Talk:Common law/Archive 1

We need a marriage and divorce law template
The topics of alimony, child custody, pre-niptuals are very popular ones for common people to look up. Good topics for encyclopedias. Maybe we should add a template on family law? Erisa Goss 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re restoration of the talk page
On this talk page 4.14.105.57 did The last of these wiped out all contributions by others to the page, except a passage he commented on because of a misunderstanding. The content of his edits appears after the text he deleted (to which headings have now been added).
 * two edits in 1-3 minutes on 2004 Apr 12, and
 * one edit on 03:53, 2004 Apr 18

Simpson
Article said:
 * For an informative discussion of the common law as related to a) duck blinds and b) cannibalism, see the works of A.W. Brian Simpson.

Is that comment serious, or is it just nonesense? (It sounds a bit like nonsense to me, but I may be wrong, since I'm too lazy to check.) Also, even if it is real, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph -- which should be about what the thing is, fundamentally, not about peripheral miscellena such as this. -- SJK


 * Acttually Professor Simpson's books about the common law are remarkable in their depth and historical accuracy. Should they be in the intro about common law? no. Alex756 03:14, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Law vs Equity
It might be worth pointing out that in the U.S. courts of law and courts of equity are (now) the same courts, even if in theory different. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

They are in most states. They aren't in others.

I changed the page to remove the staement that the distinction between law and equity is "archaic" and explained instead how the separate courts developed into legal and equitable principles applied by the same courts. That is the case in the UK and many Commonwealth jurisdictions but i can't speak for the US. Chris R 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it works like this:  The original intent in the US of A was to give the government a civil law system. The common law system was reserved to the people by Amendment Nine. The common law system was the juries in county courts. The United States courts are combination courts of civil law and equity. The Common Law Courts have been abandoned by the people who failed to reorganize these systems after the civil war. (Richard Fuselier)

A few thoughs I had for the discussion:

Though the common law courts *had* been abandoned/shelved,

a) they didn't ceace to exist, and;

b) they have been being unshelved over the last several years (20? at least 10) in the individual State republics.

I know of 3 for sure that are functioning at this time (2005) in the republics of Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico. Here are links to the sites some of the people who compose them have created:


 * Minnesota common law venue
 * Nevada superior court
 * New Mexico common law venue

I have served as a Justices a few times for the Nevada superior court and have a little first hand knowledge on this particular court. (Yet I am no expert.)

Others had been formed, but due to circumstances, caused by what appears to be a lack of a clear enough understanding of a common law court, on both the People's side and more so, the Governments, they were disbanded or simply ceaced to function because the people composing them quit.

At this time, other courts are in the process of being formed and the People in all the State republics based upon the successful models of the 3 functional courts mentioned above. It is taking time due to,

a) the vast ammount of information needed to be learned; b) the vast ammount of misinformation needing to be dispelled, and; c) the efforts of some of the 'public servants' not wanting to lose their de facto power over their de jure masters.

To clarify how and why this is how it works (probably goes without saying, but for sake of clarity); the People of the sovereign republic State are themselves sovereigns. They (the People) have delegated a *small portion* of their powers, yet delegation of power dosn't convey a relenquishment of it.

The all government powers (and more) have always been inherent in the People. These 'governments' are obviously subject to the jursdiction of the People by the Right of Creation (simply, the creator of a thing is its master).

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law [the constitution], for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power."

-- Justice Matthews in Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356

The initial statement of this section that courts of Law and Equity are the same thing is not true. The Constitution has NOT been ammended. This is an obvious fraud and lie.

Aksis

Specific Jurisdictions
I moved this discussion from the article page to here:


 * (isn't California also common-law based?)**


 * ** California is arguably not a common law state, because it has enacted "codes" that completely state the law of the land. Codes as opposed to Acts etc. are normally meant to be comprehensive. California is not a civil law state in the sense that its laws derive from or directly from Roman or Napoleonic law, like Louisiana.
 * no codes "completely" state the law of the land if that were the case send the legislature home their work is done? There are cases where courts convene in common law when a statuet does not cover the tort or alledged crime. Jack Kavorkian's physician assisted suicide being a common recient example until legislatures tried to cover that with statuets.

