Legislation from the bench is common law?

[psholtz]

It appears that many states (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, just to name a few, by looking at the above link) seem to have adopted the "common law" of England, as it existed in the "fourth year of James I" (or, apparently, March 24, 1606).

What is it about this date?

What's the significance?

[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.

[Jerry Pitts]

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.

[rottweiler]

People are the ones that have the unalienable rights.
Assuming you know what unalienable rights are that means my rights are not subject to a majority vote of the "whole people". The only way the "whole people" are going to pull that one off is if 100% of a jury of my peers disagrees with me and still there better be a corpus delecti, see habeus corpus.

The question you seem to have is were these unalienable rights just some romantic idea or was there a way to lawfully protect those rights in court.

If a court of record is proceeding according to the common law then the tribunal is independent of the magistrate. That means the judge is not the sovereign of the court. Correct? Then who is? That would be the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the king. He decrees the law.

When the IRS comes after a citizen for failure to file they are acting as sovereign. In the accusatory filing it will say the defendent is required to file income tax returns and the defendent failed to file tax returns. That's the law right there but we have been looking for statutes and codes so we miss it.

In the Simkanin case the jury asked the judge for the law and the magistrate told them it has already been decided that there is a law and if the jury determined Simkanin did not file he must be found guilty. Simkanin admitted he didn't file so it was a slam dunk.

You counter the government by suing them. You declare it a court of record and that you are one of the people. Now the US attorney must prove the US is sovereign over one of the people before they can go forward with their prosecution. That is impossible so the prosecution is over.

As far as 1% of common law being case law think about it. If I am the tribunal of my court what bearing would case law have on me when my court is decreeing the law?

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Please for the sake of clarity, give meaning to the term "people" as used above "is the opinion of the people".

If this term is used generally, implying that it represents the population as a whole, then I would ask:

When do the people get an opportunity to express their opinion in a judicial proceeding? How is this accomplished if the 'people' are not a 'party' to the action?

If the term is used to refer to the 'jury', then I would ask;

If the jury is regulated by the instructions given by the judge and such instructions and oath taken as a juror oblige them to adhere to the commands of the judge, then where is their ability to express an opinion relative to the case at hand?

You have stipulated that only 1% of the common law is represented as "case law", this would mean what? 99% of the 'common law' is 'opinion of the people'.. Thus my questions above. How can the people express their opinion in a judicial proceeding, when they are not a party to the proceeding?

This 1% that you allude to; from what source did you obtain this figure?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

You bring this discussion back down to the level of perspective and theory when in the third paragraph you mention the scenario in the hypothetical. Notice the highlighted word below. Once you are able to get past the hypothetical scenarios, then we might be able to speak in terms of FACT.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

People are the ones that have the unalienable rights.
Assuming you know what unalienable rights are that means my rights are not subject to a majority vote of the "whole people". The only way the "whole people" are going to pull that one off is if 100% of a jury of my peers disagrees with me and still there better be a corpus delecti, see habeus corpus.

The question you seem to have is were these unalienable rights just some romantic idea or was there a way to lawfully protect those rights in court.

If a court of record is proceeding according to the common law then the tribunal is independent of the magistrate. That means the judge is not the sovereign of the court. Correct? Then who is? That would be the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the king. He decrees the law.

When the IRS comes after a citizen for failure to file they are acting as sovereign. In the accusatory filing it will say the defendent is required to file income tax returns and the defendent failed to file tax returns. That's the law right there but we have been looking for statutes and codes so we miss it.

In the Simkanin case the jury asked the judge for the law and the magistrate told them it has already been decided that there is a law and if the jury determined Simkanin did not file he must be found guilty. Simkanin admitted he didn't file so it was a slam dunk.

You counter the government by suing them. You declare it a court of record and that you are one of the people. Now the US attorney must prove the US is sovereign over one of the people before they can go forward with their prosecution. That is impossible so the prosecution is over.

As far as 1% of common law being case law think about it. If I am the tribunal of my court what bearing would case law have on me when my court is decreeing the law?

[rottweiler]

In my previous post I have shown how the government acts as sovereign and decrees the law for failure to file income tax. How in the hell is that case law Jerry Pitts?

They could of said the defendent is required to wear pink underwear and I don't see how that can be construed as case law. That is just law in their court.

As far as blending law and equity, whose law and equity are they blending? Their law and equity only applies to the people who decide to be subject to it, if they want to blend it, blend away. Since they are not my sovereign it is not law to me. It is their opinion. 99% of their cases don't mean diddly squat to me.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

In my previous post I have shown how the government acts as sovereign and decrees the law for failure to file income tax.

My understanding of what William Thornton is teaching is that whoever files suit as plaintiff is acting as the Sovereign; so yes, when the government files charges against you (failure to file, etc) then they are acting as Sovereign and decreeing the law that is to be followed.

[Ecclesiastes]

Originally Posted by psholtz

It appears that many states (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, just to name a few, by looking at the above link) seem to have adopted the "common law" of England, as it existed in the "fourth year of James I" (or, apparently, March 24, 1606).

What is it about this date?

What's the significance?

I don't know what you mean by "the above link," and I'm not familiar with the laws of Arkansas, Colorado, and Illinois, but the statutes of Pennsylvania state that "The common law and such of the statutes of England as were in force in the Province of Pennsylvania on May 14, 1776 and which were properly adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have been in force in this Commonwealth from and after February 10, 1777." 1 Pa. C.S. section 1503(a).

The date "1776" has some historical significance, I think.

Most states of the United States "received" the English common law as of a date on or near the date of American independence. One notable exception is Louisiana, which has followed the French civil law tradition instead of the English common law tradition.

[rottweiler]

Is this factual enough?

COURT OF RECORD
A "court of record" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

You bring this discussion back down to the level of perspective and theory when in the third paragraph you mention the scenario in the hypothetical. Notice the highlighted word below. Once you are able to get past the hypothetical scenarios, then we might be able to speak in terms of FACT.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

That is why we need to sue them. To get it in our court so we can decree the law.

Originally Posted by psholtz

My understanding of what William Thornton is teaching is that whoever files suit as plaintiff is acting as the Sovereign; so yes, when the government files charges against you (failure to file, etc) then they are acting as Sovereign and decreeing the law that is to be followed.