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

Re: common law v. statutory law

Expand Messages
  • vivus_spartacus
    Non in legendo sed in intelligendo legis consistunt (i.e.: The laws depend not on being read, but on being understood) Re: The supreme court has stated,
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 14, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      Non in legendo sed in intelligendo legis consistunt

      (i.e.: The laws depend not on being read, but on being understood)

      Re: "The supreme court has stated, "[W]here the interaction of common law and statutory law is at issue, we acknowledge and respect the General Assembly's authority to modify or abrogate common law, but can only recognize such changes when they are clearly expressed."

      Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo.2004).

      Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed, so that if the legislature wishes to abrogate rights that would otherwise be available under the common law, it must manifest its intent either expressly or by clear implication

      Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Keelan, 840 P.2d 1070 (Colo.1992). However, under either circumstance, the abrogation must be more than an "imagined connection." Argus Real Estate, Inc. v. E-470 Pub. Highway Auth., 109 P.3d 604, 611 (Colo.2005). Copeland v. Lincoln, 166 P. 3d 245 - Colo: Court of Appeals, 6th Div. 2007"

      i.e. The above is pure unadulterated B.S. propagated by the Marxist back robed attorneys in order to indoctrinate and subordinate the naïve (ignorant of the LAW) Citizen/s of Colorado who simply cannot comprehend the leash that Colorado's Constitution puts on ALL Public Fiduciary / Public Servants therein, INCLUDING the Judiciary and/or "General Assembly"!

      IMMUTABLE FACTS of Supreme LAW within Colorado's Constitution (w/ EMPHASIS Mine) :

      Article II Section 1:

      "ALL political power is VESTED IN and DERIVED FROM the PEOPLE; ALL government, of right, originates FROM THE PEOPLE, (i.e. NOT merely from either the General Assembly OR the Judiciary) is founded upon THEIR WILL ONLY,…"

      Article II Section 2:

      "…The people of this state have the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of GOVERNING THEMSELVES,…" (i.e. "Common Law" )

      Article II Section 3:

      "ALL persons have INALIENABLE Rights (i.e. INCLUDING INALIENABLE RIGHT to Common Law protections / provisions), AMONG WHICH may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; AND of SEEKING and OBTAINING their SAFETY and HAPPINESS (i.e. even if such is by "Common Law", ergo UNTOUCHABLE by the "General Assembly" and /or the Judiciary)

      Need PROOF for ANY of the Above?

      Article II Section 28:

      "The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair or disparage others retained by the people." ( ie INCLUDING the Right to NOT having "Common Law" Rights interfered with, or otherwise "abrogated" by, the "General Assembly" whether or NOT such "intent" is either "manifested" "either expressly or by clear implication.")

      NOWHERE contained within the Supreme Law, of Colorado's Constitution is there ANY caveat; reservation; exception or exclusion which is therein expressed: `Unless such Right is merely by way of Common Law'

      In this Union of States Republic, the Citizen has the choice between Liberty by being Sovereign, or a mere Serf by way of dereliction of One's civic duty. I recommend that One wisely choose the former.

      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of
      civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
      Thomas Jefferson

      "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." James Madison

      We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
      Benjamin Franklin

      "Ignorance of fact excuses; Ignorance of the law excuses not. Every man must be
      taken to be cognizant of the law; otherwise there is no saying to what extent
      the excuse of ignorance may not be carried."
      Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition Centennial Edition (1891-1991)page 747

      Leviticus 19:36; Deuteronomy 25:15-16
      Proverbs 20:10;23
      I John 4:6

      Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your
      getting, Get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

      "vivus spartacus"
      All Rights Reserved

      It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a
      prey to the active. The condition upon which (G-d) hath given liberty
      to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude
      is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)

      If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

      This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

      Frederick Douglass, "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"

    • lg900df@rock.com
      The statement: Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed appears--in similar fashion--in nearly all state laws or constitution.
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment

        The statement: "Statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed" appears--in similar fashion--in nearly all state laws or constitution. That should give you a hint that all these states are 'of the same origin'. 

        If you ask a judge or lawyer about the common law, you will get back this statement...or similar..."Mr ABC, understand that the common law was shrink-wrapped within the statutory law."

        [Its true...that version of common law....]

        Let's step back in time and examine how this all works.

        Before 1776 it was well understood that the english common law was the heritage of an englishman. [That is an unwritten law] What other law existed was the King's law and the concept of equity. Post 1776 and really after the Treaty of Paris the King was removed and consequently his law was gone. So too gone was the ability to make law for another minus personal consent. So the english common law was the only law left. Thus picture this...what could those colonies that then became states...what ability did they have to make law for another? [Minus those who consent and those on territory of ownership.] After all...the elimination of the King wiped-off all their authority to make law...so gone was the colonial government and all that came later. [Now you know whey they embraced the constitution...eh?] So I now summarized the first law called the Declaration of Independence.

        But.... how did we get some aspect of a common law acknowledged within written law? Understand all these so called states trace back the ORIGIN of all their power to the 4 organic laws. So...to find out what these states are....start there.

        Look at the 3rd law, the Northwest Territory Ordinance. First examine the words of the ordinance: Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled..

        Now mind you, this was just AFTER the King gave up his right to that territory. Doesn't the word ORDAINED sound a lot like a KING? Yep....the United States of America owned that territory or in the words of Mel Brooks, "Its good to be the King." So quickly they made law for it. Here are some words for people to memorize: Proprietary power is nearly without limitation. The United States of America--the confederacy--owned that territory so they exercised a PROPRIETARY POWER over that territory and made law for it. Now what was this ordinance other than WRITTEN LAW?

        In that 3rd written law is mentioned ONE version of a common law but understand that the territory is under a proprietary power of the USA. "The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writs of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law."

        You can understand what they did. Notice that they are defining and ordaining ...are they not? The people post 1776 NOT on the proprietary territory enjoyed a lot of freedom. [No one ordained for them...] Those on the territory didn't....but so as not to awaken them too much, the USA offered them what I call "the cheesey substitute." They granted them enough stuff so as not to awaken them. [Sound familiar to the Bill of Rights?]

        If you read the 3rd law carefully, you will find STATES formed within WHILE STILL UNDER a proprietary power. All the States you see today of a WRITTEN LAW fashion derive from this 3rd law. Now you know why they are all similar eh?

        So I will summarize: (1) The Northwest Ordinance is WRITTEN LAW. Its a law for people that never existed in the 2 prior organic laws because there was no authority to make law because NO territory of a proprietary nature to the USA existed prior to the 3rd law. (2) Does not this WRITTEN 3rd LAW mention a common law? (3) So isn't this a SHRINK WRAP....just as the judge mentioned? In other words some version of an UNWRITTEN law within a WRITTEN law. (4) If a proprietary power is near limitless, then can't government define in its written law what is and isn't so? Does that not include some version of common law? [the cheesey substitute...] And state constitutions are simply written law subservient to all the organic laws.

        So what do you have with ALL those court decisions that were mentioned about the common law? Aren't those courts government courts? Aren't those courts assumed operating over a territory? And where would they have POWER if everything is derived from a proprietary power over a territory of ownership?

        At the time of the Northwest Ordinance it was HOPED no one "on the territory" would understand-well the Declaration of Independence. They could have declared their independence at any time. They might have had to fight....but the 1st law would have been on their side. That exists to this day.



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.