Comments on: South Carolina seeking historic papers http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/south-carolina-seeking-historic-papers/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Don Robertson http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/south-carolina-seeking-historic-papers/comment-page-1/#comment-10806 Don Robertson Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:29:58 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/south-carolina-seeking-historic-papers/#comment-10806 The state of South Carolina, if it believes the papers rightfully are the state's property is not showing so by refusing to purchase the papers, to later sue to recoup the funds expended therefore. These papers represent an asset that is apparently increasing in value every day. The state cannot argue they are rightfully the state's papers, while conintuing to allow them to be in the hands of someone else if they have a means to obtain the papers outside a court of law. The state has a course of action to obtain the papers without going to court. The state can purchase the papers. The state should exhaust that avenue before seeking judicial relief. Their failure here argues strongly, even irrecoverably against the state's claim, as their are unlimited legal means by which these papers could be lost to them outside this country. I am unaware of any law prohibiting these papers from being moved outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. The claim of the state as it stands, also seems to imply, had Thomas Lee Willcox negligently permitted the destruction of these papers, he might somehow be liable? No one, I believe, can accept this argument. Again, the state should have purchased and should still purchase the papers. There may be some argument about recovery of the cost, but, given their current plea, that seems lost. Also, in any plea for recovery of costs, the defendent, Thomas Lee Willcox, would be able then to assert 1) his ownership, and withstanding the loss of that plea 2) the value of his having recovered the papers from what appears to be almost sure destruction and certain loss, which seems to equate to a total value assessment of the value of the papers. What the state is arguing is, if the state does not purchase these papers, they will further demonstrate a lack of ownership and interest in the papers, a lack of ownershipa and interest that has already been well demonstrated by the papers not being in the possession of the state for such a long period of time. The court can also order the state to purchase the papers before proceeding so as to not interfere unreasonably in Thomas Lee Willcox right to sell them should he be correct in his assertion of his right to sell the papers. Don Robertson, The American Philosopher Limestone, Maine The state of South Carolina, if it believes the papers rightfully are the state’s property is not showing so by refusing to purchase the papers, to later sue to recoup the funds expended therefore.

These papers represent an asset that is apparently increasing in value every day. The state cannot argue they are rightfully the state’s papers, while conintuing to allow them to be in the hands of someone else if they have a means to obtain the papers outside a court of law.

The state has a course of action to obtain the papers without going to court. The state can purchase the papers.

The state should exhaust that avenue before seeking judicial relief.

Their failure here argues strongly, even irrecoverably against the state’s claim, as their are unlimited legal means by which these papers could be lost to them outside this country. I am unaware of any law prohibiting these papers from being moved outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.

The claim of the state as it stands, also seems to imply, had Thomas Lee Willcox negligently permitted the destruction of these papers, he might somehow be liable? No one, I believe, can accept this argument.

Again, the state should have purchased and should still purchase the papers. There may be some argument about recovery of the cost, but, given their current plea, that seems lost.

Also, in any plea for recovery of costs, the defendent, Thomas Lee Willcox, would be able then to assert 1) his ownership, and withstanding the loss of that plea 2) the value of his having recovered the papers from what appears to be almost sure destruction and certain loss, which seems to equate to a total value assessment of the value of the papers.

What the state is arguing is, if the state does not purchase these papers, they will further demonstrate a lack of ownership and interest in the papers, a lack of ownershipa and interest that has already been well demonstrated by the papers not being in the possession of the state for such a long period of time.

The court can also order the state to purchase the papers before proceeding so as to not interfere unreasonably in Thomas Lee Willcox right to sell them should he be correct in his assertion of his right to sell the papers.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Limestone, Maine

]]>