The fact that you make wild claims, make ridiculous unsubstantiated charges, and express yourself as indicated above, does not mean that I have some sort of obligation, imposed solely by your whim (Lincoln freed the slaves some time ago and it was in all the newspapers), to make believe that you are so worthy of response that I should do your legal research for you. For someone at your level of understanding, and assuming you can read, I would recommend that you go to Wikipedia, look up American Common Law, the third paragraph thereof, then look up Reception Statutes. Unless you reside in Louisiana which is a unique American jurisdiction in using Code Napoleon, all the other states including the one where you live, have adopted pre-Revolutionary War British common law. It is in the nature of the common law that American common law, state by state, diverged thereafter (i.e., after British and American jurisdictions were separated by the Revolution) and Britain's from ours and, ummmm, Massachusetts' from Connecticut's from New York's from New Jersey's, etc. States admitted later than the original thirteen likewise.
It was never the intention of any state other than Louisiana to do other than adopt many centuries of British common law rather than having to reconstruct the common law and its principles, state by state, without credit to centuries of England's common law. The principles governing the British common law governing the determination of which civil party in litigation stole which's pig did not change merely because in American cases, the pig, the thief and the victim were an American pig, thief and victim. By reference to prior Brit common law, such challenging legal concerns did not have to be governed by what may have appeared to be original thinking when an American judge would be cribbing from published Brit decisions. BTW, have you ever been stolen in the US other than in Louisiana?
You are making the obvious mistake of hallucinating that I give a sh*t as to your opinion of me personally or of whether you find me credible or not or of what I post. Dry up, blow away and stop wasting my time. You have too much time on your hands and waste it wantonly.
I know darn (or some word like that) well that it was not Pius XII's fault or that of the late and sainted Rene Barrientos of Bolivia, nor that of the Cristero martyrs of Mexico or of their colleagues.
It is not your reliance on erroneous "facts, (which are nothing of the sort) as to matters apparently beyond your competence...
Well then since you've not bothered to correct me, as I have with you, then I must be right after all.
...your persistent rudeness and your bigoted expressions against the Roman Catholic Church and your insistence on stalking and your ungentlemanly (or unladylike) behavior which disqualifies you for such an exchange.
I'm not bigoted against the Catholic Church. I'm against the leftists within the Catholic Church who wish to wrongly use it, and religion in general, as a means of implementing their political agenda.
And if your tender sensibilities are hurt by my occasional rudeness then you need to get out of the kitchen since you obviously can't handle the heat.
The fact that you make wild claims, make ridiculous unsubstantiated charges...
What claims of mine, specifically, are "wild" and what charges, specifically, are ridiculous and unsubstantiated?
Dry up, blow away and stop wasting my time.
You have too much time on your hands and waste it wantonly.
Translation - Leave me alone so you don't expose me.
Who are you to tell me what to, and not to, do with my time?
Sorry, ain't gonna happen. You're just another undercover troll who needs exposing in my book.
So now to the crux of the issue...your third paragraph in no manner gives any credence whatsoever to your claim that America adopted English Common Law. Your statements are wrong again and restating them in a different manner over and over again with a slight rewording doesn't make you right.
It was never the intention of any state other than Louisiana to do other than adopt many centuries of British common law rather than having to reconstruct the common law and its principles, state by state, without credit to centuries of England's common law.
Credit was given to centuries of England's common law through the adoption of the concept of common law.
You can't "adopt" a court decision (common law) that isn't based upon your own laws, can you?
America made its own laws anew as it saw fit after the revolution. America started making its own case law (common law) based upon the concepts and principles of common law as soon as the cases started to be heard. America had to construct, not reconstruct, its own common law.
And you have the audacity to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?
The principles governing the British common law governing the determination of which civil party in litigation stole which's pig did not change merely because in American cases...
You're truly an idiot! The principles governing the British common law had nothing whatsoever to do with a charge of theft. The law as written, and broken, would have been under criminal law, not case law. The principle of common law would then be that the case decision would be used as precedence after the case was decided.
America wrote it's own laws. The first pig thief would have been charged under American criminal law. The case would be the first of it's kind based upon American law and America would have it's first case governing the issue of pig theft, or theft in general, and would be the basis for the construction, reconstruction, of its own common law.
BTW, have you ever been stolen in the US other than in Louisiana?
Your translator isn't working again. That question isn't understandable or answerable.