Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/10/2007 11:00:19 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

To my surprise wiki has a pretty darn good explanation and comparison of the various types of laws we deal with in our every day lives.

Common, which is what the US was founded on is being disintegrated by the other flavors of law such that it is fading out of existance in the US in regard to the common citizen.

For those of you who are not familiar with differences as it turns out Wiki here is an excellent read to get the "gist" of it all in a very short time invested.

So my question to those who either already know this material or have read the link is this: Do you feel we need to retain our roots based in common law here in the US?

If yes why? What purpose does it serve?
If no why is it not any longer needed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

Post #: 1

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/10/2007 11:41:15 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

If yes why? What purpose does it serve?

I took a law and culture class where we spent a lot of time on this subject. I feel it is a very good way to define law as to have common law and build case law. I say this because in my opinion when we use our past and the reasoning of the past to navigate the future it can be extremely helpful. Also I think that case law helps law to evolve to fit present circumstances of life. In other words a cement black and white legal system may not be elastic enough to fit present circumstances, whereas common law is interpretive.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 2

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/10/2007 12:58:02 PM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Aren't the "versions" of law pretty much forever linked to eachother, no matter what anyone wants? I can't picture the law becoming totally divorced from its roots, really, no matter how much it would "evolve" - it's history, and there will therefore always be some historical "link" with its past.

It evolve, IMO, mostly because the circumstances which surrounded the past version of it either no longer exist, or have substantially changed, and -or people's reaction to those circumstances have changed. The most stark example of this I can think of is the area of civil rights and backs, and females. But there are no doubt hundreds of examples.

So-called "blue laws" probably remain "on the books" in many cases, because nobody pays attention to them anyway, IMO, and admins are too lazy to remove them, although once in awhile some yahoo tries to enforce them anyway, but mostly not (laws like: You can't spit on the sidewalk in town, on Sundays, etc).

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 4/10/2007 1:05:27 PM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 3

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/10/2007 3:03:20 PM

OedipusRexIt

Posts: 634
Joined: 11/15/2005
Status: offline

Let's just say for the sake of argument I said "Gosh, no! We need to re-root our system of justice in Hammurabi's Code. Everyone knows it's the best!".

... then what? We just push reset? Do we line up into groups and fight the civil war? Will everyone submit to the obvious wisdom and just... rewrite everything?

What would distinguish an intelligent answer to this question from any other?

_____________________________

"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die..."

(in reply to SusanofO)

Post #: 4

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/10/2007 6:03:34 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

It is a moot point. Although I think what we need is the Common Law restored and strict adherence to the Constitution, it just ain't gonna happen.Once we went under Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction it was all over.

And they bend the rules to suit thamselves as well. Remember Kevorkian. They tried hin under what they called the Common Law, and it was the only way they could convict him for some reason.

They made the motions, took the gold fringed flag down and found a regular one, the judge took off his robe. I guess he was warned to wear something appropriate underneath it.

So the prosecution can change over if it suits them, but the defense cannot.

I know someone right now doing 15 years for a stupid drug charge instead of 2 because of this. The real law is gone, the government and the whole court system is occupied by traitors.

With every act they stack the deck more in their favor. Their motives are extremely suspect. I don't trust any of them.

T

(in reply to OedipusRexIt)

Post #: 5

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/12/2007 9:44:10 PM

Pulpsmack

Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline

The common law approach is garbage. One court misapplies the reasoning of the case (which happens often) and it's potentially binding. The civil law is superior. What IS is clearly written and rulings are persuasive but not binding until there is a constantly held reasoning behind them.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 6

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/12/2007 10:48:03 PM

FatDomDaddy

Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline

Civil Law is far from superior.

Just remember, that "Civil Laws" stem from the will of any particular government and the most oppressive governments love to make "Civil Laws" that they then exempt the powers of their own government from. For example; Congress members can smoke in their federal office building.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Post #: 7

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/12/2007 11:08:10 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

(in reply to FatDomDaddy)

Post #: 8

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/12/2007 11:15:08 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

That would be nice Pulp, if we had civil law.

We have Admiraly Maritime Jurisdiction, in which the judge can decide which evidence can be excluded. Years ago there was a movement to have "fully informed juries". But it fizzled out.

One thing thogh, the people I knew that used the common law started changing their tactics.

In a court of civil or equity law, the flag has no gold fringe, only in an AMJ court does a flag with the gold fringe fly. That is a military flag.