And I added a paragraph explaining California's status to the article. -- Cjmnyc 03:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * May want to add Israel specifically to the list of Common Law countries, as it's not a Commonwealth country. (Although, admittedly, Israel has a really weird mix of Ottoman and British laws, I think mostly British (and post-Independence) statutes are used.) -Penta 00:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Isreal didn't get its system of law from Britian, Britian got some of its system of law from Isreal. Britian didn't even exsist when Isreal was founded! Isreal system of law is rooted in the common law, though not "English common law". English common law was derived from the root common law. Aksis 03:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally - no common law jurisdictions have existed in the United States since the civil war. While the fundamental law of all state was common law - the statutes (civil code) has replaced virtually all of the common law. The 14th Amendment would prevent these civil law states from being a true common law jurisdiction. The common law would have to be restarted by the people -not government.

His Comments

 * (The following has been reformatted to replace unintended effects of wiki markup, and the last edit has been broken into sections for ease of reference in commenting on it. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

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 its true grandour. Most who have written here-in on this subject, are seriously lacking in desire to discover &/or propogate accurate knowledge of this monumentally important social-justice field of study. Common-Law is the source of the Anglo/American concepts of Townships, Precincts, & Counties. It is the Source of our most prescious Anglo/American Constitutional "Jury Trial" Process, & of our Seventh Amendment limitation on the Civil Jurisdiction of the acting Federal Government. I can write more, but i need to know my work is being appreciated. Charles Bruce, Stewart; Sandy Oregon; charles@commonlawgov.us
 * (The above 2 'graphs are the content of two edits to this talk page by 4.14.105.57, each summarized as 'The True Fundamenrtals of Anglo/American "Common-Law"'. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))


 * (About 45 minutes later, 4.14.105.57 edited the 266-word article, with the summary "Common-Law is Social Justice in Action".
 * Of the first 53 words, he replaced 10 with 63 of his own.
 * He replaced the next 106 words of the first 'graph with 4 new 'graphs of his own content (comprising 175 words) and an additional 54 words of denunciation:
 * of an 11th-century monarch as a bastard,
 * of the remainder of the article,
 * and of its authors for "ignorance &/or malice".
 * He left the remainder (the original 107-word 2nd 'graph) untouched.
 * (His contribution was reverted 7 minutes later.)


 * (In a later edit six days after his first two edits to this page, 4.14.105.57 reformated, as follows, the result of an automated conversion script from 15:51, 2002 Feb 25. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

Article said:
 * For an informative discussion of the common law as related to

a) duck blinds and b) cannibalism, see the works of A.W. Brian Simpson.

Is that comment serious, or is it just nonesense? (It sounds a bit like nonsense to me, but I may be wrong, since I'm too lazy to check.) Also, even if it is real, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph -- which should be about what the thing is, fundamentally, not about peripheral miscellena such as this. -- SJK


 * (In the same edit, 4.14.105.57 was perhaps anxious for a response, and apparently read the item following his contribution for the first time. Since he had put his contribution at the head of the article, that next item was the oldest one on the page.  He states his assumption that posts are added from the top, but seems for some reason to have suspected that "is it just nonesense?" made reference to the item before it (his), rather than to the material re Simpson, which precedes and follows the question.


 * (As if fearing that discussions by established contributors were distracting from his questions, he deleted all the existing content of this talk page, except his own previous edits and the item that he was concerned might be impugning his seriousness. He has that possibility in mind as he proceeds.--Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

'Graphs 1-4
cbs> I see "SJK" has asked if one of the preceding posts is serious. I would respectfully suggest hat "SJK" clarify his question as to Which of the Two preceding posts is "serious".

