DOCSLIB.ORG

Jemez River Basin Water Users Coalition Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jemez River Basin Water Users Coalition Brief Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 1 Nos. 18-2164 & 18-2167 ____________________________________ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Pueblos of Jemez, Santa Ana and Zia, Plaintiff/Appellant, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. STATE ENGINEER, Plaintiff/Appellee, PUEBLOS OF SANTA ANA, JEMEZ and ZIA, Plaintiffs-in-Intervention/Appellants, v. TOM ABOUSLEMAN, et al., Defendants/Appellees. __________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico No. 6:83-cv-01041 (Hon. Martha Vazquez) __________________________________ RESPONSE BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JEMEZ RIVER BASIN WATER USERS’ COALITION __________________________________ ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED __________________________________ Larry C. White John W. Utton Post Office Box 2248 Utton & Kery, PA Santa Fe, NM 87504 Post Office Box 2683 (505) 982-2863 Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) 699-1445 Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ..............................................1 I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .......................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................3 III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE .........................................................3 IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..........................................................4 A. The US’ Complaint and Pueblos’ Complaints in Intervention ............................................................................6 B. The US/Pueblos’ Statements of Claims and Efforts to “Pin Down” the Legal and Factual Basis Thereof ..................8 C. Quantification Claimed by the US/Pueblos ..............................10 D. Motions for Summary Judgment and Judge Zinn’s September 14, 1988 Report .....................................................11 E. Judge Zinn’s October 1, 1991 Report on the Pueblos Historic and Existing Uses .......................................................13 F. Judge Vazquez’s 2004 Opinion ................................................14 G. Judge Vazquez’s 2017 Opinion ................................................16 V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................17 VI. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................18 A. Standard of Review ..................................................................18 B. The US/Pueblos’ “Aboriginal Water Right” Claim and the Applicability of Winters and Winans ..................................19 i Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 3 C. Substantial, Uncontroverted Evidence Supports the 2017 Opinion’s Adoption of Judge Lynch’s PFRD .................26 D. The US/Pueblos Mischaracterize the 2017 Opinion which Correctly Applied Santa Fe Pacific and Should Be Affirmed ..................................................................36 E. Congressional Acts Pertaining to Water Rights Bar the US/Pueblos’ Claims to Expanding Water Rights ...............40 F. “Aboriginal Title” Cases Do Not Apply to the Pueblos’ Grant Lands...............................................................................45 G. Even if the Aboriginal Title Cases Applied, They Limit the US/Pueblos’ Claims to Actual Uses as of the Treaty .........46 H. The Pueblos Concede that a Grant by Spain to a Third Party Extinguished the Pueblo Aboriginal Claim to What was Granted .....................................................................51 I. Neither Adair, Greely nor Joint Board Support the US/Pueblos’ Claims ..................................................................55 J. Neither Aamodt I nor Aamodt II Support the US/Pueblos’ or Amici’s Claims .....................................................................59 K. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Bars the US/Pueblos’ Claims .......................................................................................65 L. Inchoate Rights, as those Claimed Here, Were Not Recognized by the Treaty .........................................................67 VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................69 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................70 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................70 ii Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 4 CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION AND PRIVACY REDACTIONS ................................................................71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................71 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 10, 1983 (unpublished). Attachment B New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, December 29, 1993 (unpublished). Attachment C New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, January 17, 1997 (unpublished). iii Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Intern. Union v. Continental Carbon Co., 428 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2005) ....................................... 4 Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Company, 436 U.S. 604 (1978) ................. 42 Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) .......................................... 7, 8, 9, 21, 60 Atchison v. Peterson, 20 Wall 507 (1874)......................................................... 41, 42 Basey v. Gallagher, 20 Wall 670 (1874) ........................................................... 