Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4   
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Quoting  Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Dec 22nd, 2017 12:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
61st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law."


https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/the_peoples_panel_rotated.pdf

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.


Page 8

The grand jury system of Connecticut developed on different lines than those of Massachusetts and Plymouth. From the earliest period the colony made use of the "information," a written accusation filed in the court by a prosecuting officer acting under oath; juries confined themselves almost entirely to capital cases; and the town meetings did not elect jurors. In 1643, an order of the General Court provided for the first grand jury required the clerk of the General Court to "warn" twelve men to appear at each September session.


There are:

Presentments
Indictments
True Bills
No Bills
Informations

__________________________________
Page 4:

Grand juries, on the other hand, could issue their own subpoenas for witnesses for contempt and bring perjury charges against those who refused to tell the truth.


Pages 14,15

When English rule began in 1664, the English proprietor, the Duke of York, made provision neither for the grand jury nor for a representative assembly. The first grand inquest to convene in New York attended the Provincial Court of Assize in 1681 in the reason case of William Dyer. The jury indicted Dyer for treason and charged that as customs collector he had imposed unlawful customs duties and had used troops to enforce his unlawful practices. The grand jurors also took this occasion to present "the great, manifold and insupportable grievances under which the province still doth groan." They petitioned the proprietor to remedy the situation by giving the colony a elected assembly. The Court of Assize sent their petition to Duke and he granted New York a representative assembly. IN 1683, at its first session, the new assembly enacted the "Charter of Liberties and Privileges," which included a guarantee of the right to indictment in all capital or criminal cases. Upon his accession to the throne the Duke disallowed the Charter and abolished the assembly, but these actions had little effect upon the grand jury in the colony. It was already in operation and it remained as a regular part of the judicial machinery without any suggestion that it be abolished. Furthermore, it the absence of a representative assembly the powers of the grand juries were gradually expanded. Partly because of the lack of an efficient police system, but partly also because of a desire on the part of the colonists to extend their control over the government, the practice of indicting upon the information of a prosecuting officer eventually disappeared.

Pages 16

The constitution of the Carolinas, like that of Pennsylvania, made specific provision for grand juries. However, the elaborate and artificial Fundamental Constitutions written by John Locke also included a property qualification. In keeping with his attempt to establish a feudal aristocracy, Locke restricted grand jury service in the precinct courts to persons holding fifty acres of land and in the county and provincial courts to persons owning at least three hundred acres. Early presentments in the Carolinas followed the same pattern as those in the other colonies. In addition to indictments for various crimes and misdemeanors, the juries took an active part in local government.

Pages 17

As colonial towns grew and were incorporated, the grand jury became an instrument for popular participation in municipal as well as in county and provincial government. Grand juries operated in conjunction with the local borough courts of incorporated towns. The powers of these courts varied, but they often exercised criminal jurisdiction equal to that of the county courts. Such municipal courts constituted one of the most valuable privileged associated with incorporation, but when no municipal corporation existed, the county or provincial grand juries often turned their attention to city problems and furnished a means of agitating for municipal reforms. Through their presentments grand juries served to arouse public opinion to the need for reforms, and occasionally they managed to stir public officials to action. In some areas towns could be prosecuted upon the presentment of a grand jury. Just such a threat inspired the Boston town meeting to vote a thousand pounds for the repair of streets which the jurors had presented as being "in a ruinous condition."

In some areas towns could be prosecuted upon the presentment of a grand jury.

Page 20:

In 1769, the "regulators" of Rowan County, North Carolina found the local grand jury packed against them when they attempted to bring local officials to trial for charging exorbitant fees. Only three men on the panel were not officers of the government. In March, 1771, Governor William Tryon adjourned the Superior Court of North Carolina because he was dissatisfied with the temper of the grand jury. He directed sheriffs to select as jurymen "only gentlemen of the first rank, property and probity." The resulting grand jury returned sixty-two indictments against the regulators for violating the riot act. Following this, the hand-picked jurors signed the "association" agreeing to support the government and accepted the governor's offer to accompany an armed force to crush the regulators.

Page 21:

In 1682, John Somers, Lord Chancellor of England, wrote a tract entitled The Security of Englishmen's Lives or the Trust, Power and Duty of Grand Juries of England. Lord Somers hailed the grand jury as the only security against malicious prosecution by the government and denied the courts could "magisterially impose their opinions upon the jury." He construed the powers of grand juries very broadly and emphasized that they were not restricted to those matters given them in charge by the judge, but could extend their inquiry to "all other matters which come to their knowledge." Henry Care's English Liberties or Free Born Subject's Inheritance was published in 1698. It emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of inquests from judicial interference.

Pages 22

Colonists in Georgia, lacking a representative assembly found a substitute in the grand jury and made a series of attempts to use the inquest as a means of airing their grievances against the trustees and their representatives. As early as 1737 a jury protested against the keeper of the trustee's store and complained that the lack of servants prevented proper cultivation of the land. The jurors urged the granting of larger tracts of land and the legalization of the ownership of Negro slaves.

Pages 22, 23, 24

Colonists in Georgia, lacking a representative assembly found a substitute in the grand jury and made a series of attempts to use the inquest as a means of airing their grievances against the trustees and their representatives. As early as 1737 a jury protested against the keeper of the trustee's store and complained that the lack of servants prevented proper cultivation of the land. The jurors urged the granting of larger tracts of land and the legalization of the ownership of Negro slaves. In the following year several members of the grand jury claimed the power to administer general oaths and to inquire into any matter they saw fit. The court denied this power, and Colonel William Stephens, Secretary to the Trustees, declared that such an oath was contrary to English usage. While waiting for a decision from the trustees in England on the matter, the justice adjourned the court for six weeks "in order to have as little to do as possible with grand jurors." Stephens confided to his journal the belief that "a few malcontents" had started the whole mater in order to take control of the government. The trustees decided that the grand juries of the Georgia could require witnesses to take only an oath to testify about particular crimes. Stephens wrote elatedly to the trustees that their decision "would put a happy end to the matter of grand juries."

Colonel Stephens' optimism was ill-founded. In the next year the grand jury again brought up the subject of a general oath, but finally agreed to abide by he ruling of the trustees. In July, 1741, however, the jurors were not as easily persuaded. Led by their foreman, Robert Williams, who had also been foreman of the 1738 grand jury, a majority of the jurymen opposed the policies of the trustees. They proceeded to administer a general oath to all persons they called before them and did not tell the witnesses upon what matters the grand inquest would examine them. Stephens, now president of Savannah County, suspected that the action of the grand jury "tended to no good end" and refused to go before it. He had no desire to allow the jury to engage in a "fishing expedition" at his expense. The jurors presented Stephens for ignoring their summons and in the same return indicted Richard Kent, the justice of the peace for the Indian Nations, for illegally forcing persons to enter into recognizances with him. The jurymen interrogated other witnesses regarding the disposition of the sums of money the trustees had sent to the colony and demanded that officials make a full accounting for such funds. At this point, the court instructed the jurors that they could not compel persons to come before them to be examined under an general oath. Several members of the panel "grew very warm and clamorous" when they heard the court's instructions and in the argument that ensued claimed loudly that all grand juries enjoyed the right of sending for and examining under oath whomsoever they pleased, touching what matters they saw fit. After a heated debate between the bench and the jurors, the judge dismissed the grand jury and adjourned the court.

Undaunted, the panel retired to a private residence and sought the legal opinion of Sir Richard Everard. Sir Richard had just come to Georgia from North Carolina, where his father was royal governor. In spite of this connection, he immediately sided with those who opposed the local officials in the Georgia controversy. As the basis for his advice to the jurors he used Henry Care's English Liberties. He advised the jurors not to submit to dismissal by the court. They heeded this advice and continued to hold their meetings and examine witnesses. When the court learned of Sir Richard's action, the justices required him to post bail and stand trial on the charge of "trying to create jealousies and feuds and alienate the minds of the grand jury." The court then adjourned for two weeks, hoping that the matter would subside. Stephens was less hopeful this time. Taking no chances, he began to consider means to "quash with sufficient authority" any future pretentions on the part of the grand jury.

Blocked in their attempt to use the grand jury as a means of protest, those opposed to the policies of the trustees called a meeting of all the settlers to discuss their grievances. At the meeting they named Thomas Stephens, son of President Stephens, as agent to represent them in England. Young Stephens carried with him instructions to seek land grants equal in size to those in South Carolina, to ask for permission to own Negro slaves, and to work for a representative assembly for the colony."

[an obvious case of criminality, but a possible effort to gain criminal power in defense against criminal power: not an excuse, or justification, merely a natural course along the lines of lies beget lies, and violence begets violence - also look into Slave Population demographics in Georgia 1741 for "before/after" consequences of "legalizing" more slavery done in this case by "grand jury"]

Slavery by Grand Jury

[Look also into Richard Kent Justice of Peace for Indian Nations versus Robert Williams Grand Jury Forman 1738, 41, etc.]

After a heated debate between the bench and the jurors, the judge dismissed the grand jury and adjourned the court.

American (colonial) grand jury, British "bench," and British "judge"?

Undaunted, the panel retired to a private residence and sought the legal opinion of Sir Richard Everard. Sir Richard had just come to Georgia from North Carolina, where his father was royal governor. In spite of this connection, he immediately sided with those who opposed the local officials in the Georgia controversy. As the basis for his advice to the jurors he used Henry Care's English Liberties.

Side A: British court/judge works to overpower colonial grand jury.

Side B: Colonial grand jury and Sir Richard Everard work to overpower British court/judge (to extend slavery franchise beyond monopoly held by British?)

When the court learned of Sir Richard's action, the justices required him to post bail and stand trial on the charge of "trying to create jealousies and feuds and alienate the minds of the grand jury."

British Side moves to overpower grand jury.

Blocked in their attempt to use the grand jury as a means of protest, those opposed to the policies of the trustees called a meeting of all the settlers to discuss their grievances. At the meeting they named Thomas Stephens, son of President Stephens, as agent to represent them in England. Young Stephens carried with him instructions to seek land grants equal in size to those in South Carolina, to ask for permission to own Negro slaves, and to work for a representative assembly for the colony."

NOTE ABOVE: Land/Labor Moral/Immoral Power Struggle

Page 25, 26

The Virginia Assembly replied that the sheriff, an appointee of the governor, selected the jurymen under the governor's "constant infuence and direction." The Assembly observed that, under this system, "the country never had nor will have so bad a governor that a grand jury so pickt will not justify."

By preventing the excessive use of information's signed by royal prosecutors, the grand juries constituted still another important curb on royal authority in the colonies. A Maryland statute of 1715 prohibited criminal proceedings except upon the presentment of a grand jury. The law provided a fine of five thousand pounds of tobacco for judges holding a trial upon an information of the attorney general. A committee of the South Carolina Assembly reported in 1727, that a royal official had introduced a new method of "prosecuting people by way of information." In the same year, the New York Assembly enacted a law prohibiting trial upon information except by order of the governor. The legislators aimed the restriction at an attorney general who had been particularly "vexatious" in bringing persons to trial. Lieutenant Governor Cadwallader Colden of New York reported to the Board of Trade that the Assembly had limited the courts of the colony by its actions, as a part of "their design to weaken His Majesty's government here." Royal officers wanted to avoid referring all criminal matters to local grand juries, since such juries frequently refused to indict, especially if the official desiring the indictment was unpopular. In 1735, Chief Justice William Smith of North Carolina told grand jurors that they had perjured themselves by not bringing a bill of indictment in a certain case. He then ordered the attorney general to bring the matter before him on an information.

By the end of the Colonial period the grand jury had become an indispensable part of government in each of the American colonies. Grand juries served as more than panels of public accusers. They acted as local representative assemblies ready to make known the wishes of the people. They proposed new laws, protested against abuses in government, and performed many administrative tasks. They wielded tremendous authority in their power to determine who should and who should not face trial. They enforced or refused to enforce laws as they saw fit and stood guard against indiscriminate prosecution by royal officials.

[When are the people (as a whole) ever unfit for authority at law? Possible answer: When they (as a whole) are found guilty of willfully injuring innocent people: doing onto the innocent what the people (as a whole) would not have done to themselves. In other words self-destructive.]

The case here is an established limit placed upon the device known as a Grand Jury, that established limit being exceeded, and the device is then used to injure innocent people. The grand jury, rather than being limited to only representing the victims, so as to hold the accused to account in trial by the country (trial by jury), the grand jury becomes aggressor, to enforce the will of the grand jury upon the whole people.


___________________________________________________

Chapter 3
REVOLUTION

The colonists had long fought the practice of bringing individuals to trial on an information of a royal prosecutor, and British efforts to limit the powers of Colonial juries by establishing admiralty courts and providing that Colonial offenders be tried in England met with stiff resistance. Furthermore, the political importance of the juries made the colonists doubly jealous of their right to indictment before being brought to trial. On the eve of the Revolution local grand juries were in an excellent position to take the lead in opposing the imperial government.

[See: Richard Henry Lee explain "legal fiction"]

Page 30

Residents of Boston complained that soliders guilty of serious offensies went unpunished because the attorney general refuse to prosecute them. They also claimed tha the prosecutor was bringing colonists to trial upon his own information in cases where the grand juries refused to indict. In response to these complaints the Massachusetts Assembly adopted a resolution denouncing the actions of the attorney general as "a daring breach of trust and an unsupportable grievance." The Assembly and the town meetings could do little except protest, but the grand juries kept up their end of the dispute by continuing to return "ignoramus' all bills laid before them by the judge or royal prosecutor.

Page 37

Only two of the new state constitutions drafted in 1776 and 1777 specifically guaranteed the right to indictment by a grand jury, but both Revolutionary leaders and ordinary citizens took the institution for granted. Each of the states enacted laws providing for grand juries and gave no thought to abolishing the institution. Since the early days of the struggle against England, Revolutionary leaders had effectively labeled the information of a prosecutor as an odious instrument of British tyranny, while at the same time they had hailed indictment by grand jury as one of their rights as Englishmen.

Page 39

The Rhode Island Assembly also provided that the estates of those who remained loyal to Great Britain could be confiscated and sold at public auction. Proceedings for confiscation did not have to be instituted by a grand jury, but could be carried out by the court on the basis of an information filed by the prosecutor.

[more information concerning land transfers done criminally, or lawfully, and according to who, or what power]

Page 39

In New York the legislature created an emergency body known as the Commissioners for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies. This committee moved from place to place throughout the state, and with the assistance of the army sought out and arrested "enemies of the state." Although the commissioners had unlimited authority to confine persons, those arrested had to be indicted by a grand jury before they could be brought to trial. Grand juries thus served to prevent suspected individuals from being tried without sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, and local juries frequently released persons arrested by the commissioners.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2018 07:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
62nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Notes on Magna Carta

"Likewise though it be said here, that the King hath given and granted these Liberties, yet they must not be understood as meer Emanations of Royal Fa∣vour, or new Bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a Right unto before; For the Lord Cook at divers places asserts, and all Lawyers know, that this Charter is for the most part only Declaratory of the principal grounds of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, no new freedom is hereby granted, but a Restitution of such as lawfully they had before, and to free them of what had been usurped and encroached upon them by any power whatsoever; and therefore you may see this Charter often mentions Sua Jura, their Rights, and Liberat•s suas, their Liberties, which shews they had them before, and that the same now were Confirmed."

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A33823.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Compare that to the American Revolutionary Congress statement concerning a Declaration of Independence:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2018 11:32 pm
  PM Quote Reply
63rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When a social (mass mankind) connection is glued together with criminal aggression (fraud, extortion, aggressive violence upon the innocent), then power flows to the guilty criminals from the innocent victims: rendering the innocent victims powerless, and the guilty criminals powerful. That is a known error. The fix is individual responsibility and accountability replacing the criminal glue that connects individuals to each other. I am not wrong, and those who can't even contemplate what is now offered are those who confess their malignancy that is either injected into the individual as a consequence of defenselessness, or a commonly understood cancer infecting mankind in the form known as either psychopath, sociopath, or sycophant. Joe Kelley, 7-23-1018, Facebook response.


When power is taken without consent, those who take can take more, and more, until there is no more to take. Joe Kelley, 7-23-1018, Facebook response.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2018 11:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
64th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/cracking-the-cult-of-the-constitution-part-i/

CRACKING THE CULT OF THE CONSTITUTION
A three-part essay by: Clint Richardson

"Sound confusing? Well it’s supposed to. For you are not supposed to be a party to or have even a basic knowledge of this common law elitist privilege."

OK, I have a problem with that use of the term common law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Sep 17th, 2018 08:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
65th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"A critical key to achieving federal constitutional compliance is to resurrect quo warranto and other common law writs. This involves reasserting and strengthening the original All-Writs Act and repealing or declaring unconstitutional legislation, such as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and those Rules of Judicial Procedure, that have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts to accept these writs and grant a fair hearing ("oyer") and a decision on the merits ("terminer") on such demands."

https://constitution.org/writ/quo_warranto.htm



"One of the traditional criticisms of standing law is that it is confusing and seemingly incoherent."

https://constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm


"These statutes are codifications of existing common law practices, albeit practices that had been used little if at all for a long time."

"This was essentially a move to put all feudal lords on the defense, so that the King could remove any that opposed him or his policies, and confirm the obeisance of the rest."

"Once established as a tool that could be used by a monarch, it also establishes it as a tool for use by the people when they become the sovereign, as happened upon adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence."

http://www.constitution.org/eng/stat_quo_warranto_1290.html


"Originally the writ of mandamus was purely a prerogative remedy, and to this day it preserves in England some of its prerogative features. It was called a prerogative writ from the fact that it proceeded from the king himself, in his court of king's bench, superintending the police and preserving the peace of the realm, and it was granted where one was entitled to an office or function, and there was no other remedy. Blackstone terms it a "high prerogative writ, of a most extensively remedial nature," and it is uniformly referred to in the earlier cases as a prerogative remedy, and is spoken of as one of the flowers of the king's bench. In this country, however, a mandamus can not in any strict sense be termed a prerogative writ, and much confusion of ideas has resulted from the efforts of many of the courts to attach prerogative features to the remedy, as used in the United States. This confusion has resulted chiefly from a failure to properly discriminate between the English and American systems. Under the English constitution, the king is the fountain and source of justice, and when the law did not afford a remedy by the regular forms of proceedings, the prerogative powers of the sovereign were invoked in aid of the ordinary judicial powers of the courts, and the mandamus was issued in the king's name, and by the court of king's bench only, as having a general supervisory power over all inferior jurisdictions and officers. Originally, too, the king sat in his own court in person and aided in the administration of justice; and although he has long since ceased to sit there in person, yet b a fiction of law he is still so far presumed to be present as to enable the court to exercise its prerogative powers in the name and by the authority of the sovereign. And the fact that a mandamus was formerly allowed only in cases affecting the sovereign, or the interests of the public at large, lent additional weight to the prerogative theory of the writ. These suggestions are believed to sufficiently explain the statements so frequently met in the reports, that the writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ, issuing not of strict right, but at the will of the sovereign and as an attribute of sovereignty.

"As confined to the English system, and to the jurisdiction of the court of king's bench, these statements may be accepted as correct. But even in that country there seems to be a growing tendency to divest the writ of its prerogative features, and to treat it in the nature of a writ of right.

"In the United States, from the nature of our system of government, the writ has necessarily been stripped of its prerogative features. Indeed, it is difficult to perceive how a mandamus can in any sense be deemed a prerogative writ in this country, unless the power of granting it were confined to one particular court in each state, or to a particular federal court, whose general functions should correspond to those of the court of king's bench, and which should represent the sovereignty of the country in the same sense in which it was represented in England by the king's bench. And the better considered doctrine now is, that the writ has, in the United States, lost its prerogative aspect, and that it is to be regarded much in the nature of an ordinary action between parties, and as a writ of right to the extent to which the party aggrieved shows himself entitled to this particular species of relief. In other words, it is regarded as in the nature of an action by the person in whose favor the writ is granted, for the enforcement of a right in cases where the law affords him no other adequate means of redress. And a judgment in a mandamus proceeding, as in case of an ordinary action at law, is subject to review by writ of error or appeal upon like conditions as in other cases.

"Under the American system the writ having, as we have thus seen, been stripped of its prerogative features, it has necessarily lost some of the characteristics which formerly distinguished it as an extraordinary writ, and has been assimilated to the nature of an ordinary remedy. It is still, however, regarded as an extraordinary remedy in the sense that it is used only in extraordinary cases, and where the usual and ordinary modes of proceeding and forms of remedy are powerless to afford redress to the party aggrieved, and where without its aid there would be a failure of justice. In this sense, its character as an extraordinary writ bears a striking resemblance to that of injunction, which is the principal extraordinary remedy of courts of equity, and which is granted only when the usual and accustomed modes of redress are unavailing. And it is to be constantly borne in mind in investigating the law of mandamus as it now prevails both in England and in the United States, that by treating the remedy as an extraordinary one, it is not to be understood that the writ is left to the arbitrary caprice of every court vested with the jurisdiction, or that its use is not governed by rules as fixed and principles as clearly defined as those which regulate any branch of our jurisprudence. On the contrary, it is believed that few branches of the law have been shaped into more symmetrical development, and few legal remedies are administered upon more clearly defined principles, that those which govern the courts in administering relief by the extraordinary aid of mandamus."

https://archive.org/details/treatiseonextrao00highuoft


Page 33
A treatise on legal on the legal remedies of mandamus and prohibition, habeas corpus, certiorari and quo warranto by Wood, H.G. (Horace Gay), 1831-1893

Mandamus and Prohibition

"The facts should be set forth with precision, so that an indictment for perjury could be maintained upon them if false,..."

https://archive.org/details/cu31924022885580

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 27th, 2018 05:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
66th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6128
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
"The author demonstrates that ownership in common law — insofar as it exists — is constructed on the ruins of the feudal system. Having been developed in an ad hoc manner from such origins, the law of property is seen to be an amalgam of technical and complex principles, built around institutions which sometimes have archaic features that serve no useful purpose in the present day. The theory of "estates", which is espoused, is however acclaimed for its flexibility, its most celebrated attribute being that invaluable institution, the Trust. Ownership in civil law in contrast, is shown to have developed from the romanisation of the feudal system. The law of property, its principles and institutions, are more systematically and rationally organised. They are therefore more easily assimilated and applied. The theory of absolute ownership which is at its core, is however criticised for being, to some extent, inflexible. "

Classification of Property and Conceptions of Ownership in Civil and Common Law, 1997

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/rgd/1997-v28-n2-rgd02413/1035639ar.pdf

Does "ad hoc" mean the same thing as organic, grass-roots, natural, free market, voluntary association based upon agreements that include the agreement to avoid harming anyone for profit?


I tried reading further in Classification of Property and Conceptions of Ownership in Civil and Common Law, but the "common law" in that work appears to be the counterfeit version of the common law, in other words the original, genuine, organic, natural law common law that is explained in Spooner's work is voluntary association, and the counterfeit Common Law (tm) is involuntary association that appears to "develop" from the original.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 12:08 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4     
Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Quoting Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems