Forget the Common Law, the Secret is Equity

[Quixote]

LostHead earthshake has stumbled across an 1881 treatise on equity. She had, of course, never heard of equity before. Everything she had heard of told her she had to pay income tax, so, she concluded, equity must be the thing that says she doesn't owe income tax. So far, she seems to have read only the preface, but it contains some really cool terminology, such as "Chancery" and "Judicature". I'm sure she's found the silver bullet.

[The Observer]

I'm sure she's found the silver bullet.

Hold on there, one second. Did you run this past our Pirate Judge of What Things Work?

[notorial dissent]

All those big fancy unpronounceable words, must be powerful juju. Sure bet that a 100 year old treatise on an aspect of law not now in use will beat out current precedent and practice. Yeah right! Just like Pete's well documented research kept him out of prison.

You forgot to mention that the treatise had to do with ENGLISH law, even more applicable to their current problems.

[wserra]

Wait until she comes across Count Maxim of Equity.

[webhick]

But hey, when you are hell-bound and determined to dig such a deep hole that you can never get out, little things like reality aren't going to stop you.

I always thought it went, "If you've dug yourself into a hole so deep you can't get out, you might as well keep digging." Probably not an exact quote.

[Montana Notasovrun]

So, the solution is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. These cases should have been all filed in chancery court. Uh, by the way, where is the U.S. Chancery Court located these days? ....sigh..... the deeper hole will be dug.

[Imalawman]

Sometimes I think that if any of these nutjobs actually went to law school it would be hugely disappointing. The law is fairly rational and straightforward. There are no secret procedural bullets or hard to find jurisdictional courts.

[The Operative]

But, but, Judge, what do you mean that I don't know what I am talking about? I read a book written by a convicted felon that taught me all I need to know about tax law. He told me so.

[Gregg]

Hey, if you want to contest your 21st century US tax case in a 19th century British court, it works.

[notorial dissent]

Didn't they have a simple solution for a lot of that back then, I think they called it Australia!

[LPC]

Sure bet that a 100 year old treatise on an aspect of law not now in use will beat out current precedent and practice.

I disagree with the language I underlined. Although the division between law and equity has been abolished, the principles of equity still remain; it's just the procedures that have changed.

So, for example, federal courts can issue injunctions (an equitable remedy) in appropriate cases. And what is "appropriate" is often dependent on the same equitable principles that applied in the 1800s.

[notorial dissent]

I was referring to the fact that courts in question no longer exist, and also the fact that it applies ONLY to the British court system in the first place. So, no, they don't exist in that format, here in particular, any longer. I'm not arguing that most of it can't be achieved in a modern court, but that where they are going isn't there anymore. And you can bet that these bozos haven't read anything past that to see if there is anything modernly equivalent, any more than some of them will get past their antique versions of the various legal dictionaries when they are arguing a point.

[Quixote]

According to the book earthshake unearthed, the Reformed American Procedure, under which equity and law had been merged, "prevail[ed] in more than half of the commonwealths in [the United States]". I take that to mean that in 1881 some states had not yet adopted the new procedures and still had separate courts, or at least separate pleadings, for law and equity. But that is the distant past. One of earthshake's mistakes is believing that the federal district courts are not equity courts as well as law courts. I wait with 'bated breath to see where she'll file her first suit in equity.

[Paul]

So, does equity in your double-wide count, or does your equity have to be in a house without wheels?

[notorial dissent]

I think a more burning question will be whether it will be at Denny's, Bubba's Fish and Bait, or Bob's Big Boy, since she will have infinitely better luck trying to file it there than anywhere else, and at least she'll have had something to eat to show for all her efforts.

[The Observer]

I am just waiting for the day TPs stumble across Article IV tribunals.

[grixit]

Hey if we're going english, how about the Star Chamber?

[ashlynne39]

Hey, if you want to contest your 21st century US tax case in a 19th century British court, it works.

Okay, this really made me laugh.

Two things occurred to me when I read eathshakes post on lost souls website:

1. How long until Pete kicks her off his website for going against his truth. At one point in her post she gives him kudos for going to jail and for all his excellent research but then basically tells him he was researching the wrong thing. That sounds like lost souls blasphemy to me.

2. I'm a lawyer and I tend to find most old treatises and law books dusty and boring (with some exceptions) so I find it hard to believe these tax nuts/sovereign nuts willingly read all these old and outdated legal books. We know they don't actually understand them (David Van Pelt I'm looking at you) but to actually read them in the first place . . .

[notorial dissent]

They will read, and slavishly genuflect to a 100+ year old legal dictionary, and then deny that the plain law, available at any library is in fact genuine. Go figure. Not that they understand anything that they read, but it must be absolute as it is out of an old book that no one uses anymore.

[grixit]

Taxes are not mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, therefor they are all illegal.