Correct The Unlawful Legal System - they're just a bunch of CTULS

[longdog]

This is very soviet, comrade, everyone who disagrees with the law of the Soviet (Council) is mentally ill! All good comrades are OK with letting the soviet take a little bite . I mean, if you cannot sell them, obviously they are not your children, so I think your position is OK, you just have to admit children are property of the state, this idea that "they're no one's property...the state can force them to go to school, countermand parental medical decisions, etc. doesn't mean they're the state's..." is untenable, IMO.

In the glorious people's republic, everything, including children, belongs to the republic, just as Plato, the communist, envisioned =]

More incoherent word salad.

I'm not sure if you've missed the last few hundred years of human advancement but you certainly seem to have missed the bit where nobody these days, in their right mind at least, considers any human to ever be anybody's property except possibly their own.

And yes... Anybody who thinks parents should be allowed to sell or starve to death their own children is mentally ill. Assuming you define sociopathy as a mental illness.

When it comes to piss poor arguments there's not much that's piss poorer than the one that says that if the state can overrule the bad, and potentially fatal, decisions of parents then the state must own the child. I assume that's the point you are trying to make but I'm fucked if I know why. Unless you are going out of your way to look ridiculous that is.

[longdog]

Is the "no politics" rule just for partisan contests or does or cover deep philosophical examinations too?

I'm not sure I've seen any deep, philosophical examinations. Half baked gibberish perhaps but not much more than that.

It's Dunning-Kruger and the sort of 'philosophy' that gives every impression of having come from a 14 year old wanna-be stoner having his first joint.

[aesmith]

Now the question is: how do we stop criminals from being criminals?

Actually no. The correct question is;
Now that nobody's bothered to even reply to the gibberish in our worthless liens how do we enforce them?

They need to ask assassin over on the latest incarnation of GOODF.

Someone has https://goodf.forumotion.com/t5612-help ... erest-lien

[Pottapaug1938]

Everything should be proved by battle, ala David v. Goliath, or, more contemporarily (after the Norman Conquest no less (!)) Wulfstan v. Walter (1066)."

All that does is prove who is better in combat.

My patience is wearing thin, with you.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

All that does is prove who is better in combat.

I'm one of the few people who went to the cinema to watch "The Last Duel" on the big screen. An underrated film. However, it doesn't have much to say on current judicial process.

[SpearGrass]

The last trial by combat in England was in 1818, in a case of appeal of murder (Ashford v Thornton) though the appellant bottled it and withdrew his appeal. Parliament abolished both appeal of murder (where it was possible to charge a defendant with murder after acquittal) and trial by combat (which was an option in appeal of murder as it was so archaic) soon after.

That's an actual example of correcting the legal system.

[serfmaninthepolis]

Everything should be proved by battle, ala David v. Goliath, or, more contemporarily (after the Norman Conquest no less (!)) Wulfstan v. Walter (1066)."

All that does is prove who is better in combat.

My patience is wearing thin, with you.

This is very true, but, you know, as longdog pointed out, there have been many developments over the last 100s of years, for example, in formal reasoning, philosophy of mathematics, etc.

There is a sort of schoolboyish view that says "we are all reasonably bright, and we can all do math reasonably well, so we should be able to agree on some system of values on this basis." This view was pretty much demonstrated to be false by the early 19th century, if it ever had any currency at all---you can go back to Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus saying "justice is the advantage of the stronger," not some sort of argument from shared upon, natural meanings, e.g. "just", "right", "wrong."

And you also have, not on the basis of formalism or analysis, but on a more literary bent, figures like Max Stirner, the egoist philosopher.

If a legal system does not involve combat, then all it does is prove who is better at logic puzzles---actually, not even that, I had a friend who did litigation risk management for some big firm, and, at least what he told me, is that they do profiles not just on cases, but on Judges, and if it is X% likely they draw Judge Smith, who they do not view as a favorable Judge, they will wait until Judge Smith is handling some other case to file their claim, as long as within the period of limitation.

