What the Judge does NOT want you to know. . .

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

and before that:



So then Brian, you tell us when Swift v. Tyson was adjudicated. Was it in 1842? Logically that is what you are contesting in your aspersion toward me. I suppose it may just be that you cannot help but to refute me simply because I am me and you are you, even if you already made my point?


Regards,

David Merrill.

In what post did I contest WHEN Swift was decided?

Post answer here: ___________________________

I'm quite sure the silence will be deafening.

And why the strawman argument? I never said anything about when it was decided. Is it easier for you to pretend I made arguments I never made?

You are wrong about the import of Swift and Erie. Try to stay focused. I know it's hard for you because you like to drift all over the place.

[David Merrill]

No thanks. You have made my point for me.

There was a "bone-headed" decision in 1842 that was overturned in 1938 that effected all the case cites and decisions in between. That is what Zionist Brandeis says at the end of his opinion in Erie Railroad Company v. Thompkins.

The point I was making about you Brian is that you failed to inform the Readers that Swift v. Tyson was back in 1842. That leave a lot of years of disqualified common law.

The import of Zionist Brandeis Erie Doctrine speaks for itself. But there is plenty of commentary in the Constitution with annotations cited on the link and a complete history documented by Howard Freeman of how he was led to Erie Doctrine and its effects by a kind attorney-in-a-black-robe who took enough pity after slaughtering the Constitution in traffic court. So Readers, Google that researcher's name and you may find something. - got it! "howard freeman erie" second hit:

Supreme Law Library : Authors : Howard Freeman : freeman5

Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. ... of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the knowledge and ... 1938 and the Erie Railroad Well, I began to investigate ... www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm - 83k - Cached - More from this site - Save

Regards,

David Merrill.

[B Rookard]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

No thanks.

That's what I thought.

[B Rookard]

In Swift v. Tyson, Justice Story interpreted "the laws of the several states" in the Rules of Decision Act to mean statutes, not common law.

Thus, when a federal court was sitting in diversity, it would be bound under the RDA to apply the STATUTES of that State, but not the common law decisions of that State.

That was nonsensical.

Erie says "laws of the several states" means the statutes AND the common law decisions.

Erie did not get rid of the common law. It made it so that the common law applied was the State common law.

David doesn't know that he doesn't know ... which is pretty obvious.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by B Rookard

In Swift v. Tyson, Justice Story interpreted "the laws of the several states" in the Rules of Decision Act to mean statutes, not common law.

Thus, when a federal court was sitting in diversity, it would be bound under the RDA to apply the STATUTES of that State, but not the common law decisions of that State.

That was nonsensical.

Erie says "laws of the several states" means the statutes AND the common law decisions.

Erie did not get rid of the common law. It made it so that the common law applied was the State common law.

David doesn't know that he doesn't know ... which is pretty obvious.

That is not what Justice Brandeis said. And I did not say Erie got rid of common law. What happened is by discrediting all the cases between 1842 and 1938 the body of case law shaping common law was subject to post-1933 bankruptcy prejudicing peoples' rights.

I believe the Readers can discern that for themselves but maybe I will pull the case during a commercial.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[palani]

Originally Posted by Held in Default

No it is not. It is all about police powers. Its all about regulatory law.

Bullies do things for power. These people charge money. That makes it commerce.

[rondavoo]

Greetings all from the occupied Republic of California! This is my very first post, and I am pleased to say that I am absolutely deeply appreciative of all of the information that has been passed along. I for one am not ashamed to admit that, "I do not know enough to know what I do not know." I humbly submit myself to learn, and hope that I will benefit from the wisdom of some of the most insightful posters anywhere! I have my favorites, but that's another story! I have been lurking SJ.net for awhile, and I have been enlightened to much more than I thought I already knew (suspected...). I will contribute when I can. Thanks to the moderators for providing such a wonderful forum where ideas and solutions can be freely exchanged! My situation is almost identical to gatorguy3 who posted a comment a little over three years ago (page one of this thread...). I am trying to undo(?) what has occured t me in the realm of child support enforcement. Especially now that my son is eighteen years old. I've paid child support to the STATE OF ALASKA DEPT. OF REVENUE... that is until I got 'unplugged'. So here I sit trying to take control of the situation and get the monkey (more like an eight hundred pound gorilla) off my back. I know it won't be easy, and I know it won't happen overnight (if it can happen at all!), but like I said, I am here to learn! I'm ready to fight! So far, this thread seems to put my situation in the most perspective... especially in light of hooded50's brilliant breakdown (thanks!) Well, that's all for now I suppose. Any comments are welcome and appreciated!