Roman Empire Rules Today

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would find it a challenge to put so many errors in such a small paragraph.

[netwrkranger]

Too bad no one here worships through the Levitical priesthood of the BAR.

COMMON LAW. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures (STATUTORY LAW), the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution. This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the Untied States.

Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.

Shoonra, tell me, during your training in law school, how much Common Law (as defined above) did you study? Did you study the works of Sir Edward Coke, Blackstone's Commentaries, or early American jurisprudence on Common Law? Do you care to explain to me why the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to me in most suits brought to court? Do you care to explain why the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments, among others in whole or part, have not been incorporated into the rights, privileges, and immunities of a 14th Amendment citizen?

I also distinctly remember the Constitution and many state constitutions saying, in so many words, that political power rests ultimately with the people (with the 9th and 10th Amendments going to great lengths to protect "The People" from government). Would it not stand to reason that the unincorporated society of "We The People" are the sovereign power over the incorporated body politic known as government being that the government was created by and for "We The People"?

[rottweiler]

I know I don't need to prove how wrong Shoonra is to my sui juris peers but what the hell.

"This document is a bridge between the Constitutional protection of one's access to the common law, and the Magna Carta. The modern value of the following is that it links the Magna Carta to the Common Law. The U.S. Constitution guarantees one's access to the Common Law, i.e. the Magna Carta."

CONFIRMATIO CARTARUM
October 10, 1297

.....(3) and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law[*] and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm."


[*] This reaffirms that the Magna Carta may be pleaded as the Common Law before a court(of record).
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/cartarum.htm

[quote=netwrkranger]
COMMON LAW....This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the Untied States.
Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.
QUOTE]

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by 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).

I see they dont teach anything in law school at all.....other than bovinius excrementum. You are, nonetheless, a magister bovinius excrementum par excellence when it comes to tossing a red herring into a topic.

I am aware of how the Papal States came into being, fraud and deceit. Roman ponitffs have never failed to stoop to new lows when it came to asserting dominance in temporal affairs. One only need to read The Power and Primacy of the Pope which comes from the Lutheran Assembly of Smalcald of 1537 to see how the papacy viewed itself. ....

Originally Posted by Assembly of Smalcald 1537

Now, it is manifest that Christ was not sent to bear the sword or possess a worldly kingdom [rule in a worldly fashion], as He Himself says, John 18, 36: My kingdom is not of this world. And Paul says, 2 Cor. 1, 24: Not for that we have dominion over your faith; and 2 Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, etc.

Accordingly, that Christ in His passion is crowned with thorns and led forth to be derided in royal purple, this signified that in the future, after His spiritual kingdom was despised, i.e., the Gospel was suppressed, another kingdom of a worldly kind would be set up [in its place] with the pretext of ecclesiastical power. Therefore the Constitution of Boniface VIII and the chapter Omnes, Dist. 22 and similar opinions which contend that the Pope is by divine right the ruler of the kingdoms of the world, are [utterly] false and godless. From this persuasion horrible darkness has been brought into the Church, and after that also great commotions have arisen in Europe. For the ministry of the Gospel was neglected, the knowledge of faith and the spiritual kingdom became extinct, Christian righteousness was supposed to be that external government which the Pope had established.

Next, the Popes began to seize upon kingdoms for themselves; they transferred kingdoms, they vexed with unjust excommunications and wars the kings of almost all nations in Europe, but especially the German emperors, sometimes for the purpose of occupying cities of Italy, at other times for the purpose of reducing to subjection the bishops of Germany, and wresting from the emperors the conferring of episcopates. Yea, in the Clementines it is even written: When the empire is vacant, the Pope is the legitimate successor.

Thus the Pope has not only usurped dominion, contrary to Christ's command, but has also tyrannically exalted himself above all kings. And in this matter the deed itself is not to be reprehended as much as it is to be detested, that he assigns as a pretext the authority of Christ; that he transfers the keys to a worldly government; that he binds salvation to these godless and execrable opinions, when he says it is necessary to salvation for men to believe that this dominion belongs to him by divine right.

Nice try Shoonra, but your attempt to divert attention away from your beloved papacy fails. The bulls of the popes condemn them. By your words you are justified, by your words you are condemned. The kings of the midievel Roman Empire finally grew weary of the whore (Rev 17) riding their backs and burnt the bitch with fire! Irregardless of one's eschatological stance on that Biblical text, the principle remains unchanged.

It is also interesting to note that along with King Henry VIII's actions, the Reformation happened during this time and was also a large part of promoting the sovereignty of individual nations over a papal New Roman Order.

[Steel]

thats unfair, cow dung will kill us all if not controlled by law /LOL

[Shoonra]

Close. The Magna Carta can be pleaded as common law, but only the Magna Carta that was in force in England at the relevant date. That would not be the one issued by King John in 1215. It means the version issued by Henry II in 1225 and afterwards confirmed by Edward I in 1297.

And only those parts of it that were still in force in England on the relevant date (in some states the relevant date for common law is 1776, but some other states have earlier dates such as 1506). In England, bits and pieces of the Magna Carta were replaced by subsequent Acts of Parliament over the centuries until, circa 1970, Halsbury's Statutes in Force showed only two or three paragraphs to still be in effect. It might be interesting to find out when each paragraph was replaced by legislation but I leave that to other people.

[rottweiler]

The law is what I say it is unless 100% of my peers disagree.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Close. The Magna Carta can be pleaded as common law, but only the Magna Carta that was in force in England at the relevant date. That would not be the one issued by King John in 1215. It means the version issued by Henry II in 1225 and afterwards confirmed by Edward I in 1297.

And only those parts of it that were still in force in England on the relevant date (in some states the relevant date for common law is 1776, but some other states have earlier dates such as 1506). In England, bits and pieces of the Magna Carta were replaced by subsequent Acts of Parliament over the centuries until, circa 1970, Halsbury's Statutes in Force showed only two or three paragraphs to still be in effect. It might be interesting to find out when each paragraph was replaced by legislation but I leave that to other people.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The law is what I say it is unless 100% of my peers disagree.

You have been preaching this Truth righteously of late, sir.

The sound of this good nail being hit square and true on the head is music to my ears.

Thank you.

[Lawdog]

Ah, one insane person being agreed with by another insane person. How cute.

"The law is what I say it is unless 100% of my peers agree."

Megalomaniacal delusions of that depth are hard to fix.

And the guy in the insane asylum who is most admired by the other patients is still just a guy in an insane asylum.

[Tigron-X]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

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

Nope, not really. Some of the things they do teach, however, are submission to government, swearing allegience to the government, that the government is benevolent, secular-humanism, and that your duty is to get a job and pay taxes... oh and that FRNs is money as opposed to currency.