There was one earlier (lower) than my post, which referenced &#8220;cannibalism&#8221; and &#8220;buck-blinds&#8221;.

If SJK was questioning the seriousness of that post, i would emphatically agree with him.

But if he is questioning my article, i would confirm that i am totally &#8220;serious&#8221;.

'Graphs 5-8
And i am a bit frustrated here. I have done my homework.

The moderator, has taken the liberty of moving my (admittedly incomplete) article to this archive.

I can live with that.

But he also has butchered the heck out of it, reducing the actual substance to about 1/4th of what it was. This is shown in the history page.

'Graphs 9-10
I object, mr moderator.

If we are going do discuss the "seriousness" of my article, i want the whole thing in here.

'Graph 11-16
And in light of the anguish of the world, and the profound peace-making solutions which i have claimed for the true common-law, i really believe that, even in its incomplete form, that it should be included in the main article.

That main article is despotic authoritarian disinformation propaganda, and Wikepedia is swallowing it &#8220;hook line and sinker&#8221;.

I have work to do.

If you folks want my quality of cutting edge common-law research to further empower your otherwise insightful work here, you will shake loose from your leftist prejudices, and invoke true scientific logic/reasoning process, to conclude that i know precisely what the heck i am talking about.

There under, you should place my article back on the main page.

With all due respect,

charles bruce, stewart / http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/

In response to him
--Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * With regard to the question you raise in your first two edits of this page, no sign of interest in your work is apparent at Wikipedia.
 * With regard to issues you raised in your most recent edit of this page:
 * Re the material you retained on the page but did not write yourself: It had been, in its entirety, on the page for over two years before you first edited this page.
 * Re your 'Gr. 1-4, the first 4 'graphs following "cbs>": As the preceding point shows, your concern that SJK might be questioning your seriousness is unfounded.
 * Re your 'Gr. 5-8: You may not have learned how to read our histories. The history of the article is (unless you used other IP addresses to edit it prior to using  4.14.105.57) quite clear: Your contribution to the article was neither truncated nor moved to this page; rather the article's text was restored to the precise state it had before you first edited it.  It may be you are confusing your short contribution on this page (where none of your work has been removed) with your long contribution on the article, in judging your work to have been moved here in truncated form.
 * Re your 'Gr. 9-10: As previously noted seriousness is not at issue.
 * Re your 'Gr. 11-16: Your contribution was quite appropriately removed from the article, for reasons that should become clear to you upon study of our tutorial and FAQs (accessible through our Community Portal); the number of areas involved in your case being large, i shall not address them individually.
 * With regard your future at WP:
 * Vandalism
 * You have vandalized the article by inclusion there of
 * discussion of how the article should be written and why,
 * judgements on other editors, and
 * your EMail address
 * As to this talk page, you have
 * vandalized it by removing essentially all its previous content, and
 * compounded that offense by failing to make any note that fact, as should be done on the page and in the summary in the cases where there is justification for it.
 * This has not resulted in your being listed with Problem Users, but you should regard this as a warning.
 * While editors are not expected to necessarily ROTFL at an early point, you should treat these matters as a sign that it is crucial for you to do so.
 * The nature of WP incudes:
 * not publishing original research (i.e., to the degree you have been accurate in describing your "cutting-edge ... research", your material will not be acceptable here), and
 * strict standards of neutral point of view in matters where multiple points of view find significant adherants, rather than presuming to present the correct point of view. (And your obvious passion for your subject might mean working effectively here would require extraordinary self-control on your part.)

Yea, ok.

Sorry i wiped out the insignificant chatter at the bottom. I presumed the discussion was suppose to evolve and focus. I guess I was wrong.

And i do suppose you could ban me for that, or something.

But you seem to fail to realize that the field in question contains socially explosive materials.

And you sit there like a bump on a long, preaching at me about how to learn to get along with intellectual derelicts who seem to take delight in obstructing serious efforts at achieving social justice.

