Replies to post #1635 on NO QUARTER FOR CORRUPTION (Focussing on The Fed./F

[bartermania]

The Erie Doctrine


Civil Procedure 101


Nature of the Problem

Once you have determined which court or courts have the proper jurisdiction to decide a case, the next question one is faced with is what law should the court apply? State courts apply state law. In federal question cases both federal and state courts apply federal law. But in diversity cases) a case that could have been brought in a state court but is being brought in federal court due solely to the citizenship of the parties, what law will a federal court apply? Federal or state? Prior to 1938, Swift v. Tyson , 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1, 10 L.Ed. 865 (1842) held that federal courts were free to apply the law so as to reach a result they thought was justice regardless of state common law. However that changed with the decision in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938).


In Erie, the plaintiff was walking alongside railroad tracks when his right arm was severed by an object protruding from defendant's train. The accident occurred in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff (now presumably known as "lefty") filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York where it was felt the laws were more favorable to plaintiffs. The issue was what level of duty is owed to a trespasser. If Pennsylvania law applied then only "wanton negligence" created liability. If "federal common law" applied the plaintiff could recover if the railroad was guilty of "ordinary" negligence. The issue that confronted the Supreme Court was the meaning of the phrase "the laws of the several states." If it meant case law (judicial decisions) as well as statutes, then ennsylvania law would apply and plaintiff would lose. If not, then "federal common law" will apply and plaintiff could presumably recover.

Erie held that federal courts in diversity actions apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit. "Law" includes common law as well as statutory law. In diversity actions federal courts must treat the decisions of the state courts in the jurisdiction in which they sit as a source of law. I.e., a federal court in a diversity case must apply the same law that the state court would apply. There is no longer a "federal common law," a federal court must apply the common law of the state. The rule of Erie serves the purposes of discouraging forum shopping and avoiding the unfair administration of laws (i.e., avoiding the potential for state and federal courts sitting in the same state reaching different outcomes based on the same facts.)


Evolution of the Erie Doctrine

The Erie doctrine has evolved over the years. Here are the turning points in its evolution.

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945) marks the emergence of the "outcome determinative test," which was an attempt to prevent federal courts from reaching a result at variance with the result that would obtain in a state court in a comparable case. (Friedenthal § 4.3) A state law which is normally regarded as "procedural" should be applied by a federal court in a diversity case if it would, or could, vitally affect the outcome of the case. Guaranty Trust redefined the Erie doctrine. The intent of Erie was to insure that where a federal court is exercising jurisdiction solely because of diversity, the outcome of the litigation in federal court should be substantially the same as it would be if tried in State court. (Wright, § 55) In Guaranty Trust the issue was whether a federal court in a diversity case must apply the state statute of limitations, which would have barred the suit in state court. Goal is to avoid reaching a different result in federal court than would otherwise be had in state court. If applying federal law would mean a different outcome, state law controls therefore state statute of limitations applies.

In Byrd v. Blue Ridge , 356 U.S. 525, 78 S.Ct 893, 2 L.Ed. 2d 953 (1958) the question was whether the issue of employee or independent contractor is to be decided by the judge or the jury. The court held that the mere possibility that a federal practice may alter the outcome of a diversity case is not conclusive in deciding whether to apply federal or state law. Court must weigh (determine whether either one is of some importance) the policies behind the federal and state rules then determine whether there is a substantial possibility that different results would be obtained because federal practice is used. (Friedenthal § 4.3) In Byrd the state practice was found to reflect a weak state policy, not bound up with the underlying statute, of preferring a judge's determination of the employment issue. When balanced against the strong federal policy embodied in the 7th Amendment guarantee of a jury trial, and the fact that there was no substantial possibility that different results would be obtained by utilizing a jury, the federal practice was preferred. (Friedenthal § 4.3)

In Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed. 2d 8 (1965), the issue was whether federal rules on service of process should yield to state rules. Hanna announces a two-part test. First, the court inquires whether a federal rule actually governs the practice under consideration. If the answer is yes, then the court must determine whether a conflict between the federal rule and state law exists, or whether the federal rule is "narrower" in its coverage (i.e., does not cover the issue in question) than the state statute. If there is a direct conflict between state practice and a federal rule, then the court must determine whether the federal rule is a valid exercise of the rule making power granted to the Supreme Court by Congress. (Friedenthal § 4.4) (No federal rule of civil procedure has ever been found to be an invalid exercise of the rule making power.)

Hanna Two-Part Test Simplified
(1) If there is a valid Federal Rule on the subject, the rule is to be applied.
(2) In the absence of a federal rule on the point the court is to consider the problem in light of the twin aims of the Erie rule, (a) discourage forum shopping and (b) avoid inequitable administration of laws. (Different results between state and federal courts.) (Wright § 59)

© 2005 by lawschoolhelp.com and Craig A. Smith

Link: http://www.west.net/~smith/erie.htm

[bartermania]

Lawyers Guild of Great Britain
THE LAWYER'S SECRET OATH
Wed Jul 20, 2005 17:00
64.140.158.115


THE LAWYER'S SECRET OATH

THIS CASE IS NOT TO BE CITED OR PUBLISHED:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm

Investigate: Lawyers Guild of Great Britain

and any ties to the American Bar Association.

