Re: Moore is a liar

Religions > Atheism > Re: Moore is a liar

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	30 Aug 2003 07:16:35 AM
Object:	Re: Moore is a liar

(StNeel) wrote:

:|>Route66Lovers@2LanesForever.com.invalid (Dusty Rhodes)
:|
:|>> Ever heard of Common Law, otherwise known as judge made law?
:|
:|A correction is needed here - it is not 'judge made law' but rather jury made
:|law based on prior older cases & their conclusions (precedents) but similiar
:|to the case being heard. Judges can not make law.

I suggest you try reading it again, the entire thing.
It disagrees with you.
In addition, not all court cases involve the use of juries.
=====================================
English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
Judge-made law. A Phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe
away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature
never intended. Its perhaps more commonly used as meaning, simply, the law
established by judicial precedent and decisions. Laws having their source
in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or
administrative regulations.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
********************************************
SOURCES OF LAW
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pkd0gvcec6sdo90stbp7u1o25ie07hpvka%404ax.com&oe=
UTF-8&output=gplain
THE UNITED STATES has many sources of law because of our federal
system. The United States Constitution is the nation's charter and the
source of authority for federal laws and the federal courts. The
Constitution delineates the limits of federal power and reserves
considerable authority to the states. Each state has authority over persons
and activities within its boundaries. State governments, in turn, delegate
some authority to local governments. Each of these governmental units may,
within certain constraints, make law.
Understanding how laws arise and how they affect our activities
requires an understanding of two key concepts: (1) the relationships among
laws within a single jurisdiction and (2) the relationships among federal,
state, and local governments in the system. This chapter describes these
two concepts and briefly describes source material for researching the
law.
The Hierarchy of Laws
Four basic kinds of laws exist: constitutions, statutes or
ordinances, administrative regulations, and judge-made law. [NOTE, JUDGE
MADE LAW] These sources form a hierarchy with constitutions at the top and
judge-made laws at the bottom. Constitutions include the United States
Constitution as well as state constitutions. Within a jurisdiction, the
constitution is the highest authority; statutes, regulations, and common
law must not conflict with the constitution.
Statutes create categorical rules to address particular problems.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for example, was adopted by Congress to
ensure the safety and healthfulness of the nation's food supply. A statute
is controlling as to the subject it encompasses, unless the statute is
unconstitutional.
The federal government and most states have many agencies with
diverse responsibilities (e.g., labor, veterans' affairs, transportation,
commerce, environmental protection). Administrative regulations are rules
promulgated by such agencies to help implement specific statutes. For
example, the "laws" relating to declarations of nutritional information
required on the packages of certain foods are largely administrative
regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Properly adopted administrative regulations have
the same legal effect as statutes, so long as they are consistent with the
Constitution and relevant statutes.
Judicial decisions often interpret or apply constitutions,
statutes, or regulations. At other times, when such law is not applicable,
they interpret or apply a body of judge-made law known as the common law.
In either situation, law is made whenever a court decides a case. Once a
constitutional provision, statute, or regulation has been construed by a
court, that construction of the statute becomes law.
SOURCE: A Practical Guide to legal Writing & Legal Method, Second edition.
John C. Dernbach, Richard V. Singleton II, Cathleen S. Wharton, Joan M.
Ruhtenberg, Fred B. Rothman & Co. (1994) pp 9-10
[NOTE: IN EITHER SITUATION, LAW IS MADE WHENEVER A COURT DECIDES A CASE..]
**************************************************************
There is the legislature. They "make" law.
The president can "make" law by executive orders.
Various agencies can "make" law and is usually called administrative law
Then each time a court makes a ruling it has "made" law.
====================================================================
LAW:. That which is laid down, ordained, or established. A rule or method
according to which phenomena or actions co-exist or follow each other. Law,
in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by
controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be
obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences
is a law. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of
the State. Calif.Civil Code, p 22.
The "law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law,
in rulings of its courts (i.e. case law). [NOTE, AS INTERPRETED BY ITS
COURTS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUE LAW, IN RULINGS OF ITS COURTS.- This
is where the original poster is getting into problems with his
understanding of law.]
The word may mean or embrace: body of principles, standards and rules
promulgated by government constitution or constitutional provision; statute
or enactment of legislative body; administrative agency rules and
regulations; judicial decisions, judgments or decrees; municipal
ordinances; or, long established local custom which has the force of law.
[NOTE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS- again the same problem area for the original
poster]
With reference to its origin, "law" is derived either from judicial
precedents, from legislation, or from custom. [NOTE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS-
same problem area for the original poster]
As to the different kinds of law, or law regarded in its different
aspects, see Absolute law; Adjective law; Administrative law; Bankruptcy
Code; Canon (Canon law); Case law; Civil law; Commercial law; Common law;
Conclusion of law; Conflict of laws; Constitutional law; Criminal law;
Custom and usage; Ecclesiastical law; Edict; Enabling statute; Equity;
Evidence, law of; Flag, law of; Foreign laws; General law; International
law; Local law; Maritime; Maritime law; Marque, law of; Martial law;
Mercantile law; Military law; Moral law; Municipal law; Natural law;
Ordinance; Organic law, Parliamentary law; Penal laws; Positive law;
Private law; Probate; Procedural law; Prospective law; Public law; Remedial
laws and statutes; Retrospective law; Revenue law or measure; Road (Law of
the road); Roman law; Special law; Statute; Substantive law; Unwritten law;
War; Written law.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition,
Centennial Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing, St paul Minn, (1991) pp
612)
=====================================================
The Nature of legal Authority
Legal authority is any published source of law setting forth legal rules,
legal doctrine, or legal reasoning that can be used as a basis for legal
decisions.
When the term is used to describe types of information, legal authority
can be categorized as PRIMARY or SECONDARY. Primary authorities are
authorized statements of the law by governmental institutions (it is the
law)
Secondary authorities are statements ABOUT the law, and is not the law,
per se.
SOURCE: Fundamentals of Legal Research, 5th Edition, J. Myron Jacobstein,
Roy M. Mersky, University Textbook Series.
(1) Type of Primary Authority

