2018-35
17-1299
Franchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v. Gilbert P. Hyatt

Summary Analysis

R-35
DATE: 2019-05-13
DOCKET: 17-1299
NAME: Franchise Tax Board of California, Petitioner v. Gilbert P. Hyatt
WORTHY: True

OPINION: Court
   AUTHOR: Thomas
   JOINING: Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
   GOOD: Yes
PAGES: 18

OPINION: Dissenting
   AUTHOR: Breyer
   JOINING: Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
   GOOD: No
PAGES: 13


Case Commentary

Hall at 6-3 has been overturned by Hyatt at 5-4... being the case at hand.



As I see it (understanding as you will in a moment that I see things quite differently than most), Individuals cannot sue States in the courts of yet Other States unless the State of the First Part accents to being sued in the courts of the State of the Second Part.

End of story.

This seems workable to me.



The Full Faith and Credit Clause (keeping in mind that I didn't know this was part of The Constitution until I looked it up) deals with the Rights and Responsibilities that the States have towards one another. And as is pertinent in this case, the decisions of one State Court System are to be honoured by every other State.

Now, I disagree with this, as it forces the honouring of possibly dishonourable decisions: say those involving The Death Penalty, Deportation, Slavery (in days of old), Abortion, Drug Dealing, or the Enforcement of Other Morality Based Laws.

Still, that's not the relevant part.

1. Given the Ability to sue States in the courts of Other States:
• As per Hall.
• And reversed herein.
  • So this no longer applies.
2. Given the Full Faith and Credit Clause:
• In which, The Decisions of Other States Must be honoured.
3. This sets up the potential for a cyclical pattern of abuse.
• We decide against you.
• No, we decide against you.
• Oh, yeah! Take that!
• Right back at you!

And so on and so forth ad infinitum.



Of course, it's just Foreign States that one cannot sue... not the Citizens of Foreign States.

But it's a start.



Ultimately, I want full accountability.

In the Legal System, this means I want Everyone and Every Social Structure to be able to sue Everyone and Every Other Social Structure.

Obviously, when lawsuits take twenty years (as this one has) and chew up entire lifetimes of labour (has this one gone that far, yet), lawsuits are to be avoided.

But when lawsuits are handled fairly and rationally, this is not an issue.



The problem is that issues are not resolved fairly.



At some point, those who sit in judgement must sit in judgement of themselves. And if they apply more lenient standards to themselves than others, The System is Shot... it will not survive in the long-term.



As a philosophical concern (and therefore, as proof that this is not a legal diatribe) every disagreement (however small) should (as a matter of course) be brought before a Public Tribunal. If there is a meaningful disagreement between two parties (any two parties) and it is not resolved before a Public Tribunal, this is a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of The System... and will inevitably translate into a Longterm Lack of Faith in the System.



Society Stands on Trial Any Time Anyone is on Trial.

Society Stands on Trial at Every Social Wrong.



It does not matter the trivial nature of the issue.



Since, this is a Philosophical Stance and it could take me hours to try and codify all the minor points for all the naysayers of the world, I will simply leave the above as a rough draft of an idea.



Rather (and as a closing remark), I will simply make note of my ever growing belief that a divergence of wealth proves corruption.



Nope.

Sorry.

That's a bit off the mark.



Rather, as Litigation becomes more Costly & Complex, The Legal System becomes less and less accessible for those without material wealth; and because of this, The Legal System becomes more and more oppressive to the Lower Classes.



This lawsuit has been raging for Twenty Years!

Twenty Years!

Could you afford to pay a Lawyer (or more likely, a Legal Team) to Fight the Good Fight for Twenty Years?



Or let's bring this all to a close by bringing it all closer to home... assuming this is (indeed) closer to home.

I am led to believe (meaning, I will not bother to post my references, as that would require looking them up) that conviction rates soar as prisoners (and by definition innocents, if I remember the TV Shows of my youth correctly) are unable to Post Bail.

Further, those in Jail (on account of being unable to Post Bail) tend to accept Plea Bargains more readily.

Finally, upwards (so, heads up, another unsubstantiated statistic looms on the horizon) of 80% of convictions in the Modern Era are the result of Plea Bargains.

No Money -> No Bail -> Long Trials -> Rot or Plea

It's as simple as that.

I don't think it is hard to read between the lines.



Unity Requires Unity!

If There Is Not One, There Is No One!