Suing "The State"

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
apondsong
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/23/2004 - 1:01am
Suing "The State"

Does anybody know if the State of Maine has ever faced a lawsuit...(permission to sue being given by legislative process) ?

Thoughts ?

THIS IS A TOPIC SPECIFIC THREAD. UNRELATED COMMENTS ARE NOT WELCOME. THANK YOU.

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/03/03/news/midcoast/state-cant-be-sued-f...

Roger Ek
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 4 hours ago
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
He's baaaaack. This is the

He's baaaaack. This is the guy or gal who went berserk several years ago about people killing coyotes to protect their animals and pets. A lot of water has gone over the dam since then (the streams that still have dams in Maine). Our coyote contest is going very well this year. We have learned a lot about eradicating coyotes in Maine since apondsong was active on AMG. We can't eradicate the coyote species any more than we can eradicate the giardia species, but we sure can limit the numbers by hunting them 24 hours a day.

Out in Wyoming, HSUS and the Sierra Club had a big meeting with the ranchers. The Obama Administration's US Forest Service was a co-sponsor of the meeting about coyotes.

It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue. What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would then be castrated and let loose again.
This was actually proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U. S. Forest Service.

All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes. Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said, "Sonny, I don't think you understand our problem here. These coyotes aren't raping our sheep; they're eatin' em!"

The meeting never really got back to order.

Welcome back apondsong. It sure is fun to read your stuff.

apondsong
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/23/2004 - 1:01am
Loved that one Roger !

Loved that one Roger !

Now..this is a topic specific thread, so please stick to the topic presented. Thanks.

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
From what little I learned it

From what little I learned it seems the Supreme Court relied on statutory law for its conclusion.

Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to rely on Constitutional law? The Legislature wrote a statute making the state immune. That seems to be the basis of the ruling. The Legislature overwrites our Constitution all the time. Statutes are laws until the constitutionality of the statute is challenged in court. I do not know if there is a basis for challenging the constitutionality of that law but It seems to me that the statutes serves the interests of the state and not the interests of the people. Its supposed to be the other way around.The State is supposed to serve the people.

It's disgusting.

I do not know why you ask this question, but just for arguments sake,( I am not a lawyer). Statutory law identifies the State as a corporation in The Rules For Non-Profit Corporations, which was written to get around the Maine Constitution's prohibition against chartering corporations by special act of legislation. The Legislature did this by defining some corporations as "not corporations" but rather as "corporate outgrowths of the state" How can there be corporate outgrowths of the state unless the State is a corporation?

Article IV Pat Third Section 14 of the Maine Constitution also states that all corporations however formed are subject to general laws. So that means the State, as a corporation is subject to the same general laws as any other corporation, and the Torte Law can be challenged as a special law written for a special corporation (the State).

THE RULES FOR NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS begins with a list of what is to be excluded from the definition of a corporation for the purposes of the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act:
1 Definitions
A Corporation. Title 13-B Section 102(4) defines the term "Corporation" as used in the Maine Nonprofit Corporation Act. Certain entities are excluded from the definition. Among the exclusions are "an instrumentality, agency, political subdivision or body politic and corporate of the State." The Secretary of State interprets that phrase to mean an administrative unit or corporate outgrowth of State, county or local government created by statute, order, resolution, ordinance or articles of incorporation to perform functions traditionally associated with government activities. By way of example, entities, which will be considered excluded from the definition of corporation, include, but are not limited to:….

Note in the above Statute- it grants the authority to interpret the law to The Secretary of State, although the administration has only the powers of administrating the law.

You can Download the Rules at the Maine Secretary of State's website http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/29/chaps29.htm with this warning:
Rule Chapters for the Department of the Secretary of State
Chapters available for downloading are highlighted. All chapters are in Microsoft Word format.
WARNING: While we have taken care with the accuracy of the files accessible here, they are not "official" state rules in the sense that they can be used before a court. Anyone who needs a certified copy of a rule chapter should contact the APA Office.

Since the only robust way to challenge the constitutionality of statutory law is through the courts, anyone attempting to use the rules of this chapter before a court of law could present problems for Maine's corporate state which has entrenched an ever expanding network of corporations chartered by special acts of legislation. To have standing in a court of law one must show personal and individual harm done. Could these re-definitions hold the key to that? Why is the public being told not to use any of this in a court of law? I cannot say. Clearly the intent of an 1876 constitutional Amendment cannot be defined by re-definitions of a key concept created by the Maine Legislature in 1977. The progressives who are implementing their new system of government do not have the consent of the governed. The consent of the governed is codified in one place only, the Maine Constitution.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
The article said he owed back

The article said he owed back property taxes, isn't that legally sufficient reason to put a lien on the property?

No mention of how backed up they were or what the bill was.

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
The article also says the

The article also says the state became conservators of the property and then did not turn off the water eventually causing water and mold damage to the property and that the God Forsaken State euthanized the cat !

SDC
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/15/2014 - 12:58pm
apondsong

apondsong
Wont tell you where to go,but I will refer you to Millay vs. Surry School Board.You can take it from there.
As far as DHHS,from past experience,there is no oversight from the State.

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You cannot sue the king

You cannot sue the king unless he wants to be sued. This is not true for the towns and cities as they are government created corporations devoid of sovereignty. Government is God on earth and can do no wrong. To allow you to sue them hints that they may have done something wrong. It is why the Supreme Court declared the Affordable Care Act legal because the government got the bill through the government. There are no checks and balances when one party gains the Congress with enough votes to override the President's veto.

Bruce Libby
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 46 min ago
Joined: 01/17/2006 - 7:08pm
To answer the question

To answer the question
Simply yes the state can get sued and does.
Few ever reach the stage of getting approval which applies fro and in certain types of actions.
Most issues arising to that level or potentially , get settled .

As in the posted example it sounds really bad and is distasteful particularly without a full
understanding of just what the state can do. Which results from parties not reading the fine print so to speak.

This was a recovery of cost case . Keep in mind the complaining about costs of services ,well this was just that ,attempt o cover from assets by state.
It isn't pretty and usually not liked but legal.

Log in to post comments