At 12:14 PM 11/14/96 -0500, hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
As for the "self-selected" issue: In almost all areas of human endeavor, things are (often? usually?) done by people who are "self-selected." I suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts cannot work.
Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had bothere to read the court roster you would have attended.
You might be surprised to learn that this kind of thing doesn't bother me at all. To whatever extent such commonlaw courts act like loose cannons, they will primarily tend to do so against those who are most abusive of the public's perceived rights. Like a non-lethal version of AP, those people who are most abusive of the public (primarily current government employees and officeholders) will be named most often in commonlaw court proceedings. Eventually, they will begin to behave.
1. Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years. The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility.
Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions.
But commonlaw courts were not a product of previous constitutions. And the US constitution certainly didn't "replace all previous constitutions": state constitutions were "replaced." The only document the Federal constitution arguably "replaced" was the Articles of the Confederation.
Thats what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts were extinguished.
Ah! So you admit that these courts were "previously existing," huh? Well, if that's the case, merely read the 9th and 10th amendments and tell me how you're so sure that "all previously existing courts were extinguished."
2. The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the FEDERAL portion of government.
It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution.
Anyone in state court are "subjected to proceedings that are not authorized under the [Federal] constitution." Clearly, state courts operated before the Federal Constitution existed. And the "due process clause" may simply apply to the Federal government, not necessarily all individuals or the organizations they form.
3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it references state Constitutions at all.
There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative, excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish their rights.
There's a big inconsistency with what you just said. It was the representatives of the STATES which WROTE the US Constitution. Their ratification was _necessary_ to approve that document. If states were not recognized, nor their representatives, they would have been unable to ratify the Federal constitution. It would be, therefore, totally illogical to believe that the product of their writing could somehow "extinguish" the rights of the citizens, let alone the states. You're obviously confused.
The authority of the states to make law is explicitly stated.
Whatever it said, it was not necessary to have said it. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that any power not explicitly granted the Feds was reserved to the states or the people.
You should have said, SOME courts. Not "the courts," implying ALL the courts. Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter local courts.
It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you might have a point.
As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences.
Oh, really? It certainly isn't "criminal." At most, you might try to claim that it is legally irrelevant. After all, if commonlaw courts don't really exist, then nothing they do has legal weight, and thus it's a legal nullity. But your commentary seems to indicate that no, what commonlaw courts do is not only real and significant, it's also going to be called "criminal." In other words, it's a threat to the existing legal monopoly.
While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter.
All of whom are trained to recognize the existing legal monopoly.
It is an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other instigators.
Of what relevance is this? Sending a person to jail is only one of many ways a court can exercise its power.
It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts is not recognised by society.
"Society"? I think you mean "the people who believe they are in charge." The "thuggerati" would be one way to identify them. The vast majority of the population of the US are simply unaware of commonlaw courts. In fact, it's quite possible that the vast majority of the population can't quote even a single law verbatim. The average person knows nothing of the history of commonlaw courts, and therefore what he "recognizes" is unlikely to include them
They can be dealt with easily enough, the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction prohibiting proceedings,
What "proceedings"? You just said that commonlaw courts do not exist, and that their actions are legally irrelevant. Why should an "intended victim" NEED to "apply to a real [sic] court for an injunction"? An "injunction" is generally obtained to prevent somebody from doing something that he'd otherwise have the power (and, often, the right) to do absent the injunction.
turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the "common law court" would then be in contempt.
They would only be "in contempt" if their actions were legally relevant, which you have already denied. Your problem is obvious: You're desperate, and you can't promote a consistent argument. I, far more honestly, started by pointing out the fact that commonlaw courts are but one type of court, and they were in competition with equity courts in England for centuries. It's a power stuggle, quite analogous to the free market, and if anything their long absense will only make the competition keener. Naturally, the opponents of commonlaw courts (and, "opponents" are exactly what they are; they are biased on one side of the issue) want to deny past reality as well as prevent the resurgence of those courts. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com