Common Law

[bmielke]

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.

Everybody knows it was the FBI as order by J. Edgar Hoover.

[Number Six]

This is the Wikipedia article on "Common Law": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

I would just say that 99% of citizens are unprepared to debate the law in a competant way. Lawyers are expensive because of the high-end education most of them go through to get their licenses. They are much maligned, I think unjustly, because of a few bad apples. So when a so-called "Constitutionalist" or "Common" or "Natural" law expert presents untrue theories about ways to fight apparently onerous and unjust laws, he/she has a ready audience, generally no one around to challenge this person point by point. The fact that this person is making bucks on the outside free society not behind bars, is usually seen as evidence that the law is on their side. I have run into people who did not know that Lynne Meredith or Hendrickson were convicted and in prison.

I remember a video by Andrew Melechinsky and an audio by Howard Freeman on their "Constitutional" positions. Both of them had encounters with the IRS. Freeman talked about how he was able to get out of a tax bill by going to his US Senator's office, and have the Senator's aide make a call in his behalf to the IRS worker handling his case, and how this was enough to get out of the debt. I don't know the specifics on this.

Finally, the books by Schiff, Meredith and others have a lot of interesting material and theory, not practical but interesting. Meredith's chapter on various forms of "fraud"--"constructive fraud" for example, were interesting--but to apply these theories you need a good lawyer to discuss your theory. I remember a fellow who worked for a construction company in a rural area who had hired workers but had not read the contract nor had he asked a good lawyer to look at the work contract before he signed. It later involved him in virtually extortionate liabilities for the workers retirement. No one was hurt on this work project, but nontheless, the construction company became liable for expenses that were unreasonable. So, someone copies some pages out of Meredith's "How to Cook a Vulture", and sends it to the adversarial lawyers to contest the claim based on "fraud" with ample quotes from judges. Needless to say, the construction company was in over its head on this case.

[silversopp]

You bring a really good point, that 99% of the people aren't able to competently argue the law.

This is a really big problem. The laws are far too complicated to really understand without a significant amount of time invested. If you have a day job and a few hobbies, you simply don't have the time.

On the other hand, learning what is right and wrong is far easier. You learn not to hit people, not to take other people's toys, and such at a young age. Most of the laws mirror these things, and we just sort of assume that laws should be just as easy to understand.

This causes a few people to think that something foul must be going on behind the scenes. Why can't the laws be just about "right and wrong"? Why do we need a 1000 page legal system? Etc. This breeds the resentment that is the seed of the tax protester.

For comparison, the sales tax is something simple and easy to understand. There aren't anywhere near as many sales tax scam gurus out there as income tax scam gurus.

Heck...now that I'm thinking about it. Why the hell can't the laws all be as simple as "do not hit people" and instead of "if you hit someone it's a crime, but if you hit someone of these national origins it's a bonus hate crime"? And "pay an extra 5% tax to fund government" instead of "pay x% of your income depending on how much you make, then subtract these deductions, and if you spent your money in these ways, you get this much of a bonus deduction, but if you took money out of a special retirement account pay this much extra, etc".

[Nikki]

Unfortunately, if laws are written in simple, easy-to-understand English, they automatically contain ambiguities and lack of specification.

This, then, allows challenges which require court review to resolve.

As a simple example, consider "willfulness" and Cheek.

Law constructors and construers have spent centuries developing a specific language which will always be interpreted in the same, specific manner.

Again, consider "time is of the essence." This may seem to be a relatively meaningless phrase inserted in contracts, but it has a specific legal meaning AND a consistent interpretation.

So, there's nothing wrong with plain-language recapitulations of law -- in fact, most IRS regulations (replete with examples) strive to attain an extremely simple level of language.

However, the laws themselves must be bullet-proof, iron-clad, and not subject to broad, different interpretations.

[silversopp]

By simple, I mean in term of scope - not simple words. For example, owning a house gives you a tax break since you can write off the interest expense. However, you cannot write off the interest expense of financing a car. There isn't any real sense of right or wrong being addressed here.

People tend to be more content with laws that are predictable from the prevailing moral code of the society. If you take something that doesnt belong to you, you can predict, based on the moral code, that such an action would be penalized. We can't really relate in the same way to rewarding homeowners at the expense of renters.

I see these aspects of the laws as the parts that makes it time-consuming to fully understand. This stuff is what makes understanding law impossible - there's just too much to learn.

[Nikki]

From a moral and economic standpoint, renters benefit significantly from the deductability of mortgage interest AND from the depreciation allowed on commercial property (which homeowners don't get).

Absent those deductions against the taxes of the lessors, the rental rates would have to be corrrespondingly higher.

The only real difference is that the home owner is much more likely to be in a position to itemize deductions.

[Nikki]

Hamster AKA Libre contributes his acumen to the Common Law discussion at LoserHeads:

I wouldn't go so far as to say Common Law is dead, but it's definitely on life support and hard to find in today's courtroom. The reason/s why all point to deceptions/trickery similar to the misapplied tax Pete has described so well. The evidence points to hidden/invisible contract at play and other shenanigans. Some have suggested these are military/admiralty courts into which we give consent to their jurisdiction (by some simple action): http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm
Also, http://www.suijurisclub.net is a good forum

Hamster has yet to find a conspiracy he doesn't love.

