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