palani
13th December 2011, 07:34 AM
TO QUASH, practice. To overthrow or annul.
2. When proceedings are clearly irregular and void the courts will quash them, both in civil and criminal cases: for example, when the array is clearly irregular, as if the jurors have been selected by persons not authorized by law, it will be quashed. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3342.
3. In criminal cases, when an indictment is so defective that no judgment can be given upon it, should the defendant be convicted, the court, upon application, will in general quash it; as if it have no jurisdiction of the offence charged, or when the matter charged is not indictable. 1 Burr. 516, 548; Andr. 226. When the application to quash is made on the part of the defendant, the court generally refuses to quash the indictment when it appears some enormous crime has been committed.
After a hearing several weeks ago a "chancellor" in Equity acting as a judge at Law issued an order to quash a lien. The lien had been filed by the landowner on the crops produced by the land. The crops were produced by a person who thought that by purchasing a tax lien they were buying the land. The landowner had been deemed "judgment proof" by the opposing attorney because he had nothing that could be taken from him.
The thing is neither a judge nor a chancellor has the authority to interfere with the obligations of contracts. A UCC1 lien can only be lifted by the one filing it. This is my understanding by reading the tea leaves. However, by issuing what looks like an official order to "quash" the lien the judicial actor in equity gives the elevators of the area the IMPRESSION that the lien is not in effect. This is far from the truth. If the tax lien owner were to sell the crop to any other entity that entity is receiving stolen property and could be prosecuted.
A lien represents a contract. Contracts are prohibited from being messed with by any state of the union. It appears that they are being messed with but what are operating as states are not constitutional states but rather federal overlays. There is no prohibition that the feds can interfere with the obligations of contracts. Only the several States are prohibited from this.
Interesting what lines of reasoning you can develop while reading tea leaves.
2. When proceedings are clearly irregular and void the courts will quash them, both in civil and criminal cases: for example, when the array is clearly irregular, as if the jurors have been selected by persons not authorized by law, it will be quashed. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3342.
3. In criminal cases, when an indictment is so defective that no judgment can be given upon it, should the defendant be convicted, the court, upon application, will in general quash it; as if it have no jurisdiction of the offence charged, or when the matter charged is not indictable. 1 Burr. 516, 548; Andr. 226. When the application to quash is made on the part of the defendant, the court generally refuses to quash the indictment when it appears some enormous crime has been committed.
After a hearing several weeks ago a "chancellor" in Equity acting as a judge at Law issued an order to quash a lien. The lien had been filed by the landowner on the crops produced by the land. The crops were produced by a person who thought that by purchasing a tax lien they were buying the land. The landowner had been deemed "judgment proof" by the opposing attorney because he had nothing that could be taken from him.
The thing is neither a judge nor a chancellor has the authority to interfere with the obligations of contracts. A UCC1 lien can only be lifted by the one filing it. This is my understanding by reading the tea leaves. However, by issuing what looks like an official order to "quash" the lien the judicial actor in equity gives the elevators of the area the IMPRESSION that the lien is not in effect. This is far from the truth. If the tax lien owner were to sell the crop to any other entity that entity is receiving stolen property and could be prosecuted.
A lien represents a contract. Contracts are prohibited from being messed with by any state of the union. It appears that they are being messed with but what are operating as states are not constitutional states but rather federal overlays. There is no prohibition that the feds can interfere with the obligations of contracts. Only the several States are prohibited from this.
Interesting what lines of reasoning you can develop while reading tea leaves.