Thinking cap time again...

[TxBrandy]

Either that or just say "Brandy, aint you got better things to do?"

Common Law vs Legislated or Statuatory Law. I'm so freaking confused by this mumbo jumbo crap that I've been reading.

"
COMMON LAW IS THE LAW OF THE LAND
Webster's defines Common Law as "the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana." Common law developed out of customs that were found to work in practice. It is based on common sense and reason. Much of English Common Law is rooted in the Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215. The Magna Carta limited the powers of the King (government), and guaranteed the liberties of the people.
"It [The U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456.
"Law of the Land" means "The Common Law." Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill. 140, 146 (1843) - Justice Bronson; and State v. Simon, 2 Spears 761, 767 (1884) - Justice O'Neal.
The U.S. adopted the Common Laws of England with the Constitution. Coldwell v. Hill, 176 S.E. 383 (1934).
In contrast, legislated or statutory law - like the laws of Congress - are written mostly by attorneys to further their own self-interest or to favor special-interest groups with big bucks - exactly as Thomas Jefferson predicted in 1821."

I also read somewhere, which of course I can't find at the moment, that in order for a case to be tried under common law there has to be damage done to another person. So called victimless crimes cannot be tried under this Common Law.

Hell I don't know. My son found this site: http://coppermoonshinestills.com/id53.html

which sounds to me like a bunch of hooey

"
Since the Federal Corporation is just that, a corporation. It has no jurisdiction except with those that contract with it. Also see Congressional act of 1871 and USC Title 28, Part VI, chapter 176, sub chapter 176, subsection A, 3002 (15) “United States” means—(A) a Federal corporation;
The states illegally contracted with the federal corporation by passing the Uniform Commercial Code making themselves as well as the unsuspecting people subject to the Federal corporation and also to the states in their new commercial capacities. Therefore all of the laws (color of law) are contractual commercial laws and the remedy is UCC 1-308. The Uniform Commercial Code makes all crimes commercial only by contract as per 27 CFR 72.11."

and

"
27 CFR 72.11 PART 72_DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PERSONAL PROPERTY--Table of Contents
Subpart B_Definitions Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

Last note: The 14th amendment actually creates a lower class of “citizen of the United States” rather than the higher Citizenship of one of the several states of the union. The remedy provided to the 14th amendment, is an act by congress known as 15 United States Statute at Large, July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect and also known as the "Expatriation Statute." This is your remedy to claim to be a natural Citizen of your state. This makes you a higher Citizen and no longer subject to the Article 4 loophole that also deprives you of your rights. "

So I don't have a question per se, but would like to hear thoughts and opinions on the above.

[Chevalier]

You're right, it's a bunch of hooey. Or to put it another way: crackpot theories, based on willful misreading of the law, taking statements out of context, jumping to totally off-the-wall unfounded conclusions, etc., etc. And in some respects, I imagine, out and out lying.

These theories are often motivated by the realization that they can find a lot of dupes willing to pay money for the seminars teaching them "how to beat the system." The ideas they peddle are so attractive -- get out of any traffic ticket! don't have to pay taxes! -- and so many people don't have the necessary knowledge but want to believe, that the theories often attract a lot of followers.

The ideas that:

• The only types of law are common law, contract law, and admiralty law (not even remotely so)
• The UCC = contract law (the UCC governs some commercial transactions, not all)
• Criminal violations must fall under the UCC, since they're not common law or admiralty law
• State criminal law must be enacted under jurisdiction granted by the US Constitution (we're a federal system; state and federal law are entirely separate, under separate authority)
• The federal government is a "Federal corporation" (no, it's not; but there are some federal corporations, which benefit from the same rights as the federal government with respect to procedural issues in lawsuits they bring against defendants in federal court to collect debts)
• Various corporations that organized with names similar to the US or various agencies are in fact the US or those agencies ("Internal Revenue Tax and Audit Service" the corporation is not "Internal Revenue Service" the federal agency; ditto "Central Intelligence Authority Inc." and "Central Intelligence Agency"; would you like to bet whether you could file incorporation papers next week for a corporation with the name "Postal Office and Delivery Service, Inc."?)

are particularly amusing.

