Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm


Post by notmartha »

The concept of “planes” is hard for many to understand because it is so abstract, but since much of our lives are dictated by these planes, the topic is worthy of study.

What is a “plane”?

Refer to “area”. Sometimes also spelled “plain,” and called a “grid,” it is an artificial two dimensional overlay horizontally covering the ground, consisting of width and length, without height or depth. Planes exist on paper, and in the minds of those who give them credence.

As opposed to the “laws of the land”, new jurisdictions are created on numerous planes with their own codes and statutes. You can be standing on the soil, and yet, due to your contacts, be on any number of planes.

People, places and things pledged to STATE are deemed to be on the Federal plane aka area, where representations are then drawn. Person, residence, motor vehicle, etc. are all fictions that represent the real, and only exist on paper planes.

Webster’s 1828:
PLANE, noun [from Latin planus.] In geometry, an even or level surface, like plain in popular language.

The State Plane Coordinate System, created in 1932-1933, is a 2 dimensional plane(also called grid) horizontally covering the ground. The plane is divided into zones, the boundaries of the zones always following artificial State lines and sometimes County lines. (Keep this in mind as you deal with "zoning officers" and "zoning boards")

Black’s 6th –
Plan – A delineation; a design; a draft, form, or representation. The representation of anything drawn on a plane, as a map or chart; a scheme; a sketch. Also, a method of design or action, procedure, or arrangement for accomplishment of a particular act or object. Method of putting into effect an intention or proposal.

Planning – In municipal law, term connotes systematic development of municipality to promote general welfare and prosperity of its people with greatest efficiency and economy.

Covell v. Heyman (1884) and later in Ponzi v. Fessenden (1922)
These courts do not belong to the same system, so far as their jurisdiction is concurrent, and although they coexist in the same space, they are independent, and have no common superior. They exercise jurisdiction, it is true, within the same territory, but not in the same plane, and when one takes into its jurisdiction a specific thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power of the other as if it had been carried physically into a different territorial sovereignty.

LEO M. FRANK, Appt., v. C. WHEELER MANGUM, Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia.(1915)
It follows as a logical consequence that where, as here, a criminal prosecution has proceeded through all the courts of the state, including the appellate as well as the trial court, the result of the appellate review cannot be ignored when afterwards the prisoner applies for his release on the ground of a deprivation of Federal rights sufficient to oust the state of its jurisdiction to proceed to judgment and execution against him. This is not a mere matter of comity, as seems to be supposed. The rule stands upon a much higher plane, for it arises out of the very nature and ground of the inquiry into the proceedings of the state tribunals, and touches closely upon the relations between the state and the Federal governments. As was declared by this court in Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, 252, 29 L. ed. 868, 871, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734, applying in a habeas corpus case what was said in Covell v. Heyman, 111 U. S. 176, 182, 28 L. ed. 390, 392, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 355, a case of conflict of jurisdiction: 'The forbearance which courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, administered under a single system, exercise towards each other, whereby conflicts are avoided by avoiding interference with the process of each other, is a principle of comity, with perhaps no higher sanction than the utility which comes from concord; but between state courts and those of the United States, it is something more. It is a principle of right and of law, and therefore, of necessity.'
COOPER et al. v. NEWELL et al.
173 U.S. 555 (19 S.Ct. 506, 43 L.Ed. 808)
We are of opinion that this contention cannot be sustained, and that the courts of the United States sitting in Texas are no more shut out from examining into jurisdiction than if sitting elsewhere, or than the courts of another state. A domestic judgment is the judgment of a domestic court, and a domestic court is a court of a particular country or sovereignty. Undoubtedly, the judgments of courts of the United States are domestic judgments of the nation, while, in the particular state in which rendered, they are entitled to be regarded as on the same plane, in many senses, as judgments of the state; and so the judgments of the courts of the several states are not to be treated by each other, or by the courts of the United States, as in every sense foreign judgments. But the courts of the United States are tribunals of a different sovereignty, and exercise a distinct and independent jurisdiction from that exercised by the state courts; and this is true in respect of the courts of the several states, as between each other. And the courts of the United States are bound to give to the judgments of the state courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one state are bound to give to the judgments of the courts of her sister states.
Post Reply