bother responding further unless you can do much better than you already have.

[The Observer]

I think Patriotdiscussions is arguing that he needs to be converted to slave status since there was a change of government after 1796.

So I will make a motion that his request to be converted to a slave. Is there a second to motion?

[Pottapaug1938]

I'd rather begin debate on his title. I will start by suggesting "Mover of Quatloosian Goalposts".

[Famspear]

" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

Another fake quote - similar to the Lucas v. Earl fakery with which the regulars here are so familiar. As explained below, Patriotdiscussions is trying to leave other people with the false impression that this was a statement by the court itself in the case of Cruden v. Neale, and that this is a ruling by the court on which he can somehow rely.

It is not.



It is an argument made by the plaintiff's attorney in that case.

In other words, not only are the words in this passage not a holding by the court, they are not even dicta.

As anyone who has slogged through three years of law school in America (i.e., someone who has had to wade through the case reports of old English and American cases) knows, case reporters in the olden days combined reports of arguments of the parties with the opinions of the courts -- sometimes without clearly labeling the various parts.

In this case, however, the parts are labeled, which makes Patriotdiscussion's error even more egregious.

By labeling the material with the citation "CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70," Patriotdiscussions falsely implied that this verbiage was a ruling by the Court in that case.

[NYGman]

Just wondering what books or people I should look up to explore this section more.

Why is this even remotely relevant to anything. Why are you trying to interpret concepts, when you have regulations, statutes, cases, and well written law articles to educate yourself, if that was what you are really after.

To me, you are grasping at any straw that you think will justify a position contrary to the currently general accepted legal theory.

You, a lay quasi-legal "scholar" will not be able to put together a valid argument that supports the position you want, whether that be not paying taxes, because somehow they don't apply to you, or that certain laws do not apply to you, because of what you have discovered or are able to "argue".

It is like those people who argue that the world is flat [http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/] . They can honestly believe in the fact that the world is flat. They can be shown modern evidence that the world is not flat, they can be taken to see the curvature of the earth, but will still believe the world is flat. Obviously any evidence contradicting their position is wrong, made up, a hoax, a lie, a conspiracy. They have old references to the flatness of earth, that must be true, they have scholars who preach about the flatness of the earth, and they must be right. However, as much as these people want to believe is a flat earth, and support their position with their own scientific study, the earth is not flat. It is round (Spherical not necessarily round), it has always been that way, and will always remain that way, no matter how hard you believe it isn't or what evidence you can provide the experts, the Earth will remain round.

PD, you want the Earth to be Flat, and it just isn't. Nothing you can refer to will confirm otherwise, despite your beliefs. I believe the scientists on this one, the Earth is Round. You need to believe the legal folk here, you are not correct, and you will never find valid support for your position.

Finally, if there were a magical code section or postilion that would allow someone to not pay taxes legally, or would allow someone to opt out of laws they didn't like, don't you think many smart lawyers would use this themselves, write Law Review articles on it, market it and sell it to every wealthy person in this country and make money on it, or use it for themselves? Also, don't you think if there were theses massive loopholes, the government wouldn't take steps to plug them? There is no such thing, and if there were, there isn't, I highly doubt it would be discovered by an untrained pseudo-legal scholar like yourself.

If you want to learn about the law, got to a real law school, study the law and how to apply it, learn form a valid legal argument, learn how to appropriately read and understand case law, and then come back with your questions.

Until that time, nothing you can do will convince us that the earth is really flat...

[Famspear]

Further, the plaintiff's attorney was not trying to argue that a citizen of North Carolina would not be bound by laws of that state for which he refused to provide consent.

The plaintiff was instead arguing that because he had been a British subject and had remained a British subject at the time of the American Revolution, he never become a citizen the United States of America. He was arguing that as a British subject, he had the right (as did every other British subject after the hostilities between the United States and Great Britain ended) to receive payment for a debt owed to him. (That right had been suspended while the war was going on, but the war was over.)

