Fun with Sui

[Dr. Caligari]

OK, not technically a tax protestor issue, but nonetheless a vintage sui juris post (beverages down, please):

Now I have a action at law.

I received a letter from the Illinois Tollway authority yesterday demanding $748 within 21 days if I don't request a hearing before the Illinois Tollway Authorities administrative kangaroo court.

It just so happens that the highways are to be forever free according to the Northwest Ordinance so this is an act of extorsion. Since Article III section 2 names the Supreme Court as having original jurisdiction in all cases where a state is a party I will be filing my action for trespass on the case with SCOTUS.

Guess who the sovereign of the court is going to be?

Does anyone know how to calculate damages?

[Famspear]

Somebody get the net.

And a supply of haloperidol.

[Dr. Caligari]

OK, my original post may not have been tax-related, but here comes "kilbey" at LostHopes to post this:

I don't know how many of you are familiar with Sui Juris.net, but there are many freedom- and sovereignty-minded people on there. There are also many completely insane folks. It is a good xforum however, for talking about Ctc...

[Famspear]

kilbey wrote:

I don't know how many of you are familiar with Sui Juris.net, but there are many freedom- and sovereignty-minded people on there. There are also many completely insane folks. It is a good xforum however, for talking about Ctc...

(bolding added)

That should be reworded to delete the word "however," and replace it with "therefore", as follows:

I don't know how many of you are familiar with Sui Juris.net, but there are many freedom- and sovereignty-minded people on there. There are also many completely insane folks. It is, THEREFORE, a good xforum for talking about Ctc...

[Quixote]

OK, not technically a tax protestor issue, but nonetheless a vintage sui juris post (beverages down, please):

Now I have a action at law.

I received a letter from the Illinois Tollway authority yesterday demanding $748 within 21 days if I don't request a hearing before the Illinois Tollway Authorities administrative kangaroo court.

It just so happens that the highways are to be forever free according to the Northwest Ordinance so this is an act of extorsion. Since Article III section 2 names the Supreme Court as having original jurisdiction in all cases where a state is a party I will be filing my action for trespass on the case with SCOTUS.

Guess who the sovereign of the court is going to be?

Does anyone know how to calculate damages?

I didn't know the Supreme Court had a small claims division. Does the Chief Justice preside or do they rotate? I assume the Court's dress code is relaxed to allow for cutoffs and tank tops in small claims court.

[Famspear]

Quixote wrote:

I didn't know the Supreme Court had a small claims division. Does the Chief Justice preside or do they rotate? I assume the Court's dress code is relaxed to allow for cutoffs and tank tops in small claims court.

Yeah, and I think on every other Friday, the Supremes' small claims division goes R-E-A-L-L-Y casual, sporting a flag in the court room -- (hold on to your teacups, ladies) -- without the gold fringe!

[The Operative]

OK, not technically a tax protestor issue, but nonetheless a vintage sui juris post (beverages down, please):

Now I have a action at law.

I received a letter from the Illinois Tollway authority yesterday demanding $748 within 21 days if I don't request a hearing before the Illinois Tollway Authorities administrative kangaroo court.

It just so happens that the highways are to be forever free according to the Northwest Ordinance so this is an act of extorsion. Since Article III section 2 names the Supreme Court as having original jurisdiction in all cases where a state is a party I will be filing my action for trespass on the case with SCOTUS.

Guess who the sovereign of the court is going to be?

Does anyone know how to calculate damages?

Too bad SCOTUS can't just reply with "the petitioner is hereby fined $x,xxx for being an idiot."

[LPC]

It just so happens that the highways are to be forever free according to the Northwest Ordinance

I don't think I've ever seen the Northwest Ordinance cited before, so this has some novelty to it. I mean, anyone can cite the Magna Charta, but citing the Northwest Ordinance shows some class.

When it comes to the merits, I suspect that the highways that are still dirt are still free, but if you want one that's paved it's going to cost you.

so this is an act of extorsion.

"Nothing you can't spell will ever work." Will Rogers

[LPC]

It just so happens that the highways are to be forever free according to the Northwest Ordinance

Of course, that's not what it actually says.

What the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 actually says, in Article 4, is:

The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.

I see two major issues here:

1. What must be "free" are "navigable waters" and "the carrying places the same," meaning the "portages" between the navigable waters, not truck routes.

