Common Law and rights

Common Law and rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 4:04:31 PM)
quote: Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. The only rights that common law provides for is set by courts and judges, NOT people. Other rights in the United States are set by the constitution of the United States. This information seems lost on some people on these boards and in this country.

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 4:08:10 PM)
My creator gave me unalienable rights. No Government can give me MORE rights.

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 4:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. The only rights that common law provides for is set by courts and judges, NOT people. Other rights in the United States are set by the constitution of the United States. This information seems lost on some people on these boards and in this country. Right! I am the court LMAO

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 4:23:22 PM)
come to think of it RO is correct. It goes by the stamp. As in international postal service.

Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:10:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy come to think of it RO is correct. It goes by the stamp. As in international postal service. I will send you the proof on the private side. This guy is ass deep in ove his head with this post LMAO All the schoolboy can do at this point is call names or have a pal do it LOL or try and argue that I am corporate which is a loser. LMAO Today was a fun day on here.

jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:24:24 PM)
Real, you do not set precedent, you are not 'the court.' Your continued delusions would be sad if it werent so damn funny waiting to see what the hell you come up with next. I pity you since, clearly, you have some paranoid idea that the government is either out to get you, or someone is. If you feel that strongly against the government, I suggest you leave this country which is causing you so much distress and find another to live in, might I suggest the Republic of Micronesia?

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:27:04 PM)
After many hours of study- RO is correct in his court jurisdiction. He is under common law, not maritime law.

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:29:42 PM)
And you honestly believe that after weeks of parroting the same nonsense, not to mention many random and ridiculous posts, your validation of RO's legal theories should be regarded as worthwhile? E

jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:30:01 PM)
Hunk, look up the definition of common law. Quit parroting an idiot and think for yourself, or do you like being a sock puppet?

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And you honestly believe that after weeks of parroting the same nonsense, not to mention many random and ridiculous posts, your validation of RO's legal theories should be regarded as worthwhile? E E. I am doing you a favor by confirming that which is correct. Feel free to pour thru the sovereignty groups and check it out. They have phone trees 4 hours a pop. and I have several of them on mp3. RO knows a decent portion of what he talks about.

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 5:35:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Hunk, look up the definition of common law. Quit parroting an idiot and think for yourself, or do you like being a sock puppet? I am nobodies puppet. I am in 6 or so groups and they banter all day long-- on what the task is- the remedies- and so forth.

jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/17/2010 10:00:02 PM)
Common Law Law & Legal Definition Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S.. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier case law) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region created by judges when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time.

Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 3:37:31 AM)
Much as I don't like it, common law is pretty much irrelevant now unless you want to prosecute Kevorkian in Michigan. I was right in the thick of all this shit when it was in vogue, and while I learned alot, it is of little value. Law is like a game, and the rules have one constant, they change. Some people think I am advocating fucking with the courts with jurisdictional challenges even when I say not to. There are better moves to make in the game, unless you have really been bad. Common law has gone the way of common sense. I was with those people and I didn't believe all of it then and I don't believe all of it now. Picked up a few pointers, but the theory of using common law in a statutory court simply does not work. Some think I am a fool for even existing, and claim that everyone should just walk into court and tell them to fuck off. That because I am a high drunkard who is delusional. It doesn't matter all the shit I've done or the fact that despite that in the last 15 years I have spent about 15 minutes in jail. I think really common law as professed by these "nutjobs" has been redifined. For the most part the people I got involved with tried to use the Constitution in their defense. This does not work under Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction, under which all of us were born. You can only win by threat of exposure that the Constitution is null and void, and has been for a long time. Want proof ? When they took everyone's gold away, how could they do that ? Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. You have no rights, and when you win it is only because they want to make it appear otherwise. You threaten their illusion of freedom. That is the only way. Believe me I have seen many of the schemes and plans and have seen them all fail except one. But then I am a liar who makes shit up and has been lied to by everyone I know, and the court cases I've actually seen were figments of my imagination. Remember I am a bigoted neonazi who is a dangerous part of society and should be removed. It has been said that I should be put in a FEMA camp for reeducation. So I retract everything I said, but now I retract that retraction. So you are all exposed to my gibberish and are going to fall into a trap and disappear into some sort of gulag or kibbutz if you even read my words. Sorry. T

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 3:40:35 AM)
Gold was taken away around 1933 Silver 1964.

Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 6:22:30 AM)
Two different issues Hunky. They stopped putting silver in coins, that's a far cry from imposing fines and jail time for simply not surrenderring your gold. If there ever was a time for a revolution it was then. T

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 8:49:55 AM)
OK then - "Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction" apparently replaced any other form of jurisdiction in the US. When? Who authorised or enacted this change? What are the effects of this change - a) in criminal law and b) in civil law and c) in procedural law? Since we seem to have the expertise present here to explain this readily and clearly, I'm hopeful of acquiring some important information here, even more so if any response is directed to the answering of these three key questions rather than deflecting, rambling or generating some throw away remark to those ends. E

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 9:36:24 AM)
It is called the UCC.

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 9:39:08 AM)
How very predictable - a cryptic one liner that answers nothing. If this stuff is so blatantly true and y'all are such experts, it should not be difficult to provide answers to three simple questions on the subject, surely? E

pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 9:50:57 AM)
As it turns out, those groups are a private communication- and password protected. I cant give away the secret sauce, nor will anyone. It is on YOU to be a master of your fate. Universities charge big money. Maybe they can assist. Some of the sovereigns- seem to make trouble for them self- yet some do have success on the remedies. It falls on pick your battles carefully. I certainly wont pass along the sites to anyone who has no interest in them. Not to mention the passwords. (no offense) I can tell you there is bickering there too.

LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/18/2010 9:56:44 AM)
do you not see that the burden of proof is on you here? and that in fact I dont need secret sources or anything else, just answers to pretty straightforward questions? E

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125