Talk:Common law/Archive 2

message: Comes Now; one "Charles Bruce, Stewart"; of "Sandy Oregon"; who here-by makes Motion before this Court, to Change One Sentence in the Text of the Main "Common-Law" Article, which is directly linked to this talk page.  Note please that it is this author's humble opinion that almost this entire article needs to be substantially re-worded, from an entirely different and Less Imperial-Roman, Top-Down Authoritarian, & Confusion-generating (Anarchist?) point of view. But this seems a good place to start. 
That single sentence which is here-by motioned to be changed, is presently placed as the first sentence of the first paragraph in an early section entitled "History of the common law";  and that first sentence  presently reads as follows: :
"Common law originally developed under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent."
That sentence is here-by motioned to be changed to read as follows:
"Common law originally developed under the inquisitorial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent."
In support of this motioned change, i submit the following reputable citation; 
 
Civil Procedure; West Publishing Company, Friedenthal, Kane & Miller,
West Hornbook Series on Civil Procedure, 1985:
Chapter 11, Jury Trial; 11.2 The Judge Jury Relationship; 
Pages 474 & 475:
"To understand the jury’s role better, it is useful to examine briefly the evolution of the jury since its inception in England in the eleventh century. Originally Jurors were chosen on the basis of their fitness as witnesses. They typically were selected from the neighborhood in which the facts in issue occurred, the presumption being that they would have the best possible background for evaluating the evidence in light of their own experiences in the locale. The jurors were expected to inform each other on the issues relying on their personal knowledge of the events and to consult any other reliable sources including direct communication with the parties. They were entitled to decide the case on the basis of their own knowledge, even when this contradicted the testimony.
Over time the inquisitorial nature of the juries role changed ... the jury became increasingly dependent on the materials presented to them at trial and the responsibility for providing this information shifted to the parties themselves. This foreshadowed the establishment of the now familiar adversarial system, which is based on the philosophy that the fairest and most efficient process for arriving at justice is the evaluation by the jury of testimony presented by both parties in open court." 
Because Wikipedia requires good-faith efforts at achieving "Consensus" on all articles that appear in this forum; this moving party here-by respectfully demands that all participants in this forum/court make timely objections to this motioned proposed change, along with their reasoning "Why" they are so objecting; or else refrain from making any dishonorable sneak-attack vandalizing changes, after i claim "Justification" for making this change.   
I welcome all constructive criticism. It seems Wikipedia rules presently prohibit my publishing of my email address or phone-number; but my Wikipedia user-talk page is available, & upon personal request i will make that more direct contact data available to members of this forum/court who seem to be of minimally honorable character. 
And of course, feedback in this commonlaw-talk forum is not only welcome, it is actively sought. 
Glory to God. 
Charles Bruce, Stewart.
Charles8854 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Motion Before This Court to Change One Sentence'''

message: Comes Now; one "Charles Bruce, Stewart"; of "Sandy Oregon"; who here-by makes Motion before this Court, to Add One Paragraph to the Text of the Main "Common-Law" Article, which is directly linked to this talk-page, and directly under the header entitled "History of the common law". The paragraph text sought to be inserted reads as follows: 
 
"To discover the true history of "Common-Law", one must reach back beyond "Legal Memory", to before the "Norman Conquest" of England in 1066 ad.  Even "Magna Charta", of 1215 ad, only gives glimpses of the true grandeur of this previously existing system of de-centralized responsible self-governing.  That "Norman Conquest" completed a Military "Hostile Take-Over" of the previously existing communities of basically free people; and in its place was supplanted an authoritarian, coercive, top-down-hierarchy form of government.  The people who executed this "Hostile Take-Over" brought in to England with them many court-room procedures which had been practiced for many years as "Civil Law", as exclusively practiced with-in the realm of the Roman Empire.  Those "Civil Laws" were designed to control people in top-down authoritarian fashion.  Yet the Anglo/Saxon & Celtic peoples who had previously self-governed in England, were constantly revolting against this new form of despotism.  And so, in efforts to maintain control over their new empire; the new Norman/Roman form of government threw many concessions to the conquered peoples, in efforts to placate them.  This resulted in a Hybridized and Adulterated form of the previously-existing and true "Common-Law"; and it is that adulterated version of Common-Law which is modernly propagandized to be our true Anglo/American "Common-Law". 
+++
Note please, again, that it is this author's humble opinion that almost this entire "Common-Law" article needs to be substantially re-worded, from an entirely different and Less Imperial-Roman, Top-Down Authoritarian, & Confusion-generating (Anarchist?) point of view.  Please note also that I have made a past similar motion to change one sentence of this common-law article in that direction, by switching a critical word from "adversarial" to "inquisitorial". That motion and change seems to have obtained consensus, as there has been no objection on this common-law talk-page to my implementing that change; and on the main common-law article page, there has been no effort to remove my inserted change to that effect. 
It would be nice if some of the other members of this court would discuss these matters with me, but so long as silence and non-obstruction seems to be their modus-operandi, i will continue in this manner, cautiously, announcing my intended changes, and then, if there are no timely objections, implementing them. 
I welcome all constructive criticism. My Wikipedia user-talk page is available, & upon personal request i will make that more direct phone & email contact data available to members of this forum/court who seem to be of minimally honorable character.
Feedback in this commonlaw-talk forum is not only welcome, it is actively sought.
I work not for myself here. 
I work to provide knowledge which is necessary for the better governing of the common people; 
and of course, the Glory belongs to God.
Charles Bruce, Stewart.  Charles8854 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Motion to Add Paragraph Placing Foundation of Common-Law in Pre-Norman-Conquest Times''' 

message: I see a Canadian, who seems to refuse to give his real name or specific residence, has seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web page.  This un-named Canadian merely identifies himself with the fictional name "Thirty-seven".   
This "Thirty-seven" Canadian has removed my contribution to this common-law web page without giving me the courtesy of discussing any possible errors in my research. He has left no feedback in this common-law "Talk Page"; he has left no feedback in my personal web page; and so far as i am aware he has made no other good-faith efforts to communicate with me. 
It appears to me that this "Thirty-seven" Canadian has committed "Vandalism" against my contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web-page. 
I ask all others who are in any manner concerned with these issues, to involve themselves in this controversy, and to render public common-law judgement in their own words, concerning the merits of whether or not "Thirty-seven" was "Justified" in his abrupt & un-discussed removal of my editorial contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web-page. 
I will provide my personal phone number & email address, upon request, to any & all who seem to be involving themselves in good-faith efforts to resolve this controversy. 
Wikipedai rules declare that we are to "Assume Good Faith" & that "No Personal Attacks" should be made.  I am really up-set that people who refuse to identify themselves with their real names, can come in here and gut the good work of others, without so much as any discussion at all of the merits of that gutting. I really do seek help in resolving this controversy.
Charles8854 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just now replied to your comments and questions on my User Talk Page.  Other contributors can see it there, if they are interested.  --thirty-seven 19:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Charles8854's Objection to Removal by "Thirty-seven" of Charles8854's contribution to this Common-Law web-page.''' 

message: The following citations clearly show how the largely De-Centralized "Common-Law Government" was originally functioning in England, in its more ancient and optimal Anglo/Saxon/Israelite modes, and also how it was Significantly Altered during the 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event.  This was a Critically-Important Turning-Point in the History of Anglo/American "Common-Law".  These citations read as follows:
"Common Law Pleading"; by George L. Clark; Lawyers Co-Op, 1947:
"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of Justice.  The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation.  In competition with these popular, non-professional courts, the Norman King, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals.  The judges who presided over these royal courts were the agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers * * * and the courts over which they presided * * * gradually all but displaced the popular, non-professional courts."
"The Anglo-Saxon tribunals had been open to all; every freeman could appeal to them for justice.  But there was no corresponding right to sue in the king's courts.  That was a privilege which had to be purchased by any suitor who wished to avail himself of * * * royal justice.  These privileges were issued to suitors by the king's secretary or chancellor, and the document which evidenced the privilege was called an original writ."
Also: 
Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, 1963; Common Law/ Historical Survey/
"Anglo-Saxon Law:  The texts of the Anglo-Saxons were much copied and used even after the Norman Conquest, and as late as the 12th century, the law generally in force was still essentially Anglo-Saxon, ...  The pre-Conquest kings, like all Christian Rulers, admitted a general responsibility for law and order, but did not claim more than a vague supervision.  They avoided the direct administration of the law in all but the most exceptional cases,  leaving local institutions to apply traditional rules and procedures which evidently varied from place to place.”  
Norman Law. The Norman Kings took a much more active view of their duties and interfered freely in the administration of Justice. First they had to tame the sheriff, who dominated  the county (shire) court, so as to prevent him becoming an over-powerful magnate - and this without at the same time crippling an essential local institution.  By Issuing writs authorizing the sheriff to do justice in the county court in the kings name, the king finally subjected the country to strict control.  To subdue the local courts, strongholds as they were of the old Anglo-Saxon law, was only half the battle, for a central court was essential if that control was to be effective.  Here the Normans broke with the old traditions, and invited the public to litigate in the kings court. ... By these means Henery II erected the most centralized judicial system of all of Europe.
... Through this closely knit system of central and local courts, the crown thus became the fountain of justice, dispensing a law which was “common”to all the land.  The common law is therefore (became perverted, as) the expression of royal centralization at the expense of local institutions, and its origin in the principles and practices developed by the kings courts, particularly the court of Common Pleas. ... Already in the 12th century it was becoming an acknowledged principle that none need answer claims against him ... unless made by a royal writ.  Thus the crown secured a monopoly of the most important sort of civil litigation. ....”
As the above citations show, the Disastrous 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event instituted what amounted to a system of slavery over the Anglo/Saxons.  Also the Central Government of the Anglo/Saxon Common-Law Culture was significantly altered, as shown by the following reputable citation:
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition, 1979, West Publishing Company:
“Witenagemote:  “The assembly of wise men.” This was the great national council or parliament of the Saxons in England, comprising noblemen, high ecclesiastics, and other great thanes of the kingdom, advising and aiding the king in the general administration of government.  It was the grand council of the kingdom, and was held generally in the open air, by public notice or particular summons, in or near some city or populace town.  These notices or summonses were issued by the king’s select council, or the body met without notice, when the throne was vacant, to elect a new king.  Subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called “commune concilium regni, cura regis”, and finally “parliament”; but it’s character had become considerably changed.  It was a court of last resort, more especially for determining disputes between the king and his thanes, and, ultimately, from all inferior tribunals.  Great offenders, particularly those who were members of or might be summoned to the kings court, were tried. The casual loss of title-deeds was supplied and a very extensive equity jurisdiction exercised. 1 Bl.Comm. 147.  It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot. 
Please note from the above definition of "Witenagemot", that this governing body was simply a "Grand Council of the Kingdom", that sometimes "the body Met Without Notice", and that it was with-in their power to "Elect a New King".  Note that "subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called ... finally 'parliament'; but it’s character had become considerably changed, (and) that a Very Extensive Equity Jurisdiction (was) exercised. ... It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot". 
This "Norman Conquest" event, literally Ripped Apart the very Fabric of Anglo/Saxon Common-Law Society.  Although i am reluctant to submit the following reputable citation, because of its possible inflammatory effect, on some people;  it is still very useful in documenting the Historical Fact that a very Significant Paradigm-Shift did occur at this 1066-ad event, which "tore the fabric" of pre-existing Anglo/Saxon Common-Law Society.  And so, i present this controversial citation, as follows:
The Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 71, Pages 1179 - 1200; "The Shetar’s Effect on English Law - A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land"; By: Judith A. Shapiro. (Date of publication unknown from this authors photocopy form the "Journal", but from foot-notes, appears to be after 1979) 
English Law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences.  The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources.  After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions.  The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English Law.
Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement – shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or “Jewish Gage,” was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage.  Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor.  Both “movable and immovable” property were subject to distraint. 
In contrast, the obligation of knight service under Anglo-Saxon law barred a land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant (and therefore a different knight owing service) upon the lord.  The dominance of personal feudal loyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of debt; only the debtor’s chattels could be seized.  These rules kept feudal obligations intact, assuring that the lord would continue to be served by his own knights.  When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by “all property, movable and immovable” was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding.
Creditors had the statutory right to execute against the debtor’s land. No longer were personal obligations and rights in land rigidly separate. Even while Edward was divesting himself of his Jewish moneylenders, he made their legacy permanent. A small but significant principle of Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land. 
Footnotes:  
9 ... “The feudal system originated in the relations of a military chieftain and his followers, or king and nobles, or lord and vassals, and especially their relations as determined by the bond established by a grant of land from the former to the latter.  From this it grew into a complete and intricate complex of rules for the tenure and transmission of real estate, and of correlated duties and services ...” 11: ...  Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class. 15: ... alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it."
Please note that the "Shetar" referred to here is is related to the old "Star Chamber" Courts, which existed in England; and which were eventually abolished because they were so oppressive of the common people.  This is all shown through the following "Black's Law Dictionary" (5th edition, 1979, West Publishing Co. definitions:
Starr or starra.  The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews, being a corruption from the Hebrew word “shetar”, a covenant, by an ordinance of Richard I, no starr was allowed to be valid, unless deposited in one of certain repositories established by law, the most considerable of which was in the king's exchequer at Westminster; and Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was thence called the “Star-Chamber”.”
Star Chamber:  A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed  ... that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. ... In the reign of Henry the 8th, & his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended to such a degree (especially in punishing the kings arbitrary proclamations) that it became odious to the nation, & was abolished.  
 
So, to summarize: Ms Shapiro's main article, from the reputable "Georgetown Law Journal", clearly declares that this Norman Conquest "Tore the Fabric" of the previously existing Anglo/Saxon and related cultures then residing in England; and that this all resulted in "English Law" becoming "an amalgam of diverse cultural influences" which  "may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete (distinct) elements from disparate sources".  Here-under; a "New Capitalist Class" was established as the ruling elite aristocracy in England; and this "New Capitalist Class" used the infamous "Star Chamber" Courts to enforce its authoritarian rule over the common people of England. 
I wish to avoid focusing on the religious and/or racial aspects of Ms Shapiro's article, because of its obviously inflammatory implications to some people.  I wish to focus instead on the fact that, all of this historical data, taken together, shows clearly that: there was a very broad base of people from seemingly very different backgrounds, who were 'Actively Working Together' to Destroy (Tear the Fabric) of the Final Remnants of the previously-existing, original,  and true Anglo/Saxon "Common-Law" Culture;  and that this point-of-the-sword "Conquest" event caused Very Significant Changes in our modern Anglo/American Concepts and Definitions of  that "Common-Law", from the de-centralized, localized, bottom-up, grass-roots, confederation of smaller self-governing communities which it was originally based up-on; into a system of top-down, authoritarian, centralized,  point-of-the-sword governmental despotism. 
Constructive-criticism is both welcomed and encouraged. 
Charles8854 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Citations in Support of Defining "Common-Law" as Pre-1066-ad, Pre-Norman-Conquest, "Anglo/Saxon Common-Law".'''

message: Charles, although it appears you may have good intentions, I must again counsel caution.  When you start using POV-laiden words (such as "erroneously" and "Adulturated") then your edits border on inappropriate content.  One, you STILL did not include any citations within the article itself.  Two, the changes you propose significantly challenge the historical legitimacy and legacy of the common law.  You are inserting your analysis of the content ("erroneously").  Although we strive to include all viewpoints, in this case it appears that you are trying to synthesize and analyze based upon the information you quoted on a talk page -- beyond that, some of the sources either aren't specific enough or aren't properly cited in a way that is considered a reliable source and is verifiable.  SO, I think you have a fairly significant burden of proof to overcome before proposing such a substantial change (which, in my experience, is at odds with the years of formal education I've had on the subject).  Beyond all those problems, there is a problem with your writing style -- improper capitalizations (Military "Hostile Take-Over"), unexplained and unneeded quotes (before the "Norman Conquest" of England in 1066), missing punctuation (1066 ad.), sentence construction (starting sentences with And), inexplicable punctuation (the semicolon in the middle of a singular sentence), etc.  So, to summarize, you're attempting to insert uncited information that appears to be original research (that contradicts a widely accepted truth) using improper grammar and in defiance of the other editors on Wikipedia.  Also, historically speaking, you have a reputation of using inappropriate tone (overly law-like) in talking with other editors on talk pages; you make accusations of conspiratorial gatekeepers; you make issue that you want to know other editors' identities, nationalities, even phone numbers(!) and make accusations based on our unwilliness to give you our names and phone numbers.  This is absolutely unacceptable for so many reasons I can't even count.  It takes me more that one hand to count all the policy and norm violations that you have now flagrantly ignored, and although we try to avoid biting the newcomers, it becomes more difficult when there seems to be an attempt to justify your behavior instead of simply trying to understand why your changes (and your tone) are being opposed.  /Blaxthos 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate editing