41, 42 Broder v. Water Company, 101 U.S. 274 (1879) .................................................... 41 Burgess v. Gray, 16 How. 48, 21 Curtis 25 (1853) ................................................. 68 Board of Flathead, et. al., Irr. Dist. v. U.S., 832 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1007 (1988) .............................................................................. 57 California Oregon Power Company v. Beaver Portland Cement Company, 295 U.S. 142 (1935) .............................................................................. 42 California v. United States, 438 U.S. 645 (1978) ............................................. 42, 43 Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) .............................................. 12, 60 Cartwright v. Public Service Company, 343 P.2d 654 (1958) .......................... 67, 68 Dalzell v. RP Steamboat Springs, LLC, 781 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2015 ................. 19 Dent v. Emmeger, 14 Wall 308 (1871) .................................................................... 68 Forbes v. Gracie, 94 U.S. 762 ................................................................................. 41 Grant v. Jaramillo, 6 N.M. 313 (1892) ................................................................... 68 iv Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 6 Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. United States, 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 338 (1966) .................. 52 Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) ........................................................... 9, 48 Joint Board of Control v. United States, 832 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied , 100 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1988)........................................................... 54, 57 Montana ex rel. Greely v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, 712 P.2d 754 (Mont. 1985) .......................... 54, 56, 57 New Mexico ex. rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas, 89 P.3d 47 (2004) ...... 67, 68, 69 New Mexico v. Aamodt, 537 F.2d 1102 (10th Cir. 1976) ............. 8, 9, 24, 38, 42, 43, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65 New Mexico v. Aamodt, 618 F. Supp. 993 (D.N.M. 1985) .............................................................. 32, 34, 38, 40, 54, 58, 62, 65 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 10, 1983 (unpublished) ............................................................ 60 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, December 29, 1993 (unpublished) ................................. 57, 58, 61, 64 New Mexico v. Aamodt, No. 6639-M Civil, (U.S.D.N.M.), Memorandum Opinion and Order, January 17, 1997 (unpublished) ................................................. 61, 62 Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945) ............................................................................................... 48 Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ............................................................................................... 45 Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers Intern. Union v. Continental Carbon Co., 428 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2005) ..................................... 4 Pueblo de Cochiti v. United States, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422 (1959) ........................... 52 Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 18, 46, 48, 49, 53 65 v Appellate Case: 18-2164 Document: 010110207177 Date Filed: 08/02/2019 Page: 7 Pueblo of Taos v. United States, 15 Ind.Cl.Comm. 666 (1965) .............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leases and the Rule Against Perpetuities
    LEASES AND THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES EDWIN H. ABBOT, JUNIOR of the Boston Bar INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to consider the application of the rule against perpetuities to leases. A leasehold estate has certain peculiari- ties which distinguish it, as a practical matter, from other estates in land. At common law it required no livery of seisin, and so could be created to begin in futuro. Although it is not an estate of freehold the duration of the estate may be practically unlimited-it may be for 999 years or even in perpetuity. The reversion after an estate for years is necessarily vested, no matter how long the term of the lease may be, yet the leasehold estate is generally terminable at an earlier time upon numerous conditions subsequent, defined in the lease. In other words the leasehold estate determines without condition by the effluxion of the term defined in the lease but such termination may be hastened by the happening of one or more conditions. The application of the rule against perpetuities to such an estate presents special problems. The purpose of this article is to consider the application of the rule to the creation, termination and renewal of leases; and also its effect upon options inserted in leases. II CREATION A leasehold estate may be created to begin in futuro, since livery of seisin was not at common law required for its creation. Unless limited by the rule a contingent lease might be granted to begin a thousand years hence. But the creation of a contingent estate for years to begin a thousand years hence is for practical reasons just as objectionable as the limitation of a contingent fee to begin at such a remote period by means of springing or shifting uses, or by the device of an execu- tory devise.
