Josh wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 6:00 pm
A properly formed PMA should be created in a manner to ensure, and invoke, your rights, including the ability to keep your business within the private domain and outside of the jurisdiction of Public Law. A properly formed PMA should never be founded in a manner as to be statutory compliant. A statutory compliant PMA puts you directly under the jurisdiction of the statutory court and removes your protections.
John, with respect, that is sovereign citizen nonsense.
Perhaps you can provide documentation about sovereign citizens, and how that relates to the Miller case.
Here are some Supreme Court cases about Private Membership Associations:
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.
Facts of the case
In 1993, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was authorized by the city of Boston to organize the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the event for the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB). The group attempted to join to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans' Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Veterans' Council claimed that forced inclusion of GLIB members in their
privately-organized parade violated their free speech.
Question
Did a Massachusetts State Court's mandate to Boston's Veterans' Council, requiring it to include GLIB members in its parade, violate the Council's free speech rights as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
Yes. A unanimous court held that the State Court's ruling to require
private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate[s] the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-749
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
Facts of the case
The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale's adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. The New Jersey Superior Court held that New Jersey's public accommodations law was inapplicable because the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation. The court also concluded that the Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. The court's Appellate Division held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts because of its broad-based membership solicitation and its connections with various public entities, and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. The court rejected the Boy Scouts' federal constitutional claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that application of New Jersey's public accommodations law did not violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment
right of expressive association because Dale's inclusion would not significantly affect members' abilities to carry out their purpose. Furthermore, the court concluded that reinstating Dale did not compel the Boy Scouts to express any message.
Question
Does the application of New Jersey's public accommodations law violate the
Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that "applying New Jersey's public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the
Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association." In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill," and that a gay troop leader's presence "would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the young members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/99-699
In Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the court decided against a membership association for this reason:
PRIMARY HOLDING
If a regulation furthers compelling state interests, it may be a valid restriction on the freedom of association if it does not suppress significantly more freedom than is necessary to achieve the goal.
FACTS
In an action for a declaratory judgment, the U.S. Jaycees argued that they could prevent women from becoming members based on their right of free association under the First Amendment. As a result, they contended that the Minnesota Human Rights Act was unconstitutional as applied to them. The state responded by arguing that it had a compelling interest in ending gender discrimination, and the trial court agreed in withholding declaratory relief and finding that the statute was constitutional.
OPINIONS
Majority
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. (Author)
Byron Raymond White
Thurgood Marshall
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
John Paul Stevens
Since this restriction does not directly affect speech, it receives a lower level of First Amendment scrutiny as a content-neutral regulation. The state does have a compelling interest in combating the injustices caused by gender discrimination, and this regulation is directly connected to furthering those interests. The plaintiffs failed to show that the state had any less restrictive means of achieving its objective, so this statute was constitutional.
Concurrence
Sandra Day O'Connor (Author)
Concurrence
William Hubbs Rehnquist (Author)
Recused
Warren Earl Burger (Author)
Harry Andrew Blackmun
CASE COMMENTARY
Protections from regulation are not accorded to an association that is very large, in contrast to small-scale, selective organizations related to fundamental issues like personal liberties or family matters. The size, role, and selectivity of the group thus govern the level of regulation that can be applied to it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/609/
In other words, the courts can decide whatever they want for upholding or destroying the "rights" of a membership association to operate outside of the State. Courts are not always consistent. The ability of a PMA to operate outside of State reach is not a law, but a concept protected by the 1st and 14th amendments.
The 1st amendment protects private associations as the "right to peaceably assemble" and the right to free speech. The 14th guarantees equal protection under the law, and if they can put Miller's PMA under state jurisdiction, then they would have to apply the law evenly to every other PMA. That would be horrible.
One of the reasons that they will give to authorize the State to have jurisdiction over a private member association, is there has to be a clear and present danger to the public that requires the State to intervene. The PA Dept of Ag is listing two cases of listeria as this "clear and present danger."
Miller's attorney Robert Barnes has discovered that the two listeria cases cited by the Penn Dept of Ag were never Miller's clients, and that one person survived, and the other one died from cancer, not listeria.
I understand these two listeria cases happened outside of PA, which should relieve the PA Dept of Ag from claiming authority, as they do not have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
The only link to Miller is that the same "type" of listeria was found, supposedly, in Miller's products. Yet, when they did the testing, they ran everyone out of Miller's offices so there would be no witnesses to how the tests were performed. Barnes implied that the body cams worn by the Sheriff's deputies may provide proof that the PA Dept of Ag committed perjury.
None of Miller's customers have ever complained about Miller's products. There is no "clear and present danger" except the overreach of these cursed bureaucrats.
The outcome of the Miller case can affect a LOT more people than Amos Miller. That is why there is such a "push" by both sides.
We are living in interesting times.
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
