Common Law

[Prof]

"Common law" and common law courts and similar phrases seem to be magic words which attempt to create a legal regime and courts out of thin air. This would be a legal regime in which ordinary people could defend ordinary rights from the illegal hierarchies which dominate commerical life (read -- for many --Jews).

In reality, the history of the US only begins with the general adoption by the colonies and then the states of the English common law (judge made precedent enshrined in cases and commentaries) (except in LA, which came complete with the Code Napoleon). This early phase was quickly followed by statutes filling in the gaps followed by statutes which "codified" the common law.

Codification by statute was seen as a way of simplify the law and making it easier to use. In days before indexes and extensive compilations and even more extensive commentaries, finding the law was hard. Cases had to be searched, commentaries and indexes consulted, all by someone trained in what to look for (a lawyer is such a person). This is why the commentators, Blackstone and Lord Coke, had so much influence-- access to case law and the ability to find case law was very, very limited. (When I was a young lawyer, we had to learn to use the West-owned "Digest" system, which tried to index/digest/list every issue in every reported case in every jurisdiction, from "sea to shining sea." Finding appropriate case law on any given subject was difficult and very time consuming. Imagine what legal research was like before those digests!).

The other thing I note about Sooey is the fascination with older forms of pleading, from admiralty or other sources.

Unfortunately for Skankbeat and others, the modern reform in pleading has abolished every alternative in most courts in most states.

Gradually, in the US, the common law has been surplanted by statutes, although still lingers in the doctrine of stare decisis. Of course, in Thomkins v. Erie RR, in 1938, the Supremes abolished federal common law in diversity cases, adopting in those cases the law of the forum state (diversity cases are cases where jurisdiction is not based upon the federal substantive law but on the fact that the parties are from different states). Federal common law still exits, but only in cases based upon federal jurisdiction (a point lost on the Sooey scholars). In point is Art. 9, which has been adopted as the common law of the 5th Cir. -- applying to cases in which the SBA is a party, for example, to define perfection of personal property liens. Art. 9 has never been adopted by Congress, so its application by the 5th Cir. in SBA cases is an example of judge-made, common law.

Allow me one final observation. What Sooey and others, including Stevesy, late of this forum, never seem to understand, is that the common law is "found" or created by judges -- and it is not the traditions of the ordinary community which is adopted but rather the culture, traditions, etc., of the the ruling elites. In many ways, at least historically, most or at least many legal scholars have always considered statutory regimes to be much more democratic than "common law" regimes.

[Nikki]

Here's some background from the ADL from 1997 - http://www.adl.org/mwd/common.asp

Thanks. GREAT source.

Now -- to throw some more mud in the waters -- how did Black's and Bouvier's become such major, authoritative resources to the common lawists and why are the older versions of Black's the better ones?

Note: This thread and the embedded questions are here for two purposes:

1 - Good mental exercise for the residents of Quatloosia and a chance to scrub Hamster and his ilk from our brains

2 - An opportunity to post factual information which might help a few folks not taking the KoolAid straight into a vein

[Prof]

The older Black's and Bouvier's talk about common law issues and common law forms of pleading; statutory law and in particular, codification, was not yet common. When edited later, Black's, for example, will delete references to things that the reader thought fit his/her situation to a "t," because the law had changed. This is particularly true where causes of action that existed under the code pleading or other common law regimes just disappear into statutory or codified pleading regimes.

Of course, such changes include changes in licenses for driving and the like, which were certainly not common before the Civil War or before the 20th Century, and don't show up in old legal dictionaries as limits on, say, the right to travel.

[Nikki]

AHA

So the legally-compliance-challenged shop for opinions ans documents supporting their pre-determined conclusions while avoiding the inconveniences of relating their positions to the law as it stands today. Positively brilliant on their part.

Going along those lines, they can then invoke the biblical mandate for their deceased brother's wife to marry them (along with what other wives they happen to have).

