The way one knows capitan is lying is when capitan is posting.
[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] I retracted my comments concerning Lemmon the next day. I was clearly mistaken about that case and the only three sentences in which I ever mentioned it. (You are beating a dead horse.)
[capitan_refugio #526 09/01/2004] "I remembered Lemmon was a sojourn and transit case regarding New York. And I recall there was SC case that foreshadowed . When I have time, I'll figure out which one that was."
No, capitan_kerryfugio, you did not post a retraction, you substituted a different lie. That is what dishonest liars do. As a substitute for the non-existent SCOTUS case of Lemmon v. The People, you substituted a different non-specific yet still non-existent SCOTUS case. As was to be expected, you have yet to "figure out which one that was." I previously provided you with a link to a complete list of all SCOTUS case citations from 1790 to 1862 and challenged you to cite the case. As was to be expected, you simply moved to another thread.
Citations of ALL SCOTUS cases 1790-1862
There is the link again. Cite the case.
And what you purported to "remember" was: "Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed 'sojourn and transit' rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence."
capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again
[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (4) Amy Warwick and Brilliante were all part of the Prize Cases. The citation was wrong, but the point being made was concerning whether Lincoln instituted a "blockade" under international law. You are still wrong on that point. A country cannot blockade its own ports.
You know the court said otherwise, and you are still lying.
In cr #649 you purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases. You continued, in your words, "The Supreme Court finds: (1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries, (2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority."
In this case you quoted from the recap of the argument of one of the lawyers, Mr. Carlisle, and presented it as the opinion of the court. All of your purported "findings" of the court were the reverse of the actual findings of the court.
Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and
(3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.
-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004
[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.
The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.
All of the findings attributed to the Court are arguments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.
On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 650] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 650.
| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |
[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court - Mr. Grier] pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Nelson] pp. 682 - 699.
"THE PRIZE CASES"
U.S. Supreme Court THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
67 U.S. 635 (Black)THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.December Term, 1862
* * *
Mr. Justice GRIER.
There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.
They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?
* * *
On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
* * *
II. The case of the Hiawatha.
The Court below in decreeing against the claimants proceeded upon the ground that the cargo was shipped after notice of the blockade.
The fact is clearly established, and if there were no qualifying circumstances, would well warrant the decree. But after a careful examination of the correspondence of the State and Navy Departments, found in the record, we are not satisfied that the British Minister erred in the construction he put upon it, which was that a license was given to all vessels in the blockaded ports to depart with their cargoes within fifteen days after the blockade was extablished, whether the cargoes were taken on board before or after the notice of the blockade. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the claimants. Any other course would be inconsistent with the right administration of the law and the character of a just Government. But the record discloses another ground upon which the decree must be sustained. On the 19th of April the President issued a proclamation announcing his intention to blockade the ports of the several States therein named.
On the 27th of April he issued a further proclamation announcing his intention to blockade the ports of Virginia and North Carolina in addition to those of the States named in the previous one. On the 30th of April Commodore Pendergrast issued his proclamation announcing the blockade as established.
Here was a distinct warning that the vessel must leave within the time limited, after the commencement of the blockade.
capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again
[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.
You know what you are saying is false. You are deliberately lying.
No capitan. It is not from a web article, it is from a Petition by a public defender.
No capitan. It is not a footnote from anything. It spans the full width of the page, and ends page 24 and starts page 25. No footnote resembles that.
The images shown in my #1402 prove beyond a doubt that the Petition for a Writ of Cert cannot be mistaken for either the decision or the dissent. It looks nothing like a decision of the Supreme Court. It bears no resemblance to a court decision. It looks nothing like any court decision on FINDLAW. Court decisions on FINDLAW are single-spaced in HTML. This Petition was double-spaced in PDF.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERT BY PUBLIC DEFENDER [ PDF LINK ]
HAMDI DECISION BY U.S. SUPREME COURT [ Findlaw LINK
capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again
capitan_refugio #384 8/31/2004 to nc purported three quotes to be about the SCOTUS case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.
[capitan kerry_fugio #1086] (2) All part of the Dred Scott record.
One is a Federal case against Sandford.
The other is a Missouri case against Emerson.
It is two different cases. One was held under Missouri state law. The other was under Federal law.
They are not interchangeable. And you know it.
capitan_kerryfugio Lying Again
capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap [ LINK to #237> ] argued that Bollman was not about habeas corpus, it was about conspiracy to commit treason. Marshall's paasing commnet with regard to habeas are obiter dicta, and as you can see from the definition provided, are "not precedential."
Habeas Corpus, by Eric M. Freedman, NYU Press, 2001, devotes three entire chapters to Bollman.
You said Bollman was not about habeas corpus. You can try to add the word suspension in there now and change the subject, but, as with your other lies, it merely shows that your are trying to lie your way out of your previous lies.
Been there, done that.
[cr #1865] To return to the Bollman matter for a moment. Bollman was about what constituted "treason." Leonard Levy writes in The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution that....
Leonard Levy, Ph.D., UCHS class of 1940, is a retired professor of history who earned undergraduateand graduate degrees from Columbia University. He is a former Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional History and a former Dean at Brandeis University in Boston, Massachusetts.
History Professor Levy has also been cited as "Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and Chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History, Claremont Graduate School."
Eric M. Freedman is a professor of law.
Eric M. Freedman, Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty
From Amazon: "In this timely volume, Eric M. Freedman reexamines four of the Supreme Court's most important habeas corpus rulings: one by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1807 concerning Aaron Burr's conspiracy...."
As the Table of Contents shows, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 are devoted exclusively to Bollman,