The Court itself concluded as follows:

First, assuming that the plaintiff was wrong, and that the plaintiff had been a citizen of the United States who had "attached himself to the enemy" (Great Britain) during the Revolutionary War, any legal disability with which he had previously been burdened with respect to recovering a debt was removed by the effect of certain statutes cited by the Court.

Second, assuming that the plaintiff was right, and that the plaintiff had never become a citizen of the United States (i.e., that he had remained a British subject), his legal disability (previously preventing him from maintaining a suit to recover the debt) was removed by article 4 of a treaty cited by the Court.

The Court thus concluded that either way, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the lawsuit.

Nowhere did either the plaintiff's attorney or the Court itself assert that a citizen of North Carolina would not be bound by laws of North Carolina to which that citizen did not give consent.

Today, the Wackadoosters try to argue that they are not bound by laws to which they do not provide consent. That argument is silly. The 'Doosters are simply wrong, and engaging in quote mining isn't going to help them.

EDIT: Edited once after topic was closed, to correct for missing word.

[Prof]

This is/was the ruling of the N.C. court in Cruden's Ex'rs v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) (the West Law S.E. Rptr. cite is incorrect). The initial material incorporated by the reporter is, as Famspear points out, a recitation of the arguments made by counsel for the parties.

The opinion:

Per curiam

We will take time to consider of the plea, and give judgment sometime before the end of the term.--After a few days they gave judgment.