Fine.

I admit the work being accomplished here is very insightful and useful to the movement.

But know this. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. And the upper levels of every social hierarchy are immensely pressurized to obstruct truly liberating social advancement.

And with all due respect, that seems to be precisely what is happening here.

Ill go do my work somewhere else.

cbs ...

Re: "Jerzy's" Critique of Charles Stewart's Attempted Contribution:
 * Newer Response;
 * Newer Response;


 * With regard to the question you raise in your first two edits of this page, no sign of interest in your work is apparent at Wikipedia.

cbs> There is lots of interest in common-law. And even if there was not, that is no reason for you to delete my work.


 * With regard to issues you raised in your most recent edit of this page:
 * Re the material you retained on the page but did not write yourself: It had been, in its entirety, on the page for over two years before you first edited this page.

cbs> Yes. But it was "Wrong". Where are the "original authors" or "stake-holders"? Are you one of the "original authors"? Let an "original author" or "stake-holder" confront me !!! You have no idea who is composing the better material here, do you?

"cbs>": As the preceding point shows, your concern that SJK might be questioning your seriousness is unfounded.
 * Re your 'Gr. 1-4, the first 4 'graphs following
 * Re your 'Gr. 5-8: You may not have learned how to read our histories. The history of the article is (unless you used other IP addresses to edit it prior to using  4.14.105.57)

cbs> My ip may change over time (it is a "dynamic ip") but i made no conscious effort to mask my ip, & i made no previous edits to this article.

quite clear: Your contribution to the article was neither truncated nor moved to this page; rather the article's text was restored to the precise state it had before you first edited it.

cbs> Yes. You deleted all of my added text. Why? Was there noting there-in which you found worthy? Are you even a contributor on this article? What is your interest here-in? Do you specialize in this area of research, as do i?


 * With regard your future at WP:
 * Vandalism
 * You have vandalized the article by inclusion there of
 * discussion of how the article should be written and why,

cbs> Im a new user. I made a small mistake in editorial policy. Im sorry. That was not "Vandalism", as defined by Wikipedia; because i was honestly trying to produce a better article. I made No "Deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".


 * judgements on other editors,

cbs> You judge me. Everyone judges. But you are probably trying to object to my direct critique of the ignorant (at best) wording of the other editors in the article itself.

cbs> Yea, ok. I see now how that effort to dispel false doctrine can be handled more gracefully. But again, it was Not "Vandalism", because i did not intend any bad effect.


 * your EMail address

cbs> Oh wow! Yea, i can really see how that was some really nasty "Vandalism". Cheez.

cbs> Ok. I will quit inserting my email address; at least until i can find influence to possibly change that goofy Wikipedia policy through universally accepted channels.


 * As to this talk page, you have
 * vandalized it by removing essentially all its previous content,

I admit i made errors there. There was No "Deliberate Attempt" to undermine the other-wise good-work happening at Wikipedia. So it was Not "Vandalism".

and as should be done on the page
 * compounded that offense by failing to make any note that fact,

cbs> First you complain that i am making too big of changes; then you complain that i did not make sufficient note to let everyone know what i did.

cbs> I posted cutting-edge quality material, and you "Jerzy" gutt my work, because you apparently do not have any idea what-so-ever what True "Common-Law" is really all about.

cbs> Why are you even in this discussion? Did an Editor or a "Stake-Holder" Ask for you to get involved here? Have you contributed one singe iota to this article???? If so, WHAT ????

and in the summary in the cases where there is justification for it. but you should regard this as a warning.
 * This has not resulted in your being listed with Problem Users,

cbs> Yea, yea. Maybe you (as an experienced moderator) should try to talk to new users before you go blasting their gutts all over cyberspace.


