Yahoo Bot: Mormonism is Calling--You've Become a God

[_MrStakhanovite]

Yahoo Bot is my sock and I've been trolling everyone for years.

[_harmony]

By the way, we're still waiting for a legal citation to a single authority for the proposition that a charter city in the US and Illinois in the 1830s and 1840s in particular (as most cities in the US are and were in Illinois in that time frame) is a sovereign unto itself as you have claimed.

Huh? That makes no sense.

[_Fionn]

And, I never did a single thing to Eric in real life; didn't have contact with anybody; didn't talk to anybody about him. [Until he threatened to sue Dr. Peterson and it all hit the fan with people calling me about it.] If Eric claims I made contact with anybody, state the proof now.

Correct me if I am wrong here, YB, but you intended to do something to Eric by contacting a family member. The only reason that was unsuccessful was because the e-mail bounced.

You intended to do harm. Due to technical difficulties, this failed. Upon this failure, you then and only then reconsidered your actions.

But you had every intention of "doing something to Eric". Naturally, from a legalistic point of view, intending to do harm doesn't necessarily matter. However, on the AssHat scale, you pegged the meter.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad the email bounced and glad you reconsidered. But if that email hadn't bounced, the damage you intended to do would have been done. You got lucky.

My one early email to the father bounced and I used it as an opportunity to reconsider and remain silent.

viewtopic.php?p=382426#p382426

[_sock puppet]

By the way, we're still waiting for a legal citation to a single authority for the proposition that a charter city in the US and Illinois in the 1830s and 1840s in particular (as most cities in the US are and were in Illinois in that time frame) is a sovereign unto itself as you have claimed.

Huh? That makes no sense.

You are right, but try convincing Bot of that.

See here and here.

Bot claims that JSJr as Mayor of Nauvoo (with his henchman brother Hyrum in tow) could do any damn thing he wanted, irrespective of Illinois state law and U.S. federal law, such as defying writs of habeas corpus issued by U.S. and Illinois courts. But Bot also claims that JSJr petitioned President Martin Van Buren to have Nauvoo made a U.S. territory, so that Nauvoo could get out from under those oppressive Illinois laws, like bigamy and adultery.

[Guest]

Bot claims that JSJr as Mayor of Nauvoo (with his henchman brother Hyrum in tow) could do any damn thing he wanted, irrespective of Illinois state law and U.S. federal law,

No I don't. Their powers were limited by the charter granted them by the legislature. But, there was no federal court power over them at that time, or over any other city or state in the U.S. unless they somehow came within federal jurisdiction (such as harbors, waterways, import-export houses). As of the 1840s, denying somebody their Bill of Rights rights did not bring a city under federal jurisdiction.

And, as every constitutional lawyer knows, you can't confer federal jurisdiction merely by agreeing to be bound by the U.S. Constitution. Federal jurisdiction is not self-conferring.

such as defying writs of habeas corpus issued by U.S. and Illinois courts.

Pretty dumb statement here. Writs of habeas corpus are issued by courts to release somebody in their jurisdiction unlawfully detained. I've never heard of the Nauvoo City council unlawfully detaining anybody or defying any writ of habeas. Name an example. Moreover, as of the 1840s, the federal courts were powerless to issue writs of habeas corpus against a state detainee. Name one example of a federal court releasing somebody held in state detention from 1845 or before. Just one. You are so confused about federalism issues. I think Darth J is a real lawyer; ask him if he agrees with your beliefs. Don't you know the history of the assertion of federal power over the states?

But Bot also claims that JSJr petitioned President Martin Van Buren to have Nauvoo made a U.S. territory, so that Nauvoo could get out from under those oppressive Illinois laws, like bigamy and adultery.

Nope; didn't say that. You made the claim that there was such a petition. I don't know one way or the other. But I can see why he'd do it. Polygamy would have
been lawful, just like it was lawful directly across the river.

By the way, we're still waiting for a legal citation to a single authority for the proposition that a charter city in the US and Illinois in the 1830s and 1840s in particular (as most cities in the US are and were in Illinois in that time frame) is a sovereign unto itself as you have claimed.

I did indeed cite those authorities, although you are overstating the principles of charter cityship. They are not a "sovereign unto themselves." I'm going to tell you what is basically axiomatic in municipal law. A charter city is a mini-State. It has the same powers and limitations as a State has, although the State can carve into that by the provisions of the charter. A general law city is no such thing. It has only those powers the state deigns to give it.

Nauvoo's powers were so broad that Nauvoo could call out the militia (just like the State could) and declare martial law (just like the State could) because the charter didn't put limits in the charter as to those topics. The Nauvoo charter did have some limits as to the militia -- militia officers had to be approved by the governor and he also could call out the Nauvoo Legion as well as the Mayor. This particular charter was pretty unique and artfully negotiated by John C. Bennett. When the legislature caught on to this later, after folks alleged that the City Council abused their powers, it revoked the charter and made Nauvoo a general law city.

