[Masthead] Overcast ~ 70°F  
High: 70°F ~ Low: 59°F
Monday, Jan. 16, 2017

Why is one court case referred to as "the law"?

Posted Wednesday, September 15, 2010, at 9:56 AM

There was a recent decision on a Court case 'Vernor versus Autodesk' that definitely affects the seconds and aftermarket of software but could also affect the book and music industry. http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2010/0...

While reading about it in several articles, a lawyer made a comment about other similar cases "In the Ninth Circuit there are a couple of other cases that were heard at the same time as ours, but this decision was decided first, so this is now the law of the Ninth Circuit, so any other decisions that come along have to fit within the parameters that this decision set forth."

This made me wonder why previous cases are considered LAW? Is it 'the law" for other courts or is it just for this Circuit?

Previous rulings should be considered but shouldn't each case considered on its' own merit? Or am I putting too much into the wording "this is now the law"?

From my question you can see one reason why I am not a lawyer.

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Because usually the first types of issues that result in "Caselaw", which sets a precedent over similar cases that come after it.

For example, Software, MP3, didn't exist 25 years ago in the massmarket. When copying digital material started to become mainstream, there was no law protecting it.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:11 AM

And after reading the ruling, this will go to the Supreme Court because I don't see how someone can be liable for anything if they haven't opened the box and know the Terms and Conditions.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:18 AM

I saw that Autodesk said they did not sell the previous owner the software, just the rights. Did they not expect that the original licensee was going to sell the software. just rent it?

It would seem to me that Autodesk be required to buy back their software if they do not allow the company to sell it. After it is sold, it should be the new owner's right to sell it if they wish, not copy it and sell it, just sell the original.

"The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the seriousness of some of these concerns, but held that its hands were tied by prior circuit decisions. Hopefully, the en banc court will be willing to reconsider those decisions".

Again, why is a possibly bad ruling on a case heard before suddenly become so restrictive to future hearings? To me, that is just an excuse for not doing what is right in the case before them.

If I buy a camera lens that is patented, do I just rent it or can I sell it if I no longer use the camera? I understand and appreciate the need for patents, but this ruling needs more definition, in my mind anyway.

-- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 11:21 AM

The problem is the judges lack the understanding of the technology, they feel that the product is not a tangible piece of property but a digital one. The fact remains the product is in fact tangible when unopened. This is what needs to be stated from the start.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:49 PM

To answer one of your questions: A judgement affects only the circuit where it is rendered. So, this case will only affect those states covered by the Ninth Circuit. To cover the whole US, it has to go to the Supreme Court.

Talking about renting or owning, remember the big brouhaha some yeara ago with the equine photographers.

-- Posted by Tyger on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 8:50 PM

Law is like Geometry. You are given theories that have already been proven. Why rework the problem when it has already been proven (for example, pi=3.1416).

Law has already been determined in a higher court or even in a State Supreme Court or the Federal Supreme Court.

You can use a Calif. State Supreme Court ruling in your case but that doesn't mean the judge will except it as law in TN. The thing is you use any court ruling that appears to be in your favor to help your case.

These court decisions have already been determined as law by one court or another or even the highest court.

These laws are referred to as precedent law because they are already determined.

These precedent law cases are then published in the American Jurisprudence. An encyclopedia of determined cases that have become the law.

Now the tricky part; Is this precedent law - the color of law or dejure law? You can be found guilty of violating an unlawful law (color of law) if you don't know the law. Both laws are lawful if you don't object to them.

From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, 178: "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement.

"All persons are PRESUMED to know the Law. If ANY PERSON acts under any unconstitutional Statue, He does so at his own Peril. He must take the consequences." 16 American Jurisprudence

We have all heard this (Everyone is presumed to know the law) precedent law, but never knew just where it was published as a law. Well, now you know! It is 16 American Jurisprudence, 177,178.

This law works both ways. If YOU are arrested for violating an unlawful law and don't object... you must face the consequences.

Also if a federal or State employee charges you or has you arrested with an unlawful law that violates any of your Constitutional Rights, that federal or State employee must face the consequences.

Their consequences are usually more server according to the US Codes in Titles 18 and 42, but as government employees, they usually only receive a small fine (up to $1,000) with no jail or prison time.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Fri, Oct 1, 2010, at 6:46 PM


Just kidding, but not entirely.

I may have mis-interpreted what you wrote, but it seems as if any law or ruling is law unless you question it and and it is determined to NOT be legal?

