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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] common-law

Expand Messages
  • jm367@bellsouth.net
    Nuts. and not nuts. The nuts part is this. Every judgment in law is the conclusion of a syllogism, such as He who rides down corn doth trespass. John hath rode
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Nuts. and not nuts.
      The nuts part is this. 
      Every judgment in law is the conclusion of a syllogism, such as
      He who rides down corn doth trespass.
      John hath rode down my corn.
      Therefore, John hath done to me a trespass and the judgment of law ought to be for me .
       
      The action and the form of words of the pleading for the action in common-law together constituted a syllogism. The form (words) of the pleading contained the law implied for which the ultimate facts pleaded sought judgment.  The law implied existed from precedent cases decided.  People knew what the law was from the precedents and the pleadings by form of words obtained the precedent of the law.  At the conclusion of trial, if the facts alleged were proved, the judgment of law followed the logic of the syllogism created by the form of words of the pleading.  In a real sense, the law gave the judgment. :
       
      The proof or lack of proof of the facts was the verdict of the jury; the conformance of proved facts to the form of words of the pleading is what gave the judgment truth and is what course, mode, and usage of due process of law of the land means, as from 1776 heretofore. [but not all that it means]
       
      One form of action pleading completely abandons the links between law precedent, form of pleading words connecting pleading to law precedent, and to proof of facts.  At best there is a pleading of statute and of facts within its intent.
       
      The not nuts part is the implied or preserved common-law rules of decision as set forth in michigan law review vol 47 no 3 by Blume in Theory of Pleading, a survey including the federal rules.  He identifies twenty common-law principles for rule of decision, but concludes
       
      "Except to the extent that parties are permitted to form new issues by evidence introduced at the trial, the above principles are as valid today as they were at common law.  Even where new issues are formed by evidence there is ordinarily an amendment of the pleadings to conform to the proof so as to preserve the common-law scheme.  [which is the "scheme" or course, mode, and usage meant by due process of law; my comment]  Where, as under the Federal Rules, an amendment is not required, the ancient system is completely abandoned.
      While this abandonment is possible, it can occur only when one party strays from the pleadings and the other party is willing to follow.  If the second party is not willing to follow, he can force the first party to stick to the issues made by the pleadings by objecting to any evidence outside those issues."
       
      But, if the judge lets evidence in over his objection and without amending the pleadings, then the course, mode, and usage of due process of law is completely abandoned,  the motions of the court become aimless and endless, and the certainty in law and truth in judgment are lost.   
       
      Nor do the rules of procedure aid the first party who would stick to the issues made by the pleadings.
      One form of action and the rules of procedure by it are too defective in law to give right and justice without denial or delay, which is our right from the charters of liberties. 
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:42 AM
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] common-law

      Yes they can.  The substance of all of the remedies are still available.  The form is just in a complaint and answer instead of a Petition, Return, Reply, rebutter, surrebutter, rejoinder, surrejoinder.

          And the judgment, remittur and all post trial procedures still follow the basic process of the common law.  And if the judge believes that the judgment should be modified, and the prevailing party does not accept the modification, then the only way it can be changed is according to the course of the common law, which is a new trial.

      g'day
      John Wilde

      jm367@... wrote:
      It is true that the common-law actions such as trespass, trover, replyvin, debt, etc. can be filed in the courts today.
      However, the courts today do not proceed according to the course, mode, and usage of the law in which the common-law actions were decided by the rule of decision from the charters of liberties and the confirmatio cartarum.
      So, the situation might fairly be compared to being given a goldfish and a bowl of oil in which to keep it.
    • John Wilde
      And when 80% of the lawsuits you file start getting answers instead of motions to dismiss come talk. You have no right to any rule at the common law. No
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        And when 80% of the lawsuits you file start getting answers instead of motions to dismiss come talk.  You have no right to any rule at the common law.  No statute or procedure can deny you a substantive right at the common law, but the legislature and the courts can change the procedure upon which you assert your remedy.

            It is clear that it is your own inadequacy that is denying you the ability to make you suit stick.  I don't have that inadequacy.  80% of the lawsuits I prepare do get answers.  Do yours?

            Then after that, my clients get a lot of embarrassing discovery on the poor gummint twit who dared to interfer in my clients lives.  Many of the suits last several years, but that doesn't matter, because that is going to be THE ONLY WAY this war is going to be won.  So overwhelm the bureaucracy that it collapses under its own weight.

