Today's Topics:
National Debt
US v. Satan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:47:44 EST
From: Peter.Berger@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: National Debt
To: subgenius@mc.lcs.mit.edu
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <Peter.Berger@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>
Received: from tr4.gp.cs.cmu.edu by VEGA.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU id aa26040;
15 Nov 90 21:29:12 EST
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 90 21:19:01 EST
From: Peter.Berger@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
To: bb+assocs.objectivists.debate@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU,
bb+graffiti.quotes@TR4.GP.CS.CMU.EDU, peterb@VEGA.FAC.CS.CMU.EDU,
tm11+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU, tm2b+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
Subject: On National Debt
Cc: sp2q+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
"The question Whether one generation of men has a right tobind another,
seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water.
Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit
decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every
government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on
the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my
mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very
capable of proof. --I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self
evident, '_that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living_': that the
dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any
individual ceases to be his when hiimself ceases to be, and reeverts to
the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation
of it's lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants.
These will generally be the wife and children of the decendent. If they
have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife
and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased.
So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or the
creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society
in which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man
can, by _natural_right_, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons
who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted
by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the
usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the
lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be
the reverse of our principle.
This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead,
is of very extensive application and consequences, in every country, and
most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the question
Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail?"
-Thomas Jeffersion,
-Thomas Jefferson (forgive typos, lousy terminal)
"Letter to James Madison", September 6, 1789 in
Merrill Peterson ed., _The Portable Thomas Jefferson_ 444,445,448
------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 90 13:48:18 EST
From: Peter.Berger@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: US v. Satan
To: subgenius@mc.lcs.mit.edu
United States ex rel. Gerald MAYO
v.
SATAN AND HIS STAFF
54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971)
WEBER, District Judge.
Plaintiff, alleging jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C sec. 241, 28 U.S.C.
sec. 1343, and 42 U.S.C sec 1983 prays for leave to file a complaint
for violation of his civil rights in forma pauperis. He alleges that
Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and
unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has
placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff's
downfall.
Plaintiff alleges that by reason of these acts Satan has deprived him
of his constitutional rights.
We feel that the application to proceed in forma pauperis must be
denied. Even if plaintiff's complaint reveals a prima facie reecital
of the infringement of the civil rights of a citizen of the United
States, the Court has serious doubts that the complaint reveals a
cause of action upoon which relief can be granted by the court. We
question whether plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over the
defendant in this judicial district. The complaint contains no
allegation of residence in this district. While the official reports
disclose no case where this defendant has appeared as defendant, there
is an unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this
defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff. The
defendant in that action was represented by the preeminent advocate of
that day, and raised the defense that the plaintiff was a foreign
prince with no standing to sue in an American Court. This defense was
overcome by overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Whether or not
this would raise an estoppel in the present case we are unable to
determine at this time.
If such action were to be allowed we could also face the question of
whether it may be maintained as a class action. It appears to meet
the requirements of Fed. R. of Civ. P. 23 that the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are
questions of law and fact common to the class, and the claims of the
representative party is typical of the claims of the class. We cannot
now determine if the representative party will fairly protect the
interests of the class.
We note that the plaintiff has failed to include with his complaint
the required form of instructions for the United States Marsshal for
directions as to service of process.
For the foregoing reasons we must exercise our discretion to refuse
the praayer of plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is ordered that the complaint be given a miscellanious docket
number and leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter G. Berger
Operator, School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
peterb@cs.cmu.edu
------------------------------
End of Subgenius Digest
******************************
