Common law bs

[palani]

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Is that really what I said? Or is that what you WISH I had said. I never said "fit" did I?

I don't know what this 8 trillion dollar debt of your's has to do with the price of rice in china, but whatever.

I guess I don't understand what you are babbling about Palani, sorry. If someone want's to point out a court in the United States of America, in the year 2007, that you can go in and use all this "Common Law" of yours, please, again, show me where it is. I have found no such place on a map, in a book, or on the net. I suspect, if you do find a court house that this happens in, yes, they would probably be inbred, backwardsass hillbilly's, who clearly are not up on the time. Heck, they probably wouldn't know what a flashlight was if you showed them, but they may burn you at the stake for possesing "witch craft like power's" which allows you to use evil energy to shine light out of a stick.

Might be easier for you to show me a court in the land that does not use common law. A fool might mistake reason for argument.

Why the hang-up on hillbillies?

I know the following quote from Blackstone has some big words and complicated sentences but if you find a cooperative 12 year old to explain it to you then you might gain some understanding of the current situation.

BUT this intricacy of our legal process will be found, when attentively considered, to be one of those troublesome, but not dangerous, evils which have their root in the frame of our conftitution, and which therefore can never be cured, without hazarding every thing that is dear to us. In absolute governments, when new arrangements of property and a gradual change of manners have destroyed the original ideas, on which the laws were devised and establifhed, the prince by his edict may promulge a new code, more suited to the present emergencies. But when laws are to be framed by popular assemblies, even of the reprefentative kind, it is too Herculean a task to begin the work of legislation afresh, and extract a new system from the discordant opinions of more than five hundred counsellors. A single legisator or an enterprising sovereign, a Solon or Lycurgus, a Juftinian or a Frederick, may at any time form a concise, and perhaps an uniform, plan of justice; and evil betide that presumptuous fubject who queftions it's wisdom or utility. But who, that is acquainted with the difficulty of new-modelling any branch of our statute laws (though relating but to roads or to parish-settlements) will conceive it ever feasible to alter any fundamental point of the common law, with all it's appendages and consequents, and set up another rule in it's stead ? When therefore, by the gradual influence of foreign trade and domestic tranquillity, the spirit of our military tenures began to decay, and at length the whole structure was removed, the judges quickly perceived that the forms and delays of the old feodal actions, (guarded with their several outworks of effoins, vouchers, aid-prayers, and a hundred other formidable intrenchments) were ill suited to that more simple and commercial mode of property which succeeded the former and required a more speedy decision of right, to facilitate exchange and alienation. Yet they wisely avoided soliciting any great legislative revolution in the old establifhed forms, which might have been productive of conveyances more numerous and extensive than the most penetrating genius could forfee; but left them as they were, to languish in obscurity and oblivion, and endeavoured by a series of minute contrivances to accommodate such personal actions, as were then in use, to all the most useful purposes of remedial justice: and where, through the dread of innovation, they hesitated at going so far as perhaps their good sense would have prompted them, they left an opening for the more liberal and enterprising judges, who have fate in our courts of equity, to shew them their error by supplying the omissions of the courts of law. And, since the new expedients have been refined by the practice of more than a century, and are sufficiently known and understood, they in general answer the purpose of doing speedy and substantial justice, much better than could now be effected by any great fundamental alterations. The only difficulty that attends them arises from their fictions and circuities, but, when once we have discovered the proper clew, that labyrinth is easily pervaded. We inherit an old Gothic castle, erected in the days of chivalry, but fitted up for a modern inhabitant. The moated ramparts, the embattled towers, and the trophied halls, are magnificent and venerable, but useless. The inferior apartments, now converted into rooms of conveyance, are cheerful and commodious, thought their approaches are winding and difficult.

[DCLXVI]

Common law for me has been useful in determining the original meaning of words in old statutes and constitutions. The rule of common law only applies to court cases where the suit was brought by the suitor as a common law action.

Of course there are statutes indicting that common law shall be the rule of decision in the courts unless explicitly deviated from. However the common law has just been made subject to a statute and the force is still coming form that statute because the court is still sitting as a limited jurisdiction court and as such must derive all procedure from statute and power thus conferred.

[palani]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Common law for me has been useful in determining the original meaning of words in old statutes and constitutions. The rule of common law only applies to court cases where the suit was brought by the suitor as a common law action.

Of course there are statutes indicting that common law shall be the rule of decision in the courts unless explicitly deviated from. However the common law has just been made subject to a statute and the force is still coming form that statute because the court is still sitting as a limited jurisdiction court and as such must derive all procedure from statute and power thud conferred.

Evidence would suggest that, being unfamiliar with horse drawn carts, DCLXVI would place the prime mover in the rear.

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Common law for me has been useful in determining the original meaning of words in old statutes and constitutions. The rule of common law only applies to court cases where the suit was brought by the suitor as a common law action.

Of course there are statutes indicting that common law shall be the rule of decision in the courts unless explicitly deviated from. However the common law has just been made subject to a statute and the force is still coming form that statute because the court is still sitting as a limited jurisdiction court and as such must derive all procedure from statute and power thus conferred.