So, what is the argument that logic skills should be prized over combat skills? Is that question settled by combat or by argument? I favor combat to a degree because ultimately, it is by combat that the bailiff bops you on the head and takes your stuff to satisfy the judgment, so it's impossible to remove combat entirely, all you can do is give everyone a fighting chance. Of course, I would have to argue that on the basis of some sense of fairness, it being a sort of epistemic injustice to deny people who cannot afford lawyers, or who cannot do logic puzzles very well, any capacity to defend themselves.

[serfmaninthepolis]

Is the "no politics" rule just for partisan contests or does or cover deep philosophical examinations too?

I'm not sure I've seen any deep, philosophical examinations. Half baked gibberish perhaps but not much more than that.

It's Dunning-Kruger and the sort of 'philosophy' that gives every impression of having come from a 14 year old wanna-be stoner having his first joint.

Well, how much training do you have in academic philosophy? I did one or two graduate courses in that subject... like, isn't it possible that it is you who is over-estimating your abilities in a fairly technical field?

[serfmaninthepolis]

The last trial by combat in England was in 1818, in a case of appeal of murder (Ashford v Thornton) though the appellant bottled it and withdrew his appeal. Parliament abolished both appeal of murder (where it was possible to charge a defendant with murder after acquittal) and trial by combat (which was an option in appeal of murder as it was so archaic) soon after.

That's an actual example of correcting the legal system.

Why do you feel trial by combat is not a correct way to address claims? It stood from prior to the Norman Conquest, is cited in Glanville as a way to challenge a judgment (you battle all of the suitors/judge who passed the judgment), etc. etc.

[ridiculous comment snipped]

As you have already been told, trial by combat resolves NOTHING about who is right under law. It resolves only who is victorious in that one battle. It resolves no facts, and no points of law. In case you haven't noticed, systems of jurisprudence have changed radically since Anglo-Saxon days. Most importantly, trial by combat has been outlawed.

If you can't compehend what I've told you, then quit while you're behind.

[serfmaninthepolis]

The last trial by combat in England was in 1818, in a case of appeal of murder (Ashford v Thornton) though the appellant bottled it and withdrew his appeal. Parliament abolished both appeal of murder (where it was possible to charge a defendant with murder after acquittal) and trial by combat (which was an option in appeal of murder as it was so archaic) soon after.

That's an actual example of correcting the legal system.

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

[serfmaninthepolis]

All that does is prove who is better in combat.

I'm one of the few people who went to the cinema to watch "The Last Duel" on the big screen. An underrated film. However, it doesn't have much to say on current judicial process.

[ridiculous comment snipped]

[Pottapaug1938]

The last trial by combat in England was in 1818, in a case of appeal of murder (Ashford v Thornton) though the appellant bottled it and withdrew his appeal. Parliament abolished both appeal of murder (where it was possible to charge a defendant with murder after acquittal) and trial by combat (which was an option in appeal of murder as it was so archaic) soon after.

That's an actual example of correcting the legal system.

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

You tell him to go to small claims court. Those courts are designed to have cases heard without lawyers, although some lawyers use them to hear collections cases.

[serfmaninthepolis]

The last trial by combat in England was in 1818, in a case of appeal of murder (Ashford v Thornton) though the appellant bottled it and withdrew his appeal. Parliament abolished both appeal of murder (where it was possible to charge a defendant with murder after acquittal) and trial by combat (which was an option in appeal of murder as it was so archaic) soon after.

That's an actual example of correcting the legal system.

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

You tell him to go to small claims court. Those courts are designed to have cases heard without lawyers, although some lawyers use them to hear collections cases.

Public speaking is, like, the #1 fear of lots of people, and many ppl, especially immigrants, cant even write well enough in English to put pen to paper. This is a cop-out, saying "go to small claims." Like, why not just admit that there are problems with the legal system, that it isn't perfect? Is that so very hard to do? It's not really that controversial as an academic point of view that legal systems privilege certain races, economic interests, etc. that's called critical legal realism.