 * While editors are not expected to necessarily ROTFL at an early point,

cbs> Yea, see? You Know that i am "New". you should treat these matters as a sign that it is crucial for you to do so.

cbs> I know i made mistakes, as least according to present Wikipedia statutory-rules. . But you are not the ultimate arbitrator here "Jerzy".


 * The nature of WP incudes:
 * not publishing original research (i.e., to the degree you have been accurate in describing your "cutting-edge ... research", your material will not be acceptable here),

cbs> Huh? How about some 'good faith" explanation of what the heck you are saying there, gate-keeper?

Who are you to decide if my material is "Acceptable" here, or not? What the heck do you know about "Common-Law"? If you have any credentials in this field, produce them. and
 * strict standards of neutral point of view in matters where multiple points of view find significant adherants, rather than presuming to present the correct point of view.

cbs> Yea. I get the picture. I can only push "Truth" as far as the "lowest-common-denominator" allows. Mediocrity for the masses. That is precisely how you want it, yes?

(And your obvious passion for your subject might mean working effectively here would require extraordinary self-control on your part.)

cbs> Maybe.

But before i agree to any such self-imposed censorship, way dont you produce some Legitimization for your censorship tactics.

Tell me Who do i talk to about getting my original text back in the main Common-Law article? And Who are the "Stake-Holders" in this "Common-Law" article? You "Jerzy"? Who Else?

And what part did each "Stake-Holder" contribute?

That data is necessary in-order for all "Stake-Holders" to make rational decisions concerning whether or not there are Malicious People attempting to Subvert the Higher-Truths involved in this "Common-Law".

Instead of destroying, How about helping to Build something useful, "Jerzy"?

Notation: I had recently responded by submitting a couple of edits of Jerzy's section of this post.

Then, searching through the orientation documents, i see that i am suppose to make entirely new posts of my own. I guess that does make more sense.

I am used to email debating, & there-in, the last post always gets heavily edited by the current respondent, because everyone has back-up copies of the old emails.

I then reverted back to the previous version, so that my hacking of "Jerzy's" comments are fully removed.

I apologize sincerely for any confusion this has caused for anyone.

Charles Bruce, Stewart Sandy Oregon (Id leave my email address, but presently, it seems against the rules.)

Former Soviet bloc
What is the "former Soviet bloc"? Many (if not all) countries of that are included in the "Continental Europe" mention already. How about former Soviet Union? Is anybody sure that civil law is still used in ''certain central-Asian states, formerly parts of the Soviet Union?

Scope of common law
IN "America"/ the several states united as "The united States of America" ; the "common law" clock was reset if you will. All law has to be measured by and with the so called u.S Law #1 the Declaration of Independance; then the state constitions in their "republican form" including their natural rights and bill of rights sections. Lastly the articals of confederation and federal or "general goverment" bill of rights (restrictions with preamble) and [Constition of/for the United States"]

The "patriot" or militia or common law "crank" movements use these concepts in attempting to poke holes in the statuetory/civil/commercial/admistrative law that is promulgated under the defacto forms of government today. The artical is incomplete without some discussions of these areas. NPOV or not. Anon editor.

"Today common law is generally thought of as applying only to civil disputes"'' (near the beginning)

Where is the evidence for this statement? Indeed the article contradicts this statement later. Certainly untrue for UK. Can someone neutralise the national jurisdiction assumptions please.

I agree - done Chris R 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally - today common law is only used to decide issues when no controlling civil code exist. Each civil law state has adopted the common law when no specific statute exist. Common Law Courts are not open for general litigation at this time(in the United States or the United States of America). The only issue being litigated using common law is the existence of the common law state. It does reach to criminal activity when no specific statute exist (such as the common law right to make monetary restitution for wrongs).

In the UK at least, the common law continues to exist unless expressly changed by statute, and statute law is interpreted and amplified using the common law. Chris R 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the common law encompasses all venues.

In fact, Articles, Ammendments, Clauses of any Constitution that are in confilct of the common law are void; civil code in conflict with the common law is void; Clauses of any contracts in conflict are void; etc...

