Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Maxims of Law

Expand Messages
  • richardfuselier
    Bouvier s - Eighth Edition - Rawle s third revision: Maxim - An established principle or proposition. A principal of law universally admitted as being just
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Bouvier's - Eighth Edition - Rawle's third revision:

      "Maxim - An established principle or proposition. A principal of law
      universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason."

      These are principals of law taught to law students, judges and others
      who use the law all the time. It controls their "belief" system since
      it is part of their law school training. When litigation violates one
      of these principals - the litigator will find himself without any relief
      to obtain the remedy. Found in Bouviers in one section. (See Maxims).

      Maxim: "That ought not to have been alleged which, if proved, would not
      be revelant."

      Maxim: "The law does not regard small matters." (irrevelant

      In other words the court will not hear irrevelant argument - such a
      violation of due process claim without a good underlying tax claim as to
      why you should not pay that tax in the first place. Next Example:

      Maxim: "False in one thing false in everything."

      Maxim: "No one ought to be made rich out of another's loss" (unjust
      enrichment doctine)

      Maxim: "No one ought to gain by another's loss." (restatement of unjust
      enrichment doctrine).

      When you make a statement that is not true for any reason...you next
      statement is taken to be false also - such as saying you do not owe a
      debt because somebody can't produce the exact documentation, or the
      money is not real, etc.

      It is very easy to make a legal claim that seems to tie the court up in
      knots - but this is not the intent of litigation. These maxims allow
      the courts of equity to dispose of proceedings that violate these
      principals. The maxims should be included in any study of law. Law
      schools teach these principals using various case laws and these rules.
      The civil statute's support these maxims. Test your litigation against
      these principals by studying the maxims. Example: I have set in law
      courses in Tulane Law School where these principals were discussed in
      relation to a legal argument. However, I have attended classrooms with patriot litigators who ignore these principals and refuse to use them by discussing them (most say they are irrevelant). I heard this
      (irrevelant) statement by a exlawyer who was teaching that a mortgage
      was not good because real money was not used (only legal debt - or paper money) Last Example:

      Maxim: "What is not read is not believed."

      or ...if I haven't studied it...it must be irrevelant. I left the
      classroom. Decided I could do better on my own or in real law school.
      Wasted a lot of money on that class.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.