| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Caleb |
Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 21:56:37
This thread was spawned by a debate scattered over several other threads and is an attempt to narrow things down to the central issue.
The threads in question include:
Birth CERTIFICATES for Fictional Slaves
Are You a PERSON? and
Are IRS Deficiencies Causing Denied Passports?
Some relevant quotes from Steven, aka BatKol will be responded to.
Steven wrote, "YHWH truly appoints all rulers, and they are, according to 1 Samuel, a reflection of the current state of the people."
I titled this thread as I did because on this point we fully agree.
However this does not tell the whole story of the situation we find ourselves in. Steven, you have evil rulers over you who hold you in BONDAGE and you claim they are rightfully in that position. Therefore by your own confession, this reflects the condition of your heart.
By saying I am on my way out of Babylon, I am saying the following:
1) At one time I was fully in. I.e those corrupt rulers reflected the state of my own heart as well.
2) I no longer claim them as rulers, for God has changed my heart.
3) Those rulers still claim me, and until such time as I can successfully rebut those claims - and have it stick - I will not claim to be fully out.
4) As of the last time I had an encounter with the POLICE and COURTS, I could not rebut their claims. So I had to learn why and accept that they were right - that time.
5) That experience was used of God to bring me to a new level of comprehension, to the point that at the next encounter they should not be able to touch me. However, until that day comes (in the Father's timing, not mine) I will not claim to have broken the chains of Babylon.
Steven, you specialize in creating lists of:
1) What qualifies as full escape from Babylon
2) What qualifies as the end to BONDAGE
3) What qualifies as the kingdom of God.
I submit that until you are seeking the kingdom with your whole heart, all such lists are meaningless. You set yourself up as the judge of who is making it and who is not. Thus, even if I can travel freely in a unregistered car without a DRIVER's LICENSE, you might dismiss this because I am not "standing on the land." But what if I already live in a 160,000 FRN house that cost me half of that to buy? Why would I want free land that will cost me twice as much to build the same house on? (This actually is our present situation in New Zealand.)
Now this does not mean that I dismiss your criticisms of others whose walk does not appear to measure up to their talk. It is fine to note that others' witness is not necessarily as strong as they like to think it is. But having spoken this to them, move on. Accept the responsibility of being The One whose witness measures up. Besides you are using a very small sample for determining that escaping Babylon does not work.
Also don't be so sure that every last thing that you think is wrong, really is. You think that the kingdom involves severing every last connection to the world's system. Others teach that, and I thought it too at first. But the longer you seek the kingdom, the more clear it becomes to you what it is you are actually seeking. God has had to rearrange my priorities on numerous occasions, by showing me that something I thought was crucial was actually trivial.
Steven wrote, "Paul had a dual citizenship and, he claims, 'upheld the Torah'." When I talk about the present government structure we are under, I am not talking about dual-citizenship. In my own case I no longer claim allegiance to what you think of as "the government". But isn't this rebellion, or anarchy? The short anser is: absolutely not. I submit that you do not understand the nature of the system we are under today.
The modern Civil (Roman) law is based entirely upon consent. They are constantly asking you to sign forms because they need your consent. Even when they drag you into COURT for no DRIVER's LICENSE, the JUDGE must get your consent to punish you. People are confused about just how they go about getting your approval, so they cannot imagine that they are the one who gave the JUDGE the rope with which he hanged them. You volunteered in, so you can volunteer out. Simple as that. There is lots of advice about what is involved in unvolunteering, and much of it does not work. Thus your claim that, "the alleged cure is no better than the punishment!"
This misses the central point. If you are IN the present evil system, it is because you have agreed to it. If you do not see it as evil, that reflects your own heart. If you think you can obey evil rulers and still obey Torah, that also reflects the state of your heart. If you can agree that there is enough wrong with the system that you would refer to it as BONDAGE, then why would you voluntarily remain within it? Just because others have not entirely escaped, or the path they have chosen does not appear correct does not give you any excuse to voluntarily submit to evil.
The foundation of all government in the former British Empire is the Torah. No one can force you to accept the optional add-on of Roman civil law, especially when implemented in a manner contradictory to Torah. Beyond "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal," etc. no one can tell you anything regarding how to live your life. Now you can volunteer into any association for your common good, and that group can write any rules it pleases to govern its members. This is a fundamental right under the British common law. The people masquerading as "the government" are just such a group. They are a purely voluntary association (several in fact), but to keep their charade going, they do their best to convince you that it is not voluntary.
A related thought is to do a search on the word "government" in your KJV. Now from all the verses that come up tell me, which government is it that scripture commands us to obey? Hint: you will not find a single verse speaking of a government different from the one at the end of all my posts. Scripture knows no other government! Even the church's beloved Romans 13 does not specify who the "higher powers" are. It never says we must pay taxes. Perhaps you've been listening to too many 501(c)3 preachers, and their modern Talmudic translations. Paul never says to obey the Roman authorities. Period.
Steven wrote, "what is Paul doing telling these people to obey this corrupt ROME of which Romans 13 speaks of? The Rome of Paul's time, is much worse than the one we have now, IMO." Well I just answered that. But I especially find it curious how many authorities we have on what life was like under the Romans. Many 501(c)3 preachers told me just how bad it was. They also told me that the Romans crucified JEEEZUS. Read the accounts yourself. Pilate upheld the law until the bitter end. He tried time and again to free an innocent man. Then finally, he washed his hands of the matter and told the Pharisees to do with him as they thought best. He never sanctioned Messiah's death.
