|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Common Law|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2013 12:49 am||
|What is up with the term Equity?
Equity Lecture Notes <-----I smell a rat
Rivalry between the Courts
The Court of Equity (or Chancery) became very popular because of its flexibility; its superior procedures; and its more appropriate remedies. Problems arose as to the issue of injunctions: the common law courts objected to the Chancellor issuing injunctions restraining the parties to an action at common law either from proceeding with it or, having obtained judgement, from entering it in cases where, in the Chancellor's opinion, injustice would result. Consequently, a certain rivalry developed between the two courts and this came to a head in the Earl of Oxford's Case (1616) 1 Rep Ch 1 in which the common law court gave a verdict in favour of one party and the Court of Equity then issued an injunction to prevent that party enforcing that judgement. The dispute was referred to the King who asked the Attorney-General to make a ruling. It was decided that in cases of conflict between common law and equity, equity was to prevail. From that time on the common law and equity worked together, side by side.
This source is questionable as to the accuracy of the information, in my opinion, the reporter/historian/teacher/professor claims that Equity Courts were morally superior to common law courts?
Note the question mark.
Common Law according to the study by Lysander Spooner involved the concept of dividing the power of judgement (as to law, facts, and punishment) among 12 randomly (with specific restrictions concerning the pool of possible jurors) picked people whereby 12 people in agreement were required for judgment (as to law, facts, and punishment) and only 1 of those people (the word person has been corrupted severely by criminals) were required to pass the judgment of acquittal (as to law, facts, and punishment), so how is it that ONE person having all authority to pass judgement (as to law, facts, and punishment) is somehow going to be morally superior to common law courts?
How did a member of the people become a Chancellor (Judge in a Court of Equity) as if by some test a moral person could be picked by moral people to then be Judge/Jury/ and executioner of an act of Law (punishment/reward/neither)?
Back to the Equity Lecture Notes:
Thus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the common law courts were given some power to award equitable remedies and the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the Chancellor the power to grant damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or a decree of specific performance.
Is that a possible record of the Usurpation of common law (voluntary law based upon natural law) into Common Law (involuntary or dictatorial law or crime made legal by criminals with badges)?
This is clear to me, if not to anyone else, so a discussion at this point aught to be done, in my opinion.
common law as a power exerted by common people in defense of their Liberty, whereby the competitive, inventive, and adaptive Natural capacity (God given genetic moral power) to improve defense of Liberty is preserved by each individual, moral, human being
Common Law as an allowance offered by a very powerful few upon the remaining members of a people, whereby the few have gained their power deceptively, threateningly, and by way of violence upon the innocent targeted people who are powerless to resist, and Common Law can just as easily be take away, made to be unaffordable, by the few, upon those excluded from the POWER or privilege stolen by those few, from those many.
Out with common law that was a shared, voluntary, power of mutual benefit, based upon mutual consent, and in place is a counterfeit version that is nothing less that crime made legal.
|Posted: Thu Oct 3rd, 2013 11:36 am||
|WARNING: Please read the entire .pdf file linked below, and use it to avoid errors in making references to a nebulous conception of Posse Comitatus.
Good reference on Common Law (Natural Law meaning?)
• First appearance of phrase: 1285 (source: OED) [Oxford English Dictionary]
• Definition: “L. force of the county. The body of men above the age of fifteen in a county (exclusive of peers, clergymen, and infirm persons), whom the sheriff may summon or ‘raise’ to repress a riot or for other purposes; also a body of men actually so raised and commanded by the Sheriff."
NOTE: Modern Web Dictionaries publish the false definition for Posse Comitatus!
Back to the .pdf:
2Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385Whoever,except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
What does Posse Comitatus mean in your mind?
Here from the .pdf is a competitive viewpoint:
Even the western films have done a good job of representing the common law practice: when the town bank is robbed and the sheriff dashes into the bar and announces he is forming a posse, everyone who can ride and tote a gun is expected to join up—and the posse races out of town chasing the villains! That is posse comitatus, US style.
Genuine Common Law style? Not the incorporated false COMMON LAW which is related to Equity/Admiralty/Maritime/Commercial Law.
This work (.pdf) is to me a seriously good find. What is being reported (if not specifically stated) is the actual USURPATION of Liberty in America and in place of Liberty is Legal Slavery.
If you do not see it, I can explain in great detail.
At least, even if you do not understand the significance of how The Constitution creates slaves of all the "citizens," (targets) then know how there are two meanings for Posse Comitatus.
Abuses of government power, by servants of the people (using the posse/militia/police/army) for unlawful actions are subject to fines and imprisonment.