Sounds like a lot of good work for lawyers.

-- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Oct 1, 2010, at 7:20 PM

Yes and No!

All legislation IS Law althou it may be unlawful, unjust and unconstitutional! All laws are presumed to be lawful unless you know your rights.

The de facto law is unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional if applied to the sovereignty. However, if you don't know the law and don't refute it, it may be used against you as a standing law, because the high courts or supreme court recognize this law, code or statue as law which could be applied to federal citizens and anyone who doesn't know it doesn't apply to them.

We can not say these laws are unconstitutional because Congress has the power to legislate any needful laws, rules, codes and regulations to govern the federal citizens and citizens living in or on any federal land or territories that the U.S. Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction, even if it is in a state.(See U.S. Constitution - ARTICLE I, Section 8, clause 17.

It would almost be impossible to prove any law is not legal, because it is legal if applied to the right PERSON, making it constitutional.

The color of law is legal to use even thou it is not a part of the fundamental law that must be constitutional or Common Law. It is inconsistent with the constitution so it is said to be unlawful.

Our Supreme Court has ruled:

Volume 16, American Jurisprudence, 177

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the

statute not been enacted.

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it....

"A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

Any color of law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is Null and Void:


Again I have to insist that these laws are LEGAL when applied to the right PERSON. You must determine if you are the THAT PERSON or not. This is where knowing your Constitutional Rights come in. If you don't know your Rights - You don't have any!

Unless you go into a Common Law Court, you more than likely will only see the color of law being used.

The Supreme Court must rule that all laws are legal if the law can be applied to any Person.

You must determine if the law you are charged with applies to you.

Congress has always found a way to increase their power by making it appear that federal law applies to all people in all places. They have created federal district courts that have exclusive jurisdiction over federal citizens, but apply it to all people in the states.

For example:

We the People are the Sovereignty, not the government.

("The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." Luther v Borden, 48 US 1, 12 L.Ed 581)

The Supreme Court ruled that the Sovereignty is exempt from the law because it is the author and source of the law.

("Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law for it is the author and source of law..."

"...While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom, all government exists and act." - Yick Wo vs Hopkins and Woo Lee vs Hopkins 118 U.S.356)

Jesus Christ said the same thing more or less. Jesus said "you are not under the law, but under grace". He said, "Law is for the lawless not the righteous."

(Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.)

(1 Timothy 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,)

If the Supreme Court says "We the People" (not federal citizens or 14th amendment citizens nor government employees, etc.) are exempt from the law, then we must object to the federal laws they are using against us (like the admiralty law the King of England used against the early settlers). The federal courts are using the wrong jurisdiction against the people of the states.

I hope this cleared up some of it. It took me years to put it all together where it made absolute sense. I back up what I say with court rulings/

This is not legal advice, but public knowledge.

In short, all laws are lawful to use against anyone. It is your responsibility to analyse the law you are charged with violating to see if it applies to you and that it is worded correctly to include YOU into its meaning.

A law MUST be specific and definite to be valid:

(16 A Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, 818 Definiteness or Vagueness of Laws,

Regulations and Orders, states: "It is a general principle of statutory law that a statute

must be definite to be valid.")

Are you a federal citizen or part of the Sovereignty?

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Sun, Oct 3, 2010, at 11:45 PM

If it took you a couple of years, better give me some time to read this a few times.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Oct 4, 2010, at 8:08 PM

Lesson #1:

Our Forefathers wanted a Government that could man the Naval Forces and Import Export items into and out of our new Free Country. They did not want this new National Government to have any more power than they give it. They just escaped from a King with too much power and didn't want a Government with that kind of power.

They gave congress authority over the people only in certain matters.(U.S. Constitution) - Article 1:

Section 8,

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

In Section 2, It states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States", (This provision provided that if a Direct Tax was imposed that it would be based on the population of the State. This would insure that every individual would pay an equal and fair share of the costs of operating the Union. That is why a Direct Tax is unconstitutional unless applied after a war to recover cost of war.(All the property tax in the State would have to be added up then divided by the number of people in the State, Everyone in the State would have to pay the exact same amount regardless of the tax on each property nor their ability to pay. Therefore we have no Direct Tax on Income.)

(Duties and Impost deal with international Trade) (Excises is a tax on consumable items, Privileges and Benefits - Business License is a Excise Tax for the Benefit of doing business in the Country, State, County or City.

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

TAXES is another Story!

Clause 2; To borrow Money on the credit of the United State.