How about Acts 25:16? "we Romans are not in the habit of handing over any who are accused of a crime before they have met their accusers face to face and have had a chance of defending the accusation." Sounds like a lawful system to me. The same preachers who put it down are the ones who proclaim how wonderful it is to be able to worship in a "free" country. Yeah, "free" just so long as they keep their opinions to themselves. As the Amish are now finding out, religious convictions don't count for a hill of beans once they slightly inconvenience the corporation.
Babylon of Daniel's day is a similar case, though as an eye-witness to the horrors you may want to claim otherwise  . Daniel 16:12-15 shows us that the King could not even change his own law when he wanted to. How does that compute with your so-called government that can and does change its statutes daily? Now if Babylon was so evil, and Daniel was obeying the Torah while there, how come they had to write a new law to trap him? Or is it possible that Babylon of Daniel's day and Rome of Paul's day had a situation very much like the British common law where the government had very little say-so in your life? So those observing the Torah were free to do so, so long as they did no harm to another or their property.
Now "juris-diction" is from Latin, the language of Rome, and it has always and only meant "oath - spoken". So the Roman civil law has only ever applied to those under oath. Today, when you sign your DRIVER's LICENSE or your tax form, you swear that oath and come under their voluntary jurisdiction. Guess what? From the moment you sign, it is no longer voluntary. Can't you see the huge gulf that separates "obeying the higher powers" when they carry out their lawful duties, such as punishing evildoers (Torah breakers) as Romans 13 states so clearly, and voluntaring by oath (contrary to Torah) into a private jurisdiction whose rules REQUIRE you to violate God's Law?
Something like a DRIVER's LICENSE is not merely a contract that a few lines can be changed on to make palatable. By signing it you become a beneficiary and lose all common law rights. You agree not to just what is on the paper in front of you but to all Acts of the legislature that regulate DRIVERS, including any future changes. This ain't a simple private contract like electricity, and you violate Torah several times over the moment you sign it. To see how accepting a benefit (DRIVING) puts you in a far worse position that signing a contract read the article linked here:
http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V12N1-Trusts.pdf
Now what could be more just than a system that lets you choose your BONDAGE? If you are an evildoer, needing close monitoring by Big Brother, he is right there eager to help and control you. But if you already observe Torah, and need no additional instructions, you can choose another voluntary association to link up with, or none at all. In the present system, people get to choose the system of government that is best for them. It is sad testimony to the state of society that most gladly choose the present captivity. But then, the ancient Israelites longed to returnt to Egypt as well, so what has changed?
Finally, based on my own experience, the biggest mistake you are making is by focusing on the destination, rather than the journey itself. What are we doing here on the earth anyway? Is life not a series of choices that demonstrate whether we will follow Yahweh or not? If the choice to follow Him is easy, then what do we prove? Rather, "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22
All men of faith in scripture paid the price of obedience. Those who sit around awaiting the final results can only hope that, like Lot, they will be snatched out of the fire at the last minute.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| 20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BatKol |
Posted - 09 May 2004 : 08:01:35
Thanks Caleb,
I will continue to study the information and look forward to reading the other items you will be sharing soon. There might be a place that both our ideas meet in the middle and both be valid. Mine being that until we get Moshiach and a Deut 17 Israelite World Order we have what we have, and you saying what we have now is the common Law IF one knows how to access it. David Merrill has some thoughts on this as do others.
I am enjoying this. Thanks for having the discussion with me.
Hope this post finds you and yours doing well.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 08 May 2004 : 18:29:02
Greetings,
the Law is already written on our heart's. Psalm 40:8.
The problem is how to access this "holy of Holies" Law.
The physical body is the outer court. The inner court is the soul. The "holy of Holies" is the Spirit [man].
And the veil was rent.
Or, as some say, the circumcision of the heart.
We have not been this Way...before.
Jurisdiction is... law speak.
Whose [l]Law do we speak? |
| Caleb |
Posted - 05 May 2004 : 21:25:47
Steven,
This is good stuff. Very helpful. The reality is that the common law has never been done away with or superceded by statutes, and all our liberties come from common law. So the challenge is simply how to access that today. Once you know it is there, and act accordingly, this has great power even in a statutory COURT.
The military conquest of the Civil War affected the corporate/statute government, but not the common law/Lawful Government or America. This is the key. Our common law liberties have never been changed, as they cannot be changed. But right now we are still struggling to prove to the statutory COURTS that we are not creatures of statute. And we are also left to wonder what became of our Courts of (common) Law that will protect the perfect law of liberty.
I have some answers to the above which I will share later, and we are learning more as we struggle to free ourselves from the clutches of the beast. Twice in two months now I have stood in COURT and watched a JUDGE fail to gain jurisdiction over the living soul standing in front of him. In both cases another hearing was scheduled to try and achieve what that one had failed to do. So it was a half-victory, not a full one. The newspaper said I was "remanded on bail", but the JUDGE did not invite me to the next hearing by summons or bail or any other way. He could schedule another hearing but could not invite the living soul in front of him to it.
