|
Always with Rott...
Rott is filling up large posts again with quotes and insisting people agree.
I am going back to my point that Lawdog is right - from the quotes I read at the beginning - he is on my Ignore List. Common law is indeed judge-made law; through case law and opinions. Equity and law were basically blended in 1938 with Erie Doctrine. That means that you have hired the attorney in the black robe to be equitable and at the same time you get to state in a hearing, "Well under the same circumstances, wise judge so-and-so said that I win because..." - and you can expect that arbiter to consider your argument, as well as your opposition resorting to opinions and rulings of note.
Somebody brought up 1966 and that was during an interesting transition of standing in the courts. It is his initial formation of the book around the OCC that should be catching your attention - should you enjoy how signing off with our true names is catching on around Suijuris anyway. This has to do with the remedy in the 1913 Fed Act - redeeming gold - later lawful money in US dollars as inelastic currency - admitted by Bernard Shoonra to be US notes, still "circulated" as US notes between the big Fed banks and admitted by the Treasury to be circulated among us smaller reserves (with FRNs in our wallets) in the form of FRNs since January 21, 1971.
What is it that removes us back to our original jurisdiction. Look at that fourth image on Page 22.
My sticky note on there is basically a summary of the thrust of Vining's entire book. If you read a paragraph or two of his more "technical" discourse, his book is packed to say the least. But that is something important I got out of it.
The Libel of Review makes no sense to the "judges" these days because they are all municipal magistrates of the District of Columbia - the city of Washington incorporated in 1871. Fine. It gets dismissed and the suitor retains the "exclusive original cognizance" of the 'saving to suitors' clause of 1789. Noting especially that 1789 is well before 1842's Swift v. Tyson and as brought up, attorneys are taught that all case law before 1938 is voluntary, not mandatory judicial notice. They are not taught that by Chief Justice Brandeis' rulings in Erie that was actually all case law between 1842 and 1938 that was rendered faulty.
Not that this mattered by 1966 or so.
The point I make here is simply that by entering into the court in the true name, without title, a man or woman, all the court could take cognizance of by way of standing is a class action suit for all humanity - and that makes no sense for several reasons. For one, the arbiter gets pulled into a conflict of interest as a man or woman.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|