Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell
Jim Bell writes
There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they
have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. Think of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition.
A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a return to "commonlaw courts". Such courts do not exist within the constitution of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist. The structure of the courts, the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an afterthought. I think the courts are worried the way a truck driver is worried about roadkill. Its always the agent-provocateurs who are the loudest voices. If I was an FBI agent looking to snare a few pillocks I would be trolling in cypherpunks with an AP like story. I would also be boasting about my knowing about people in hiding... If Bell and Thorn are Freeh's agents then would they kindly bugger off and find another place to troll. Alternatively they could arrest each other. Phill
hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote:
Jim Bell writes
There are, I think, two reasons that the equity court system (and their sleazy lawyers, both on and off the bench) are worried. First, what they have now is, effectively, a monopoly on "justice." The re-emergence of commonlaw courts would provide competition that has been long gone. Think of it like any monopoly that suddenly has to accept competition.
A bunch of self selected whackos running a kangeroo court does not mark a return to "commonlaw courts". Such courts do not exist within the constitution of the United States. Unlike the UK the US has a written constitution, if it isn't written down on paper then it does not exist.
"It doesn't exist". Well! The difference between the intent of the law and the "letter" of the law: The Constitution, if it is about anything, it is about Balance of Power. You could refer back to the DOI for examples of how to settle BOP disparities when governments become too big for their britches, or you could accept "creative civil disobedience" such as Common Law Courts as a way to add some balance. Unless, of course, you're the troll you're talking about below.
The structure of the courts, the legislature and such was the principle task of the constitution, that is why the bill of rights is a set of ammendments - they were an afterthought. I think the courts are worried the way a truck driver is worried about roadkill.
An afterthought? No. The Constitution was a document provided at the behest of the States, with their approval (not dictated by the Feds), and those States would not ratify said document without the Enumeration of rights now referred to as the Bill of Rights. It's an enumeration only, to tell the Feds that "these are your powers", etc., and "don't try to mess with any of these things enumerated here in these 10 amendments", and so forth.
Its always the agent-provocateurs who are the loudest voices. If I was an FBI agent looking to snare a few pillocks I would be trolling in cypherpunks with an AP like story. I would also be boasting about my knowing about people in hiding... If Bell and Thorn are Freeh's agents then would they kindly bugger off and find another place to troll. Alternatively they could arrest each other.
Agent-provocateurs? My, aren't we paranoid. I hope the Thorn character is someone else, not me. If you read all or most all of my postings over the past couple of months, you would see why the FBI and all those other alphabet-agencies wouldn't hire me. They had to cheat just to get me a Confidential clearance in the Army (the lowest possible clearance). I can't speak for Jim Bell, but my impression (for the 100th time) of AP as stated in the postings is firmly this: It's a warning about the real possibility of such a system, given secure crypto technology and a more- or-less anarchic net to host it. As far as someone recommending it and pushing for its acceptance, don't be so naive. The bad guys will have it fully operational (if it is possible) *long* before you or your fellow citizens have a crack at it, if ever.
"It doesn't exist". Well! The difference between the intent of the law and the "letter" of the law: The Constitution, if it is about anything, it is about Balance of Power.
Since it accepts slavery in its original form the "intent" as you put it is probably not acceptable to you. Unless of course you spend your weekends with a pillowcase on your head.
An afterthought? No. The Constitution was a document provided at the behest of the States, with their approval (not dictated by the Feds), and those States would not ratify said document without the Enumeration of rights now referred to as the Bill of Rights.
Actually there was a long and protracted debate over whether or not to include the bill of rights in the constitution. A constitution is simply a description of the process and organisation of government, usually in the broadest terms. The problem with the bill of rights at the time of the discuissions was enforcement. The role of the supreme court as arbiter of the constitution was not originally planned. If anyone had predicted that such a role would emerge it would have been seen as undesirable since it would compromise the judicial/legislative separation. Incidentally one of the original gripes of the revolution was the type of recourse to unwritten proceedure and laws that happened in the colonial period. That is why there was a demand for a clear statement of the constitutional arrangements. If jefferson and so wanted private kangeroo courts they would have written it down. Phill
participants (2)
-
Dale Thorn -
hallam＠vesuvius.ai.mit.edu