Under these rules, laws passed by traitors in our legislature become law with no Constitutional test whatsoever. This is tantamount to martial law. You were drafted and you don't even know it. Now they can decide what is contraband and what is not.

They can tell you you can't smoke pot, have a gun, alot of other things, your rights are gone. They can make growing tomatoes in your backyard illegal if they want.

Think back (I haven't looked at your profile, but you look young) at the prohibition era. They needed a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal. Why did they need that ? Because they had no authority to do it in congress. It set a dangerous precedent, as was seen in the years following.

Even thought the Prohibition act was repealed, what was not was their right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest into your own body. There used to be cocaine in Coca-Cola, weed used to be legal as well morphates, paragoric used to be given to children. Look up the formula. I am not sure about pot, but I think coke became illegal in the early 1900s with the Harrison act.

Now we have drug cartels snaeaking up here through AZ and TX and the government refuses to do anything about it.

The fact of the matter is the government owns us, and therefore all we own. Property cannot own property. There is proof in the "Trading With The Enemy Act" which originally meant that in wartime, they can just take whatever they want if they can win, then it was changed to include US citizens. They really can take whatever they want, we own nothing. This is like the horror stories from my Greatgrandmother from de old county.

Let me give you some example. When you but a house in the US and it is paid off you get a Title Deed, not a Deed. The government owns the land, there is no question,.because ongoing property taxes are nothing but rent. It's like they say, like a gang, OK it is your dirt, but it is on our turf.

Let's get to your car, but wait, what is proof of ownership of a car ? The MSO. That is the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Naughty naughty, you are not supposed to have that. If you can pay cash for a new car, you can get real proof, and they can't ever take it. Proven fact. The reason they can take your car is because they already own it, they always did. That is why you pay tax on it more than once.

In Ohio, you are issued a Certificate Of Title, and the MSO has been recorded on microfilm and then destroyed.

They can't legally call the title to you car a title, it is a certificate that they hold title to it and you have it by proxy sort of, you never owned it. Even the deed to your house, it is called a "Title Deed". Why not just a deed ? There is a legal reasxon for that. First of all it cedes all mineral rights unless otherwise specified, and it gives them the right to tax.

The purpose of the tax doesn't matter. There are those who say "You use the roads etc." and I do not really disagree. I disagree with how they got this authority. Big time.

When the shooting starts I will go with the suits, I will shoot at the dungarees making sure to miss them. As I do that I will assess who are the best warriors of the suits, and I will shoot a whole lot of them in the back.

You can't beat fake loyalty to an oppresive government as a cleansing force. Works every time.

T

(in reply to Pulpsmack)

Post #: 9

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 12:02:45 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

RealOne, have you ever read about Brehon Law?
It's pretty interesting.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 10

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 9:53:20 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

RealOne, have you ever read about Brehon Law?
It's pretty interesting.

yeh but not much, they seemed pretty advanced in property law if i remember

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 11

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 10:03:57 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So that says that amendments (to the constitution), are equally valid, and Laws within the guidelines of the constitution are also valid. Which of course conversely laws that are not within the constitution are invalid and not supreme..

What it does not mean of course is that any law that comes down the pike is valid, (constitutional), nor does it mean that an amendment cannot be repealed, that and keeping in mind that the authority of congress to make laws is constitutionally pretty much confined to interstate commerce and the state of columbia, and the supreme court was intended to be the arbitor.

Which begs the question: How did the feds manage to get into our bedrooms then?

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/13/2007 10:19:27 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 12

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 10:16:58 AM

MissyRane

Posts: 1032
Joined: 5/11/2005
Status: offline

In the earlier days it used to be obvious, which countries were followers of common law n which of civil law. Today countries that are based upon the civil law system are slowly taking up habits that the common law system possesses. Countries that are based on the common law system are moving towards the civil law system.
Civil law is by no means superior but common law is absolutely not a garbage. The court system is slowly but surely relying on both the rules of civil & common law and I think that's the best way to do it.
Civil law can be problems because times change quicker than the law. Common law adapt quicker but are more dependant on the judge, however only relying on the common law can 'cause problems, just as it does when people rely solely on civil law.

The biggest problem with common law, as is in the US, is that people can pick a judge and be like ohh damn I'm so lucky I get this judge blahblahblah or shit i got this judge I haven't got a chance because of the judges views.