(2) When and Where Mandatory

(3)When and Where Persuasive

___________________________________________________________ _____________
(1) U.S. Constitution

(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and Local courts)

(3) N/A
____________________________________________________________

(1) U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting and applying federal law

(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)

(3)N/A
___________________________________________________________

(1) Federal statute*

(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)

(3)N/A
___________________________________________________________

(1) Federal administrative regulation**

(2) Always mandatory on all federal and state courts (and local courts)

(3) N/A
______________________________________________________________

(1) U.S. Court of Appeals decision Interpreting and applying federal law

(2) Always mandatory on federal courts within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Court of Appeals issuing the decision

(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory (would apply as well to
local courts)
________________________________________________________________

(1) U.S. District Court decision interpreting and applying federal
law

(2) Always mandatory on specialized lower federal courts, if any,
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District Court issuing
the decision and over which the District Court has appellate
jurisdiction

(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory (would apply to local
courts as well)
_________________________________________________________________

(1) State constitution***

(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)

(3) N/A
_________________________________________________________________

(1) Decision of a state's highest court interpreting and applying
that state's law***

(2) Always mandatory on all lower state courts within the given
state (and local courts)

(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts
that do not need to treat the decision as mandatory
___________________________________________________________________

(1) Decision of a state's intermediate appellate court interpreting
and applying that state's law

(2)Always mandatory on all lower state courts within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the intermediate appellate court issuing the decision; (and
local courts)
in some states, may also be mandatory on lower state courts outside
those jurisdictional boundaries (and local courts)

(3) May be regarded as persuasive by federal and state courts that
do not need to treat the decision as mandatory

____________________________________________________________________
(1) State statute#

(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)

(3) N/A
_____________________________________________________________________

(1) State administrative regulation##

(2) Always mandatory on all state courts within the given state (and local
courts)

(3) N/A

_____________________________________________________________________

The additional comments in the following footnotes bear only on the
validity of the authority, not on its mandatory or persuasive character:

* Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution

** Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution or a federal
statute

***Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, or federal administrative law

# Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, federal administrative law, or that state's constitution

