 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
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.
1.
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
2.
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.