Notice how the appeal judges are bound by common law. They have to listen to authority.
Why aren't the trial courts bound by common law? They just do what ever they want, its a huge waste of time and money.
Subjects hated the Common Law and its attorneys.
Subjects are subjects, they don't have good reason to like much of anything.
I think the "common law" that's so hot right now has always been known as "Kings/Queens Bench."
So it's like special appearance, but on the offense.
I believe the video of Leroy Michael SCHWEITZER (Montana Freemen) is available in Downloads.
Last edited by David Merrill; 11-06-14 at 03:51 PM.
Wow, a 6 minute rant about the common law and yet the guy never once mentions its symbiotic relation with equity? While sad, it's certainly par for the course.
Well in all due fairness he actually did mention equity by his repeated referral to living under "grace". Grace is synonymous with equity...matters of grace "are obviously those specially calling for equitable interference of the Crown".
I just wish people would drill down into what they are talking about when they mention these sort of things. It seems like just about every week I see someone struggle to describe in clear and cogent terms exactly what the whole Jesus thing was about or should be about when really it all boils down into a few equity maxims.
I would love to listen to a 6 minute rant about how truly beneficent the equity maxims are.
Here's a prime example of how equity disregards the rigid mold of precedent...look to what the 4th Circuit has to say after the US Supreme Court set some things about equity straight in 2011.
In so ruling, the district
court recognized the extreme inequities that such a restrictive
reading of Section 1132(a)(3) created but indicated that prece-
dent left the court with little choice:
It's about time we quit dancing around how potent the equity maxims are in granting relief from the injustices of the at-law jurisdiction. Further, the equity maxims are a formula by which life's most difficult problems are resolved.
"Section 25 of the Judicature Act 1873 provided that if there was any conflict between these principles (common law vs. equity), then equity was to prevail. However, this did not fuse the principles of common law and equity, which still remain as separate bodies of rules. "The two streams have met and still run in the same channel, but their waters do not mix" (Maitland).
That strikes me as Erie Doctrine - the blending of law and equity in One Form of Action. - As opposed to Bennett v. Butterworth 52 US 669:
Much like the blending of the FRN (law) with the USN (equity).Originally Posted by David Merrill
Per Ohio's 1853 commission to implement the "merged rules", the intent of the abolition of the forms is this..
"The common law will be as it has been and so of equity They will continue to stand to each other in the same relations and their peculiar relief will be invoked in the same cases as before. In a word the proposition to abolish the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity does not affect the principles of law and equity and only changes a part of the machinery heretofore used in administering them It will be observed that the change made in chancery proceedings by this section alone is very trifling. For chancery cases have always been commenced in one way and the way now prescribed is almost identical with it. We repeat then the entire effect of the section we are now considering will be this It will not touch the two systems of pleading heretofore in use. That is a subject to be treated under the head of pleading. It will not touch the modes of trial heretofore in use under the two systems. That is a subject to be treated under the head of trial. It will not touch any part of the proceedings subsequent to the beginning of the suit but simply and only do away with the forms of actions at law and the distinction between them and suits in equity and put in their place one action for every kind of relief heretofore sought by and through each and all of them. It will be noticed that there are many proceedings in court which this section will not affect such as proceedings on Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, and many others. The section only provides a substitute for the actions at law so called and what are recognized as suits proper in equity and this single action takes their place and does no more. Any proceeding in either court not begun by an action in a court of law or by a suit in a court of chancery will be begun and conducted hereafter as formerly unless otherwise provided. This one form of action which is thus to take the place of all the other forms of commencing suits is called a civil action. A civil action under this code will comprehend therefore every proceeding in court heretofore instituted by any and all the forms hereby abolished. Every other proceeding will be something else than an action say a special proceeding.
Very engaging! Thank you.
Last edited by David Merrill; 01-02-15 at 09:19 AM.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people.
Case Law - search the below link
http://www.onelook.com/?w=case+law&ls=a
Decide whether or not these definitions are equal.
Therefore the courts are practicing common law; which is generally the examination of the endorsement contract.
Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals that decide individual cases, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Last edited by Chex; 01-04-15 at 04:22 PM.
"And if I could I surely would Stand on the rock that Moses stood"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote