Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PieterCasparzen
In Suits at common law

Except divorces are NOT Suits at common law unless they are common law marriages.

Once the State became involved and everyone was required to get a marriage 'license' [the legal definition of which is governmental permission], the product of the marriage [children] became subject to the administrative laws of the State.....and there are no RIGHTS under administrative law, only privileges.

141 posted on 09/13/2011 4:25:38 AM PDT by MamaTexan (Only an ignorant asshat WOULDN'T wear a tie to the Arlington Memorial Service!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MamaTexan
Except divorces are NOT Suits at common law unless they are common law marriages.

Once the State became involved and everyone was required to get a marriage 'license' [the legal definition of which is governmental permission], the product of the marriage [children] became subject to the administrative laws of the State.....and there are no RIGHTS under administrative law, only privileges.


Yes, what you describe is what lawyers and judges will parrot nowadays, however

nothing trumps Constitution.

and

when we speak of "administrative" law, I can only presume you refer to courts functioning in the manner of courts of equity. While the Delaware Court of Chancery works very well for business, a business is not a person and the incorporators, when they incorporate in Delaware, are submitting their corporation to Delaware law, so that's Constitutional, as far as I can see. But when the subject changes to individual, real persons who are U.S. Citizens, they retain all rights not granted to the Federal government by the Constitution and State governments by their respective Constitutions. Just to be double sure, the Bill of Rights was ratified, to clarify some things the government had no right to do. One of the major ones was to deprive someone of property without a trial by jury.

Courts of equity historically served the purpose of providing an appeal in cases where a court of law, in following the letter of the law, yielded a result that was unfair, i.e., a miscarriage of justice. They are supposed to be used in America for non-monetary relief, i.e., an injunction, a claim for specific performance, a contract modification, etc. To use them to unilaterally deprive a person of a good portion of their assets is the grossest miscarriage of justice and utterly outrageous.

But our dear legal profession has seen to it that our legal system is "streamlined", i.e., we have turned our courts into such an efficient production line that... surprise, surprise, we have become an extremely litigious society. Like every good software company has learned, the key to getting your sales to increase is to make sure a good number of other people are enriching themselves along with you. For lawyers, those co-beneficiaries are called plaintiffs.

This essay

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07/the-loss-of-the-right-to-a-trial-by-jury-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

has some very interesting reading for those who want to know where their jury trial rights went. He actually points out a number of Constitutional problems with the way the legal system works today.
146 posted on 09/13/2011 11:16:38 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson