Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell

At 11:19 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 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".

As for the "self-selected" issue:  In almost all areas of human endeavor, 
things are (often?  usually?) done by people who are "self-selected."  I 
suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts 
cannot work.

And for the "wacko" part:  To a great extent, the people who would tend to 
oppose the re-emergence of commonlaw courts are those who are the ones who 
most benefit from the monopoly (oligopoly?) on justice which has developed 
over many decades.  Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of course profit 
directly.  But psychologically, people wedded to a statist philosophy would 
have their precious worlds overturned.  They're not happy.  

Also:  The reason for an (apparent, implied) association with extremism is, 
simply, because the system has been  suppressed (actively or passively) for 
so long that it tends to be the "extremists" which most notice the 
possibilities of a commonlaw court.  This is quite analogous with the fact 
that the label "extremists" was almost certainly applied to the 
revolutionaries who proposed the American Revolution, the abolition of 
slavery, giving the vote to women, pushed civil rights in the US during the 
50's and 60's, etc.  By definition, people proposing a change in the status 
quo are "extremists," if they weren't they wouldn't be proposing a change, 
huh?!?

And this goes back to the "self-selected" issue above as well.  While the 
main work of commonlaw courts, today, is the reversal of the abuses of the 
equity court system, as the commonlaw courts become once again well accepted 
they will simply not need to stand out and look "extreme" as they may look 
to you, today.


> 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.

You're obviously confused.  

1.  Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years.  
The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility.  

2.  The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the 
FEDERAL portion of government. It is, arguably, only a statement of the 
powers granted to the Feds by the people; it is most certainly not intended 
to be a statement of every right retained by the people.  (In fact, the 9th 
and 10th amendments make it clear that non-enumerated rights exist.)  No 
authority over commonlaw courts (such as appointing judges)  was given to 
the Feds by the people.

3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it 
references state Constitutions at all.  Yet clearly state Constitutions 
exist.  Clearly, it isn't correct to say "if it isn't written down on paper 
then it does not exist."  For example, people are not "written down on 
paper," yet they exist...


> The structure of the courts, 

You should have said, SOME courts.  Not "the courts," implying ALL the 
courts.  Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my 
recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter 
local courts.  Just Federal, which is as was intended.   Given this, there 
is no reason to assume that commonlaw courts need to be described, 
authorized, or regulated by the Feds.  If your argument is, "if it isn't 
defined by the Federal Constitution it doesn't exist," then you'd just 
destroyed your own argument.  


>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.


This has absolutely nothing to do with the commonlaw court system.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

>As for the "self-selected" issue:  In almost all areas of human endeavor, 
>things are (often?  usually?) done by people who are "self-selected."  I 
>suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts 
>cannot work.

Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it
was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had 
bothere to read the court roster you would have attended.

You are allowed to put your case in person at the sentencing hearings
if you like but since its a mandatory sentence you would probably
prefer an appeal.


	Phill

>1.  Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years.  
>The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility.  

Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions. Thats
what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts
were extinguished.

>2.  The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the 
>FEDERAL portion of government.

It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The
due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected 
to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution.

>3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it 
>references state Constitutions at all.

There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process
of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative,
excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states
was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish
their rights. The authority of the states to make law is explicitly 
stated. It is also implicit in the use of the term "state" rather than 
"county".

>You should have said, SOME courts.  Not "the courts," implying ALL the 
>courts.  Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my 
>recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter 
>local courts.

It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find 
a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you
might have a point.


As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue
proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to 
be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences.

While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people
recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter. It is 
an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts
go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In
fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other 
instigators.


It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts 
is not recognised by society. They can be dealt with easily enough,
the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction
prohibiting proceedings, turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction
and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for 
enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the 
"common law court" would then be in contempt. 


	Phill