"But, although a Court is not obliged to defend its Record by the Duel, yet it is bound to defend its Judgment by the Duel...It ought, indeed, to defend itself chiefly by the person who has passed the Judgment." (Glanville, tr. John Beames, pp. 171-2. https://archive.org/details/translation ... 1/mode/1up)

So, in particular cases the duel may have been taken away, but I am not aware of any statute that takes away the right to falsify a judgment by the duel. And you are right that this is because of a contention about facts, for example, the Judge said it happened in Canada, but you appeal that he judged falsely, as Canada is a fictitious place, and therefore you demand he defend his judgment by his body.

[Albert Haddock]

If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

What if “the people who did this to him” turned out to be better at bashing in skulls than he was? Would that make what they did OK?

By the way, on the previous page, less than a week ago, you seemed to disapprove of “the use of force and violence“. This is quite the U-turn.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Well, how much training do you have in academic philosophy? I did one or two graduate courses in that subject...

I'd ask for your money back if I were you. You've been conned. Perhaps via the small claims court, or Judy Justice.

Clearly a fool and his money were easily parted, but that still doesn't make it right. Where there's blame, there's a claim

[longdog]

Well, how much training do you have in academic philosophy? I did one or two graduate courses in that subject... like, isn't it possible that it is you who is over-estimating your abilities in a fairly technical field?

How much training I have in academic philosophy is neither here nor there and neither is your piss-poor attempt at credentialism.

I've never yet met anybody with a background in academic philosophy who could carry an argument in a bucket. A category into which you clearly fall.

[John Uskglass]

Hang on.

The state is a predator because it backs up demands for money with force, but trial by combat is a legitimate way of dealing with people who don't pay their bills?

I may not have the advantage of having studied 'academic philosophy' but I'd say there's a bit of an internal contradiction there.

[Pottapaug1938]

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

You tell him to go to small claims court. Those courts are designed to have cases heard without lawyers, although some lawyers use them to hear collections cases.

[irrelevant comment removed]

"But, although a Court is not obliged to defend its Record by the Duel, yet it is bound to defend its Judgment by the Duel...It ought, indeed, to defend itself chiefly by the person who has passed the Judgment." (Glanville, tr. John Beames, pp. 171-2. https://archive.org/details/translation ... 1/mode/1up)

So, in particular cases the duel may have been taken away, but I am not aware of any statute that takes away the right to falsify a judgment by the duel. And you are right that this is because of a contention about facts, for example, the Judge said it happened in Canada, but you appeal that he judged falsely, as Canada is a fictitious place, and therefore you demand he defend his judgment by his body.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse; and the citation of long obsolete comments from some legal commentator does not help your case. Any first-year law student could tell you that.

[Albert Haddock]

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common that people would hire him to do something worth, say, $3000, pay him $1000, he'd complete the job and they would stiff him. He could not find any lawyer willing to take the claim because they mostly are uninterested in small-small claims. He did not have facility with the language to write pleadings, etc. etc. So what do you tell a guy like him, that the legal system is really looking out for him? If the people who did this to him knew that in the end he might get to bash their skulls in, maybe they'd be more likely to behave honorably?

Incidentally, how would you distinguish between a case in which a tradesman has done $3,000 worth of work, been paid $1,000, and is trying to get the two grand he’s owed by threatening to bash people’s skulls in, and one in which he’s done $1,000 worth of work, been paid a fair price, and is trying to extort an extra two grand by threatening to bash people’s skulls in?

[SpearGrass]

I had a friend who did litigation risk management for some big firm ...

No, listing doesn't work that way. It's not possible to predict in advance which judge you're going to get.

An example that I heard well over two decades ago from a tradesman. He said it was common ...

Serfman seems to be surrounded by friends who tell him any old nonsense which fits his world view. For the experience of real people with names in the county court, see https://www.ft.com/content/cfbbc55a-fe2 ... 62050f3c4e.