## Assuming there is no conflict with the U.S. Constitution, a federal
statute, federal administrative law, that state's constitution, Or
any of that state's statutes

Source:
SOURCE: THE LEGAL RESEARCH MANUAL, A Game Plan For Legal Research and
Analysis, By
Christopher G. Wren & Jill Robinson Wren, Pages 42-43
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Legislature makes Statutory Law
Various Agencies make Administrative Law
The Judiciary makes Common Law (judge made law)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 08:43:05 AM

(StNeel) wrote:

:|>From:

:|
:|English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
:|
:|>

Who cares.
You haven't proven your point so standing on your statement is irrelevant.
The reference to the age of the Law Dictionary is really reaching.
I am willing to bet that I could go to Barnes & Noble when they open today,
pull off the latest edition of Black's Law Dictionary from the shelf of the
law/legal section and read essentially the exact same definition as was in
the 1991 edition.

:|Further research
:|will show that the courts and lawyers of today have 'drifted' from the central
:|concepts of our legal system.

So you say. BTW, What I do is legal and historical research. So, I am not
in the dark on the topic and skills of research.

:|Many books are published today which are flat
:|wrong.

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already shown in previous posts, including the one you are carefully
avoid dealing with in this reply you don't know what you are talking about.

:|This is one of the main causes for many wrong ideas held by folks today.
:|Let me point out some areas for you (and others) to perhaps think about.
:|

Your previous post shows you aren't qualified to point anything out to
anyone on this topic.

:|First, using commonsense, can a judge 'make' a law. Of couse not.

Using reality and facts:
English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
Judge-made law. A Phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe
away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature
never intended. Its perhaps more commonly used as meaning, simply, the law
established by judicial precedent and decisions. Laws having their source
in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or
administrative regulations.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
********************************************
SOURCES OF LAW
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pkd0gvcec6sdo90stbp7u1o25ie07hpvka%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
The Hierarchy of Laws
Four basic kinds of laws exist: constitutions, statutes or
ordinances, administrative regulations, and judge-made law. [NOTE, JUDGE
MADE LAW] These sources form a hierarchy with constitutions at the top and
judge-made laws at the bottom. Constitutions include the United States
Constitution as well as state constitutions. Within a jurisdiction, the
constitution is the highest authority; statutes, regulations, and common
law must not conflict with the constitution.
Judicial decisions often interpret or apply constitutions,
statutes, or regulations. At other times, when such law is not applicable,
they interpret or apply a body of judge-made law known as the common law.
In either situation, law is made whenever a court decides a case. Once a
constitutional provision, statute, or regulation has been construed by a
court, that construction of the statute becomes law.
SOURCE: A Practical Guide to legal Writing & Legal Method, Second edition.
John C. Dernbach, Richard V. Singleton II, Cathleen S. Wharton, Joan M.
Ruhtenberg, Fred B. Rothman & Co. (1994) pp 9-10
[NOTE: IN EITHER SITUATION, LAW IS MADE WHENEVER A COURT DECIDES A CASE..]
**************************************************************
There is the legislature. They "make" law.
The president can "make" law by executive orders.
Various agencies can "make" law and is usually called administrative law
Then each time a court makes a ruling it has "made" law.
====================================================================
The "law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional
enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law,
in rulings of its courts (i.e. case law). [NOTE, AS INTERPRETED BY ITS
COURTS, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF STATUE LAW, IN RULINGS OF ITS COURTS.- This
is where the original poster is getting into problems with his
understanding of law.]
The word may mean or embrace: body of principles, standards and rules
promulgated by government constitution or constitutional provision; statute
or enactment of legislative body; administrative agency rules and
regulations; judicial decisions, judgments or decrees; municipal
ordinances; or, long established local custom which has the force of law.
[NOTE, JUDICIAL DECISIONS- again the same problem area for the original
poster]
With reference to its origin, "law" is derived either from judicial
precedents, from legislation, or from custom. [NOTE, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS-
same problem area for the original poster]
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Black's Law Dictionary, abridged Sixth Edition,
Centennial Edition (1891-1991) West Publishing, St paul Minn, (1991) pp
612)
=====================================================

:|Now common law has been around for 1000 years or so (yes English common law
:|before 1776 still applies in US courts today - a case IIRC in 1980s was won
:|using the Magna Charta etc). It is based on the jury system using prior
:|similiar court decisions as a 'guidleline' - but *not* mandatory as each case
:|has its own circumstances.