This is becoming interesting. I wonder how many sovereignoramuses realize that the original Constitutional sovereignty / citizenship / whatever only applied to white male property owners.

All those guys living in double-wides in rental space on a trailer park or in their parents' basement are removing themselves from where they want to be.

[Famspear]

............They have an obsession with word games, and truly believe that there are sinister forces at work trying to trick them ......That's why they are so obsessed with colons, semi-colons, capitalization, and things like "Department of Treasury" vs "Treasury Department". They believe everything is an attempt to trick them into contracting with the corporation, so they make up these protection spells.

I think this hits pretty close to the truth of what is behind the ravings of many or even most tax protester-tax denier-tin foil hat-sovereign idiots, etc., etc.: Paranoia. These people exhibit classic symptoms of the Paranoid Personality.

The Internal Revenue Code is wordy and convoluted, so they assume that it was deliberately worded that way to "trick" them or to "hide the truth" from them. It's just another version of the "space aliens and the CIA are beaming microwaves at my head to drive me crazy" kind of thinking. All the courts reject their theories, so the courts must be "corrupt" or "in" on some gigantic conspiracy. Nothing can be what it really is with these nuts. The IRS can't be a government agency, it must be a "private collection agency" for the evil bankers. The United States can't be a political entity, it must be a "corporation." Lawyers aren't really lawyers, they're members of some wackadoo "British Accredited Registry," or whatever.

The delusional, dysfunctional emotion behind all this is, in part: "You can't fool me." Subconsciously, these people are trying to "think of every possible possibility," with the idea that if they can just "think of everything" that might be a plot hatched against them, they will somehow not be surprised by what they fear is an impending "attack." Knowledge is truth and, for these people, dreaming up and identifying every possible conspiracy against them is what passes for "knowledge."

Notice the repetitive, mantra-like statements of wackos like "Harvester": "stand tall, warriors," "stand tall, warriors," "STAND TALL, WARRIORS!". These people feel besieged; they feel as though they are either under attack, or about to be attacked by forces they cannot quite understand or cannot quite identify. By trying to "identify" the enemy, these people are able to calm themselves a bit.

Another aspect of some of these people's thoughts is the idea that SOMETHING BIG is just about to happen. You see it with our current troll, Harvester. He seems to latch on to any goofy thing he finds on the internet, from the "Guardians of the Free Republics" to Pete Hendrickson to David Zuniga, etc., etc., etc. There doesn't seem to be much logical sifting of data with many of these people; any old goofy moonbeam theory will do just fine.

EDIT: Another thing, which Nikki has just aluded to (living in the parent's basement), is the mental age of many of these people. Most of them seem to me to be stuck in an adolescent frame of mind. I find this quite remarkable. Though I know many of these people are in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, the vast majority of them come off as being about 15 years old. They seem to "act" this way and, significantly, they seem to want me to treat them as though they are teenagers. This is an example of transference - the psychological term describing the inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of a relationship that was important in the subject's past. Many or most of these people have (in my view) deep-seated, serious, unresolved conflicts with a parent figure, an Authority Figure. They try repeatedly to resolve this conflict by dealing with substitute Authority Figures. The substitute can be another person, like me or Nikki or another Quatloos regular. Or the substitute can be The Federal Reserve System or The Evil Bankers or The Tax Law or The Internal Revenue Service. The subject is trying to fight a battle with one of his parents, or with a parent figure, but he doesn't realize that this is what he's doing.

[Brandybuck]

This is becoming interesting. I wonder how many sovereignoramuses realize that the original Constitutional sovereignty / citizenship / whatever only applied to white male property owners.

Not true. Except of a the purposes of census and representation, the unamended US Constitution did not distinguish between races, genders or property holders. I can find no place where it limits citizenship in any way. Of course, how the constitution was implemented was a different story. It also didn't apply much to the states, who were free to continue official differentiation by race, gender and property ownership.