“BAR” stands for “British Accreditation Research”

[02/21/1999] A federal judge in Texas has moved to out law Quicken Family Lawyer, a legal software program. The reason. It was too helpful. Judge Barefoot Sanders determined that by helping people fill our their legal documents, the program treads illegally on lawyers’ turf. Specifically, it violates law that bar anyone but licensed lawyers from giving legal advise. The case was brought by a lawyers’ group, whose interest is clear enough. Lawyers typically charge anywhere from $100 to $650 an hour. Quicken costs $29.95 for life.

The Legal monopoly: An American Bar Association committee on non-lawyer practice in 1995 noted that enforcement of unauthorized practice laws declined after 1970, but rose again

in the ‘90s. Recent cases suggest the trend continues.

"The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue" U.S. v. Lopez
http://www.supremelaw.com

============================================
THE LAWYER'S SECRET OATH

Any Judge, Government Agent, or Bureaucrat Who Had Sworn to
Uphold the Constitution for the United States Who is
Violating that Oath is Guilty of Treason.
The Penalty is still DEATH BY HANGING.

You are weighed in the balance and are found wanting.
Daniel 5:27

Woe, unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key to
knowledge; ye entered [the Kingdom of God] not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye [have] hindered.
Luke 11:52

==========================================

AN EXPOSE'

ON THE LEGAL FRAUD PERPETRATED ON ALL AMERICANS

Edited, altered and enhanced significantly from audio tape by a private non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, pursuant to any real or imaginary statutory regulations.

Let's get right to the point. The courts only recognize two classes of people in the United States today.

DEBTORS AND CREDITORS

The concept and status of DEBTORS AND CREDITORS is very important for you to understand. Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else they might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court - IT IS AN EQUITY COURT, administering commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as referred to in the Constitution of the U.S. or any of the legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been
changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in
Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S 64 (1938)

give you background which led to this decision. Some of this information is from the Ben Freeman tapes of 1989. They are excellent tapes if you have them. Ben used to talk about "legislative democracy." I couldn't find a definition for legislative democracy. It bothered me. However, by listening to his tapes as well as other tapes. I began to see the fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. It doesn't happen just once in a while. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. Whether you are aware of it or not, this fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

U.S. Inc. Goes To Geneva 1930's

In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception. It goes like this: from 1928 - 1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva, Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don't publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt's job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now, this doesn't mean the bankruptcy wasn't implemented before 1938 with the Erie RR v. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January, 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as the "The Banking Holiday," and proceeded in pulling in gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.

Roosevelt Stacks Supreme Court

It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937-1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of Justices and he tried to change the slant of the Justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.

Their was resistance to Roosevelt's court stacking efforts. Some of the Justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land.

The "Mother Corporation"

Goes Bankrupt

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington, D.C. (the headquarters of the corporation called "The United States"). Since the United States Corporation, having established it headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn't have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: The writer has taken the liberty of using the term "Mother Corporation" to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States. It is my understanding that the States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal Government has taken control of her "Creators," the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "United States of America", Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Feds, Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office, etc., etc., etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the I.R.S. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects to include war. War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people on her world property.

U.S. Inc. Declares Bankruptcy
FULL REPORT:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm
====================================================
"John Roberts Is No Mainstream Judge," Critics Claim
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072005I.shtml

Currently on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Roberts is a member of the influential Federalist Society, a group of conservatives and libertarians, which holds that the legal professional is currently dominated by "a form of orthodox liberal ideology."
======================================
The Lawyers Secret Oath
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretoath.htm


Judge gets orders from England
http://www.newnetizen.com/fbi/ordersfromengland.htm" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20001210224500/http://www.newnetizen.com/fbi/ordersfromengland.htm

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm


The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm


The Orginal 13th Amendment
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm


Was the 14th Amendment Ratified?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/14th.htm


Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm


War Powers Act 1933
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/1933.htm

Secret Courts - Secret Law
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/secretcourts.htm


The Oath of Office
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/oathofoffice.htm



"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT"
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/silent.htm

The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm


Travel As A Right
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm

Citizens for Judicial Accountability Inc.
http://www.judicialaccountability.org/

The Bankruptcy of the United States
A 39 part Series of documents, pertaining to:
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
and much more... http://www.apfn.net/DOC-100_bankruptcy.htm
The John Roberts Dossier - before the battle begins. —Katharine Mieszkowski, Wed Jul 20 17:16

Link: http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/07-19-05/discussion.cgi.16.html
-------------------------

By Timothy S. Rigsbee

An Erie Background

In the summer of 1934, Harry Thompkins walked along the railroad tracks of the Erie Railroad after a visit to his mother-in-law’s house. As he walked, a train whistled by and an open door on a refrigerator car knocked him onto the tracks, severing his right arm. The legal legacy of this famous accident was the birth of a principle of federalism which forever changed the litigation of state claims in federal court. Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188, 58 S. Ct. 817 (1938). This principle, known as the Erie doctrine, generally requires the application of state law to state claims brought in federal court.

The Erie doctrine by its terms applies only to the litigation of state claims in federal court. State claims can be brought in federal court where there is diversity of state citizenship of the parties. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332(a)(1). In addition, state claims may be litigated in federal court where the claims are pendant or ancillary to a cause of action for which there is federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. sec. 1367.

Although the Erie doctrine is generally only considered in the litigation of state claims brought in federal court, similar issues arise where Congress grants state courts concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims. Such concurrent jurisdiction exists for civil rights claims brought under section 1983. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (1994).

Link: http://www.dcba.org/brief/febissue/1998/art30298.htm