Legislation from the bench is common law?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

The definition I gave is accurate and truthful.

You just refuse to accept reality, like so many people who post here.

People refuse to accept your "per" "version" of both "law" and "reality," as well they should.

You make a practice of enticing people into "funding" their own dead pledge "loans," with their own signatures.

Is that "Stuart" "Saft," or "Shaft?"

So who do you "trust," Scheißter "Saft," or "The Fed?"

Oh yeah:

This "GOD?"

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Common law is, properly understood, judge made law.

Precedent established through judicial opinions.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I don't give...opinions here.

I quote the actual law...

Unlike some people here, I don't expect people to just take me at my word.

Uh huh. Whatever you say.

Uh huh. Whatever you say? Not.

o·pin·ion
noun

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I'm doing you a service.

Educating you.

So, "properly understood," per "Lawdog's" "educational" "service," it is "common"

("in" or "at?")

"law" that:

1. a "judge"

(flesh and blood man/woman, now generally recognized as, and usually required to be, a member of a for-profit professional at-law practicing attorney's monopoly closed-shop fraternal trade guild BAR ASSOCIATION assuming and/or granted and holding TITLES of "ESQUIRE" and "HONOR")

2. assumes

(backed by large bodies of heavily armed corporate municipal troops),

3. or otherwise somehow "HAS" Constitutional "legislative Powers"

("The Congress shall have Power To...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"),

4. and with, by, and through "personal" "BELIEF"

("opinion," see above),

not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof, or, judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty,

5. "makes"

(legislates from the bench?)

6. "judge made" "law?"

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundation of our confederated fabric.

They are construing our constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.

This will lay all things at their feet...

We shall see if they are bold enough to take the daring stride their five lawyers have lately taken.

...they consider themselves secure for life; they sculk from responsibility to public opinion ...

An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge, who sophisticates the law to his mind, by the turn of his own reasoning...

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Go HERE to understand "per" the lawdog's "version" of "law" and "reality."

Hey Lawdog:

There's some questions in there maybe you could answer.

Some statements you made maybe you could clarify?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Common law is, properly understood, judge made law.

Is the "judge" the "court?"

[mrg]

The "definition" you "gave," in the first instance, does not approach definition, as it is hardly de-fin-it-ive, and in the second, is profoundly skewed and incongruously PARTIAL, in the fullest understanding of the term.

Thus, it is neither "accurate" nor is it "truthful" much less is it definitive or definition.

...two common laws: one understood by the Founders and rooted in British traditions of jurisprudence and one that, thanks to jurists like Holmes and Cardozo, corrupted the first by redefining common law as mere “judge-made law” or “judicial process,” dangerously disconnected from the values and norms of the communities it serves.

The latter...has been a disastrous development, shrouding the common law’s original meaning and vitality, replacing its spirited liberty with personal license, giving far too much discretion to judges who wish to depart from tradition and precedent, and, thus, undermining our constitutional system of checks-and-balances.

COMMON-LAW LIBERTY: RETHINKING AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM
James R. Stoner, Jr.

The common law includes those principles, usages, and rules of action applicable to the government and security of person and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.

COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW
BY JAMES KENT.

A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
(emphasis added)

"It took a long time to learn the true nature and office of governments; to discover and secure the principles commonly indicated by such terms as 'Magna Charta,' the 'Bill of Rights,' 'Habeas Corpus,' and the 'Right of trial by jury;'

to found the family home, with its laws of social order, regulating the rights and duties of each member of it, so that the music at the domestic hearth might flow on without discord;

the household gods so securely planted that 'Though the wind and the rain might enter, the king could not';

to educate noise into music, and music into melody;

Joseph Neilson 1875

common law

n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States.

The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom.

Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.).

When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code.

dictionary.law.com

Common Law, In Great Britain and in the United States, the unwritten law, the law that receives its binding force from immemorial usage and universal reception, in distinction from the written or statute law.

That body of rules, principles, and customs which have been received from our ancestors, and by which courts have been governed in their judicial decisions.

The evidence of this law is to be found in the reports of those decisions, and the records of the courts.

Some of these rules may have originated in edicts or statutes which are now lost, or in terms and conditions of of particular grants or charters; but it is most probable that many of them originated in judicial decisions founded on natural justice and equity, or on local customs.

American Dictionary of the English Language
Noah Webster
1828 Facsimile Edition
(emphasis added)

"...accurate and truthful" or "skewed" and "partial?"

