 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
As far as I know the original common law trial by jury system of law is a method by which the people - not the government - determine what is a fact at issue in any controversy. So...one writer claims something about the constitution of a court of record. Some other writer claims something opposite about the constitute of a court of record. If both writers are claiming opposite "facts," then how does the law proceed to determine the fact and determine the fiction in that case?
As far as I know a "court of record" is a function, a verb, an act by which people enhance their power to remember. People who desire a record of jury verdicts will figure out how to reach that goal.
Previous to written documents the people who desired a record of jury verdicts relied upon human memory, having no way to record jury verdicts otherwise, so a court would not be called a court of record.
After people created and employed the adaptation known as documentation, or writing, then it seems reasonable to conclude that a lawful court would be a court AND a record of the proceedings. No longer are people relying upon often conflicting human memories.