You would be amazed at how polite and well-behaved JUDGES are in these circumstances. Of course, we were behaving diplomatically, so he was simply responding in kind.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| BatKol |
Posted - 05 May 2004 : 19:14:51
Greetings,
So much for short posts. This was too good not to drop in!
When researching the origins of the Common Law I ran into an excellent piece from http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Roman%20law . This nice bit on Roman Law shows that the Common Law was originally derived from a written code called the Twelve Tablets (449 BC).
Check this out:
Roman law is the legal system of the Roman republic.
The Roman Republic traditionally lasted as a representative government of Rome and its territories from 509 BC until the establishment of the Roman Empire, typically placed at 44 BC or 27 BC.
Roman law is also the legal system of the Roman Empire .
The Roman Empire is the term conventionally used to describe the Roman state in the centuries following its reorganization under the leadership of Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (Caesar Augustus). Although Rome possessed a collection of tribute-states for centuries before the autocracy of Augustus, the pre-Augustan state is conventionally described as the Roman Republic.
Roman law is the foundation of many legal systems of the world.
Roman law has its beginnings in the code known as the Twelve Tables. The Law of the Twelve Tables (Lex Duodecim Tabularum, more informally simply Duodecim Tabulae) were the ancient legislation that stood at the foundation of Roman law. The Law of the Twelve Tables formed the centrepiece of the constitution of the Roman Republic and the core of the mos maiorum. The Twelve Tables must be carefully distinguished from the unrelated, much older "twelve shields" of King Numa Pompilius.
From there, Roman law became highly advanced for its time, developing, over the centuries, many of the legal institutions that are taken for granted today.
The Common law was originally based on Roman law, before it developed into a tradition of its own in England from where it expanded to the United Kingdom apart from Scotland , to the United States apart from Louisiana
By contrast, so-called Civil law systems are more directly based on Roman law; the legal systems of most countries in continental Europe and South America fall into this category, frequently through the Napoleonic Code . These are sometimes called Latin systems (or "operating jure latino").
Roman law also developed the concepts of one law for the citizens and another law for foreigners – the beginnings of private international law
The Emperor Justinian arranged for the re-organisation of most of Roman law in his Codex and his Pandectae, a fifty book set which took three years to compile and was completed in 533 . It was intended as an overview of Roman law for legal students and consisted of just four books. Justinian's work was completed by Pandectae (or Digesto), Institutiones and Codex are part of the Corpus Juris Civilis . This has been called the most influential law work ever written as it has been on the reading list for legal students in countries using Civil law for nearly 1500 years so far.
This is an attempted alphabetical List of Roman laws.
Roman laws
Lex Acilia de intercalando (191 BC ) adjustment of the calendar
Lex Acilia repetundarum (123 BC ) repetundae procedures
Lex Acilia Calpurnia (67 BC ) - permanent exclusion from office in cases of electoral corruption
Lex Aebutia de magistratibus extraordinariis (154 BC )- proposer of extra-ordinary magistracy cannot hold it
Lex Aebutia de formulis
Lex Aelia et Fufia (c. 150 BC )- two laws probably regulating auspices
Lex Aelia Sentia (4 AD) - manumission of slaves
Lex Aemilia - distribution of freedmen among tribes
Lex Antonia de Termessibus - alliance with Termessus
Leges Antoniae - measures of Marcus Antonius against dictatorship etc
Lex Appuleia - measures of Saturninus, 103 BC and 100 BC
Lex Aternia-Tarpeia (454 BC ) - maximum fines
Lex Atinia (149 BC ) – Tribunes of the plebs automatically promoted to the senate
Lex Aufeia - settlement of Asia c. 124 BC
Lex Aurelia de tribunicia potestate (75 BC )
Lex Aurelia iudiciaria (70 BC . )
Lex Baebia - number of praetors
Lex Calpurnia (149 BC ) – Establishes a permanent extortion court
Lex Canuleia (149 BC ) – Allows patricians and plebeians to intermarry
Lex Cassia (137 BC ) – Introduces secret votes in court jury decisions
Lex Claudia (218 BC ) – Prohibits senators from participating in overseas trade
Lex Domitia de sacerdotis (104 BC ) – Establishes election of pontifex maximus until then chosen by the college of priests
Lex Gabinia (139 BC ) – Introduces secret votes in election for magistrate offices
Lex Genucia (342 BC ) – No man can hold the same office before 10 years have elapsed from the first election
Lex Hieronica (240 BC) – Taxation of Sicily
Lex Hortensia (287 BC) – Plebiscites approved by the Assembly of the People gain the status of law
Lex Icilia (454 BC) – Gave land to plebeians
Lex Julia (90 BC) – Granted citizenship to Roman allies
Leges Juliae (18 BC) – Regarding marriage
Lex Julia de Repetundis (59 BC) – Regarding extortion in the provinces
Lex Junia Norbana (17 BC) – Regarding status of freedmen
Leges Liciniae Sextiae (367 BC) – Regarding the rights of the plebs
Lex Manilia (66 BC) – Pompey's actions against Mithridates
Lex Ogulnia (300 BC) – The priesthoods are open to plebeians
Lex Oppia (215 BC) – Limited female adornment
Lex Ovinia (318 BC) – Allowed ex-magistrates to become Senators
Lex Papia Poppaea (AD 9) – Regarding marriage
Lex Plautia Papiria (89 BC) – Granted citizenship to Roman allies
Lex Poetilia (313 BC) – Regarding debt-slavery
Lex Pompeia (89 BC) – Regarding citizenship rights in Gaul
Leges provinciae (146 BC) – a set of laws designed to regulate and organize the administration of Roman provinces
Lex Publilia (339 BC) – Restricted patrum auctoritas
Lex Rubria (122 BC) – Authorized a colony on the ruins of Carthage
Leges Semproniae agrariae (133 BC) – Set of laws issued by Tiberius Gracchus to redistribute land among the poor; repealed after his assassination
Lex Titia (43 BC) – Gives Octavianus, Marcus Antonius and Lepidus full powers to defeat the assassins of Julius Caesar; legalizes the second triumvirate
Lex Trebonia (55 BC) – Organization of the provinces
