quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



yeh ron you are one in a million!

thankfully!




enjoying your swim as usual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

yes, since you know a hundred and fourty year old man, you schooled us in the provost thing, what happened there?  then you go on to explain the magna carta for several hundred threads saying the same old tired shit, that is conclusively wrong, or flag fringing,   you cannot point to one credible and public case that has been decided in favor of you or your lunatic friends horseshit.......

Nah, I am laughing at you, not with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so now we come to the crux of your legal acumen. Lunatic Fringe is certainly what it is.  

you said:

They cant do any damn thing that is not spelled out in law, (somewhere).


Uh, you need to understand at the outset malum prohibitum.  If there is no prohibition you can do it,  that is why we let fucktards like you breathe, by example.

And title 4 is minimal statute.  That means that it has to at least meet the minimum standards, there is no malum prohibitum in fringe or not fringe or putting it on your t-shirt.

YOu are completely out of the shit pile you call your mind.  I never seen such absurd fucking nonsense in my life as the shit you post.

quote:

Malum prohibitum An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998). Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary(mal-uhm prohibit-uhm) Latin for "wrong due to being prohibited," referring to acts made illegal by statute to benefit public welfare, not because they are inherently evil and obvious violations of society's standards. Generally, they do not involve immediate injury or damage to others. Examples include violations of regulatory acts, insider trading, and tax avoidance. Compare: August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm

You are simply uninformed and uneducated in these matters.

Again, for someone who claims to know a 140 year old man, here posted in the public forums which anyone can search, why would we believe anything you say is less than lunacy?  What is our imputus, especially since events have proven you wrong in every case.

ME? WRONG?

quote:

But when it is so clearly expressed in another part of the constitution as in ours that when more than $20 in value is involved in controversy in suits at common law "the right of trial by jury, if required by either party, shall be preserved," the provision under which it is claimed the lawmaking power acted should be expressed in language no less clear and unmistakable, especially when the effect of such action is to invade an essential right, which for centuries has been the boast of the Anglo-Saxon race, and which is frequently referred to by the courts of this country as "the palladium of our liberties." ln Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 18 Sup. Ct. 620, 42 L. Ed. 1061, Justice Harlan says at page 349, 170 U. S., page 022. 18 Sup. Ct., and page 1066, 42 L. Ed.: "When the Magna Charta declared that no freeman should be deprived of life, etc., 'but by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land,' it referred to a trial by twelve jurors. Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege 'as a birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which bad fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power.'"

2 Hale, Com. Law (5th Ed.) 147. 156. See, also, 1 Hale, P. C. 33. ln 5 Bac. Abr. 308. it is said: "The trial per pals or by a jury of one's country is justly esteemed one of the principal excellencies of our constitution; for what greater security can any person have in his life, liberty, or estate than to be sure of not being devcsted of or injured in any of these wiiliout the sense and verdict of twelve honest and impartial men of his neighborhood? And hence we find the common law herein confirmed by Magna Charta." That this right, which has been so long valued so highly, should be frittered away by the .courts on a strained construction of a section in the fundamental law adopted by the people appears like trifling with serious things. lf it had been the intention to give section 28, art. 8, the effect claimed by appellee, the closing paragraph should have been made to read, "Appeals shall be allowed from judgments of justices of the peace in such manner as may be prescribed by law, and the legislature may provide for the trial thereof by a jury of six men," or any other number named, less than twelve

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.collarchat.com/m_3212790/mpage_1/tm.htm
http://www.collarchat.com/post.asp?do=reply&messageID=3150908&toStyle=tm
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3143939/mpage_1/key_provost/tm.htm#3144319

These were more of your usual learned legal opinions that were shown to be asswipe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

IN Thompson v Utah you have taken the quote completely out of context (and I know you have not read the entire case) because if you would have you would find tha tthe idea of jury trial by 12 good men while an idea that was lifted from the magna carta was not held as trial by a jury of peers in Utah law, and that 8 were good enough, and his conviction stood.  The idea that was adopted from english law was trial by jury of peers  and numbers and any other consideration was not. One can lift good ideas wherever they are found without having to wear the whole cloth of it.

Now, again regarding Hale, nobody gives a fuck what the history of the common law of england was insofar as legal standing in the US, because that is what hale is about (an english jurist in the 1600s who wrote) a history of english common law.  Again, proceeding from false premises with circular and unsound logic from a vantage of no consequence to US law is not germain to anything.  Nearly all laws of the world have malum prohibitum against killing, that does not mean that it is necessary to worship mohammed because we take the whole of that law, that is just plain wrong.

You lose the arguments in US law in singular and in several.

So, yes, the op is American style law, fuck hale and fuck english law, we have our own laws. 

quote:

SEVENTH AMENDMENT
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined
in any Court of the United States, than according to
the rules of the common law

quote:



TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES

The Right and the Characteristics of the Civil Jury History.

—On September 12, 1787, as the Convention was in its final stages, Mr. Williamson of North Carolina ‘‘observed to the House that no provision was yet made for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.’’ The comment elicited some support and the further observation that because of the diversity of practice in civil trials in the States it would be impossible to draft a suitable
provision.

1 When on September 15 it was moved that a clause
be inserted in Article III, § 2, to guarantee that ‘‘a trial by jury
shall be preserved as usual in civil cases,’’ this objection seems to
have been the only one urged in opposition and the motion was defeated.

2 The omission, however, was cited by many opponents of ratification and ‘‘was pressed with an urgency and zeal . . . wellnigh
preventing its ratification.’’

3 A guarantee of right to jury in civil cases was one of the amendments urged on Congress by the ratifying conventions

4 and it was included from the first among
Madison’s proposals to the House.

5 It does not appear that the text of the proposed amendment or its meaning was debated during its passage.

6  Composition and Functions of Civil Jury.

—Traditionally, the Supreme Court has treated the Seventh Amendment as preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases as it ‘‘existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted.’’

quote:


ed. 1937). 2 Id. at 628. 3 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 1757

(1833). ‘‘t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty.’’ Id. at 1762.

4 J. ELLIOTT, THE DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 326 (2d ed. 1836) (New Hampshire); 2 id. at 399–414 (New York); 3 id. at 658 (Virginia).

5 1 ANNALS OF CONGRESS 436 (1789). ‘‘In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.’’

7 The right was to ‘‘a trial by a jury of twelve men, in the presence and under the superintendence of a judge empowered to instruct them on the law and to advise them on the facts and (except in acquittal of a criminal charge) to set aside their verdict if in his opinion it is against the law or the evidence.’’  (but he cannot overrule the jury except by consent of the litigants....just another one of those little omissions that are eluded to but not directly said herein)

8 Decision of the jury must be by unanimous verdict. 9 In Colgrove v. Battin,

10 however, the Court by a five-to-four vote held that rules adopted in a federal district court authorizing civil juries composed of six persons were permissible under the Seventh Amendment and congressional enactments.

By the reference in the Amendment to the ‘‘common law,’’ the
Court thought, ‘‘the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents of trial by jury.’’

11 The Amendment has for its primary purpose the preservation of ‘‘the common law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury, whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent to the contrary, issues of law are resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions by the court.’’ (side note---its to bad they leave out that the jury is the court in this expose, just one of those little snags that power does not want to let go of, certainly not through any form of advertisement)

12 But it ‘‘does not exact the retention of old forms of procedure’’ nor does it ‘‘prohibit the introduction of new methods of ascertaining what facts are in issue’’ or new rules of evidence. (there is the disclaimer LOL)

13 Those matters which were tried by a jury in England in 1791 are to be so tried today and those matters which, as in equity, were tried by the judge in England in 1791 are to be so tried today, 

14 and when new rights and remedies are created ‘‘the right of action should be analogized to its historical counterpart, at law or in equity, for the purpose of determining whether there is a right of jury trial,’’ unless Congress has expressly prescribed the mode of trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

10 however, the Court by a five-to-four vote held that rules adopted in a federal district court authorizing civil juries composed of six persons were permissible under the Seventh Amendment and congressional enactments.
By the reference in the Amendment to the ‘‘common law,’’ the
Court thought, ‘‘the Framers of the Seventh Amendment were concerned
with preserving the right of trial by jury in civil cases where
it existed at common law, rather than the various incidents of trial
by jury.’’

Read your own citation.  You lose, take off your pants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I just did.   you aint up to the level of a fifth grader. But this serves my point, you don't have the understanding to even know what the argument is, and whether it holds validity or commerce under the law.  You are inept at the law, and I see no hope in your attaining anything more than the horseshit you spew now.