2. What the "carrying places" must be free from is "any tax, impost, or duty therefor," and a mileage fee for the use of a paved road is almost certainly not a "tax, impost, or duty" within the meaning of the ordinance.

Otherwise, it's a slam dunk.

[Quixote]

I couldn't help noticing that the first clause of Article the Fourth has not been vigorously enforced of late.

The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the Acts and Ordinances of the United States in Congress Assembled, conformable thereto.

[Nikki]

Just out of curiosity, what's the filing fee for the Supreme Court?

I have a gut feeling that the fee, plus the cost of 40 (bound in pretty covers) copies of the initial filing plus multiple copies of all subsequent documents, plus the cost of service of all docuiments on the opposition via registered mail will amount to a hell of a lot more than the fine at issue.

But, then again, what the hell do a few FRNs matter to a SooeyHead when they have a chance to publicly demonstrate their legal acumen?

[The Operative]

The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation...

How long will it be until some nitwit in Illinois claims that Illinois is not part of the United States but is part of the Confederacy of the United States of America and therefore they are not subject to the government created under the Constitution?

[Dr. Caligari]

I don't think I've ever seen the Northwest Ordinance cited before, so this has some novelty to it.

Is the Northwest Ordinance still legally in effect? The Constitution explicitly ratified treaties made under the Articles of Confederation, but pre-Constitution statutes are no longer in effect, I assume?

[grixit]

Feng Sui: The art of arranging ones delusions for maximum failure.

[fortinbras]

Actually, the passage is from Article 4 of the Northwest Ordinance:

The navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the carrying places between the same, shall be common highways and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of the said territory as to the citizens of the United States, and those of any other States that may be admitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, or duty therefor.

So it would appear that the "highways forever free" are water, not pavement. It may be that some argument can be made to include some land routes as "forever free" -- but only those necessarily leading to river docking -- and maybe only those roads that existed in 1787!

Checking the map for the Illinois Tollway, it consists of Interstates 94, 294, 55, and 90, all converging on Chicago. They approach Lake Michigan but none actually leads right up to the lake, and there are plenty of non-toll thoroughfares that can get to the same spots and even to the water's edge, so I doubt the Tollway fits the terms of the Northwest Ordinance.

I have seen the Northwest Ordinance cited in court cases, but only as aid to interpretation of modern law, not as an authority to invalidate modern law.

[wserra]

Is the Northwest Ordinance still legally in effect? The Constitution explicitly ratified treaties made under the Articles of Confederation, but pre-Constitution statutes are no longer in effect, I assume?

I assume so, too. However, one of the first acts of the new Congress was to ratify the Northwest Ordinance.

But that doesn't matter, of course. Rottweiler is clearly barking up the wrong tree.

[Dr. Caligari]

However, one of the first acts of the new Congress was to ratify the Northwest Ordinance.

But that doesn't matter, of course. Rottweiler is clearly barking up the wrong tree.

Oh, I'm quite clear that the Northwest Ordinance doesn't ban drivers' licences or road tolls or whatever Rottweiler is complaining about. I was just curious as to whether it was even still law. I didn't know that the post-Constitution Congress ratified it.

To quote my late father, today is not a wasted day because I learned something.

[buck09]

I received a letter from the Illinois Tollway authority yesterday demanding $748 within 21 days if I don't request a hearing before the Illinois Tollway Authorities administrative kangaroo court.

I don't know how "vintage" this is, but they've had open-road tolling for a few years now - real easy to just drive right through them. Based on the number above, assuming it includes the penalties, that amount could be easily racked up in 3-6 months.

On top of that, nobody is preventing him from getting from one side of town to the other - there are plenty of other streets (and highways) that will get you from the outermost suburbs into the city. It's just that if you want to get there in a "reasonable" amount of time, you gotta pay for it.

While I have no sympathy for this nimrod, I wouldn't feel real confident going against any government agency in Illinois, based on the the rampant corruption, cronyism, etc.

[wserra]

Oh, I'm quite clear that the Northwest Ordinance doesn't ban drivers' licences or road tolls or whatever Rottweiler is complaining about.

I have no doubt that you understand that the NW Ordinance has nothing to do with nothing. But please reread part of my post, with the following emphasis:

But that doesn't matter, of course. Rottweiler is clearly barking up the wrong tree.

Awright, awright, so that dog has fleas.

[Dr. Caligari]

Woof!