    [Show full text]
  • False Natural Law: Professor Goble's Straw Man, The;Note Goerge W
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Natural Law Forum 1-1-1956 False Natural Law: Professor Goble's Straw Man, The;Note Goerge W. Constable Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Constable, Goerge W., "False Natural Law: Professor Goble's Straw Man, The;Note" (1956). Natural Law Forum. Paper 9. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/nd_naturallaw_forum/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Law Forum by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FALSE NATURAL LAW: PROFESSOR GOBLE'S STRAW MAN To ALL WHO FOLLOW the trends here and abroad in legal philosophy, it has become apparent that the tide which has run so strongly against natural law theory for many decades, has now begun to turn. As the fatal emptiness in the heart of positivism becomes more exposed with each fresh assault upon freedom by evil ideologies and with every new example of antisocial individualism, the natural law position wins more attention and regains more of its ancient prestige.' For the natural law position, in the classical and Scholastic sense, is gradually revealing itself for what it is-as a strong central defense point between two extremes, seeking at once to secure for us proper individual freedoms and to impose upon us proper social duties.2 Significant in this turn of the tide is the article of George W. Goble entitled "Nature, Man and Law: The True Natural Law" (A.B.A.J., May 1955).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Rights and Responsibilities in the Twenty-First Century: a Foreword to the Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Managing Hawai‘I’S Public Trust Doctrine
    WATER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A FOREWORD TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2001 SYMPOSIUM ON MANAGING HAWAI‘I’S PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE By Denise E. Antolini1 I. INTRODUCTION Modern water allocation decisions inevitably involve difficult choices among competing consumptive and natural uses that are highly valued by diverse but equally passionate sectors of the community.2 Particularly in an island state like Hawai‘i, with its limited sources of fresh water, fragile environment, and unique economic challenges, debates over re-allocation of precious water resources and the merits of stream restoration are likely to become only more intense as human needs for 1 Assistant Professor of Law at the William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai`i at Manoa; former Managing Attorney, Mid- Pacific Office, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF), Honolulu, Hawai`i; J.D., 1986, University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall; A.B., 1982, Princeton University. Prior to joining the law school faculty, Ms. Antolini represented the “windward parties” (Wai_hole- Waik_ne Community Association, Hakipu`u `Ohana, Kahalu`u Neighborhood Board, and Ka L_hui Hawai`i) in the first phase of the Wai_hole contested case hearing. Special thanks to: Bill Tam, Michelle Kaneshiro-Oishi, and Christine Griffin of Carnazzo Court Reporting for their generous assistance. Contact the author at: antolini@hawai`i.edu. 2 See Robbie Dingeman, Wai_hole Water Allocation Rejected: Ruling Called Windward Victory, HONOLULU ADVERTISER, Aug. 23, 2000,
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Destruction of Joint Tenant Survivorship Rights
    Fordham Law Review Volume 55 Issue 2 Article 2 1986 An Invitation to Commit Fraud: Secret Destruction of Joint Tenant Survivorship Rights Samuel M. Fetters Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel M. Fetters, An Invitation to Commit Fraud: Secret Destruction of Joint Tenant Survivorship Rights, 55 Fordham L. Rev. 173 (1986). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol55/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Invitation to Commit Fraud: Secret Destruction of Joint Tenant Survivorship Rights Cover Page Footnote * Professor of Law, Syracuse University. I wish to thank Lisa Gayle Bradley, Esq. for several helpful suggestions and for her able assistance in the preparation of this Article This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol55/iss2/2 AN INVITATION TO COMMIT FRAUD: SECRET DESTRUCTION OF JOINT TENANT SURVIVORSHIP RIGHTS SAMUEL M. FETTERS* INTRODUCTION JOINT tenancy is the most popular form of spousal residential prop- erty ownership in the United States.' Indeed, it is safe to say that * Professor of Law, Syracuse University. I wish to thank Lisa Gayle Bradley, Esq. for several helpful suggestions and for her able assistance in the preparation of this Article. 1. See E.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Case 00-296
    IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2002 WY 89 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2002 June 14, 2002 IN RE: THE GENERAL ADJUDICATION OF ) ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER IN THE ) BIG HORN RIVER SYSTEM AND ALL ) OTHER SOURCES, STATE OF WYOMING, ) ) JACK APPLEBY, BRAD BATH, JIM BULINE, ) LEAH HEATHMAN, HORNECKER LIVESTOCK, ) INC., RALPH HORNECKER, TIM SCHELL, ) RALPH URBIGKIT, RALPH F. “RUSTY” and ) KATHY URBIGKIT, and DONALD VAN RIPER, ) ) No. 00-296 Appellants ) (Petitioners). ) Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County The Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge Representing Appellants: Sky D Phifer of Phifer Law Office, Lander, Wyoming Representing State of Wyoming: Thomas J. Davidson, Deputy Attorney General, Water and Natural Resources Division; Keith S. Burron, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Associated Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Brian C. Shuck, Special Assistant Attorney General, of Dray, Thomson & Dyekman, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming Representing Northern Arapaho Tribe: Richard M. Berley of Ziontz, Chestnut, Varnell, Berley & Slonim, Seattle, Washington Representing Eastern Shoshone Tribe: John Schumacher of Law Office of John Schumacher, Ft. Washakie, Wyoming Representing United States of America: John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment & Natural Resources Division; John R. Green, Interim United States Attorney, and Carol Statkus and Thomas Roberts, Assistant United States Attorneys, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Lynn Johnson, Sean Donahue, and Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; and Richard Aldrich, Field Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Billings, Montana Before LEHMAN, C.J.; GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.; and E. JAMES BURKE, D.J. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Mineral Conveyancing and Title Issues - Part 1
    Advanced Mineral Conveyancing By Sheryl L Howe Scott L Turner Welborn Sullivan Meek & Tooley, P.C. Denver Paper 1 SHERYL L. HOWE is an attorney with the Denver law firm of Welborn Sullivan Meek 85 Tooley, P.C., where her practice focuses on oil and gas, including title, transactions, and royally issues, along with a variety of other real property matters. She has practiced law in Denver since 1982 and has worked on oil and gas and natural resources matters throughout her legal career. Ms. Howe received her B.A. with honors from the University of Iowa in 1979. She attended the University of Colorado Law School and received her Juris Doctor in 1982. She is licensed to practice iaw in Colorado and Wyoming. SCOTT TURNER is an associate with Welborn Sullivan Meek 85 Tooley, P.C. in Denver, Colorado. Since joining the Firm in 2010, his practice focuses on title examination, oil and gas transactional work, and business and real estate services. Scott received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Indiana University with distinction in 1998 and then worked as a business and information technology consultant with Accenture, LLP for seven years in locales throughout the United States and abroad. Scott then attended the University of Colorado Law School, where he served as the Technical Production Editor of the Colorado Law Review. Upon graduation, Scott began his legal career as a real estate and business transactional attorney with a small law firm based in Denver and Vail, Colorado. Scott is an active member of the Colorado, Wyoming, and American Bar Associations.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenancy by the Entirety in North Carolina Robert E
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 41 | Number 1 Article 8 12-1-1962 Tenancy by the Entirety in North Carolina Robert E. Lee Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert E. Lee, Tenancy by the Entirety in North Carolina, 41 N.C. L. Rev. 67 (1962). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol41/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY IN NORTH CAROLINA* ROBERT E. LEEf NATURE OF TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETY Where real property is conveyed by deed or by will to two persons who are at the time husband and wife, a "tenancy by the entirety" is created. Sometimes it is referred to as an "estate by the entirety." The husband and wife take the whole estate as one person. Each has the whole; neither has a separate estate or interest; but the survivor, whether husband or wife, is entitled to the entire estate, and the right of the survivor cannot be defeated by the other's conveyance of the property by deed or will to a stranger. The title to the land cannot be conveyed during the existence of the marriage without the signature of both the husband and the wife. Neither tenant can defeat or in any way affect the right of survivorship of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenancy by the Entireties and Creditors Rights in Maryland Bridgewater M
    Maryland Law Review Volume 9 | Issue 4 Article 1 Tenancy by the Entireties and Creditors Rights in Maryland Bridgewater M. Arnold Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Bridgewater M. Arnold, Tenancy by the Entireties and Creditors Rights in Maryland, 9 Md. L. Rev. 291 (1948) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol9/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maryland Law Review VOLUME IX FALL, 1948 NumBER 4 TENANCY BY THE ENTIRETIES AND CREDITORS RIGHTS IN MARYLAND By BRIDGEWATER M. ARNOLD* Maryland is one of the states in the Union which has preserved and protected the common law estate of tenancy by the entireties. In Marbury v. Cole,' Judge Alvey said: "By the common law of England, which is the law of this State, except where it has been changed or modified by statute, a conveyance to husband and wife does not constitute them joint tenants, nor are they tenants in common. They are in the contemplation of the common law, but one person, and hence they take, not by moieties, but the entirety. They are each seised of the entirety, and the survivor takes the whole. As stated by Blackstone, 'husband and wife being con- sidered as one person in law, they cannot take the estate by moieties, but both are seized of the entirety, per tout, et non per my; the consequence of which is, that neither the husband nor the wife can dispose of any part without the assent of the other, but the whole must remain to the survivor.' 2 Bl.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Homestead: a Restraint on Alienation by Judicial Accretion