Lex Valeria Cornelia (AD 5) – Regarding voting in the Comitia Centuriata
Leges Valeria Horatiae (449 BC) – Regarding the rights of the plebs
Lex Villia annalis (180 BC) – Established minimum ages for the cursus honorum offices; determined an interval of two years between offices
Lex Voconia (169 BC) – Women no longer can be the main heir to a dead man estate, including cases were there are no male relative alive
General denominations
Lex agraria – A law regulating distribution of public lands
Lex annalis - qualifications for magistracies
Lex frumentaria – A law regulating price of grain
Lex sumptuaria – A law regulating the use of luxury items and public manifestations of wealth
Special laws
Senatus consultum – A Senate decree
Senatus consultum de re publica defenda (see note 1) – Literally Senate decree for the defence of the Republic. Issued by the senate in cases of extreme peril for the republic, usually to deal with internal political violence. The first decree was issued in 121 BC, due to riots provoked by Gaius Gracchus.
Twelve Tables – The first set of Roman laws published by the Decemviri in 451 BC, which would be the starting point of the elaborate Roman constitution. The twelve tables covered issues of civil, criminal and military law. Every Roman that went to school was supposed to know them by heart.
Notes
Note 1 – The word Republic derives from the Latin res publica (literally, public thing). The Romans often wrote the two words as one, respublica and inflected both words.
History of the common law
The common law originally developed under the auspices of the adversarial system in historical England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent.
The word tradition can refer to:
1. The art of memorizing and preserving a story from generation to generation without the need for a writing system. Tools to aid this process include rhyme and alliteration. The stories thus preserved are also referred to as tradition, or as part of an oral tradition
2. Procedures that are repeated in the same way, generation after generation, year after year. For example, it is now a tradition to have a Christmas tree to celebrate Christmas.
The word Custom can refer to:
A common practice among people, especially depending on country, culture, time and religion.
The difference between custom and culture is subtle, yet customs generally emphasizes practices while cultures rather focus on ideas.
The word Precedent can refer to:
The principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types. Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case. Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction.
The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. Casuistry is any attempt to determine the correct response to a moral problem, often a moral dilemma, by drawing conclusions based on parallels with agreed responses to pure cases, also called paradigms. Another common everyday meaning is "complex reasoning to justify moral laxity."
Casuistry is a branch of applied ethics. It is the standard form of reasoning applied in common law. Casuistry takes a relentlessly practical approach to morality. Rather than applying theories, it examines cases. By drawing parallels between paradigms, so called "pure cases," and the case at hand, a casuist tries to determine the correct response (not merely an evaluation) to a particular case.
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. An auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry), is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems.
Common law may be unwritten or written in statutes or codes.
The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. Today common law is generally thought of as applying only to civil disputes; originally it encompassed the criminal law before criminal codes were adopted in most common law jurisdictions . The term jurisdiction has more than one meaning. Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before it.
In most common law systems, jurisdiction is conceptually divided between jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case and jurisdiction over the person of the litigants. (See personal jurisdiction.) Sometimes a court may exercise jurisdiction over property located within the perimeter of its powers without regard to personal jurisdiction over the litigants; this is called jurisdiction in rem.
The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system. The adversarial system (or adversary system) of law is the system of law, generally adopted in common law countries, that relies on the skill of the different advocates representing their party's positions and not on some neutral party, usually the judge, trying to ascertain the truth of the case. The inquisitorial system that is usually found on the continent of Europe among civil law. This adversarial system is also a development of the common law.
English citizens were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a caldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity. If the defendant's wound healed within a prescribed period, he was set free as innocent; if not, execution usually followed.
In 1154 , Henry II became known from the 12th century as the Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliably criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.
Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously, with Thomas Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. Things were resolved eventually, at least for a time, in Henry's favor when a group of his henchmen murdered Becket. For its part, the Church soon canonized Becket as a saint.
As early as the 15th century, it became the practice that litigants who felt they had been cheated by the common-law system would petition the King in person. For example, they might argue that an award of damages (at common law) was not sufficient redress for a trespasser occupying their land, and instead request that the trespasser be evicted. From this developed the system of equity, administered by the Lord Chancellor, in the courts of chancery. By their nature, equity and law were frequently in conflict and litigation would frequently continue for years as one court countermanded the other, even though it was established by the 17th century that Equity should prevail. A famous example is the fictional case of Jarndyce v Jarndyce in Bleak House, by Charles Dickens.
In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most juridictions: In the federal courts there is no separation between law and equity; Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.
Common law legal systems
The common law constitutes the basis of the legal systems of: the United Kingdom (except Scotland),the Republic of Ireland, the United States (except Louisiana and Puerto Rico), Canada (except Quebec), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, and many other generally English-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries. Basically, every country which has been colonised at some time by Britain except those British colonies that were taken over from other Empires, such as Quebec (following French law to some extent) and South Africa (following Roman Dutch law to some extent) where the prior civil law system was retained to respect the civil rights of the local colonists. India's system of common law is also a mixture of English law and the local Hindu law.
The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, Quebec, Louisiana, the former Soviet bloc, and most of the rest of the world. Scotland is often said to use the civil law but in fact it has a unique system which combines elements of an uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis with a influence of common law after the unification with England in 1707.
The U.S. state of California has a system based on common law, but it has codified the law in the manner of the civil law jurisdictions. The reason for the enactment of the codes in California in the nineteenth century was to replace a pre-existing system based on Spanish civil law with a system based on common law, similar to that in most other states. California and a number of other Western states, however, have retained the concept of community property derived from civil law. The California courts have treated portions of the codes as an extension of the common-law tradition, subject to judicial development in the same manner as judge-made common law. (Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.)
New York State, which also has a civil law history from its Dutch colonial days, also began a codification of its laws in the 19th century. The only part of this codification process that was considered complete is known as the Field Code appling to civil procedure. The original colony of New Netherlands was settled by the Dutch and the law was also Dutch. When the British captured pre-existing colonies they continued to allow the local settlers to keep their civil law. However, the Dutch settlers revolted against the English and the colony was recaptured by the Dutch. When the English finally regained control of New Netherlands -- as a punishment unique in the history of the British Empire -- they forced the English common law upon all the colonists, including the Dutch. This was problematic as the patroon system of land holding, based on the feudal system and civil law, continued to operate in the colony until it was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century. The influence of Roman, Dutch law continued in the colony well into the late nineteenth century. The codification of a law of general obligations shows how remnants of the civil law tradition in New York continued on from the Dutch days.
Basic principles of common law
Statutes which reflect English common law are understood to always be interpreted in light of the common law tradition, and so may leave a number of things unsaid because they are already understood from the point of view of pre-existing case law and custom. This can readily seen in the area of criminal law, which while remaining largely governed by the common law in England, has been entirely codified in many US states. Codification is the process where a statute is passed with the intention of restating the common law position in a single document rather than creating new offences, so the common law remains relevant to their interpretation. This is why even today American law schools teach the common law of crime as practiced in England in 1750, since the colonies (and subsequently the states) deviated from the common law as practiced in England only after that date.
By contrast to the statutory codifications of common law, some laws are purely statutory, and may create a new cause of action beyond the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the damages or compensation available are limited to those outlined in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly -- that is, limited to their precise terms -- because the courts generally recognize the legistature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (compare judicial activism).
Where a tort is grounded in common law, then all damages traditionally recognized historically for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement, and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death. An old saying (in US states with no or low wrongful death damages) was: "It is better to back up and over the person to ensure his death and limit your legal liability!"
Works on the common law
The definitive historical treatise on the common law is Commentaries on the Laws of England, written by Sir William Blackstone and first published in 1765 - 1769. Since 1979 a facsimile edition of that first edition has been available in four paper-bound volumes. Today it has been superseded in the English part of the United Kingdom by Halsbury's Laws of England that covers both common and stautory English law. The U.S. Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. also published a short volume called The Common Law which remains a classic in the field. In the United States, the Corpus Juris Secundum is a compendium of the common law and its variations throughout the various state jurisdictions
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 05 May 2004 : 07:28:21
Greetings Caleb,
Thanks for your post and welcome back. I'll meditate on this aspect of common law some more and try to factor in how military conquest might effect this situation.
What might have been throwing me off from the beginning is that Paul's status was within the Lex Romana, a written law which gave him certain privilidges which he exersized. Also Babylonian law during the 3rd Kingdom bondage time was also statute oriented as evidenced by the addition used to frame Daniel (as well as the addition after Daniel's salvation from the lion's den which decreed death for anyone speaking against YHWH).
Peace to you,
Steve
p.s. - I hope my shorter posts are more enjoyable to you  |
| Caleb |
Posted - 05 May 2004 : 03:01:13
Dear Steven,
Sorry I've been gone so long. Lots going on at present, so I still don't have the time to write all that is in my head to tell you. For now I'll give a simple answer to one of your two key questions above.
Steven asked:
"2) What is the written law (which is *based* on the Bible)that the Republic regards as "lawful" in the land know as America? "
I will leave the ball in your court to do a bit more study on exactly what common law is. Here are some clues from Bouvier's:
quote:
LAW, UNWRITTEN, or lex non scripta. All the laws which do not come under the definition of written law; it is composed, principally, of the law of nature, the law of nations, the common law, and customs.
LAW, WRITTEN, or lex scripta. This consists of the constitution of the United States the constitutions of the several states the acts of the different legislatures, as the acts of congress, and of the legislatures of the several states, and of treaties. See Statute.
LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts.
I hope this makes clear that common law, which is what is based on God's Law, is not written. Therefore your question shows why you are missing much of what I have been saying. Failing to understand how common law works, and from whence its authority is derived, leaves one no option but to look around for written laws to obey.
You will see in the above definitions a very sharp distinction between common law and statute law. Would you believe that one of them does not apply to you at all, unless you want it to? Under which category does the CONstitution fall?
I'll post more when I have a chance.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| BatKol |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 07:59:23
Robert-James said: For I, as Paul was, have become an example, for ye to follow.
Steve: LOL! Those of us who know the real Robert-James (the one who can't be 'seen' over the internet) are having a real good laugh at this line. Your family values remind me of Karl Marx. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 27 Apr 2004 : 01:01:37
I hear you Robert-James, In Him, The One:
I remember as a young child looking at the heavens and thinking to myself that North America was where liberty awaited. My fathers aquaintances constantly warned my father that I was in danger of being killed if I continued to stay there. Little did I know that those hypocrites also travel over sea and land to win converts and make as fit for hell as they are themselves. The nighmare is over, for His Light has pierced the very veil over my slumbering eyes.
His Kingdom Is Here, There, Everywhere. He Is The Alpha, The Omega, All. From the first to the last, all labouring for Him will not be forgotten, and their just rewards will He hand.
Manuel
|
| Robert-James |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 22:31:40
I always enyoy reading BatKol's posts, as he is my son-in-law, an exceedingly talented muscian, who wastes his time making FRN's. { my opinion}
He has brought up an exceedingly important thought....Exodus 34:28...jump to vs. 30.
Moses veiled the summation of the Law with a veil 'over his Face'.
Now, turn to second Corinthians 3rd ch. Read the whole chapter, and pause at vs. 13....and read through vs. 18. To complete the thought, read through the sixth chapter.
I can not add to this.
Now, I Am gonna go and pick out a song, an old Martin guitar, clear night, songs so bright, I will sing Thy Delight, come what may, come what may, come what may.
Moses unveiled the dead letter. Messiah Yahushuah, on the stake, rent the veil, in our hearts. So as We can enter into the veil, by the shed blood of Messiah Yahushuah, yes, a mere man, who paid the price, that We may enter in...into what?
Enter in, through the shed blood,and ye shall understand.
Self-Government...is The YaHuWeH's Government. It has been here, is here, and shall be here, through the ages.
Some men still look for that Government, well, in fact, most all men look for that Government. Until they find "that Government", within themselves, they look for other's {4th beast} to rule over them.
And it is for this reason...I cry daily, tears of sorrow, that "the children of Israel" are the blinded, that the faty tissues of their heart will be removed.
PEOPLE GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESEREVE.
I have traveled about for the last two years now, with Kingdom tags...as LICENSE plates. Never, have I been bothered.
And I thank YHWH and His Risen Son, for the Power, to Rise also. For in me, is nothing. But, that I may know the Power of His resurrection, I bear all.
I must surmise...I get the Government I deserve! For I Will bear that government, upon, my shoulder, and bear the punishment, and the Glory. Daily, I ask, in prayer, "Father, where are my brethern?" For I, as Paul was, have become an example, for ye to follow.
The first, and foremost freedom, a man may avail himself of, is, the free travel of his Body.
hello? any american's about and around? american@madison.main.nc.us.
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 21:13:49
Clarence said: The ten commandments were the foundation of a law covenant written for the nation of Israel. They were written in stone and given through Moses to a self willed people that did not have the righteousness of the LORD written in their heart and knew not the ways of the Creator. This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that covenant was the letter of the law and not faith.
His Righteousness is not found in a commandment made up of dead words whether it is written in stone or under a code of law.
Steve: Thanks for your thoughts Clarence. You are bringing in an interesting perspective at this juncture seeing as the thread has spent much energy focusing on the Law. This statement brings in another point of view: "This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that covenant was the letter of the law and not faith."
Clarence: It is not just a commandment but the relationship or standing with the authority and power behind the commandment that counts. Do we need a commandment against unrighteousness in order to come to know and love the ways and works of the King of Righteousness.
Steve: Some would argue that the commandments are the very definition of righteousness. From those people I seek to identify if Exodus 34:10 - 28 is still valid from their conceptual perspective.
Clarence: Most governments of would be gods have laws based on some form of the ten commandments. Doesn’t the State say thou shalt have no other gods before me. Will they allow idols or images of what they have designed to be set
up for the people to worship. Don’t they have their holy days. Don’t their law say don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and honor the fathers set over the people and so on.
Steve: Yep. Hybrids, some even qualify as Lawful in a secular Law dictionaries. But hybrids none-the-less.
Clarence: Did Yeshua send his disciples out with warnings against breaking the law or did He send them out to do a work and preach a kingdom at hand.
Steve: Both, I thought. This topic has moved forward with the concept that the Law is what Governs "the Kingdom". It is claimed that this Kingdom can be available if one, "makes no covenants with the inhabitants of the land" and other such commandments which define Kingdom behavior. If this concept be True, then I must know if Exodus 34:10 - 28 still stands as Covenant (Kingdom) Law.
What you are stating is a much different position and I will give it some thought. Thanks.
Peace,
Steve
|
| Surveyor |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 14:40:59
The ten commandments were the foundation of a law covenant written for the nation of Israel. They were written in stone and given through Moses to a self willed people that did not have the righteousness of the LORD written
in their heart and knew not the ways of the Creator. This covenant was a package deal. All the commandments under that covenant were nailed to the cross because the compelling force behind the commandments in that
covenant was the letter of the law and not faith.
His Righteousness is not found in a commandment made up of dead words whether it is written in stone or under a code of law. It is not just a commandment but the relationship or standing with the authority and power behind the
commandment that counts. Do we need a commandment against unrighteousness in order to come to know and love the ways and works of the King of Righteousness.
Most governments of would be gods have laws based on some form of the ten commandments. Doesn’t the State say thou shalt have no other gods before me. Will they allow idols or images of what they have designed to be set
up for the people to worship. Don’t they have their holy days. Don’t their law say don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, and honor the fathers set over the people and so on.
Did Yeshua send his disciples out with warnings against breaking the law or did He send them out to do a work and preach a kingdom at hand.
Clarence
|
| BatKol |
Posted - 24 Apr 2004 : 07:37:57
Greetings List,
It seems all of the many posts between us concerning "People get the Government they deserve" has boiled down to two simple questions:
For those who claim to have severed all CONTRACTS with the GOVT:
1)Are the commands of YHWH from Exodus 34:10 to Exodus 34:27 still binding on you today or were they part of the statutes that were "nailed to the cross"?
2) What is the written law (which is *based* on the Bible)that the Republic regards as "lawful" in the land know as America?
Two very simple questions that arise from the volumes of posts which surround this topic.
Thanks in advance to any willing or "learned" enough to directly answer these questions.
Peace,
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 20:37:19
The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah [Yahuwah], the true King of Israel.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Exodus 15:18 Yahuwah shall reign for ever and ever.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 14:40:30
Greetings brother Robert,
A simple "yes or no" would most certainly do but maybe I was not clear enough in wording the question for such an answer because you stated "If this is what you are asking, and we can just about guarantee that it is not".. Please let me re-phrase the question in a way that would suit a "yes or no" response from you while at the same time get me an answer that will cure my ignorance.
Are the commands of YHWH from Exodus 34:10 to Exodus 34:27 still binding today as they relate to your concept? yes or no.
I am not even asking you to explain why "yes or no" but just please, for my understanding help me out here.
Thank you as well for the time spent away from your family while studying with me. Believe it or not it means a great deal to us.
Peace,
Steve
|
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 12:13:28
My dearest brother Steven:
Peace be unto the house.
Dear brother, there is no simple yes or no with you. Watch and see...
COMMANDMENT, n. 2. By way of eminence, a precept of the decalogue, or moral law, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments. Exo 34.
If this is what you are asking, and we can just about guarantee that it is not, the answer is, Yes...Yahuwah's Moral Law, the Ten Commandments, stands for ever.
Dear brother, we cannot even agree on which direction is up, let alone what the Book of the Scripture means, thus we shall let someone more learned than ourselves debate you.
Give our love to all. Thank you for the family time you have given us.
P.S. Have you noticed that virtually everyone has quit posting?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 08:06:45
Greetings brother Robert and family,
I do not take this in any way that you do not love me or mine. Just as I hope and pray you all don't take any of this as a sign that we don't love you and yours. You might think this is fruitless but we have really covered so much ground that the answer to this one question would bring closure to this topic and give me a clearer understanding of your statement concerning what laws have been done away with.
If you could just answer one question to sum all of this up. You don't have to take any more time, just answer "yes or no" to this one crucial question. Two seconds is all that is needed....I, too, have put in many hours answering in detail your every question. Please just one more from you:
Exodus 34:11 - Attend thou to ALL that I command thee...
Is Exodus 34:13, which was written in stone on the two tablets Moses brought to YHWH, still valid as it would relate to your concept?
Peace,
Steve |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 07:02:30
No, brother Steven, we are done. This is taking up all of our time and we can see that it is fruitless. Please do not infrer from this that we don't love you and yours, but it is done.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 06:50:45
Greetings brother Robert:
You said:
Steve from a past post: "To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes."
Then you just sold your Lincoln, "whatever it is", for 500 babel-bux...and don't you dare call the POLICE, because you say it is lawful to change a contract at the business end of a gun. Then your moto should be "Might Makes Right". And Romans thirteen should be interpreted that we are to honor and obey whoever has the biggest gun!
Steve: You are mixing apples with oranges. I should have given more detail to your original question. Allow me to do so here so I can be clearer on my position.
The taking of a Lincoln which was the private property of one man by another man is not the same as an army coming in and taking over a country against a defending army. Here is what you are not digesting and here is the root of the problem between us. What is the same is that the means used was force. That is what I was agreeing upon. But, to go deeper, one was a private matter against which the ruling POLICE would have authority. However, in the instance of a country being taken over this is a military conquest wherein a war was fought between two armies. One was the winner and one was the looser. Now back to your hypothetical question. The very POLICE I would have to call on in the private matter would have already been installed BY the military victors. There was no war fought between two countries in this private matter, there was no lives taken in your private scenario with the Linclon. Romans 13 has nothing to do with private matters as it relates to the hypothetical scenario.
brother Robert: My dear boy, you just defined "perfectly" a defacto government, which by "their" own admonition is illegal or illegitimate!