            Most of you on this list I know lose your suits within a few months, maybe a year to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, because you don't know how to draft a complaint.  Anyone in this movement for more than 5 years that doesn't know how to draft a complaint or write their own motion from scratch, without using some guru's cut and paste fill in the blanks format is a sad case indeed.  Have a nice life.

        g'day
        John Wilde

        jm367@... wrote:
        Nuts. and not nuts.
        The nuts part is this. 
        Every judgment in law is the conclusion of a syllogism, such as
        He who rides down corn doth trespass.
        John hath rode down my corn.
        Therefore, John hath done to me a trespass and the judgment of law ought to be for me .

      • jm367@bellsouth.net
        The plain fact is I and every other American have the right to the rule of decision of American common law. That s a substantive right. I have Cooley for
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          The plain fact is I and every other American have the right to the rule of decision of American common law.
          That's a substantive right.
          I have Cooley for authority.
          But, if you don't know what it is, you won't know what you are not getting.  You will not be able to express the defects in the law which deprive you of right.
          I am glad you think you can overwhelm the bureaucacy and I hope you may, but when most of us are in a courtroom, we are the only ones there who are not getting paid to be there.
          Some want the law for a sword, some for a shield.
           
        • John Wilde
          I never denied that your right to a remedy can be deminished. No long can affect a substantive right. It is the process by which that right is exercised that
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I never denied that your right to a remedy can be deminished.  No long can affect a substantive right.  It is the process by which that right is exercised that can be modified by statute.

                For instance, you still have the absolute unfettered right to travel.  However, once you have surrendered that right, whether through ignorance or voluntary act, the process by which you return to that right can be controlled by statute.  And that is what the police powers and administrative law are all about.  Learn the substance of these two areas of the law and a whole new vista will be opened up to you.

                Oh and before you start railing against the cumbersome nature of the process, that is your fault.  You should have known better.  Fortunately for all of us, because of the nature of administrative law, the Courts have suggested that you get ONE opportunity to demonstrate that you were ignorant of the process.  However, once you have exercised the process, you can never again claim ignorance.

                As for being in the courtroom, I always make sure I am there on my terms, not the gummints, even if I have been named as a defendant through some administrative proceeding by some highwayman.  There are many ways to turn that action into another action that makes you the Plaintiff which puts you in control.

            g'day
            John Wilde

            jm367@... wrote:
            The plain fact is I and every other American have the right to the rule of decision of American common law.
            That's a substantive right.
            I have Cooley for authority.
            But, if you don't know what it is, you won't know what you are not getting.  You will not be able to express the defects in the law which deprive you of right.
            I am glad you think you can overwhelm the bureaucacy and I hope you may, but when most of us are in a courtroom, we are the only ones there who are not getting paid to be there.
            Some want the law for a sword, some for a shield.
             
          • jm367@bellsouth.net
            Look in BLD 4th under remedy. 1. By act of the party injured: the principal ones of which are defence, recaption, distress, entry, abatement, and seizue 2.
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Look in BLD 4th under remedy.
              1. By act of the party injured: the principal ones of which are defence, recaption, distress, entry, abatement, and seizue
              2. operation of law as retainer and remitter
              3. agreement i.e. accord and satisfaction or arbitration
              .4. judicial remedy, i.e. action or suit
               
              You are soooo off the wall about rights and travel, I decline to waste time.
               
              What I have right to by concessions of the sovereign confirmed is right and justice without denial or delay.
              If all judicial remedy as modified by statute is giving is justice, that is half of what is owed.
              And if judicial remedy as modified by statute is subtracting justice by defects in the rules, that is less than half of what is owed.
              And if judicial remedy as modified by statute gives justice only on appeal which could, under the ancient former rules of our forefather's due process of law, have been given in the trial court that is delay.
              And right delayed is right denied is a maxim of law.
            • brokenwrench
              all courts are civil courts for fictions only . you can hold your own common law court if you know how John Wilde wrote:Yes they can. The
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment

                all courts are civil courts for fictions only . you can hold your own common law court if you know how
                John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
                Yes they can.  The substance of all of the remedies are still available.  The form is just in a complaint and answer instead of a Petition, Return, Reply, rebutter, surrebutter, rejoinder, surrejoinder.

                    And the judgment, remittur and all post trial procedures still follow the basic process of the common law.  And if the judge believes that the judgment should be modified, and the prevailing party does not accept the modification, then the only way it can be changed is according to the course of the common law, which is a new trial.

                g'day
                John Wilde

                jm367@... wrote:
                It is true that the common-law actions such as trespass, trover, replyvin, debt, etc. can be filed in the courts today.
                However, the courts today do not proceed according to the course, mode, and usage of the law in which the common-law actions were decided by the rule of decision from the charters of liberties and the confirmatio cartarum.
                So, the situation might fairly be compared to being given a goldfish and a bowl of oil in which to keep it.
              • John Wilde
                Nah, You just need to know how to draft your pleadings so that the Court can hear a common law remedy. Been doing it for years. g day John Wilde
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 4, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nah,

                      You just need to know how to draft your pleadings so that the Court can hear a common law remedy.  Been doing it for years.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  brokenwrench wrote:

                  all courts are civil courts for fictions only . you can hold your own common law court if you know how
                  John Wilde <jpwilde@...> wrote:
                  Yes they can.  The substance of all of the remedies are still available.  The form is just in a complaint and answer instead of a Petition, Return, Reply, rebutter, surrebutter, rejoinder, surrejoinder.