The problem with civil law is that well you're lucky, no judge is better than the other.
However they are bound by the law and even though some law kind of suit the stone age because the parliament hasn't changed them yet they must rule their verdict by them. It doesn't matter though everybody sees it to be obvious that the result should be different because the law are out of date and haven't been updated as of yet - it doesn't change anything the judge has to rule the verdict as it would've been fair during the time of the dinosaurs.
Therefore the best solution is..as the developement shows..to mix those two law systems together.

< Message edited by MissyRane -- 4/13/2007 10:30:03 AM >

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 13

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 10:36:26 AM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

So that says that amendments (to the constitution), are equally valid, and Laws within the guidelines of the constitution are also valid. Correct Which of course conversely laws that are not within the constitution are invalid and not supreme.. Also correct, but it says in other parts that the Courts led by the Supreme courts decide, not local justice of the peaces with a jury of his friends

What it does not mean of course is that any law that comes down the pike is valid, (constitutional) Correct, you can challenge a law in court and it works the appeals process, of which the Supreme court is the ultimate authority, nor does it mean that an amendment cannot be repealed, that and keeping in mind that the authority of congress to make laws is constitutionally pretty much confined to interstate commerce and the state of columbia This is just false,
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Article I section 8 And The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality, not you or any other group of people. You do not get to decide how to interpret law, at least according to the constituion., and the supreme court was intended to be the arbitor. Right, not you or any group you belong to. Doesn't matter what links or articles or reasoning you use, the Courts have already ruled on this stuff. If you oppose them you oppose the constitution QED You accept that the courts have a right to rule (on the Constitutionality of laws) or you don't. You seem not to...

(in reply to MissyRane)

Post #: 14

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 11:23:48 AM

MissyRane

Posts: 1032
Joined: 5/11/2005
Status: offline

but I kind of have a question RealOne how can you live within the US?? since..you always seem to find everything that the US government does is meant to invade your privacy (or thats what I've bumped into when reading your posts) you kind of seem a little bit paranoid about your privacay.

And by the way there're a lot of things you need to put into consideration when reading the law because you can't always just read them like reading a science fiction there's a certain methodology you need to know when interpreting the law.

Maybe you should start fighting for the European Convention on Human Rights to also apply for America? There's an important protection for peoples privacy in it..and there's a special court that handles those matters too so you wouldn't have to lean on that court system which seems to suck..in your opinion. Have you ever taken a look at the convention? I think you may find it quite interesting.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 15

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 9:43:18 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

That would be nice Pulp, if we had civil law.

We have Admiraly Maritime Jurisdiction, in which the judge can decide which evidence can be excluded. Years ago there was a movement to have "fully informed juries". But it fizzled out.

One thing thogh, the people I knew that used the common law started changing their tactics.

In a court of civil or equity law, the flag has no gold fringe, only in an AMJ court does a flag with the gold fringe fly. That is a military flag.

Under these rules, laws passed by traitors in our legislature become law with no Constitutional test whatsoever. This is tantamount to martial law. You were drafted and you don't even know it. Now they can decide what is contraband and what is not.

They can tell you you can't smoke pot, have a gun, alot of other things, your rights are gone. They can make growing tomatoes in your backyard illegal if they want.

Think back (I haven't looked at your profile, but you look young) at the prohibition era. They needed a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal. Why did they need that ? Because they had no authority to do it in congress. It set a dangerous precedent, as was seen in the years following.

Even thought the Prohibition act was repealed, what was not was their right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest into your own body. There used to be cocaine in Coca-Cola, weed used to be legal as well morphates, paragoric used to be given to children. Look up the formula. I am not sure about pot, but I think coke became illegal in the early 1900s with the Harrison act.

Now we have drug cartels snaeaking up here through AZ and TX and the government refuses to do anything about it.

The fact of the matter is the government owns us, and therefore all we own. Property cannot own property. There is proof in the "Trading With The Enemy Act" which originally meant that in wartime, they can just take whatever they want if they can win, then it was changed to include US citizens. They really can take whatever they want, we own nothing. This is like the horror stories from my Greatgrandmother from de old county.

Let me give you some example. When you but a house in the US and it is paid off you get a Title Deed, not a Deed. The government owns the land, there is no question,.because ongoing property taxes are nothing but rent. It's like they say, like a gang, OK it is your dirt, but it is on our turf.

Let's get to your car, but wait, what is proof of ownership of a car ? The MSO. That is the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Naughty naughty, you are not supposed to have that. If you can pay cash for a new car, you can get real proof, and they can't ever take it. Proven fact. The reason they can take your car is because they already own it, they always did. That is why you pay tax on it more than once.