The American legal system is a direct descendant of the British Common Law
system.
Some background:
=====================================================
The largest, most important family is the so-called civil-law family.
Members of this family owe a common debt to a modernized version of Roman
law. The ancient Romans were great lawmakers. Their tradition never
completely died out in Europe, even after the barbarians overran what was
left of the Roman Empire. In the Middle Ages, Roman law, in its classic
form, was rediscovered and revived; even today, codes of law in Europe
reflect "the influence of Roman law and its medieval revival."1� Western
Europe-France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and the Low Countries,
among others-is definitely civil-law country. Through Spain and Portugal,
the civil law traveled to Latin America. The French brought it to their
colonies in Africa. In Canada, the civil law is dominant in the
French-speaking province of Quebec. It strongly colors the legal systems of
two unlikely outposts, Scotland and Louisiana. It plays a major role, too,
in countries like Japan and Turkey, which stand completely outside the
historical tradition but borrowed chunks of European civil law in recent
times, in hopes of getting modern in a hurry.
Civil-law systems are, generally speaking, "codified" systems: the basic
law is set out in codes. These are statutes, or rather superstatutes,
enacted by the national parliament, which arrange whole fields of law in an
orderly, logical, and comprehensive way. Historically, the most important
of the codes was the civil code of France, the so-called Napoleonic Code,
which appeared in 1804. It has had a tremendous influence on the form and
substance of most later codes. Another influential civil code was
Germany's, which dates from the late nineteenth century.
During the Renaissance, European legal scholarship was dazzled by the power
and beauty of the rediscovered Roman law, and it profoundly influenced the
style and content of legal change in country after country. There was one
holdout, however-one nation that managed to resist the "reception" of Roman
law. [NOTE FOLLOWING] The English were not seduced by the majesty of Rome;
they held fast to their native traditions. Many ideas and terms from Roman
and European law did, to be sure, creep into English law, but the core of
the legal system held firm. This tenacious local system was the so-called
common law. It differed and continues to differ in many ways from the legal
order in other European countries. For one thing, the common law resisted
codification. There never was an English equivalent of the Napoleonic Code.
The basic principles of law were not found primarily in acts of Parliament,
and least of all in careful, systematic statements of law adopted by
legislatures or imposed by decree. THE PRINCIPLES WERE FOUND IN
CASE LAW-IN THE BODY OF OPINIONS WRITTEN BY JUDGES,
AND DEVELOPED BY JUDGES IN THE COURSE OF DECIDING
PARTICULAR CASES. THE DOCTRINE OF "PRECEDENT"-THE
MAXIM THAT A JUDGE IS BOUND IN SOME WAY BY WHAT
HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED-IS STRICKLY A COMMON-LAW
DOCTRINE.
SOURCE: American Law, An Introduction, Second Edition, M. Friedman. W.W.
Norton & Company N.Y. (1998) pp 30-31)
===================================================
English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made law."
Judge-made law. A Phrase used to indicate judicial decisions which construe
away the meaning of statutes, or find meanings in them the legislature
never intended.Its perhaps more commonly used as meaning, simply, the law
established by judicial precedent and decisions. Laws having their source
in judicial decisions as opposed to laws having their source in statutes or
administrative regulations.
SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial Edition,
(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
====================================================================

:|With a jury decision, the judge then applies the 'sentence' again based on
:|precedents and common usage (or statue law if available). But one of the false
:|things stated now- by almost all judges in their instructions to a jury- is
:|that 'the Judge determines the law and the jury determines the facts'. This is
:|false, both historically and legally (although many will disagree). It is part
:|of the usurption of the judges over the people - can we call the judges "King's
:|men' in the old sense that we fought against long ago? Just use common sense
:|now. It is a legal fact - hidden from the 'peasants' that a jury can determine
:|the 'Facts and the Law" of the case before them.
:|
:|Now take your remark that 'all cases are not heard by a jury'. Quite true. I
:|could go into a long discussion of jurisdiction

LOL, don't bother, I see nothing yet from you to indicate you have any
particular expertise in this topic, in fact, just the opposite.

:|With these remarks in mind - rethink what common law is. It is *not* judge made
:|law but the laws/decisions of the common folks through a jury and prior
:|consensus of the people- just as its ancient name states.

False, see above.

:|Now - your 1991 source is wrong - simple as that,

Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|and part of a degeneration of
:|the great law structure we have. It is accomplished by wordsmithing, denying
:|clear words simply written and, lately, an increase in flat lies by the legal
:|'bureaucrates' to work 'their' will on that system. Just fix in your thoughts
:|on - judges cannot make law.

(StNeel) wrote:

:|>From: "Roger"

SECTION B. LAW DICTIONARIES
Law dictionaries are useful for identifying the definitions of words in
their legal sense or use. For each word or phrase a short definition is
given. Most legal dictionaries also provide a citation to a court decision
or other reference tracing the source of the word or phrase. In Chapter 6,
Section J, the set entitled Words and Phrases was discussed. This set
includes digests from court decisions in which a word or phrase has been
interpreted. Words and Phrases may also be used as a dictionary; but as it
is limited to those words which were involved in litigation, it is not a
true dictionary. Moreover, most dictionaries are much more compact and are
published in one or two volumes. Listed below are some of the more commonly
used American and English law dictionaries.
1. American Law Dictionaries
a. Ballentine's Law Dictionary, with Pronunciations, 3d ed., Lawyers
Co-operative Publishing Company, 1969, 1429 p.
b. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed., West Publishing Company, 1979, 1511 p.
Includes: Guide to Pronunciation of Latin Phrases and a Table of
Abbreviations.
c. Bouvier's Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia (3rd revision), 8th
ed., West Publishing Company, 1914, 3 volumes. This edition is now out of
date in some respects. It is a particularly scholarly work, however, and
many of its definitions are encyclopedic in nature. It still is very useful
for many historical terms.
d. B. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, Oxford University Press,
1987, 587 p. Including definitions, spelling rules, and grammar guidelines,
this volume is perhaps most valuable for its "authoritative guidance on
many matters of usage that are unique to legal writing."'
e. W. Gilmer, The Law Dictionary: Pronouncing Edition: A Dictionary of
Legal Words and Phrases with Latin and French Maxims of the Law Translated
and Explained, Gilmer's rev. 6th ed., Anderson Pub. Co., 1986, 426 p.
f. Oxford Law Dictionary, University of Texas & Oxford University Press,
work in progress. In 1989 the University of Texas School of Law and Oxford
University Press jointly undertook the creation of this historical law
dictionary patterned on the Oxford English Dictionary. Attempting to
assemble the entire legal vocabulary as it has been developed over the past
several centuries, and to apply modern principles of lexicography to legal
terms, the project will result late in this century in a multi-volume
reference work.
g. K. Redden & E. Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, Michie Co., 1980, 576 p.
***********************************************
In short, the worst American Legal Dictionary is better than you best
unsubstantiated personal opinion.