All this is explained, as I have said, in Thomas Ford's History of Illinois where he explains how the charter worked. And his legal commentary is pretty good, in my opinion, on a number of fronts. You've condemned me for not citing any legal authority for my position on the charter, and ridiculed my use of Ford. You want me to cite case authority. But I think those observations by you demonstrate that you really aren't a lawyer.

As most lawyers know, published state case development didn't really get off the ground until the mid to later 19th century for the frontier states. And, few lawyers relied on case law in the 1840s to understand the law. The case study method was invented by Harvard in the very late 19th century. In the 1840s one would understand the law by reading legal commentaries.

The very best legal commentary on the Nauvoo Charter is Thomas Ford's. He explicated the very broad powers the City Council had to declare martial law and call out the militia. He explained how that upset the legislature and how they repealed the charter.

So, when the City Council declared martial law, it had the power to do so. You are right that in a letter to Joseph Smith, Ford condemned the move and said the City Council exceeded its powers. But, Ford thought the City Council was calling out the militia to fight against the state militia.

When Ford later got around to writing his History of Illinois he, on further reflection he recanted his views that you've quoted to me and admitted that the declaration of martial law was probably lawful. I liked his analysis in History and agreed with it. [Ford learned that Joseph Smith did not intend to wage war against the state's militia. After the martyrdom, Ford marched into Nauvoo to disband the militia and found out when he entered the temple grounds that the militia hadn't even been mustered.]


Here's some questions to test your claim that you're a real lawyer.

1. Were there advantages to being a charter city versus a general law city in Illinois at this time? If so, what were they?

2. What is the theory by which a federal court could obtain jurisdiction over the Nauvoo City Council's actions in the 1840s (you claim jurisdiction; what is it)?

3. Are there examples of the Nauvoo City Council defying any state or federal court with respect to any order (much less habeas) [as you claim]?

4. Is it your view that the phrase in the City Charter stating an intention to abide by the U.S. Constitution confers federal jurisdiction over the City?

5. Did the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor violate the Bill of Rights? If so, how is that possible and what theory do you have?

6. Finally, why are you afraid to answer my questions?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Bumping for sock puppet; note changes and questions.

[_beastie]

My advice: don't feed the troll.

[Guest]

I greatly esteem the wisdom and counsel of both RayA and beastie, to-wit: do not fee the troll. Nevertheless, I will once again give a retort to Bot's B.S., I say B.S. because he demonstrates in his posts a degree of intelligence that makes what he shovels here his knowing and deliberate B.S.

Here's some questions to test your claim that you're a real lawyer.

1. Were there advantages to being a charter city versus a general law city in Illinois at this time? If so, what were they?

Your list of six questions hardly passes for any sort of litmus test for being a lawyer.

In Illinois, the terminology used is incorporated municipalities and unincorporated communities.

The state of Illinois is divided into 102 geographical, political subdivisions, called counties. Hancock County being one. Within a county, there are incorporated municipalities that have a charter from the Illinois legislature. Population concentrations that do not have a municipal charter are generally referred to as unincorporated communities.

All geographies inside the boundaries of the state of Illinois are subject to laws enacted by the Illinois Legislature. Incorporated municipalities differ from unincorporated communities in that on terms spelled out in a charter, the Illinois Legislature allows an incorporated municipality to form a government on the terms also spelled out in the charter. The Illinois Legislature even allows the city council to enact ordinances that apply within the municipality's boundaries, concurrent with the application of Illinois law applying in those boundaries.

Sections 8 through 16 of the Nauvoo City charter of December 16, 1840 set forth this ordinance making authority. Readers may wish to refer to Chapter VIII. Introduction of the Gospel in the Isle of Man--the Nauvoo Charter, History of the Church, Volume 6, to review the charter itself, in its entirety. There is not a general grant of legislative power. Which specific topics may be addressed by ordinances passed by the Nauvoo City Council are spelled out. Sections 11 and 13 each limits the ordinances that the City Council of Nauvoo may enact to those "not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or of this State". By the enumeration of topics that may be addressed by ordinances, the lack of a general grant of legislative authority and these limitations that the ordinances must not be repugnant to the US and Illinois Constitutions, the ordinance making authority of the Nauvoo City council was limited.

Nowhere in the Illinois Constitution of 1818 or in Illinois statutes (not even in the Nauvoo City charter) is there specified any exemption to the applicability of the Illinois state laws in an incorporated municipality.

Nowhere in the Illinois Constitution of 1818 or in Illinois statutes (not even in the Nauvoo City charter) is there any delegation of the power to the City of Nauvoo to declare martial law or otherwise disregard writs of habeas corpus issued by the civilian courts outside of Nauvoo City.

Also, an incorporated municipality is also authorized, by its charter, to have its own law enforcement agencies, separate and apart from the county. Nauvoo was allowed, by the Illinois Legislature via the charter, to have a marshal, recorder, treasurer, assessor, and supervisor of streets. See section 9.