The "government" (so called) cannot use the "military" (so called) against the citizens (targets of extortion)?
Now, if you really want to know the significance of this work in that .pdf file, then consider why Shays's Rebellion can be understood as The People defending their Liberty against a Criminal Government being run by Slave Masters as the Slave Masters used a Money Monopoly (fraudulent paper) Fraud to conduct Wars of Aggression for Profit, and failing in the war, and driving specie money (gold and silver) out of The Country (where The People exist) and forcing The People (on the frontier mostly) to produce Whiskey as a barter money/currency, so the tax on Whiskey, payable in Gold, was an act of war upon The People.
If Daniel Shays (Ex Revolutionary War veteran still serving his Country by honoring the duties of The People spelled out in The Declaration of Independence) had the Sheriff on his side, rather than the Sheriff being a paid employee of the Central Bankers or Legal Criminals running Massachusetts, with their fraudulent paper money and their Aggressive Wars for Profit, and their involuntary "taxes" payable in Gold (that is no longer in The Country, or so scarce as not to be afforded to average members of The People), then the posse is on legally run by that Sheriff on the side of Daniel Shays's, all according to genuine Common Law, or common law, NOT the Common Law that is incorporated into Equity Law/Maritime Law/Corporate Law/Commerce Law/Admiralty Law/ or any other Law other than the customary Law handed down from generation to generation going back into ancient times, whereby God (or Natural) Law is above all laws made (and enforced) by men upon men (and women and children of course).
If the criminals had the Sheriff in their pockets, then the criminals are running (monopolizing) the force of government aggression, when they enforce extortion payments ("tax") covered up by a fraudulent Paper Money Monopoly Scheme, and the Criminals are Usurping common law in that specific manner during the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion.
This spells out clearly why the Articles of Confederation had to go, and a deal had to be done to incorporate the Money Monopolists of the North with the Slave Traders of the South, and that deal was actually called The Dirty Compromise (Three Fifths clause, and Fugitive Slave Laws) BECAUSE, in fact, Daniel Shays's was a slave running away from Massachusetts after the Last Battle of the Revolution was Lost by his number of The People at the hand of the Criminals running Massachusetts.
Please see this, for what it was, as it was proven by Shays's Rebellion (so called by the criminals who were "victorious") that slaves could escape from one Constitutionally Limited Republic (such as Massachusetts which was taken over by the Central Bankers at that time) into a another Constitutionally Limited Republic (which is what Daniel Shays did when he voted with his feet to Vermont) and there was no power of CONSCRIPTION in the hands of any DICTATOR, which could force the governor, or The People, of Vermont to return the runaway Slave who was Daniel Shays.
Common Law, the real deal, had to go, and the false, fake, counterfeit, criminal, version had to be installed, and that is what they did in Philadelphia.
Read it and weep:
Original document blowing the whistle on the so called Con Con
Take heart, please, since the true meaning of common law, whereby no one is above the law, and the law is derived from God's (or Natural) law, is alive in each and every moral member of The People.
Consider the illustration of Corporate/Maritime/Admiralty/Commercial/Fake Common Law being like a Chess Board.
Central Bankers are the players on both sides of the board, and they place their targeted victims onto the board, and Central Bankers move those game piece around.
The idea of returning to the original concepts of Trial by Jury and Common Law (see Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner) is illustrated as each member of The People declaring themselves to be, in Legal Fact, off the Chess Board.
Now that you declare yourself to be no longer on the Chess Board what can you do in defense of that constituted state of actual Liberty in Legal Fact?
Where do you get your authority?
It is the same thing, no?
Who is going to dictate to me that Natural Law is not the same thing as God's Law?
You and what CONSCRIPTED ARMY of SLAVES on The GRAND CHESS BOARD?
How about a competitive idea?
12 people, randomly (truly not falsely random) picked from a pool of Jurors (Peers) and it takes 12 unanimous guilty verdicts to unleash the Dogs of War upon any member of The People (Peers = no one is above the law) who is, in the first place, presumed to be innocent, and it takes only 1 PEER to defend the Liberty of another PEER against any CRIMINAL abuses of any JURY by any DICTATOR or group of DICTATORS.
I hope that makes sense to someone, anyone, even if the PEER does not say so in writing, published, or not, here, or anywhere on any record of any kind.
The Spirit of Liberty does not have to be CRUSHED out of us, we can resist.
First National Invasion of a formerly Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republic
And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district"; And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
We, as in We The People, were sold out for a bag of gold coins.
Why is that not easy to see?
|Current time is 01:43 pm|
|Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Common Law||Top|