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with "Foreign Nations" and among the several State (which are foreign to the United States and all territories and other states) and with the Indian Tribes.

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 4: To establish and Uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United State.

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

(No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

(No specific legislative powers to control the general population of Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; (No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 8: To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts... (No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme court; (In order to carry out the assigned tasks the Legislature is granted the power to establish inferior courts. These courts can only deal in and with those items that fall within what power and authority has been granted to the Federal Government. That means that the courts are either Maritime Courts that deal in International Affairs with the Foreign Nations, the States, and the Indian Nations, or they are Equity Courts that deal with contracts and agreements involving the functions of the Federal Government. These are NOT courts to persecute and harass the People. No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; (Here again, this falls exactly within the powers and authority granted to the Federal Government. These are functions of International Law and International Affairs and are properly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (If we are going to go to war, then we will take prisoners. The power to determine how these prisoners are to be treated is granted here. No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision. This is the only time a Direct Tax can be imposed "HOWEVER" it can only be for two years not every April 15th year after year)

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; (No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; (If the Federal Government is charged with the establishment and maintenance of a Navy and an Army, in times of war, it only follows that they must have the power to make such rules as are necessary for the regulation of the military forces. No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; (It is very interesting to note that the Militia is empowered to suppress Insurrections. The Army cannot do that because the Army is precluded from taking any action against the People. No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,... ( No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.)


Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, (This is Washington D. C., the District of Columbia, and is quite properly administered by the Federal Legislature because it is not a part of any State.) and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; (It is very understandable that the Federal Government should be entitled to exercise exclusive Legislation power over such land and buildings as they need for their efficient operation. ( No specific legislative powers to control the Sovereign Citizens are granted in this Provision.) ---

THEN the Answer you need...

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, (It is necessary that the Legislature be granted the power and the authority to carry out its assigned tasks. Just remember, there is nothing in the foregoing that grants any power to the Legislature to control or regulate the business or other activities of the Sovereign People. The Legislature can deal only in and with Foreign Nations, the States, and Indian Nations.) and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (As we proceed through the Constitution you will see that no significant powers are granted, other that what has been set forth above, and certainly none that affect the Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness of the Sovereign People.)

Clause 17 explains where the Exclusive Legislation and Jurisdiction Power that was given to the United States Government can be used and on who for what reasons.

Clause 18 gives Congress the right to make all necessary laws to carry out their power.

Congress has never given the United States Government any other power over the Sovereign People, only 14th amendment citizens and places within its jurisdiction - Washington, DC and the Territories and land ceded over by the states to the US Government.

Places like the Military and Military Bases (even the shut down Bases that will be used to house people needing homes etc. because of disasters, natural or man made, including all the inferior courts. These places are all under Federal Jurisdiction where you have no constitutional rights.

This is a very simple Lesson. If I do a second Lesson it will Shock and Awe all your readers when they find out what the Congress has done with their Legislative power and how the Supreme Court backed them up.

In Simple Terms we have two United States Federal Governments running our country.

One is a Federal Government with Exclusive Federal Law Jurisdiction over all Territories, States and places under its Exclusive Jurisdiction and

a second Federal Government using the same employees and Officers to legislate laws and the authority to protect our rights, not take them away.

Only problem is, they are only operating to take away our rights and trick the people into believing they have Exclusive Jurisdiction over the Sovereign People.

Example of what I am saying:

"In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States, Congress [under Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 17 and Article IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2, of the Constitution] is NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS as when it is legislating for the United States [the 50 states]." - Hooven , Evatt 324 U.S. 674.

Congress can legislate any way it wants to for the U.S. Territories without considering the Constitution, but must legislate with constitutional limitations and restrictions when legislating for the sovereign people of the 50 states. If they don't, these laws would be null and void to the sovereign people. So, in fact, there are two United States Governments. A Government of Federal De Facto Law or color of law and a Government of De Jure Law or Constitutional Law.

Both Governments are operated by the exact same personnel under two distinct government guidelines un-be-knowing to the public.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 1:54 PM

Did I happen to hit a subject you love?

-- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Oct 5, 2010, at 8:55 PM

Just one of Many.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Wed, Oct 6, 2010, at 6:02 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Steve Mills and his wife have one daughter. They previously owned two coffee/ice cream shops, currently operate an internet sales company and teach classes, but his primary job involves the paper industry worldwide. Hobbies and interests lie in gardening, photography, recorded music and of course, their pets.