Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David Merrill
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_969.jpg
http://friends-n-family-research.inf...l_6744_974.jpg
That is a significant observation in many ways. I do not see much point in contributing to a topic about a fellow on my Ignore List though.
Common law can easily be considered stare decisis or case law. Since the blending of law and equity in America though (1938) there is not much point because Erie Doctrine according to Justice Brandeis reset the case law by deciding that all case law was in error between Swift in 1842 and 1938. So all case law that any of the en banc attorneys in black robes will listen to are about collections on FDR's Government bonds (human chattel). If it is not agreeable to that fiduciary responsibility in a cite prior to 1938, they can ignore the cite.
Some interesting points about common law... I was at a family reunion and speaking with a second year law student candidly about law. She told me, "All common law is is case law." I thought about it and it seems the Lawdog was also taught the same thing - true enough. But what really got me thinking was later in the conversation she blurted:
"Where did YOU hear about Erie?"
Think about that. Erie Railroad v. Thompkins and its effect is taught to law students to be secret intellectual property of attorneys.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Interesting. Back in 92, I had a similar experience with an attorney here in Tallahassee. During discussion of the pending lawsuit I was desiring to initiate, he pointed told me upon inquiry regarding a law from 1926, that the courts would not pay any attention to it. I asked why, and his response was "Since 1938, the cases heard before that time, are no longer considered by the courts as valid law." He would not go into any further detail, except to say ' in 1966, high officials in the judiciary, issued an un-written declaration, that there would be no more civil rights cases accepted by the courts pertaining to the rights of citizens.' No! Just like you David, I do not have any documented proof of these comments, as that would have been disastrous to the career of this man as well as the young lady with whom you were speaking. My suggestion, if you know an attorney, casually ask them/him/her about the erie case and status of case law prior to that time. Watch the expression on their face.
I pondered over that statement for a long time, before it was revealed to my by another attorney, what was really happening. That is why I deliberately place so much emphasis on questioning anyone who declares that 'common law' is the equivalent of 'judge-made-law'.
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.