In Ohio, you are issued a Certificate Of Title, and the MSO has been recorded on microfilm and then destroyed.

They can't legally call the title to you car a title, it is a certificate that they hold title to it and you have it by proxy sort of, you never owned it. Even the deed to your house, it is called a "Title Deed". Why not just a deed ? There is a legal reasxon for that. First of all it cedes all mineral rights unless otherwise specified, and it gives them the right to tax.

The purpose of the tax doesn't matter. There are those who say "You use the roads etc." and I do not really disagree. I disagree with how they got this authority. Big time.

When the shooting starts I will go with the suits, I will shoot at the dungarees making sure to miss them. As I do that I will assess who are the best warriors of the suits, and I will shoot a whole lot of them in the back.

You can't beat fake loyalty to an oppresive government as a cleansing force. Works every time.

T

Right right and right again.   What amazes me however is that this is the only forum where no one even raises an eybrow over that... others i have been on literally blew the lid off the place when they found out about the red pill!!! LOL

You are right on though, and i would bet that most here never even heard of most of this stuff it and franlky most on this forum simply do not care imo. (maybe most live in a trailer court or rent which in that case is understandable).

There is a reason they fly the admiralty flag in all court rooms now...

Do ya think this might have anything to do with it?

Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State ; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

We have the admiralty flags flying in the wisconsin courts. The old timers from ww2 at the vfw bitch about this all the time how our right to have an appropriate trial is being circumvented.   People simply do not know the difference or that they have the right. Courts today wrongfully assume jurisdiction where they truly do not have it.

Hell attorneys dont know the difference in many cases!

So from the god of references LOLOL wiki (face it it is quick easy down and dirty reference)

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It is distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations.

and people are not insensed over this? The flags the fly under is the trial you get, and as you pointed out wtf are we doing being tried under AML?   There is no provisions for this in the constitution, and the people are to uneducated to know the diference!

i know that you picked up on the difference but for those who didnt, we are a country supposedly governed by constitutional law, and we are led to believe that we are governed by constitutional law, however those flags in our court rooms are proof that is not and has not been true for a long time, say 50+ years?   guessing?

Yah the dumb american people hoodwinked again!   Governed by international "PRIVATE" law!!!!!!!

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 16

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/13/2007 11:57:24 PM

luckydog1

Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Let me give you some example. When you but a house in the US and it is paid off you get a Title Deed, not a Deed. The government owns the land, there is no question,.because ongoing property taxes are nothing but rent. It's like they say, like a gang, OK it is your dirt, but it is on our turf. There is no national Federal property tax, your state and perhaps community has every right to issue a property tax

Let's get to your car, but wait, what is proof of ownership of a car ? The MSO. That is the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Naughty naughty, you are not supposed to have that. If you can pay cash for a new car, you can get real proof, and they can't ever take it. Proven fact. The reason they can take your car is because they already own it, they always did. That is why you pay tax on it more than once. There is no Federal Car tax, they can't take it if you do not pay the non existant federal taxes. If you do nto pay your income taxes, they will sieze you car, regardless of what paperwork you have. The taxes you pay on your car vary from staste and city to state and city, and has nothing to do with the Feds.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 17

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/14/2007 7:10:32 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

I didn't say that only the federal courts were under AMJ, ALL courts are.

So lucky, you think the property taxes are for the roads and schools ? Think again. These brainiacs do the worst thing possible. They do not directly use your tax dollars for infrastructure except in the rare instances when there is an ad hoc tax, usually a temporary tax coming in from a levy that stated the purpose for the funds.

Business as usual is more like selling bonds and using the tax money to pay the interest. That way the principal is spent and it can't be repaid.

Income and property taxes are unconstitutional plain and simple. Don't EVEN get me started on eminent domain.

I think the major problem is that most people have lost sight of the American ideal. Personal responsibility and real rights. After generations of conditioning, most people would rather not live under a Constitutional government. That is if they understand what that means. I have a vague idea, which is the crux of much of my consternation. Most people have no idea what it is to live free.

I do because I was totally uncontrollable, and smart enough not to get caught. That doesn't mean I lived the good old days. You would have to be 200 years old to know what true freedom is. It boils down to this, most of what I used to do should've been legal.

But that is not freedom, in a way it is rebellion. I did whatever I want whenever I want, that did not change anything. In a way it was wrong, instead of fucking with them every step of the way on laws that were wrong, I just didn't get caught. Really if law enforcement worked it would eventually result in law abatement.

