WE're over here.
Thank heavens. If we had yellow fringe and esquire in the same place, the server might explode.
Posted on 02/08/2002 2:09:07 PM PST by mindprism.com
WE're over here.
Thank heavens. If we had yellow fringe and esquire in the same place, the server might explode.
Usually a jury is only necessary for felonies that involve significant loss of freedom or loss of life. Much of the time use of a jury turns on the agreement of the parties. In my state traffic infractions are handled by a court below the courts of record. If you don't like the decision of the lower court (District Court, here), you can fill out a form for a trial de novo and have a court of record (Circuit Court, here) review it from the ground up. There, you can argue for a jury trial.
If the US is in bankruptcy, what are the instruments of law that manage that bankruptcy, who are our creditors?
I've heard this, but never seen any documentary evidence. I would think that for a nation to go into bankruptcy there would have to be legislation passed for that purpose. Can you cite a bill passed and codified into law that did that?
What (unspecified but implied) contractual obligations am I under when I have a SS# or drivers license?
Social security system has nothing to do with contracts. It is a system of statutory rights according to the director of that administration in hearings held before Congress during the '60's.
HOWEVER, the implications of being able to access statutory rights, THEREFORE being subject to responsibilities that naturally grow from the execise of those rights, should be discussed, and I've haven't seen it discussed. You want to explore fringe elements of the system looking for causes, go there.
The driver's license is issued under the police power of a state. The police power is the source of all laws that are intended to discharge the state's responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens. Citizens guiding a ton of metal in speeds in excess of 50 MPH across the state is a proper subject for the police power.
ON THE OTHER HAND, rights are regulated under the police power, and distinguished from any term or actuality that means what we know as a privilege. The widely declared term "privilege", used to describe driving a auto, is a misnomer.
It's used prayerfully to create a state of mind in the people so they will not demand the judicial processes of a right regulated under the polpow. With the ubiquity of autos on the roads, and the criminal nature of laws regulating their use, the process would overwhelm the courts and the capacity of the state to empanel grand juries, making it impossible to regulate the use of autos demanded by the polpow.
Consider the passage below.
"The Manual for the Traffic Officer", second edition, by Irving Isaacson, the Chapter 3, "The Operators License",
"In order to allow the state the broad powers of control over motor vehicles that it must have to keep the roads at all safe, the courts had to so some juggling with our traditional ideas as to our rights and privileges as citizens. After all, doesn't every taxpayer help pay for the roads; and, therefore, couldn't everyone have an absolute tight to use the reads as he see fit? Well, if this were the case, then we could forget all about any effective traffic control because such rights could only be controlled by very elaborate and complicated court procedures. To get around this, the courts set up the theory that the right to drive is a privilege and not a constutitional right; privileges are subject to state control with a minimum of formalities - whereas rights are surrounded with constututional protections and can be moved only by a legal bulldozer."
Are violations of 'regulations' or 'code' as opposed to 'duly published law' adjudicated by a 'tribunal court' or 'court of admirality'?
Tribunals are generally created under Congress' power under Art. 1 Sec. 8, Cl 9 for various purposes. I seriously doubt they would have any power to hear issues under the Admiralty. I'm pretty sure that only Article 3 courts have admiralty jusrisdiction. I don't think (I could be wrong) the US has any "admiralty courts". A court that has that jurisdiction may hear the case under it's admiralty jurisdiction.
Most cases in the state are heard using federally mandated procedures that allow common law and equity counts to be part of the same complaint, instead of "law suits" and "bills of equity".
I hope I haven't confused you. These are the best answers I can give. 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.