 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I found this American Court History
or
B
or
C
Corporate memos?
Exchequer?
So far:
Page 255
In 1704…
The Governor was accused of directing the sheriffs to put certain individuals who were his friends on the juries and tampering with the grand juries to get “flattering encomiums” of himself.
Note the connection between "sheriffs" "tampering" and "grand juries" all of which suggest independence of judgement separate from the "governor."
Reference sited Calender of State Papers Colonial America and West Indies
Page 255
This may be true in fact, but the colonial courts were compared by the statutes establishing them and by writers to the courts at Westminister.
A huge contention appears to arise when considering who, when, and where someone volunteers to make use of due process of law. Is access to due process of law only accessible through a statute?
Which is it? Monarchy or Liberty?
The precise origins of many courts in America are difficult to determine because of their nebulous beginnings. Today, one expects to find the authorization for a court embodied in some statute, but the courts in the colonies often had their origins through some other source, later regularized by statute.
That would be the voluntary, or the Liberty, version. Yes or no?
Although there is some evidence that juries were used in criminal cases, most generally the governor acted on his own authority, or, occasionally, he associated members of his council with him; and they would act as judge and jury.
to erect and constitute judicatories and courts of record, other courts, to be held in the name of us, our heirs and successors for the hearing and determining of all manner of crimes…
That is a reference to something called "courts of record," as a usurpation by corporate charter?
The development of the chancery courts as a remedy for the strict procedures of the common law courts and the conflicts of these courts with the common law courts under Sir Edward Coke is a well known story. Since chancery courts were a well-established part of the American colonies, it is not surprising that such courts were established in America. What is surprising is that so few of these courts were established permanently in the colonies; and that they were established amidst political conflicts.
Although courts of chancery were not popular, some sentiment existed for their creation as gaps in the jurisdiction of the common law courts became apparent.
During the Revolution, the control over probate courts was assumed by the assembles, which put them on a more regular basis. Rarely were these courts made courts of record; and, when they were, the higher courts tended to disregard this fact.
common law = courts of record = voluntary association in Liberty = NOT "HIGHER" according to corporate minions and despots?