Replies

woodpusher: "In addition to the fact that the Opinion makes exquisitely clear that the constitution invoked and spoken of is the Indana state constitution, citation to the Federal Constitution is a legal absurdity.
Had the Federal Constitution made slavery illegal in one state, it would have made it illegal in all states, and would have struck down any conflicting state law.
That such was not the case in 1820 is notorious."

Now you're just babbling absurd nonsense.
No claim was ever made that the US Supreme Court did anything other than confirm Indiana's Supreme Court ruling by refusing to hear Laselle's appeal.
All you're doing here is setting up fake monsters to slay.
They are figments of your warped imagination, nothing else.

Whether the alleged 1820 appeal was ever really made or not is, in the end, irrelevant to the fact that Indiana's supreme court rulings were not overturned and so remained in effect confirmed.

woodpusher: "It is fun to see how the Northern Yankee Slaver Democrats, emulated by jmacusa and BroJoeK, and their usual unreliable sources, transformed an Assignment of Errors document, an attachment to a document addressed to the Indiana State Supreme Court into the fiction of a document transmitted to the United States Supreme Court."

And here we see an ultimate defender of Slaver Democrats doing what Democrats often do -- using a little trick they learned from the Old Soviets, if not from Goebbels himself -- they accuse opponents of what they themselves are most guilty.

woodpusher: "There is no evidence that a ROT was produced, or certified, nor that anything was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, or anybody."

Still 100% irrelevant to anybody outside a law classroom.

No claim was ever made that the US Supreme Court did anything other than confirm Indiana's Supreme Court ruling by refusing to hear Laselle's appeal. ll you're doing here is setting up fake monsters to slay.

This absurd claim requires several miracles to have occurred.

It requires LaSelle to have somehow bypassed the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Circuit Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court requires a Petition for Writ of Cert, the record of which must have been lost in the U.S. Supreme Court, the office of counsel, and the office of opposing counsel. In any case, a Petition for Writ of Cert "is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review."

It requires that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order denying the Petition for Writ of Cert and lost all records of having done so.

It requires that the denial of a Petition for Writ of Cert, for the only time in history, signified anything more than that the Court declined the Petition. In all other cases in history, a denial of cert "simply means that fewer than four justices determined that the circumstances of the decision of the lower court warrant a review by the Supreme Court."

It required the clerk of Supreme Court of Indiana to take direction from counsel, assemble the complete recpord of the case certified by the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, and together with various documents provided counsel, forward all this by mail, paying all expenses upon a statement by counsel that he would reimburse later. And then it required copies of the record of the case and other documents to be lost by he U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Indiana, counsel and opposing counsel.

The only purported evidence for any transmittal at all to the U.S. Supreme Court is a document called An Assignment of Errors captioned In the Supreme Court of the United States, which is no evidence at all. This was assuredly not transmitted by LaSelle to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is an attachment to another document which instructs the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court to forward it with other material. There is zero evidence that the Clerk received LaSelle's letter, assembled the record of the case, had the record of the case certified, or forwarded anything to the U.S. Supreme Court.

woodpusher: "There is no evidence that a ROT was produced, or certified, nor that anything was sent to the U.S. Supreme Court, or anybody."
Still 100% irrelevant to anybody outside a law classroom.

And it is miracle time again. For the only time in historty, BroJoeK assumes the clerks processed an imaginary Petition for Writ of Cert in the absence of the record of the case for the proceedings below. Presumably the clerks reviewed the case below, and briefed he justices, using Wikipedia.

To BroJoeK it is irrelevent if the record of the case was produced by the Indiana Supreme Court, or sent to, or received by the U.S. Supeme Court. At the Court, nothing will happen without it. It is impossible that anything about the case was even presented to the justices without the clerks having received and reviewed the record of the case. No appeal would be accepted and acted upon without the record of the case (the record of proceedings in the courts below).

The available evidence is that LaSelle never transmitted his letter, with its attachments, to the clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court. It never went anywhere. Lawsuits brought to the U.S. Supreme Court leave a paper trail. There is none.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari

Certiorari is generally associated with the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to review a lower court's judgment. A case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari. …
Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules lists the criteria for granting certiorari and explains that the decision to grant or deny certiorari is discretionary.