 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2298&context=fss_papers
"Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators") raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system.
They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers."
That is a figurative Gold mine.
As was clearly the case in England previous to a deal made between Barrons and a Despotic King, to document Law in the form of a Constitution known as Magna Carta, the people did JUST fine with something called legem terrae, which was (and is) the law of the land, which was also coined the common law genuine, not counterfeit.
As it was clearly the case in England those who practiced the dark arts of criminal behavior (deception, threat, and violence upon the innocent, so as to consume the innocent) moved incrementally to counterfeit the common law so as to gain power over the targeted population, and that is clearly shown as so-called "Equity," took market share from the common law process.
Now, as this information (I just found) shows so far, the move in America was in principle the same move. The Americans had escaped the criminals (under the color of law) in England (and diverse other places in Europe) to regain individual responsibility, individual accountability, or in a word: sovereignty (of the individual), as opposed to "collective" sovereignty deceptively transferred (against the knowledge, or will, of actual people) from individuals to a Legal Fiction, or State, or "government."
In both cases, the people policed themselves, as individuals do in nature, albeit with standardized common law processes, involving representatives chosen to positions known as Sherriffs, Justices of the Peace (pool for grand jurors in some cases), Grand Jurors, and Trial Jurors (Petty Jurors). The people themselves were prosecutors or defendants, not so-called "lawyers or attorneys" who (as far as my study goes so far) work for a "legal fiction," and assume (extort) immunity from persecution (not prosecution according to the common law), as is their accurate accountability turned on them like shinning the truth. They, meaning criminals posing as representatives of a fictional character (legal fiction), persecute, and they impose Summary JUSTus, as positions in their criminal gangs known as Equity, Exchequer, Maritime, Admiralty, Family, Nisi Prius, and various other false fronts before the false word Court Judges, dictate their (false) Law upon targeted victims who are not paying members of their group.
How is it known who is in, and who is out of, their group? Why is that at all difficult to account for with precision? If the people try a case of Treason, what is a likely form of restitution offered by the people, through their representatives in a trial by the country, to the ones found guilty of treason? If you don't know then it might be a good idea to find out.
Those in the so-called legal fiction group, which are those in what I call the criminal organization that operates under the color of law, typically torture and murder anyone who dares to leave, or "rat on," their fellow partners in crime: under the color of law.