Motion To Quash Choate

Aimee Farr aimee.farr at pobox.com
Thu Mar 22 09:37:08 PST 2001


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 at sunder.net ("Clue: this is cypherpunks, not
lawyerpunks.");  _Sandfort v. Choate_, Message-ID:
NDBBJHDEELOIJNHFGNOFEEMEDCAA. sandfort at 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 at 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 at 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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list