If anyone wants to believe all of this, well, have at it. But it's wrong. If you act on these theories as recommended, you may find find yourself in deep trouble. Fines, penalties, even (in extreme cases) prison. That's what irritates me the most; that these crazies convince others to follow their advice, and then it's the followers and not (just) the crazies who wind up in trouble.

(Even if these crackpot theories were right -- which they're not -- no courts have accepted or will accept those theories. If someone wants to sit in prison and console himself with the thought that the entire federal government is an oppressive sham holding him illegally, go right on thinking that. But he'll still be in prison.)

P.S. Found this at the bottom of one of the sites:
Provided for entertainment purposes only. Not served as legal advice,
if you need some seek out competent legal counsel.

[yardape]

Look at the name. Somebody's been hitting the hooch, hard.

Brandy, most of what you've been reading requires context - real cases with real facts - to apply it. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution deliberately established a Congress to represent the people (House) and the States (Senate), and vested all "legislative" power in the Congress. Most States' constitutions read very similarly re their legislatures, though some States allow the residents to "legislate" via popular referendum or, in Texas' case, by amending the constitution hundreds of times. Louisiana has its own Napoleonic civil code plus general statutes and the common law. In the federal courts and most State courts today there's no longer such a thing as a "common law crime." If there were we'd all be exposed to prosecution for something, he he. Ironically, most States do still recognize "common law" marriage - holding out as such, use of same last name, etc. - but the necessary elements and time periods are spelled out in statutes.

[TxBrandy]

Just as I figured. My son was thinking "ooo I can get diplomatic immunity and get away with stuff". I'm like "child please..." if this was the case the whole country would be trying this crap.

The more of those freaky sites I looked at though, the more convincing they made it sound ... especially with all the legaleeze language

Thanks for answering Chev!

[TxBrandy]

Hey not my fault the hooch warps my brain into thinking in a roundabout way!

Unless it's tequila... that just makes me mean

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by TxBrandy

the more convincing they made it sound ... especially with all the legaleeze language

One of many drawbacks of legal complexity -- we make it too difficult for the average layman to really understand, so they may be susceptible to those who cloak nonsense in legal jargon.

I am reminded of the scene in Legally Blonde where Elle confronts Paulette's ex to demand the dog.

Elle: Do you understand what subject matter jurisdiction is?

Dewey: No.

Elle: I didn't think so. Well, due to habeas corpus you and Miss Bonifante had a common law marriage which heretofore entitles her to what is legally referred to as equitable division of the assets.

Dewey: Come again?

Elle: Due to the fact that you've retained this residence Miss Bonifante is entitled to full canine property ownership and will be enforcing said ownership right now. Tell him, Paulette.

Paulette: I'm taking the dog, dumbass!

I much prefer Paulette's version. I also like the quote from Elle's father: "Law school is for people who are boring and ugly and serious."

There are reasons why law has evolved into such complicated forms, and many things cannot be expressed simply/clearly and still achieve the desired goals of the legislation. But creating such a huge separation between the law and the average citizen is a deplorable (even if not entirely avoidable) consequence.

[ShysterJon]

I think this thread is a complete waste of bandwith. There are many other web sites where a person can get general information about legal topics. Can we keep our discussions here regarding HOBBY-RELATED legal topics? When someone posts a HOBBY-RELATED legal question, and it's within an area of my expertise, I'll always make an effort to provide an answer.

[TxBrandy]

Originally Posted by TxBrandy

Subpart B_Definitions Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring, pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

It did have something to do with it my love, the information I was reading in regards to common law makes something a crime if another person is harmed (like physically). If what I was reading was not a bunch of hooey then prostitution would not be a crime.