                      And the judgment, remittur and all post trial procedures still follow the basic process of the common law.  And if the judge believes that the judgment should be modified, and the prevailing party does not accept the modification, then the only way it can be changed is according to the course of the common law, which is a new trial.

                  g'day
                  John Wilde

                  jm367@... wrote:
                  It is true that the common-law actions such as trespass, trover, replyvin, debt, etc. can be filed in the courts today.
                  However, the courts today do not proceed according to the course, mode, and usage of the law in which the common-law actions were decided by the rule of decision from the charters of liberties and the confirmatio cartarum.
                  So, the situation might fairly be compared to being given a goldfish and a bowl of oil in which to keep it.
                • Cyril Grosse
                  What are the characteristics of a pleading that cause a court to hear a common law remedy?
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 5, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What are the characteristics of a pleading that cause a court to hear a
                    common law remedy?
                  • jm367@bellsouth.net
                    Asking only for the relief which the action can give and stating the ultimate facts which the law requires for the action. A book on common law pleading will
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 6, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Asking only for the relief which the action can give and stating the ultimate facts which the law requires for the action.  A book on common law pleading will explain further.
                      Otherwise, your complaint will be heard in equity.
                       
                    • John Wilde
                      The characteristics are the elements for the particular cause of action. I explained replevin the other day. Each type of remedy has its own specific
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The characteristics are the elements for the particular cause of
                        action. I explained replevin the other day. Each type of remedy has
                        its own specific elements. Remedies as I mentioned before are replevin,
                        detinue, trevor, trespass, trespass on the case, assault, battery, false
                        imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, malicious prosecution,
                        alienation of affections, debt, assumpsit, covenant, surrender (although
                        on this one there are some elements of equity and law) just to name a
                        few. These are the primary remedies. Most of the other remedies are in
                        one way or another a subset of these remedies.

                        Just by looking each of these in a dictionary, the definition in and
                        of themselves tells you each of the elements. I also recommend you get
                        two books from the law library. Koffler on common law pleading. He
                        shows how to plead a common law remedy using todays modern practice.
                        Shipman on the common law (there is also one on equity) is also a good
                        book. It describes the old form of pleading at common law, but it is a
                        little more detailed on explaining the elements for each type of claim.

                        The facts of your case will then tell you which remedy you use. As
                        I said earlier replevin is done for property taken without authority,
                        where demand has been made for its return and there has been a failure
                        to return the property after return.

                        On the other hand detinue, the property was taken under some legal
                        authority, but that authority no longer exists, demand has been made and
                        there has been a failure to return the property after demand.

                        g'day
                        John Wilde

                        Cyril Grosse wrote:

                        >What are the characteristics of a pleading that cause a court to hear a
                        >common law remedy?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • wilhelm7.geo
                        Don t cite or attempt to invoke any statutory law. Get a good old book on common law pleading. I suggest contacting Randy Lee at 818-347-7080 for reprints at
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 7, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Don't cite or attempt to invoke any statutory law. Get a good old
                          book on common law pleading. I suggest contacting Randy Lee at
                          818-347-7080 for reprints at a reasonable cost.


                          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Cyril Grosse" <cyril@s...> wrote:
                          >
                          > What are the characteristics of a pleading that cause a court to hear a
                          > common law remedy?
                        • Occupant Family
                          Greetings, What does Randy Lee have available? So you wanna do Common Law Pleadings? Try West Publishing for availability of Koffler & Reppy s book Common Law
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 7, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Greetings,

                            What does Randy Lee have available?

                            So you wanna do Common Law Pleadings?
                            Try West Publishing for availability of Koffler & Reppy's book
                            Common Law Pleadings!
                            When I bought mine it was around $28 if I remember correctly!

                            Deo volente,
                            Jim

                            When someone who is honestly mistaken hears the truth,
                            They will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest!
                            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                            On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:58:46 -0000 "wilhelm7.geo"
                            <wilhelm7@...> writes:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Don't cite or attempt to invoke any statutory law. Get a good old
                            > book on common law pleading. I suggest contacting Randy Lee at
                            > 818-347-7080 for reprints at a reasonable cost.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Cyril Grosse" <cyril@s...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > What are the characteristics of a pleading that cause a court to
                            > hear a common law remedy?
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.