Choate said: (Quoting me)
You have common law (the law of common men, lex communis), and legislative law (bringing the law of the sovereign).
You draw a false distinction, the Constitution starts out with what phrase?
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
NO. 1 JIM CHOATE, PLAINTIFF ' ' VS. ' CYPHERPUNKS ' AIMEE FARR, DEFENDANT ' MOTION TO QUASH CONSTITUTIONAL CHOATIAN THREADS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF CYPHERPUNKS: NOW COMES ~Aimee, hereinafter referred to as "Defendant," and files this Motion To Dissolve Constitutional Choatian Threads and would show: 1. Whereas Defendant is alleged to "draw" constitutional false distinctions, Plaintiff "doodles" them. 2. Defendant's aim was to give Plaintiff some historical context for legal delineations, which have become blurred over the ages (and marred by legal authorship blinded by egocentric political/time views). Chieftain-king-sovereign-legislative law deals with the individual<-->"king" relationship. Ancient common law is man<-->man law, arising out of custom and usage. While common law no longer plays the role it once did (being usurped by statutory/legislative law) some distinctions remain that were carried over into English common law. Furthermore, Defendant would show that not every legal question invokes the purview of the US Const., because it lies outside of the individual<-->"king" relationship, and even our enhanced interpretations of the same. In a historical context, "legislative law" (Lat. "bringing law") *includes* constitutional law, and is therefore not a false distinction, although perhaps a modern linguistic misnomer. Defendant went as far back as Aristotle, before many legal divergences. 3. Plaintiff ignores the role of the courts and treats the US Const. as the wellspring of ALL law in this country. It is the wellspring of many things, (indeed, more than The Framers ever contemplated) but it is not the singular Garden of Eden for all U.S. jurisprudence. Plaintiff repeatedly mischaracterizes political opinion as legal argument, and proffers arguments based on his own "tarot card reading" of the U.S. Constitution. 4. Plaintiff's constitutional questions grow like kudzu...wandering, in the opinion of many, far from any questions of direct and particular relevance to this forum. Plaintiff should pick up some law outlines/bar reviews and go beyond the letter of the Constitution and the words of the founding fathers. Plaintiff should take some courses, join some *constitutional law mailing lists*, and multidisciplinary legal societies to broaden Plaintiff's frame of reference so he may entertain more complex constitutional analysis, and pose questions that are more likely to be of interest to IAAL and IANAL constitutional thinkers. See _Sunder v. Choate_, Message-ID: 3AAE7D40.EC9C0BCF@sunder.net ("Clue: this is cypherpunks, not lawyerpunks."); _Sandfort v. Choate_, Message-ID: NDBBJHDEELOIJNHFGNOFEEMEDCAA. sandfort@mindspring.com ("You can spend three years in law school and learn something, read a book or two about the origins Anglo-American jurisprudence or live in darkness. The choice is yours."). CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on March 22, 2001, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on JIM CHOATE, Plaintiff, by ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com. ORDER SETTING HEARING On this the 22nd day of March, 2001, came on before me the foregoing Motion To Quash; and It is ordered that said motion is hereby set for hearing before the Court at Cypherpunks@lne.com ("mailing list") at 12. A.M. on March 22, 2001. Signed this the 22 day of March 2001. _______________________________________ JUDGE CYPHERPUNKS Respectfully submitted, ~Aimee