Noah Webster you are not.

Is "judge" "court?"

Does "court" dictate "common law" or does "common law," "which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people" GOVERN "the" "court?"

"Judge made law?"

It would appear that the "judge" is, by law, more the keeper of the record than the maker of the law.

How does one who is, in fact, by actual authoritative definition, (you are neither authoritative nor definitive) governed by "that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people," oneself, actually "make" "that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people?"

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Common law is, properly understood, judge made law.

Precedent established through judicial opinions.

"accurate and truthful?"

The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Charta and other statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law)

the law that receives its binding force from immemorial usage and universal reception

"judge made law?"

law...by which courts have been governed in their judicial decisions.

Who "made" the "judge" the "law?"

How, why, when, and where?

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Precedent established through judicial opinions.

Opinions?

What is your stated and posted stand on opinion?

Seems you may have two diametrically opposing standards.

How do you sort it all out?



Double standard?

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mrg

It would appear that the "judge" is, by law, more the keeper of the record than the maker of the law.

The Sovereign is the maker of the law.

It's important that judges not be permitted to usurp this important role and function.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by psholtz

The Sovereign is the maker of the law.

It's important that judges not be permitted to usurp this important role and function.

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, thus, must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

I'm telling you how to fight but not promising victory.

[mrg]

Common Law

NOT "Judge" "made" "law"

Common Law

That body of rules, principles, and customs which have been received from our ancestors, and by which courts have been governed in their judicial decisions.

American Dictionary of the English Language
Noah Webster
1828 Facsimile Edition
(emphasis added)

Tyndale Bible, Genesis and New Testament 1525
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/

Tyndale Bible (Complete) 1530
http://alleluya.com/

HOLY SCRIPTURE
Translated by William Tyndale 1530 based on the Majority text.
Revised by Miles Coverdale, and John Rogers in the Matthew's Bible 1537.
{With notes and [included] variants from early faithful editions.}
http://alleluya.com/tanak/index.htm

Magna Carta King John 1215
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

Charter of the Forest, Henry III, November 6, 1217,
http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/forests/Carta.htm

The Petition of Rights granted by King Charles I 1628
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/petition.html

The Habeas Corpus Act, King Charles II 1679
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1679-hca.htm

The English Bill of Rights granted by William and Mary 1689
http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm

The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/contcong/10-20-74.htm

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

The Articles of Confederation of the united States
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

The Constitution For The United States
Its Sources and Its Application
http://www.barefootsworld.net/constit1.html
(Not allowed in some "courts?")

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School

Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/

Pre-18th Century Documents (YES--Common Law)
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/pre18.htm

[mrg]

More "common" "law" BASICS:

The People's Ancient and Just Liberties Asserted in the TRYAL
of William Penn, and William Mead
At the Sessions held at the Old-Baily in London, the first, third, fourth and fifth of Sept. 70
against the most Arbitrary procedure of that Court.

HERE

[Livefire]

Let's see here.....

1. Awesome demurrer on the part of Penn and Mead (they knew Coke's writings cold!)

2. Refusal of the bench to produce the law under which they were charged. Used the excuse it was too hard for them to understand. I liked Penn's response....It's not Common then if it be so hard to present it

3. Bench attempted to force a directed verdict on the jury under threat of contempt.

4. Jury exercises it's right of jury nullification to render an appropriate verdict according to the facts presented and the dishonorable actions of the court. Hopefully the douchebag lawyers and judges out there that read this will finally understand WHY the SC has said this right remains with the jury! Brailsford v Georgia hasnt been overruled! I agree with the court that great weight should be given to the judges instructions, however, the right to decide questions of law remains within the jury's domain. Courts forcing juror's to swear an oath to follow the judge's instructions doesnt really meet constitutional muster! That oath should bind them to bind them to faithfully and impartially execute that office, not blind obedience to the court.

5. Its obvious from the transcript of Penn's trial that Common Law was derived from Lex non scripta codified in the Magna Charta and God's Law. Case law is only a subset of common law.

[netwrkranger]

Is the "common law" definition given my Lawdog, in fact, the private law of the de facto government judiciary and the BAR association?

[rottweiler]

Case law is only about 1% of the common law. The common law in this country is the opinion of the people.

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

No one teaches it better than William Thorton.
http://www.1215.org/

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Case law is only about 1% of the common law. The common law in this country is the opinion of the people.

http://www.obstacledelusions.com/courts_of_record.htm

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.