[bmielke]

I'm just a lowly paralegal but as I understand it common law is far from dead, it just has a new definition. Case law=Common law in which case it is alive and well. If I have that wrong, oops.

[Nikki]

You are SO wrong

Case law is made by those lawyers in black dresses in maritime courts with gold-fringed flags.

The common law which I was discussing sprang fully-formed from the imagination of the sovereignoramuses and contradicts and overrides all those jedges' opinions.

TRUE common law always results in a victory for the paytridiot, reversal of judgements against them, removal of the need for auto registration or insurance or licenses, enforcement of child support, etc.

Show me your case law that can do all of that. HAH

[LaVidaRoja]

This discussion reminds me of a lawyer joke:

Person to person:
"I give you this apple."

Lawyer to person:
"I give, bequeath, surrender, cede and forever deed to you this apple, etc. etc."

The lawyer's portion went on for a long paragraph. I realized (even before I went to law school) that the lawyer's position was correct.

If my mother gave me an apple, and I gave it to a homeless bum, or threw it at a car, or fed it to a pig, my mother would have been all over me: "I didn't give you an apple just to have you waste it!!" The legal language shows CLEARLY that the donor is giving the item and any and all rights associated with it.

Lay people do not understand that there is a very good reason for the sometimes intricate language of law. If I give you an apple, I really DON'T have any reason to comment on what you do with it.

[Omne]

TRUE common law always results in a victory for the paytridiot, reversal of judgements against them, removal of the need for auto registration or insurance or licenses, enforcement of child support, etc.

So.... it's kind of like pink unicorns then.

[ashlynne39]

You are SO wrong

Case law is made by those lawyers in black dresses in maritime courts with gold-fringed flags.

The common law which I was discussing sprang fully-formed from the imagination of the sovereignoramuses and contradicts and overrides all those jedges' opinions.

TRUE common law always results in a victory for the paytridiot, reversal of judgements against them, removal of the need for auto registration or insurance or licenses, enforcement of child support, etc.

Show me your case law that can do all of that. HAH

Don't forget that we are all also subjects of the Queen of England and have titles of nobility thus negating anything we do including case law, blah, blah, blah

[Number Six]

You are SO wrong

Case law is made by those lawyers in black dresses in maritime courts with gold-fringed flags.

The common law which I was discussing sprang fully-formed from the imagination of the sovereignoramuses and contradicts and overrides all those jedges' opinions.

TRUE common law always results in a victory for the paytridiot, reversal of judgements against them, removal of the need for auto registration or insurance or licenses, enforcement of child support, etc.

Show me your case law that can do all of that. HAH

Don't forget that we are all also subjects of the Queen of England and have titles of nobility thus negating anything we do including case law, blah, blah, blah

But didn't you know that the Queen of England is a dope pusher and that the British are responsible for all the world's conspiracies, according to Lyndon Larouche?

Check out his "Executive Intelligence Review" for updates: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/

For the other side, Larouche Planet: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php

For active blogging, Fact Net: http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthre ... post389419

[Brandybuck]

If my mother gave me an apple, and I gave it to a homeless bum, or threw it at a car, or fed it to a pig, my mother would have been all over me: "I didn't give you an apple just to have you waste it!!" The legal language shows CLEARLY that the donor is giving the item and any and all rights associated with it.

Wrong! Your mother is angry at you not because she had unstated legal terms attached to the apple, but because you wasted what was yours. You could have picked the apple yourself, from a tree you yourself grew from a seed that you purchased yourself from a Burpee Catalog you found in the trash... and she would still scold you for wasting the apple.

[silversopp]

This discussion reminds me of a lawyer joke:

Person to person:
"I give you this apple."

Lawyer billing per hour to person:
"I give, bequeath, surrender, cede and forever deed to you this apple, etc. etc."

Lawyer billing per property transfer to person:
"I give you this apple."

Corrected.

[Pottapaug1938]

This discussion reminds me of a lawyer joke:

Person to person:
"I give you this apple."

Lawyer to person:
"I give, bequeath, surrender, cede and forever deed to you this apple, etc. etc."

The lawyer's portion went on for a long paragraph. I realized (even before I went to law school) that the lawyer's position was correct.

If my mother gave me an apple, and I gave it to a homeless bum, or threw it at a car, or fed it to a pig, my mother would have been all over me: "I didn't give you an apple just to have you waste it!!" The legal language shows CLEARLY that the donor is giving the item and any and all rights associated with it.

Lay people do not understand that there is a very good reason for the sometimes intricate language of law. If I give you an apple, I really DON'T have any reason to comment on what you do with it.

I remember my law professors telling me that a lot of that "lawyer gobbledygook" came about for three reasons. One was to trigger the application of certain statutes, as in the old "I give, grant, bargain, sell and convey to X and his heirs..."; and this was often motivated by the fact that the King wanted his cut of taxes on the transaction, or by the fact that, for example, granting land to X without the "and his heirs" clause would give him only a "life estate" in the land. Another notorious example is the "I give, devise and bequeath" clause in wills.

Another had to do with the fact that, in old England, the nobles spoke French while the common people spoke English, so the writ writers would use clauses like "force and effect" (one with a Latin antecedent, and one with an Anglo-Saxon antecedent) so that the meaning of the document would be unambiguous.

Finally, those who wrote writs and legal documents were usually paid by the word. Anyone care to guess how motivated they were to keep their writings clear and concise?