agreed to and ordered in open court. The mistake may be that of the lawyer who was asked to draft the court order. The judgment should accurately express what was done in court and what the judge had called for. It is the understanding of the court and not that of the parties that is the determinative factor. Russell v. Superior Court of Placer County (3rd Dist. 1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 1, 8. Ambiguous language in a judgment was addressed In Re: JCCP 4221/4224/4226&4428 Natural Gas Anti-Trust Cases – (Pipeline). The Court had the authority to correct the ambiguous language where no such issue was raised, no arguments were made, no determinations were rendered, and no such conclusions were intended by the Court. The issue in that case involved the clerical correction of an ambiguous provision and over which the court maintained jurisdiction. State and local government agencies may not encumber the exercise of federal authority. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl.2, state is without power ... to provide conditions on “a which the federal government will effectuate its policies.” United States v. Georgia Public SefVice Comm'n, 371 U.S. 285, 293 (1963). Leonard Cohen’s argument, with respect to Lynch’s request for IRS filing and reporting requirements, essentially concludes that a state judgment negates Cohen’s tax obligations to Lynch and those of the corporate entities themselves. the United States is a government of delegated powers, none of which may be exercised “Since throughout the Nation by any one state, it is necessary for uniformity that the laws of the United States be dominant over those of any state. Such dominancy is required also to avoid a breakdown of administration through possible conflicts arising from inconsistent requirements. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states this essential principle. Article VI. A corollary to this principle is that the activities of the federal government are free from regulation by any state. No other adjustment of competing enactments or legal principles is possible. Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441 (1943). As the activities of the federal government are presumptively free from state regulation, unless Congress has clearly authorized state regulation in a specific area (See Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167,
agreed to and ordered in open court. The mistake may be that of the lawyer who was asked to draft the court order. The judgment should accurately express what was done in court and what the judge had called for. It is the understanding of the court and not that of the parties that is the determinative factor. Russell v. Superior Court of Placer County (3rd Dist. 1967) 252 Cal. App. 2d 1, 8. Ambiguous language in a judgment was addressed In Re: JCCP 4221/4224/4226&4428 – Natural Gas Anti-Trust Cases (Pipeline). The Court had the authority to correct the ambiguous language where no such issue was raised, no arguments were made, no determinations were rendered, and no such conclusions were intended by the Court. The issue in that case involved the clerical correction of an ambiguous provision and over which the court maintained jurisdiction. State and local government agencies may not encumber the exercise of federal authority. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl.2, “a state is without power ... to provide conditions on which the federal government will effectuate its policies.” United States v. Georgia Public SefVice Comm'n, 371 U.S. 285, 293 (1963). Leonard Cohen’s argument, with respect to Lynch’s request for IRS filing and reporting requirements, essentially concludes that a state judgment negates Cohen’s tax obligations to Lynch and those of the corporate entities themselves. “Since the United States is a government of delegated powers, none of which may be exercised throughout the Nation by any one state, it is necessary for uniformity that the laws of the United States be dominant over those of any state. Such dominancy is required also to avoid a breakdown of administration through possible conflicts arising from inconsistent requirements. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution states this essential principle. Article VI. A corollary to this principle is that the activities of the federal government are free from regulation by any state. No other adjustment of competing enactments or legal principles is possible. Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441 (1943). As the activities of the federal government are presumptively free from state regulation, unless Congress has clearly authorized state regulation in a specific area (See Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167,