[Prof]

The Constitution, like any document, is based upon assumptions, one of which was that the admission of voters to the polls would be a function of state laws, which limited the franchise to men and always (to property owners). It also assumes that property cannot be citizens and that citizens are not property (slaves are property). This is very much in the Greek and Roman model, by the way.

Certainly, the Constitution, in the context of the Compromises relating to counting slaves (2/3's) and the agreement to abolish the foreign slave trade in 1807 also reflect that the Constitution and the underlying Convention recognized a distinction between slave and free.

[grixit]

Ever see a old movie or tv show where someone from a city gets into trouble in a rural place where the locals are painted in the most negative "yokel" stereotypes. Where illiterate cops and judges don't seem to respect the "civilized" norms of justice? Where ignorantly violating some local custom is treated as a serious felony? Or where ignorantly conforming to one puts the poor sap in danger of becoming mayor or gettting married? That's common law.

Or-- going back to that fluid period (between the time the angles and saxons stopped being able to tell themselves apart and the building of the Washington Monument as a symbol of masonic domination), that mystical golden age when common law operated, and men were men (if european), women were doormats, negroes were household appliances, and non christians were fertilizer-- that was also the time of trial by ordeal, maiming as punishment for fairly small offenses, debtors' prisons, press gangs, religious police, and the pillory.

Somehow the soverites think they'd do well in such an enviroment. Well better them than me.

[Judge Roy Bean]

For the desperate, common law is anything they can find that supports their position.

The understanding of law is somewhat like a mountain - depending on how high you climb your perspective changes. The further you climb the larger the landscape that can be seen and the more difficult it is to interpret because of the distance. Hence, specialization in the practice of law.

The whacko community likes to find those heavily graffitied outcroppings that told visitors where to look and see some landmark that was interesting or even perhaps meaningful years ago when scouts led wagon trains across the Rockies.

Meanwhile the rest of us consult current maps, sectionals and GPS systems which frustrates the he** out of them.

[Tax Man]

But how did THEY get this fixation on common law cures everything?

Because they watch too many infomercials.

[wserra]

that mystical golden age when common law operated, and men were men (if european), women were doormats, negroes were household appliances, and non christians were fertilizer-- that was also the time of trial by ordeal, maiming as punishment for fairly small offenses, debtors' prisons, press gangs, religious police, and the pillory.

And when over two hundred different crimes were punishable by death. Those guilty of treason were frequently drawn and quartered while still alive.

There is no doubt at all that the claims of "sovereign citizens" - essentially that the law doesn't apply to them - would fit the definition (such as it was) of "treason".

[The Dog]

....Or-- going back to that fluid period (between the time the angles and saxons stopped being able to tell themselves apart and the building of the Washington Monument as a symbol of masonic domination), that mystical golden age when common law operated, and men were men (if european), women were doormats, negroes were household appliances, and non christians were fertilizer-- that was also the time of trial by ordeal, maiming as punishment for fairly small offenses, debtors' prisons, press gangs, religious police, and the pillory.

Somehow the soverites think they'd do well in such an enviroment. Well better them than me.

We kept Trial by Battle going until the beginning of the 19th century. Might be a cheaper method than Tax Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton

[Thule]

Now -- to throw some more mud in the waters -- how did Black's and Bouvier's become such major, authoritative resources to the common lawists and why are the older versions of Black's the better ones?

In the sovrun' mythos, the late 1700s were a Golden Age, with Wealth and Justice for All. Since then we have declined, and are merely trying to return to the good old days. This is Truth, anyone saying that pr'haps we are in many ways better of today is blind. But Utopia will come as soon as we rediscover the wonderful Rule of Law.

An older Black's will contain a higher proportion of the divine law, and less of evil jew-controlled statutory law (or Annuaki, Illuminati, Catholics, just place blame according to taste).

[silversopp]

The Constitution, like any document, is based upon assumptions, one of which was that the admission of voters to the polls would be a function of state laws, which limited the franchise to men and always (to property owners).

