This presentation is a critique of Section 34 of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789; how the original was worded to apply to common law, how it was altered, and how it has been / is being used to erect a State within the State. Links: Slide 8 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1652 Slide 12 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/610 Slide 14 - http://www.palrb.us/statutesatlarge/17001799/1782/0/act/1000.pdf

1. “The Ashley Special -TheTrain
That Changed the Common
Law”
Courtesy of the Steamtown
National Historic Site,
Scranton, Pennsylvania.

2. What “wrinkle” was discovered
by the “legal Young Turks”?
Given the changes in government during FDR’s
administration and its “New Deal”; Why do you
suppose Justice Story concluded as he did?

3. How do you
suppose this case,
Erie Railroad Co. v
Tompkins,
benefited interstate
and international
commerce?

4. On May 27, 2014 JudgeVanaskie reiterated his 1997 remarks as a prensenter at a
seminar,The Ashley Special -TheTrainThat Changed the Common Law.
The seminar was held at the Steamtown National Historic Site, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

5. S
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
C
o
m
m
o
n
l
a
w
.

6. Federal - state relationship.
Define “state”.

7. 1994 Edition: Federal
Civil Judicial
Procedure and Rules
Looking back:
What changes have
been made to
Section 34 of the
JudiciaryAct since it
was handwritten in
1789.

8. The laws of the several states, except where theConstitution or treaties of the United
States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of
decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.

9. On page 289 of
this University
Casebook Series
it implies in part:
That the original
handwritten version of
§34 of the Judicary
Act of 1789 was, in
1789, altered.
(Next slide)

12. 28 U.S.C. 610
As used in this chapter the
word “courts” includes the
courts of appeals and
district courts of the
United States, the United
States District Court for
the District of the Canal
Zone, the District Court of
Guam, the District Court of
the Virgin Islands, the
United States Court of
Federal Claims, and the
Court of International
Trade.

13. So; What type of person altered §34
of the Judiciary Act of 1789?
Was it Senator Oliver Ellsworth’s or
someone else?
How would that individual have been
described in 18th Century
terminology?

14. From Pennsylvania’s Statutes at Large
1782
Prevent the erecting any new and independent state within the limits of this commonwealth
“SECT. IV” identifies the type of “persons”
members of the 1782 Pennsylvania
Assembly had concern.
What was the goal of these “ill disposed
persons”?
How many years elapsed between the
signing of the Declaration of Independence
in 1776, the enacting of this 1782 Statute in
Pennsylvania, and the insertion of Art. 4 § 3
in the United States Constitution?
What type of person altered Senator Oliver
Ellsworth’s wording of § 34 of the Judiciary
Act of 1789?
What is the penalty for “ill disposed
persons”?

15. Follow-up article
THE (SCRANTON) TIMES-TRIBUNE - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2014

17. END OF PRESENTATION.