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 19 Number 1 Article 7 10-1-1964 Florida Homestead: A Restraint on Alienation by Judicial Accretion Herbert Buchwald Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Herbert Buchwald, Florida Homestead: A Restraint on Alienation by Judicial Accretion, 19 U. Miami L. Rev. 114 (1964) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol19/iss1/7 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA HOMESTEAD: A RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION BY JUDICIAL ACCRETION* HERBERT BUCHWALD** INTRODUCTION The sanctity of the family and home has remained inviolate since biblical times; it is not surprising, therefore, that society has permeated its laws with special provisions regarding the family homestead.' The fundamental principle of "homestead law" is founded on the exemption of homestead property from forced sale to conserve the home,2 protect the family from want,8 and shelter them by providing a refuge 4 from the stresses and strains of misfortune. The first homestead provision in the United States was enacted in 1839,' when the Texas legislature attempted to secure to each family a home and means of livelihood, irrespective of possible financial misfortune and beyond the reach of creditors. It is this need for security from the burden of pauperism and threat of destitution which has been the founda- tion of homestead exemption laws,' and the principle underlying appli- cation of homestead provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • “STRAWMAN” the UNTOLD STORY. Dr
    “STRAWMAN” THE UNTOLD STORY. Dr SYM The purpose of this synopsis is to make the reader aware of a condition that exists today in our modern society to subjugate and control the human being. History repeats itself and today the only thing that has changed is the color of cloak the emperor is wearing. Through volunteerism we are back in the days of slavery even though slavery has been outlawed. The only way we can become slaves is by voluntarily asking permission from the state to become a ‘‘person’’. Unfortunately for us, we unknowingly and tacitly accept and confirm this ‘‘person’’ through contracts. This synopsis is just a flyover of the mechanism used by governments to achieve forced commerce on humans. Lets start with four court cases that clarify ‘‘person’’ and that our consent which is the key to all interactions/commerce. natural person: Function: noun: a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law —compare JURIDICAL PERSON, LEGAL PERSON Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=natural%20person The word “person” in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. E.g.: 1 U.S.C. Sec 1. Church of Scientology vs U.S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612F. 2D. 417, 425. Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law under “person”. “From the earliest times the law has enforced rights and exacted liabilities by utilizing a corporate concept – by recognizing, that is, juristic persons other than human beings.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenancies in Antiquity: a Transformation of Concurrent Ownership for Modern Relationships Peter M
    Marquette Law Review Volume 85 Article 3 Issue 2 Winter 2001 Tenancies in Antiquity: A Transformation of Concurrent Ownership for Modern Relationships Peter M. Carrozzo Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Peter M. Carrozzo, Tenancies in Antiquity: A Transformation of Concurrent Ownership for Modern Relationships, 85 Marq. L. Rev. 423 (2001). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol85/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TENANCIES IN ANTIQUITY: A TRANSFORMATION OF CONCURRENT OWNERSHIP FOR MODERN RELATIONSHIPS PETER M. CARROZZO* I. INTRODUCTION The methods of concurrent ownership of property recognized in the United States today are nearly six hundred years old.' They were born at a time when the Renaissance was barely gestating, when a flat earth was the center of the universe, and when kings were divine.2 To fully appreciate the antiquity of these ancient tenancies, consider the state of the fifteenth century world: it was a time before the discovery and colonization of the New World, and a time before the rise of democracy and constitution-making in the very places where these tenancies are now prevalent.3 Yet the relics of real property law persist This paralysis in the law preserves a special estate for married persons known as the tenancy by the entirety, along with its plethora of rights and benefits Currently, the institution of marriage-remarkably older than the concept of land ownership-is at the center of a controversial struggle to expand the institution's definition.
    [Show full text]
  • SB 968 Testimony
    Harpster Law llc 4800 SW Meadows Road, Suite 300 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Main: (503) 534-3686 Fax: (503) 926-9153 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO SB 968 May 18, 2017 CHAIR BEYER AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: I am an attorney in Lake Oswego, and I spend most of my time on mortgage and real estate litigation and advising the service provider for Oregon’s foreclosure mediation program. I write to express my opposition to SB 968. SB 968 Overturns Well-Established Law and Creates Legal Uncertainty. Today, most lenders sell the mortgage loans they make into the secondary market shortly after origination. By the time the loan is paid off or foreclosed, somebody other than the original lender owns the loan. Ideally, we would be able to look in the public land records and see who owns the loan at any given time. But it’s not that easy. As the US Supreme Court held in 1872: a mortgage follows the note. Each time a holder assigns the mortgage note, the lien is transferred automatically by operation of law even if there is no recordable written assignment. As a result, under current law, the note and the beneficial interest in the trust deed cannot be separated. This is a very important legal principal for both lenders and borrowers. It protects the lender’s interest in having an enforceable lien and the borrower’s interest in making sure that only the person owed money can force a sale of the home. SB 968 intentionally severs the beneficial interest in the trust deed from the right to enforce the note.
    [Show full text]