Before modern modes of travel, such as automobiles, an incorporated municipality often had, as spelled out in its charter, municipal courts. The state circuit court in the county where the incorporated municipality is situate would hear appeals from decisions rendered by the municipal courts. This was the case in the section 17 of the Nauvoo City charter.

In unincorporated communities and rural areas of the county, the immediate law enforcement agency is the county sheriff's department, and the county commission has ordinance making authority. Legal actions begin in the Illinois state circuit courts for that county.

The unincorporated communities and villages are generally also subject to county ordinances specifically designed for unincorporated parts of the county. The unincorporated community or village does not itself have a form of government that may levy and collect taxes or impose additional restrictions through the passage of ordinances.

2. What is the theory by which a federal court could obtain jurisdiction over the Nauvoo City Council's actions in the 1840s (you claim jurisdiction; what is it)?

Ever heard of the Interstate Commerce Clause. For those who are constitutional-law challenged, like Mr. Bot, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". It was a part of the 1789 document, as adopted by the original states (formerly, colonies).

3. Are there examples of the Nauvoo City Council defying any state or federal court with respect to any order (much less habeas) [as you claim]?

Show me where I claimed there are examples. I did not. But the the declaration of martial law, as Joseph Smith did illegally, instructs officials (here, Nauvoo's marshal and the Nauvoo Legion officers) to ignore writs of habeas corpus issued by civilian courts. It is actually quite fortunate for all concerned that Joseph Smith saw the errancy of his ways and stopped the martial law declaration within two or three days--before the Nauvoo marshal or Nauvoo Legion officers had occasion to ignore orders issued by civilian courts, as Joseph Smith had instructed them.

4. Is it your view that the phrase in the City Charter stating an intention to abide by the U.S. Constitution confers federal jurisdiction over the City?

It is my view that by use of the legal term of art "not repugnant to the constitution" (the one I schooled you up on after you claimed it did not exist in the legal lexicon) was that the Nauvoo City council did not have authority to enact or attempt to enforce an ordinance that was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the Illinois Constitution of 1818 (yet in effect in June 1844).

5. Did the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor violate the Bill of Rights? If so, how is that possible and what theory do you have?

Yes. The First Amendment had, as part of the Bill of Rights, become a part of the U.S. Constitution when ratified by the requisite number of states on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment prevented the federal legislature, Congress, from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".

A city council is the city's legislative body, just as Congress is the nation's legislative body. Enacting ordinances by the City Council is it exercising the legislative function, to the extent the Illinois Legislature allowed it. So when the Illinois Legislature in December 1840 allowed the City Council of Nauvoo to pass ordinances, provided they were not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, the City Council was not permitted to pass ordinances "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", something the nation's legislative authority (Congress) could not do either.

It was not be assertion of federal authority that the U.S. Constitution limited the ordinance-making authority of the City Council of Nauvoo. Rather, the U.S. Constitution limited the City Council of Nauvoo's ordinance making authority because the Illinois Legislature only allowed that City Council to enact and the Mayor and marshal to enforce ordinances in Nauvoo that were not repugnant to the U.S. Constitution. What could be more repugnant to the First Amendment's free speech and free press clauses than to pass an ordinance that a printing press be destroyed because the City Council did not like what was being printed?

Yet, that is what the Brothers Smith (Joseph and Hyrum) did. Chapter XXI. The Destruction of the 'Nauvoo Expositor'--Proceedings of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor, Vol 6, History of the Church discusses this. "Councilor Hyrum Smith believed the best way was to smash the press and pi the type."

In the process, Joseph Smith even "read from Illinois Constitution, article 8, section 12, touching the responsibility of the press for its constitutional liberty."

"Resolved, by the City Council of the city of Nauvoo, that the printing-office from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor is a public nuisance and also all of said Nauvoo Expositors which may be or exist in said establishment; and the Mayor is instructed to cause said printing establishment and papers to be removed without delay, in such manner as he shall direct.

GEORGE W. HARRIS, President, pro tem. W. RICHARDS, Recorder.

The following order was immediately issued by the Mayor:--

STATE OF ILLINOIS, CITY OF NAUVOO ss.

To the Marshal of said City, greeting.

You are here commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pi the type of said printing
establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment; and if resistance be offered to
your execution of this order by the owners or others, demolish the house; and if anyone threatens you or the Mayor or the officers of the city, arrest those who threaten you, and fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return hereon.

By order of the City Council,

JOSEPH SMITH, Mayor.

Marshal's return--"The within-named press and type is destroyed and pied according to order, on this 10th day of June, 1844, at about 8
o'clock p. m.

J. P. GREENE, C. M.

HEADQUARTERS. NAUVOO LEGION, June 10th, 1844.

The only non-Mormon member of the Nauvoo City Council (Warrington) was, coincidentally, the only member of the City Council to vote against the Nauvoo City ordinance.

Thus, it might also be a clear case of religious intolerance and bigotry, and run afoul of the clause against the legislative body establishing a religion.

[_sock puppet]

duplicate.

[_Jersey Girl]

Would that be me or Jersey Girl then?

Yo, what?