This would be the fundamental logic behind David Merrill's saving to suitor basis of action on the refusal for cause. The way the Refused For Cause works is by taking plaintiff/suitor role. One refuses the instrument for cause and then files the case in a court jacket. Filing the case as a libel of review means you, the suitor, the plaintiff, are "choosing" to file it in admiralty jurisdiction where Article Three of the US Constitution is controlling.

Thus the suitor has chosen jurisdiction, has chosen United States jurisdiction and has chosen the remedy to be a common law remedy, and has chosen himself as a competent court of jurisdiction. The article three court is just there as review.

It is important to realize that the common law remedy is provided for and not a common law court.

[DCLXVI]

Originally Posted by palani

Evidence would suggest that, being unfamiliar with horse drawn carts, DCLXVI would place the prime mover in the rear.

I sense that this is meant as an insult. I cannot make sense of your inside joke mentality. Do not trash my character little man. If you need to make fun of others do not do it in waste of my time.

[goffertrap]

"Common law is a type of legal system in which the law is created and/or refined by courts on a case-by-case basis. In resolving a legal dispute, an "ideal" common law court looks to precedent of other courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will resolve the matter itself, with reference to general legal guidelines. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis. The body of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals are collectively known as "common law."

In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the "ideal" system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. Decisions by appellate courts, for example, are given priority over the decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction.

Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law: This connotation distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, in most areas of law in most jurisdictions in the United States, there are "statutes" enacted by a legislature, "regulations" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to a delegation of rule-making authority from a legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e. decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).

In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent[9], and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere, and requiring the federal courts to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes."

[DCLXVI]

The federal code on transportation controls parts of the state.

I believe this is because the states are acting in there proprietary capacity and have declared business residency in Washington DC.

If this be the case and these businesses are enforcing private law and they are registered in the Federal jurisdiction then I see the common law being non-applicable in any court that has has otherwise established jurisdiction.

There is no guaranty of unchanging common law.

Only common law rights are protected, not common law procedure.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by goffertrap

Oh now. I have private property, lots of it.

No you don't.. not if you're an American.

Although I don't have any gold, as I see no value or use for it, I bet I could go buy some with those "fake" FRN, backed by Palani's 8 trillion dollar debt.

If you don't own gold, then it's (almost) a sure bet that (a) you don't own any property; nor (b) do you see the (true) value in owning property.

Kidding aside, I agree and disagree with you. I agree, the common law for the most part does not exist because it has been codified. It makes the Common law of which people on this web site seem to think is the icing on the cake just about as helpfull in a court of law as would the peace of cake. You would be better off to offer the judge in the case the cake.

The courts in this country are tyranical and do not respect or obey the Rule of Law.

What do you expect?

So, my point is, it is useless in this country for the most part.

The Rule of Law is generally useless in a lawless country like America.

So my question is-What is the hang up on it? Do any of you Common law supporters really think you will ever win with that bunk?

The Law of God *always* wins.

Always.

I mean, sit back, and really really think about it.

I have, and I continue to.

And, if you are delusional enough to believe you stand a snowballs chance in hell, you better find a "judge" at the local ward who has the same belief's as you, because you won't find one in the Judicial system of the US of A.

I know, and you just admitted that the U.S. is a completely tyranical and lawless nation.

[palani]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

I cannot make sense of your inside joke mentality.

A common phrase is placing the cart before the horse. You might have heard of it.

By your statements you appear to be looking at statutes as the source of authority for judicial actions whereas I believe judicial action creates common law which might in turn evolve into statues. The horse is common law. Statutes are the cart. Placing statute law above common law is relegating the prime mover to an inferior status, thereby placing the cart before the horse.

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

I sense that this is meant as an insult.

Can you explain why you would think failure on your part to analyze my post is insulting?

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

If you need to make fun of others do not do it in waste of my time.

Fun is my Chinese neighbors middle name. Can you specify how I might assist you to better managing your time?

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

Do not trash my character little man.

Is DCLXVI in Roman numerals mathematically equal to 666 in base 10? Is this your 'character'? Now just why would I care to trash the character of so biblical a figure?

Can you explain your basis for the 'little man' comment?

Are you a Civil Engineer?

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by psholtz

No you don't.. not if you're an American.


If you don't own gold, then it's (almost) a sure bet that (a) you don't own any property; nor (b) do you see the (true) value in owning property.


The courts in this country are tyranical and do not respect or obey the Rule of Law.

What do you expect?


The Rule of Law is generally useless in a lawless country like America.


The Law of God *always* wins.

Always.


I have, and I continue to.


I know, and you just admitted that the U.S. is a completely tyranical and lawless nation.

Nothing but opinion. Sholtz: :I have no problem with you or your belief's, none.

But, you're trying to put words in my mouth. I have no problem really, of which to speak, of how our system works. You don't use the rules of basketball of you're playing hocky. Same applies to law. Just because you don't like it, and believe what ever it is that you do, makes it no more right.

We live in a country where you atleast are given an opertunity to go into a court room and hash it out. And, you can even bitch about it when one loses because of total ignorance of the workings of the machine. I for one am thankfull for this. There are places on the earth, that if you speak out, it will be the last words you utter. And not one of those "gods laws" would help you.