What if everybody they caught with pot said "Fuck you give me the max". They wouild again have to free rapists to make room for pot smokers, like in Cleveland not too long ago. The common law people in Ohio might number in the tens of thousands. A few years ago a plan was put forth for everybody to take the license plates off their car. Clog up the system. Never happened though, and alot of things won't, until people really miss freedom.

But how does one miss what one never had ? You have the freedom to have an ATM card, to choose between an Xbox or PS3, freedom to get cable or dish network. The freedom to rent any kind of car you want. You are free to pay for the car and get the illusion of owning it, known as a certificate of title. You are free to pay off the bank and get a title deed, and then the only rent you have to pay is to the gov.

The government has the right to collect property tax eh ? Wait 30 years, wait until you finally pay your house off and think "Aaaaaaa, just taxes and insurance now", and slowly watch your property taxes go up, to point where it is as if you were still making house payments ! It has happened alot, and I can tell you of one place it is especially bad, North Royalton, Ohio. The taxes are so high it has hurt property values, because nobody can hardly sell their house. Talk about killing the golden goose.

So by what authoirity do they tax property ? I don't see it in the Constitution, perhaps I missed something. Lots and lots of people win against the IRS because there is no supporting law, how are property taxes any different ?

Of course, states write laws that compel people to pay, but that has not been done on a federal level concerning income tax. Why not ? They have proven that they can make laws for or against anything they damn well please. If tomato farmers lobbied I'm sure they would make it illegal to grow tomatos in your backyard. If they can make a law that you have to wear a seat belt, it is pretty plain that you are considered property.

Now what we are is worse than being a slave. All of a slave's needs must be met, food, housing and medical, even education, as limited as that might be. But a serf must somehow take care of these things himself, and has very little in the way of rights.

We are slaves to debt because of what they have done to the economy. In between every transaction there are money men, taking a slice. If not for that you would save up for a couple of years to buy a new car, instead of making payments. If not for the load imposed on society by the unproductive rich, we would be fine.

This is not only condoned by those who are supposed to represent us, it is facilitated.

How do the rich get and stay rich ? Theft, plain and simple, and it has been open season here for a long time. Everybody is used to it. What a shame.

T

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 18

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/14/2007 8:06:06 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
If tomato farmers lobbied I'm sure they would make it illegal to grow tomatos in your backyard. If they can make a law that you have to wear a seat belt, it is pretty plain that you are considered property.

its illegal to commit suicide too LOL Look what they want to do with herbs now. Its only a matter of time before they figure out a way to get herbs banned, they will ship in tainted herbs, or poison some kid then rather than protect our constitutional rights ban it and it can only be had by perscription.

that is a perfect example of the feds violating their charter.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/14/2007 8:09:35 AM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 19

RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 4/14/2007 4:33:13 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

So that says that amendments (to the constitution), are equally valid, and Laws within the guidelines of the constitution are also valid. Correct Which of course conversely laws that are not within the constitution are invalid and not supreme.. Also correct, but it says in other parts that the Courts led by the Supreme courts decide, not local justice of the peaces with a jury of his friends

What it does not mean of course is that any law that comes down the pike is valid, (constitutional) Correct, you can challenge a law in court and it works the appeals process, of which the Supreme court is the ultimate authority, nor does it mean that an amendment cannot be repealed, that and keeping in mind that the authority of congress to make laws is constitutionally pretty much confined to interstate commerce and the state of columbia This is just false,
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Article I section 8 And The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality, not you or any other group of people. You do not get to decide how to interpret law, at least according to the constituion., and the supreme court was intended to be the arbitor. Right, not you or any group you belong to. Doesn't matter what links or articles or reasoning you use, the Courts have already ruled on this stuff. If you oppose them you oppose the constitution QED You accept that the courts have a right to rule (on the Constitutionality of laws) or you don't. You seem not to...

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(Interstate Commerce)

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

(Interstate Commerce)

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

(Interstate Commerce)

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

(Interstate Commerce)

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

(Interstate Commerce)

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

(Interstate Commerce)

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

(Interstate Commerce)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

(Interstate Commerce)

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

(Military Tribunals)

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

(Military, Admiralty Law)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

(Military, Admiralty, High Seas, International Law)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

(National Defense)

To provide and maintain a Navy;

(National Defense)

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

(National defense)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

(Citizen Militias)

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(Citizen Militias, National defense)

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

(Full governmental function over columbia, federally owned lands)

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to luckydog1)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.203