For the most part, this is right. However, New Jersey allowed women to vote as long as they met the property requirements up until 1807.

Utah and Wyoming also allowed women the right to vote in the 1860s. I don't believe any property requirement was attached to those voting rights - especially in Utah where the goal was to get the women to dispose of polygamy.

[fortinbras]

"Common law" actually has a number of differing meanings depending on the context, and people have run into problems talking about "common law" when each has a different meaning in mind.
(1) "Judge-made" law as distinguished from statutes enacted by the legislature.
(2) Traditional law inherited from some previous culture; e.g., in medieval England the laws of the Saxons, Salic law, Norman law, etc.; in much of North America, English law (including statutory law) as it existed at some particular date (e.g., the first American colony, the date of the Declaration of Independence, etc.).
(3) Law, either statutory or judge-made or traditional, that is accepted throughout the US more or less with the same interpretations; e.g., the Uniform Commercial Code, having been adopted in all 50 states with little variance.
(4) possibly one or more additional meanings.

Each of these meanings requires some degree of research, but to the sovereign types an invocation of "common law" seems to mean none of these, but rather a sort of mob rule, or at least wishful thinking of getting their way if they could command a mob. Sometimes they make references to "traditions" that did not really exist (what I call "comic book law"); e.g., that a ship's captain can officiate at a wedding without any specific authorization, and they cannot get their minds around the concept of substantiating their claims that something is or was the "common law".

[fortinbras]

Anytime a rich person gets acquited, there is talk that he somehow must have utilized a Common Law court.

I have also seen claims that the winning lawyer used "Masonic hand signals" to the judge which caused the judge to decide his way. I must have been sleeping off a hangover the day they taught the hand signals in law school. No explanation for the outcome of cases when both lawyers are Masons or when the judge is Roman Catholic, etc.

[Thule]

I have also seen claims that the winning lawyer used "Masonic hand signals" to the judge which caused the judge to decide his way. I must have been sleeping off a hangover the day they taught the hand signals in law school. No explanation for the outcome of cases when both lawyers are Masons or when the judge is Roman Catholic, etc.

Or why they would use suspicious hand signals in a public place instead of, ohhh, I don't know, maybe calling the judge the day before.

It's strange. On one hand, the clever and powerful Masons control the whole world. On the other, they just can't resist risking the whole operation by leaving silly and not-subtle-at-all signs all over.

[Parvati]

that mystical golden age when common law operated, and men were men (if european), women were doormats, negroes were household appliances, and non christians were fertilizer-- that was also the time of trial by ordeal, maiming as punishment for fairly small offenses, debtors' prisons, press gangs, religious police, and the pillory.

Easy, there! For some sovereign types, that's practically porn.

[Brandybuck]

It's strange. On one hand, the clever and powerful Masons control the whole world. On the other, they just can't resist risking the whole operation by leaving silly and not-subtle-at-all signs all over.

But without those signs the paytriot sovruns would never have stumbled on to the scam!

I know an idiot troofer who believes just about everything nutty there is. Up to and including the reptilians. According to her, there are sympathizers in the Insiders ranks who leave these clues as a warning. She goes on to claim that most science fiction movies are true, and are warnings to us to prepare. When you hear troofers talking about the "red pill" from the Matrix, they are being serious!

This is why I so strenuously oppose even the minor conspiracies, like birferism, because conspiracy thinking eventually leads to total brain disfunction. You start up wondering about the grassy knoll, but the next thing you know you'll be warning your neighbors about the Demon Horse that the lizardmen underneat Denver International Airport built.

[Number Six]

"This is why I so strenuously oppose even the minor conspiracies, like birferism, because conspiracy thinking eventually leads to total brain disfunction. You start up wondering about the grassy knoll, but the next thing you know..."[quote]

I met a fellow who thinks the Manson "Helter-Skelter" killings were actually a CIA-staged plot to counteract the rock-drug-sex counter-culture. Now that's full-blown craziness.