Steve: Again you are using the wrong model for this situation for the same reasons I posted above.
brother Robert:
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 287:
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other well armed thug!!
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other well armed thug!!
Steve: So then when the Yankees defeated Britian and the Republic was formed thereafter, that new Republic would be a defacto government in your eyes? Maybe defacto is the wrong word here concerning a military conquest. Is it considered a "legal" victory when a war is won? Was that Republic a "defacto goverment" since it was installed by military conquest? Please give us the details.
brother Robert: Does the word "overturning" have a familiar ring to it? ...as in "upside down" perhaps. LOL
Would it be unlawful to follow an illegal government that is using "force against the will of the rightful legal government"?
Steve: OK. Look at it this way. When Israel invaded the land of Canaan and achieved military victory, were they a defacto goverment or a lawful government? Please explain in detail the how's and why's
of your answer.
brother Robert: Would this be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
Steve: You tell me. When the Republic was set up after the defeat of Britian, would following the Republic be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
brother Robert: Telling people that they should obey an illegal government, when you just admitted that you know full well that it is...would this be similar to calling evil, good?
You crack me up!!!
Steve: You might not be laughing so hard once you ponder the scenarios I just put to you above. I can't wait to see your answers 
But I do notice that you ignored these important questions from the last post. Please answer them as they are key in relation to the statements you made earlier 
What about the commands written on stone in Exodus 34? Just to be clear, what would you say has been done away with exactly? just the ceremonial parts? This is important that we identify exactly what has been 'nailed to the cross'. Please elaborate on this more. If it is just the ceremonial parts, as Webster says, then we still have much more then the ten commandments. Example: Exodus 34:13. Still valid?
Thank you in advance to your answers to these questions. |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 23:31:50
Greetings Steven:
Steve: "To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes."
Then you just sold your Lincoln, "whatever it is", for 500 babel-bux and don't you dare call the POLICE, because you say it is lawful to change a contract at the business end of a gun.
Steve from a previous post: "Steve: The reality is that the Lincoln is gone and force was used."
That was a deceitful answer. The "reality" is, you have recourse, you have the lawful right to seek redress!!
But if you truly believe what you have just said, your moto should be "Might Makes Right". And Romans thirteen should be interpreted that we are to honor and obey whoever has the biggest gun!
My dear boy, you just "perfectly" defined a defacto government, which by "their" own admission is illegal or illegitimate!
Black's Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 287:
De facto. In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate.
It must be "accepted for all practical purposes" until you can gain the upper hand, just like any other situation with an armed thug!!
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof.
Does the word "overturning" have a familiar ring to it? ...as in "upside down" perhaps. LOL
Would it be unlawful to follow an illegal government that is using "force against the will of the rightful legal government"?
Would this be akin to following a multitude to do evil?
Telling people that they should obey an illegal government, when you just admitted that you know full well that it is...would this be similar to calling evil, good?
You crack me up!!!
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, NOT the STATE OF ISRAEL. |
| BatKol |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 15:57:40
Greetings brother Robert,
Sorry about the repeats. Here is a more direct post to keep the pace flowing:
You said: For what it is worth, it would appear that Noah Webster [c.1828] agrees with this concept. We find this under the word “LAW” –
“Ceremonial law, the Mosaic institutions which prescribe the external rites and ceremonies to be observed by the Jews, as distinct from the moral precepts, which are of perpetual obligation.”
And in case we do not know what Noah Webster considers the “moral precepts”…
“By way of eminence, a precept of the decalogue, or moral law, written on tables of stone, at Mount Sinai; one of the ten commandments.”
Steve: What about the commands written on stone in Exodus 34? Just to be clear, what would you say has been done away with exactly? just the ceremonial parts? This is important that we identify exactly what has been 'nailed to the cross'. Please elaborate on this more. If it is just the ceremonial parts, as Webster says, then we still have much more then the ten commandments. Example: Exodus 34:13. Still valid?
You said: Now, with that having been said, the question remains; can the contract [confederacy] that the People tacitly agreed to, i.e. "a republican form of government", where one must volunteer into their jurisdiction, where a state can secede from the union if the "protector of their basic liberties" becomes oppressive, be changed at gunpoint?
Steve: Firstly, as you pointed out earlier, anything other than a Deut 17:14-20 Government is, to use your word, "wrong". So, in that respect concerning Torah, it does not matter if you under a Republic or Democracy. Neither would allow one to fulfill Deut 34:13 which was written on stone (assuming if we have moral laws and judgements beyond the ceremonial laws). This point is very important to my position so that is why I asked for more details from you concerning what parts of Torah exactly do you consider nailed to the cross and which ones are still valid.
To answer your question above. Can the contract of the Republic be changed at gun point? Yes. By military conquest. After a war the law of the land get's replaced by whatever the victors choose. Such is the case with the GOVT we have today. You might say, "it's all voluntary" but is it really when the MILITARY POLICE "ensures" everybody complies one way or another?
Peace,
Steve
|
|
|
