Common law is slavery ? - WOW, I don't agree with most of what this guy said !

[ohiofoiarequest]

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).

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.

[David Merrill]

Much like the blending of the FRN (law) with the USN (equity).

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.

[BLBereans]

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.

[David Merrill]

Therefore the courts are practicing common law; which is generally the examination of the endorsement contract.

[BLBereans]

The courts are practicing subterfuge.

Usually an examination of a contract in court includes having the contract brought forward and entered into record for the purpose of full disclosure.

Think of common law as lawful money; the definition of either depends upon whether or not the first word is an adjective describing the noun after it or if the full phrase is a noun only.

[Chex]

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

[BLBereans]

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

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.

I guess one's definition is determined by one's presuppositions and belief sets.

I do not let "decisions of courts and similar tribunals" define common law for me.

[Chex]

I do not let "decisions of courts and similar tribunals" define common law for me.

Thank you. Your case sets precedence.

[BLBereans]

Thank you. Your case sets precedence.

You're welcome. However, "my case" does not bind you unless you let it.

Let's see...

CASE LAW remedy, where the CASE LAW i
Doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

[Chex]

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Case Law and Jurisdictional Scope Under Rule 1

It is a long established principal that the law is written to means exactly what it says , and is not subject to interpretation or inference in anyway whatsoever

The record of court actions, called case law, shows how U.S. judges have imposed their personal (rather than LAWFUL) discretion and opinions upon persons through the corrupt process of making "new law" under "personal" precedent and not lawful or judicial precedent.

In so doing they ignore Due Process of Law and make it possible to illegally control the lives, liberties and property of naive/ignorant persons present in the courtroom, who do NOT understand the legal limitations imposed on the Federal government by our Constitution, or who, for some unstated reason, choose not to make those limitations part of their defense arguments before the jury.

Case law is only binding on the litigants in the case out of which the ruling comes.

Case law cannot be expanded to apply to other complaints or cases because Article I says "ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress", which of course means that judges can't create or make up new laws as they have been wrongfully doing.

Only Congress can make new law, or alter existing law. (It does say "all legislative powers", NOT 'some' or 'most'.)
U.S. Code: Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18

The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language Page 168 U. S. 103 that he has used. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...8/95/case.html

[BLBereans]

Case Law and Jurisdictional Scope Under Rule 1

It is a long established principal that the law is written to means exactly what it says , and is not subject to interpretation or inference in anyway whatsoever

The record of court actions, called case law, shows how U.S. judges have imposed their personal (rather than LAWFUL) discretion and opinions upon persons through the corrupt process of making "new law" under "personal" precedent and not lawful or judicial precedent.

In so doing they ignore Due Process of Law and make it possible to illegally control the lives, liberties and property of naive/ignorant persons present in the courtroom, who do NOT understand the legal limitations imposed on the Federal government by our Constitution, or who, for some unstated reason, choose not to make those limitations part of their defense arguments before the jury.

Case law is only binding on the litigants in the case out of which the ruling comes.

Case law cannot be expanded to apply to other complaints or cases because Article I says "ALL legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress", which of course means that judges can't create or make up new laws as they have been wrongfully doing.

Only Congress can make new law, or alter existing law. (It does say "all legislative powers", NOT 'some' or 'most'.)
U.S. Code: Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18

The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language Page 168 U. S. 103 that he has used. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...8/95/case.html

Sounds like the "case" of defining common law as 'case law' has little to no merit, especially in the context of the 1789 saving to suitors' clause. Isn't this site named after this clause?

[David Merrill]

Thank you for that BL Bereans;


I am rethinking that common law and case law are synonyms...



Maybe common law is more the common usage and custom and it defines the judicial structure that relies on case law heavily to establish the precedent called authority.