:|This is wrong. Precedents do not 'establish' the legal authority -

Ok, let's play words:
***********************************************
AUTHORITY: That which can bind or influence a court. Case law, legislation,
constitutions, administrative regulations, and writings about the law are
all legal authority. See. PRIMARY AUTHORITY; SECONDARY AUTHORITY;
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY; MANDATORY AUTHORITY
PRIMARY AUTHORITY: statutes, constitutions, administrative regulations
issued pursuant to enabling legislation, and case law. Primary authority
may be either mandatory or persuasive. All other legal writings are
secondary authority and are never binding on courts.
SECONDARY AUTHORITY: See Primary Authority
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY: That law or reasoning which a given court may but is
not bound to follow. For example, decisions from one jurisdiction may be
persuasive authority in courts of another jurisdiction.
MANDATORY AUTHORITY: Authority which a given court is bound to follow.
Mandatory authority is found in constitutional provisions, legislation,
court decisions.
PRECEDENCE: See Stare Decisis
STARE DECISIS: The doctrine of English and American law that states that
when a court has formulated a principle of law as applicable to a given set
of facts, it will follow that principle and apply it in future cases where
the facts are substantially the same. It connotes the decision of present
cases on the basis of past precedence.
CASE LAW; the law of reported judicial opinions as distinguished from
statutes or administrative law.
SOURCE: Fundamentals of legal Research, Fifth Edition, J. Myron
Jacobstein, Roy M. Mersky, University Textbook Series, The Foundation Press
Inc. (1990) pp xxix-xxviii
***********************************************
Since a Court decisions/case law is authority, primary authority at that,
mandatory for all courts under the jurisdiction of the ruling court, if any
are under, and our system does operate under the legal concept of stare
decisis, you are incorrect

:|Precedents are only guidelines for any courts consideration and can be used or
:|rejected by a court in its opinion/ruling.

False, see above.

:|Precedents are not binding on any
:|court.

False, see above.
You aren't doing too good.

:|Been that way for a long long time (back to early common law- 1400s or
:|so).

False, see above.

:|This can be demonstrated easily enough. As a example the 'separate but equal'
:|schools were held valid for many years (1870s to 1950s or so). In the 1950s the
:|US Supreme Ct ignored the clear precedents of many years and many prior rulings
:|and decided against all precedents.

See stare decisis
Ever hear of distinguishing a case?
DISTINGUISH: To point out an essential difference ; to prove a case cited
as applicable or inapplicable.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition, (1991) p 328
Precedence works on the facts of a case being essentially the same.
A judge or judges/justices can and do distinguish, correctly or incorrectly
cases at times thus stating that the facts are not essentially the same and
thus can rule differently than established precedence.

:|By you logic (and your sources error) -

In short, the worst American Legal Dictionary is better than you best
unsubstantiated personal opinion.

:|they could not do that legally.

Oh, but then can.
See above.

:|But
:|they did and legal at that. Why - simply because precedents are not binding.
:|Not then and not now.

False, see above.

:|But I am not trying to change your mind - hold to your views if you wish.
:|However what my concern is the terrible ignorance of the law and how it works
:|held by common folks

As being demonstrated by you in these posts and replies of yours, huh?

:|and the potential lose of our great legal system through
:|that ignorance.

As being demonstrated by you in these posts and replies of yours, huh?

:|
:|The basics of law is not taught in high schools anymore

Oh, basics of law, or basics of Civics?
I have never heard of the basics of law as in legal type law being taught
in high schools. Civics yes, but civics weren't pre law or in depth law.
It sure didn't include things in this discussion.

:|and many 'popular'
:|sources available to folks have many errors in them. Legal authority comes from
:|statute law passed by elected officials or juries.

False as has been shown you in previous replies by me to you and see above
as well.

:|Your view lets judges usurp
:|the 'gov't of the people'.

False, his view is correct.

:|Do we as a nation want that? Suggest you research
:|this a bit deeper. Judges cannot make law - they can only make judgements
:|according to the law.

False. All three branches of government make law.
**************************************

:|I suggest reading older stuff than the popular 'law' books found in book stores
:|and even later major law books as the 'twisting' of law words has grown to
:|large proportions. Read the Constitution itself and determine your own
:|conclusions. There are good books out there for the history and understanding
:|of law. The Federalist Papers, of course, helps (but realize they were trying
:|to 'sell' a strong Federal gov't in those days so it has some bias). One book I
:|like is 'Judgements, Essays on American Constitutional History', by Prof
:|Leonard W. Levy, Quadrangle Books, Chicago 1972. Prof Levy wrote many books on
:|history of American law and seems balanced. His backgound includes Earl Warren
:|Prof of Amer. Constitutional History at Brandeis University so he is not a
:|'right wing nut' leveled so often now if someone points out the 'king has no
:|cloths' as in the old fable.

Here, just for you, a present:
While I do have some structured official legal training, and thus
am not just a layman in the area, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I don't
interpret the Constitution. I leave that to experts who are qualified.
What I do is not at all complicated, though many people seem to
have a hard time dealing with what I do. Based on the reactions to what I
do by many people. Most notably, those that I have provided evidence that
their claims were incorrect. In short, those that were a bit embarrassed.
What I do is summed up in the following:
If one were to read that which I provide (the URLs and my overall
posts/replies that I post) They would see that I not only stated facts, I
provided evidence backing up that which I have posted. I supply
information from experts in the field, usually from more than one source. I
frequently provide the entire document, which makes for long posts, but
also provides the complete context the information existed in originally.
When I provide quotes, I will properly and completely cite that quote,
using the standard rules of citation. Frequently, I will provide primary
source historical and or legal data. I do not merely provide my opinion.
In fact, seldom do I ever provide my opinion. My personal opinion is
irrelevant.
Have I educated? I would hope so. If one would have read the
information that I provided, examined it and explored further...maybe
looked up the works I cited from which if secondary source material is from
some of the best scholars, and respected qualified contemporary thinkers.
If one would have done that, they would have had the potential to have
learned some things.
I am prepared to respond with evidence, and facts, and will state
when something I provide is a personal belief and as already pointed out, I
rarely post my own beliefs so that would be rare.
I am not here to "debate", not here to argue, not here to give
legitimacy by even discussing false, flawed, misrepresenting or otherwise
bogus theories, personal opinions or personal beliefs. I will point out
and rebut with primary and secondary source data, facts, etc each of those
that I find. I will point out each and every improperly cited quote, each
bogus quote and to be quite honest, any improperly cited quote has to be
viewed as being bogus until someone provides a proper cite for it.
If attacked personally, I will give as good as I get. Those who
troll will be so labeled. Those who are more concerned with spreading
propaganda and or unsubstantiated claims and are not are not interested in
facts, truth, etc will be so identified. I am very big on the following:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I expect people to back up their claims and if their claims have any merit,
they should be able to back them up with evidence from others, properly
cited, of course.
Anyone can be incorrect about something, but once a person has
been shown with evidence that they were incorrect about something, and they
ignore that and continue saying the same things in another thread in
another newsgroup or continue in the same thread and same newsgroup, they
have lost any and all rights to respect and will be so identified for who
and what they are.
A person doesn't have to agree with the material, however, their
saying they don't agree with it, isn't good enough. They are going to have
to show, with their own evidence, point by point, that which I have
provided is "incorrect." After all, that is what I do with the claims they
have made.
I target my posts and replies to the REAL audience. The Real
audience is not the person I am replying to. In all probability, their mind
is already made up. The real audience are those who come into the various
newsgroups and read posts and replies found there, but seldom if ever post
or reply themselves.
The real audience that matters are those who came yesterday will
come today and will come tomorrow and thanks to web crawlers like those run
by Google many, many, many, tomorrows after that. Those are the people who
in time may actually make a difference.
The above is what I am about.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
**************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 01:54:22 PM

(StNeel) wrote:

:|>From:

:|
:|& StNeel
:|
:|
:|>>(buckeye):|>Judge-made law. A Phrase used to...
:|>>:|
:|>>:|>SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, Centennial
:|>Edition,
:|>>:|>(1891-1991) West Publishing Company, (1991) p. 585-86
:|
:|>>:|English Common Law revolved heavily around the concept of "Judge made
:|>law."
:|
:|And I stated

ANOTHER TROLL. your shift now is it?
Who cares what your unsubstantiated flawed opinions and declarations are.

:|that the phrase is wrong and the ref. is flat wrong.

And you are full of crap. Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

:|I aslo stated
:|that lately there is a disturbing trend to flat lie about the meaning and
:|operations of our law system (say in the PC erea of 1960 on). Through
:|'wordsmithing' many have created a atmosphere of confusion and ignorance of our
:|laws and the US Constitution.
:|
:|The above statements, both by buckeye and his 1991 reference are flat wrong. No
:|mention of juries (courts and lawyers hate them all too often), no mention of
:|legislatures, no mention of the appeal process etc.

I see you don't both reading my replies, otherwise you would know how full
of crap you are. You would also know that legislatures were mentioned
several times
BTW, Juries only exist at the trial level courts, basically district courts
on the state and federal level.
Even then, not all trials are jury trials. Juries do not exist on the
appeal level or the Supreme Court level. Thus only a small percentage of
court opinions involved a jury.

:|
:|It states that judges make laws - hogwash.

The hogwash comes from you. You haven't a clue.

:|If that is true then we have a
:|system where the people cannot influence our system of justice. It ignaores the
:|Constitution, system of checks and balances and the proper functions of gov't
:|in a free nation.
:|
:|SO - sigh - what do you say? - buckeye
:|
:|>Who cares.
:|
:|Well - I do. As one USA common man to another - your ignorance or disinterest
:|weakens the entire nation. Given enough of you - the nation which I and you
:|live in will enter a dark age of tyranny and dispair. Good men put their lives
:|on the line in late 1700s and gave us something worthwhile to hang onto. With
:|your remark - I suspect we are running out of good men.
:|
:|I suspect you were never taught much about the legal system in the USA.

LOL, your suspicions are incorrect.
Regardless of your diarrhea of the fingers, I have made my case.
You have said a lot of nothing, substantiated nothing.
Now run along.
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 11:08:07 AM

wrote:

stneel@aol.com (StNeel) wrote:

:|>From:

:|Further research
:|will show that the courts and lawyers of today have 'drifted' from the central
:|concepts of our legal system.

So you say. BTW, What I do is legal and historical research. So, I am not
in the dark on the topic and skills of research.

The context suggests that he is saying that only a Black's Legal
Dictionary written in 1787 and passed by Congress would meet his
standards of evidence, and that any modern definition of law is
irrelevant to "founder's intent".
lojbab
--
lojbab

Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 01:35:26 PM

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

:|The context suggests that he is saying that only a Black's Legal
:|Dictionary written in 1787 and passed by Congress would meet his
:|standards of evidence, and that any modern definition of law is
:|irrelevant to "founder's intent".

Black's legal Dictionary written in 1787?
1787? There was no such creature I would be willing to bet.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 08:50:52 PM

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:35:26 -0500,

wrote
(in message <s647lvgee0071luv0atkjd514nsseti7b8@4ax.com>):

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Black's legal Dictionary written in 1787?
1787? There was no such creature I would be willing to bet.

Oh, I'm sure there wasn't one, also.
But re-read Bob's statement placing emphasis on the "only" and you'll get
what he was saying.
Gray
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Moore is a liar	01 Sep 2003 01:56:24 PM

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

Black's legal Dictionary written in 1787?
1787? There was no such creature.
Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. I read yours originally before I
read his effort to save some face.
it must be his turn to troll awhile.
At least he is picking a slightly different topic than most have.
I actually enjoyed looking up some of that stuff I posted in reply to him
this morning.
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Searle alleges Darwin responsible for Social Darwinism; was: Moore is a liar
Liberalism Is A YANG'S Mental Disorder. ==> Even liberal leftist Chris Hitchens calls Michael Moore a PATHOLOGICAL liar!
Re: Moore is a liar
Re: Moore is a liar
Eusebius the Liar? NOT!
Re: Vacuous Pro-Liar Arguments
Re: Will jesus ever come back? -- NEVER. HE'S DEAD. BABY DUKIE, THE LIAR!
The Economist (That's Lefty Pinko Magazine Which Has Been Calling For Capitalism For the Past 150 Years) Calls Bush a Fucking Liar

Left WIng Liar Kerry Won't Reveal Names!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Colin Powell Calls Bush a Liar (re: Why Are NeoCons So Incompetent?)
Smearboat Liar John O'Neill "I Was at Cambodia"
Osama bin Laden may be the enemy but he is not a liar
Carol a liar Jabriol wont answer questions
Oops. Factcheck.org Calls AWOL A Liar. Again!
LIBERAL John Kerry Gunner: KERRY IS A LIAR!! LIAR!! LIAR!!

NEWER

pg.3585 pg.2749 pg.2106 pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER