 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Common law began, and continues to be, not as you say it is, and the facts are offered to you. Your insistence upon claiming that common law is only what you say it is confesses something about you that is worth knowing.
You dictate what is, or is not, real despite ample evidence that proves otherwise.
If all you want to do here is to dictate information as you alone see it, and ignore ample evidence that contradicts your dictated information, then the circle you create in that way will spin around and around until one of us decides (with clear judgment) to waste no more time going around in that circle.
The circle where you make a demonstrably false claim about common law (as if common law is only what you say it is and common law is nothing but what you say it is) and I offer more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claim about common law, is a circle that expands as more, and more, and more, evidence contradicting your false claims is added to the merry go round.
The terms that you use to enclose common law into a box are these:
1.stare decisis
2.Case law
Within the meaning of the terms above are many trials by jury cases involving many errors that are entered into the record of cases along with many successful examples of voluntary mutual defense.
Who in your limited (dictatorial) version of common law (counterfeit version) has the power to decide what is, or is not, a just punishment, and what criteria is employed by the authority in any case?
Your answer, if your words can be deciphered, is going to be a judge, as if a judge has the power to punish on his say so alone, as the judge pulls whichever case he may want to pull out of his dictatorial box of failed cases that fail to voluntarily defend the innocent from the guilty.
Someone I met during my time at National Liberty Alliance (I was the California State Coordinator) had 500 or so pages of documentation proving beyond doubt (confessions or prima facie evidence) that all the judges in California are criminals according to the laws they claim to be the source of their authority as they broke those laws in order to get seated on those legal fiction benches. So, with your false claims concerning common law, those criminals in those positions of criminal power (under the color of law) are within the boundaries of common law, so long as they have no case law in the stare decisis process from which to convict themselves?
Isn't that the jist of your false claims about common law, as you insist upon supporting the counterfeit version of common law?