The People's Awareness Coalition Forum
NOTICE: As of 2012 this forum is no longer active
• Visit our new
Open Forum
, please
click here
Page LogOn Time : • Greetings, concerned American. Note most topics reserved for members only. We welcome you to
Register
.
Home
Events
Search
Help
Login
Register
Not My Government | Forum
› Send an alert to Board Moderator about this post
Posting Entry
Send an alert to Board Moderator about this post
(
Please specify issue in your submission
)
Subject:
Name:
Email:
Verification Code is:
Below, type exactly what
text appears in the image.
Case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview:
Live Preview
Live Preview
Message:
You must enable JavaScript to get full functionality for this forum!
For expanded HTML Formatting, Click Here.
Verdana
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-
Arial
Verdana
MS Sans Serif
Times New Roman
Lucida Sans
Tahoma
Georgia
Courier
11
----
10
11
12
14
[quote author=0F02140E020D630 link=1316442316/0#0 date=1316442316][color=#330066][size=14][b]The Problem with Case Law[/b] [/size][/color] Keeping abreast of the deception of the "Law Industry" and the courts receiving [i]Pension and Bounty[/i] ([i]i.e.[/i], hush money)* in maintaining that the United States is a nation internally under the 14th Amendment, the following is observed... It has been said that there is no such thing as [i]Federal Common Law[/i]. Let us take a brief look at this subject... To start, take a quick look at what the common thought is on the subject of [i]Federal Common Law[/i]: [list]In 1938, the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the Erie Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", the key word being "general." [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_common_law]source...[/url] [size=10][ NOTE: Diverstity jurisdiction has to do with two different states' laws/rulings ][/size] [/list]As the common law maxim states, [i]"A deceiver deals in generals."[/i] Simply, 'nough said about the courts.* Further, Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3rd edition), citing American Jurisprudence (15 Am J2d Com. L. Sec. 4), stated: [list][b]Federal Common Law.[/b] A concept intriguing to legal theorists. Strictly speaking, a nonentity.[/list]Of course that was from the late nineteen sixties period. That authority has seemingly been covered-up as of late. Being there are many facets of "Common Law", the facet in issue here is having a settled decision on a certain matter that may be applied to everyone in all cases that surround such matter. In example, stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. All well and good in most cases, but the common law principle in regard to precedent is a factor that applies to men and women, not legal entities (as corporations are considered). There must be a separation. As the 14th Amendment treats people as legal entities, some instances may warrant a different status on a man thus causing stare decisis to be disregarded. Wherefore one could say : [list][b][i]Applying federal "case law" on someone who may have a whole certain set of facts that encompass his matter is like making him wear someone else's underwear... Probably won't fit and may even be dirty.[/i][/b][/list]Saying it another way, case law is case law because someone had probably made a mistake. The mistakes from other cases may not apply to someone else's matter. It violates due process of law to apply such case law to another. Further your study... The "law industry" thinks the United States is a nation (internally), thus thinking that the federal government is a national government. Ergo, their thinking is skewed. Keeping that in mind, more here : [url=http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v100/n2/585/LR100n2Tidmarsh-Murray.pdf] A Theory of Federal Common Law[/url] [hr] [b]* Notes[/b][list]See, [url=http://www.redamendment.net/home]The Red Amendment[/url] for information on the hush money issue. In general, the courts receive funds to NOT tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in their decisions. Coining the popular phrase/idiom of the American Indians, [i]"White man speak with forked tongue."[/i] In other words, the courts are talking out both sides of their mouths in order to cover-up the [url=http://www.pacinlaw.us/dual]Dual System of Law[/url] caused by the 14th Amendment.[/list][/quote]
Max 12000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size:
px
Collapse/Expand additional features, Click Here.
Disable Smilies:
Check this if you'll be adding code (or don't like smilies).
Enable auto-copy Message:
Check this if you want the message auto-copied to your clipboard before Post or Preview.
Forum Jump »
Home
» 25 most recent Posts
» 15 most recent Topics
Visitor Information
- Welcome to the Not My Government Forum
- The Not My Government Polls
- Hello NMG Visitors
PAC Alliance Program
- Welcome to The PAC Alliance Program
- Help the Coalition Heal Our Republics
- Suggestions for PAC Alliance Program
Our Members
PAC Groups Education
- PAC Educational Group
- Events for PAC Groups
State Nationals Society
- State Nationals Introduction
Island Makers Project
- Welcome to Island Makers Project
The Discussion Board
- Members General Discussion
Republic vs. Democracy
- Two Parties with One Face
- Nothing Happens by Accident ««
- The Conspiracy Corner
Insurgency Agents
- Enemies of The Republic
- Wolves in Sheeps Clothing
- People Dividing the Movement
Top of Page
Not My Government | Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.4
.
YaBB
© 2000-2011. All Rights Reserved.
Site Born: November 2008
contact
Join PAC Talk
Conference Calls
I need to know more about PAC...
Community
Tour Page
Next Level
I would like to get started with PAC...
Start Now
Enrollment
Assist Us