:h: Welcome
to Team Law’s Forum!

We hold a Free Conference Call every: Monday, Wednesday & Friday morning from:
8:00 – 9:00 AM (Mountain Time).

Call: (857) 232-0158; use the Conference Access Code: 110045.

Join us on, and invite your friends to, our next Conference Call!

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;
use this link for more: contact information.

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:

After reading this announcement, you may remove it by clicking the “X” in the upper right corner of the announcement's green background.

Corp U.S. myth 1

This forum is for topics not listed below.

Moderators: Tnias, Jus

Longhair
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 7
Joined: Wednesday June 29th, 2016 5:00 pm MDT

Corp U.S. myth 1

Postby Longhair » Sunday July 17th, 2016 10:13 am MDT

"The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly called this Act (of, February 27, 1801) the “District of Columbia Organization Act” or the “Charter Act of the District of Columbia” and recognized it as the incorporation of the “municipality” known as the “District of Columbia”."

I did a search across all supreme court dockets at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx for these 2 exact phrases:
    “District of Columbia Organization Act”
    “Charter Act of the District of Columbia”
and the search returns ZERO results. I did search for District of Columbia and found results but not contain the other words associated with the phrases above.

Can you share which Supreme Court cases you found that references the names above for this act?

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thursday June 9th, 2005 12:16 pm MDT

Re: Corp U.S. myth 1

Postby Admin » Monday July 18th, 2016 11:41 am MDT

:h: Longhair:
Though there are many cases under which the Supreme Court acknowledges the DCOA as the Act under which the District of Columbia was organized as a municipality or: “Municipal Corporation”; for example: see:
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 US 100 - Supreme Court 1953, your challenge regarding the phrase: “District of Columbia Organization Act” is reasonable; however, we also recognize, and appreciate, that challenge as a contest against a misprint. Respectfully, we thank you for that support; and, note that we have changed the phrase in the article you referenced to read: “District of Columbia Organic Act”.

Nonetheless, that correction does not change the fact that the Act in question has been many times referred to by the Supreme Court as the Act under which the “District of Columbia” was organized as an corporation that can sue or be sued. And though the Supreme Court recognizes the said District of Columbia has no political power and does not change the political power of the original jurisdiction Congress, it still has to power to contract, sue, be sued, and legislate its own affairs just like any State in the Union, still it is not a State and its power to so contract does not give it actual political power; which is the point of the article in question here.

Respectively, if you read the case: District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 US 100 - Supreme Court 1953, you will find several references to other cases on the matter (that is the fact that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is the Charter Act of the District of Columbia; which also means it is the Act under which the District of Columbia was Organized. Accordingly, in searching on that topic you will find many cases where the Supreme Court refers the same in statements where the first part of the quoted phrase is stated in one part of a sentence, paragraph or section of their comment then refers to the second part of the quoted phrase latter in that sentence, paragraph or section of their comment; thus referring to the quoted phrase more like: “District of Columbia … Organization Act” or: “Charter Act … of the District of Columbia”.

Respectfully, though it is not our practice to do your research for you, we have provided at least this one case; wherein the reference we made is quite well clarified (especially when you consider the corrected misprint referenced above).

Again, for said misprint we apologize, and thank you for noticing and pointing out the error. Respectively, we also note that the misprint did not change either the point being made by the article or its content; rather, it points out the insufficiency of internet search engines to find such references—you have to actually read the court cases and follow their leads to other cases.

Also, the quoted references are not likely to be found in the Supreme Court Docket service; which only goes back to 2001. Most of the relevant cases will have been ruled quite a long time before 2001; and, given that the docket is not written by the Supreme Court’s judges: but, is written by law clerks paraphrasing a few of each cases details as they file cases for the court. Thus, docket searches have little to do with finding judicial quotes; but, can be helpful to find a general topic within the time frame available (present back to 2001).

We hope this information is helpful to you.
Tell everybody about Team Law! :t^:
Team Law,

"In memory of our God, our faith, and freedom,
and of our spouses, our children, and our peace.
"


As with all Forum posts, comments made by Admin are:
copyrighted—all rights reserved; and, provided here for educational purposes only.


Return to “Miscellaneous Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest