Roman Empire Rules Today

[Livefire]

Yes, let's not....take a look at David Merill's signature line....

Originally Posted by Shoonra
It is worth noting that the fealty to the Pope, which you cited for its explicit mention of the Templar abbey in Dover, is the legal basis for the invalidation of the Magna Carta after it was sealed at Runnymede. empahsis mine

Fealty would mean that the king was a mere tenant or vassal to the pope. It also would mean that the pope held "the empire" as his fisc, to do with as he desired. It is also a true statement to say the kings of the empire paid tribute to the Vatican, under threat of excommunication and that would mean war or that ruler would be disposed of via means of the cup of Borgia or other means of subterfuge.

So Shoonra is correct, the Holy Roman Empire isnt the same as the church.....it is merely a possession of it!

[Shoonra]

I gather they don't teach history in the public schools anymore.

Prior to Henry VIII the Pope had considerably more temporal power than now. This was aided by a notorious document called the Donation of Constantine, which pretended that the Emperor Constantine had, in the fourth century, made the Pope his heir and successor -- this document surfaced around the 9th or 10th century and was used by the Church to argue that every European king was a direct subordinate of the pope (this was finally proven to be a fraud by Latin grammarian Lorenzo Valla, circa 1470).

[netwrkranger]

It is my understanding that "the Law" is copyrighted/trademarked?

My question is who is the owner(s) of that copyrighted/trademarked law?

- netwrkranger

[Shoonra]

Your "understanding" is incorrect.

[netwrkranger]

Perhaps you should clarify then?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Perhaps you should clarify then?

Because it IS NOT "the law."

[mrg]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Would the Catholic Church be color of church? =D

- netwrkranger

Do not mistake "the Catholic" "church" for The Vatican.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Perhaps you should clarify then?

Legislative acts and court decisions are not copyrighted because they are produced by govt branches and because they are public documents.

This is different from the copyright that does apply to the editorial embellishments that commercial publishers provide in collections of laws with casenotes or commentaries, or the headnotes or summaries worked up for court decisions.

[rottweiler]

Attorneys at equity are not trained in law so Shoonra is no authority there.

Statutes and codes are not law. The only time acts of the legislature are mandatory is when 100% of a jury of peers are against you.

Peers means peerage, nobleman, sovereigns.

The government can not possibly be sovereign over one of the people.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Legislative acts and court decisions are not copyrighted because they are produced by govt branches and because they are public documents.

This is different from the copyright that does apply to the editorial embellishments that commercial publishers provide in collections of laws with casenotes or commentaries, or the headnotes or summaries worked up for court decisions.

That isn't the case in Australia. The court transcripts ARE copyrighted, with the attorney general being the holder.