Per curiam

All persons in general, as well foreigners as citizens, may come into this court to recover rights withheld, and to obtain satisfaction for injuries done, unless where they are subject to some disability the law imposes. Foreigners are in general entitled to sue, unless a war exists between our country and theirs. The 101st section of 1777. ch. 2. is certainly repealed as to all British subjects, by the 4th article of the treaty; which is to be regarded as law paramount, the acts of any state Legislature to the contrary, until that treaty shall become suspended by the sovereign authority entrusted with the power to suspend it. Each department of government empowered to do a sovereign act relative to the affairs of the government, must in doing that act establish what the whole people, and every state, must be bound by as done by competent authority. It is also repealed by 1787. ch. 1. declaring this article to be a part of the law of the land. As to British subjects, it is very much to be doubted, whether the mere act of terminating the war by a treaty of peace, did not repeal this clause. That restores them with regard to this country, to the condition of alien friends, and to all the rights belonging to that character, one of which is, the right of commencing a prosecution. It is incompatible with a state of national friendship, and is a cause for war, if the citizens of another country are not allowed to sue for and obtain a redress of wrongs in our courts. But however this may be, British subjects by the 4th article of the treaty, are to be entitled to recover their debts, and this they cannot do without instituting suits. Quando aliquid conceditur, conceditur ut Id, sine quo non pervenitur ad illud. The plaintiff is not stated by the plea to have been a citizen, we cannot say he was--but say he was a citizen, the laws may suspend the right of suing for a certain time, or until a certain period, either to all the citizens with respect to certain cases, as was done in 1783; or to a description of citizens coming under particular circumstances, as citizens for instance who had notoriously joined the enemies of the country. It would have been equally impolitic to have suffered them to recover in the time of war, although they could not be arrested so as to be convicted of treason, as to have suffered a British subject to recover. The reason for excluding the latter, applied with equal force to the exclusion of the former. The fact of joining the enemy, upon a plea in disability might be ascertained by a jury as well as any other fact. This would not be ascertaining a fact for the purpose of punishing the party for his treason, but for the purpose of excluding him for the present from our courts of justice. In the same manner as the fact of being an alien enemy is found, and operates when found. This clause seems to have been made with a view to the war then carrying on, to prevent those inimical to us from getting into their possession any of the wealth of the country, which might enable them to fight us with more advantage. Considering it in this light, it would seem as if the clause itself should expire with the war, the terminating that being a providing otherwise within the words of the act, and that termination effected by those who were vested with power to do that act of sovereignty that was absolutely binding upon every state, notwithstanding any particular act of the state Legislature to the contrary remaining unrepealed by the state Legislature. But there are sundry acts of the Legislature, which have repealed this clause with respect to the greater number of citizens who had fallen under its operation--by 1783. ch. 6. all manner of treasons, misprisions of treason, felony or misdemeanor, committed since the 4th July, 1776, are pardoned and put in total oblivion: but that act is not to pardon or discharge, ?? give any benefit to persons who have taken commissions, or have been denominated officers, or acted as such, or to such as have attached themselves to the British and continued without the limits of the state, and returned within twelve months before the passing the act: and nothing in that act is to be so construed as to bar any citizen from his civil action for the recovery of debt or damages. By this act all the citizens of the state are pardoned all treasons and misdemeanors, except those who have borne offices in the enemy's service, or having been in their service as private men, had not returned within 12 months before the passing the act. Now if a disability to sue is inflicted as a punishment for attaching himself to the enemy, then the pardoning of that must of course take away the disability. Quando subtollitur causa, subtollitur ctiam effectus. Then the 101st section is repealed as to all citizens but those of the two descriptions mentioned in the act. By 1784. ch. 20. all persons who attached themselves to the enemy, or aided them in the prosecution of the war are disabled to hold sundry offices specified in the act; and there is a proviso annexed, that that act shall not be so construed as to permit the return to the state, of any person who acted as an officer after being a resident of the state, or w??o had not submitted to the laws of the state before the ratification of the definitive treaty. The Legislature supposed and therefore probably intended that the general implication arising from this act would be, that all persons therein described would be entitled to all the rights of citizens except those denied them in the act and of course the right to return to this state, unless hindered by an express clause, which they have made as to officers only. If such general implication was intended, and is restrained only as to officers, it follows that all other persons are restored to all the rights of citizenship, except the right of being elected to certain offices; and then the 101st section of 1777. ch. 2. is repealed as to all but those who had borne commissions in the enemy's service and particularly as to one description of persons who were continued subject to it by the act of 1783, namely, those who had attached themselves to the enemy and remained without the limits of the state, and had not returned twelve months before the 18th of April, 1783. To the same effect with the act of 1784, is the act of 1785. ch. 11. Supposing the plaintiff to have been a citizen who attached himself to the enemy, without having borne a commission in their service, or having borne a commission to have submitted to the laws of the state before the ratification of the definitive treaty, he is entitled upon the construction of all these acts, now to institute his suit--and this plea does not state, either that he bore a commission, or that he did not submit to the laws of the state before the ratification of the definitive treaty. It is unnecessary to consider how far the section in question is repealed by the termination of the war, independent of any particular acts of the Legislature--for if the plaintiff was a citizen, then make the worst of the case, and by the acts mentioned, the 101st section is repealed as to him--it not being pretended that he is to be distinguished by either of the disqualifying characters before mentioned. If he was a British subject, then his right to sue for antecedent debts is revived by the 4th article of the treaty, and this is such a debt.--Let the plea in abatement be overruled, and the defendant answer over.


*3 There were several cases depending in this court upon the same pleas, and upon this opinion of the court being given, the pleas were withdrawn and the defendants pleaded in chief.


At Hillsborough, October, 1796, the three first causes on the argument docket, were standing upon pleas in abatement and demurrer thereto for the same cause, and the pleas we??e overruled per Williams and Haywood, without argument, upon the authority of the foregoing decision. Also at Fayetteville, 1796, a client of Mr. Williams, who had joined the enemy in the time of the late war, and who had given notice of moving for a writ of error, was suspended by a plea in disability--that plea was now overruled, and he was set at liberty to proceed.


N.C.Super.L&Eq. 1796.
Executors of CRUDEN v. NEALE.
2 N.C. 338, 1796 WL 273 (N.C.Super.L. & Eq.), 1 Hayw. (NC) 338