The root of the common law is the spirit of the statement: "Do naught unto others as you would not have done to you."

The common law, is the root of all other venues. --Aksis 03:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not always "civil codes", more usually "statute" - ie the law made by Parliaments as opposed to judicial interpretation of the uncodified body of law of the jurisdiction. Lizby 11:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The maxim or concept in latin is "Ab Initio" or void from the begining; Any "law" that contradicts the founding legitimate form for government of the land of the several states is "void ab initio"; and is no law at all. No one is bound to obey it and no one is bound to enforce it. This is not what happens of course. With all sorts of "law" as prima facia legislative acts and resolutions as well as executive orders directives, signing statements and the like are put "in force" the guys with the guns listen to their bosses so they can collect their pensions and only occasionally are things hiccuped with a ruling like "U.S. v. Lopez" et c. ad nausium; {annon editor}

bug
For some reason, the first "t" of "The" at the beginning of the History of Common Law section does not appear in both internet explorers 5.0 on a Windows 2000 computer. Also, the numbers of the sections do not appear.

What category of common law does a covenant come under?
See above question. I'm trying to find a category for the term covenant under the common law categories. Any assistance would be welcome. --Randolph 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A covenant(at common law) is a principal common law action (there are ten). The purpose of the action is to recover damages for breach of a convenant, or promise under seal(notarized). See Blackstones, Chapter 8, Section 135 (Private wrongs, or civil injuries, and their remedies).(RAF)

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

COVENANT,  contracts . A covenant, conventio, in its most general signification, means any kind of promise or contract, whether it be made in writing or by parol. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 27, Sec. 7, s. 4. In a more technical sense, and the one in which it is here considered, a covenant is an agreement between two or more persons, entered into in writing and under seal, whereby either party stipulates for the truth of certain facts, or promises to perform or give something to the other, or to abstain from the performance of certain things. 2 Bl. Com. 303-4; Bac. Ab. Covenant, in pr.; 4 Cruise, 446; Sheppard, Touchs. 160; 1 Harring. 151, 233 1 Bibb, 379; 2 Bibb, 614; 3 John. 44; 20 John. 85; 4 Day, 321.

There is quite a bit more, didn't feel it all needs to be posted.... --Aksis 03:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Basic principles"
I removed the following:
 * The root principle of the common law is simply:


 * "Do naught unto others as you would not have done unto you."


 * The spirit of this single principle is the law common in all cultures, that have ever existed. It is and was the law even before it, and the clarifications of it, were encompassed by the more formal title "common law".

"All cultures that have ever existed" is an extraordinary claim that will require documented proof. And the comments in general take a Biblical POV, which discounts any influences on common law before the introduction of Christianity to Great Britain. David Iwancio 09:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I replaced it with a change:

I will concede "all" for "most",

Biblical POV huh? Plato dates Zoroastrianism to 64 centuries BC.... which preceds even the old testament of the Bible.

Who would argue, that the essance of crime, is the act of someone doing something, to you, that you don't want done? Answer: Someone who wants to do things to people thazt people don't want done to them.

Also make note, I chose the words I did to abate the age old agrument:'Well what if I am a machosist?..."


 * Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. -- Mahabharata 5,1517


 * Shinto - "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form."


 * Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. -- Analects 12:2


 * Buddhism - "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." -- Udana-Varga 5,1


 * Islam - "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." -- Sunnah


 * Christianity - "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:1


 * Judaism - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 3id


 * Taoism - "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." -- Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien, 213-218


 * Zoroastrianism - "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." -- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29


 * Baha'I Faith - "Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself." -- Baha'u'llah Gleanings


 * Sikhism - "I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all." -- Guru Granth Sahib, pg.1299


 * Roman Pagan Religion - "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."


 * Jainism - "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." -- Acarangasutra 5.101-2


 * Native Spirituality - "Respect for all life is the foundation." -- Great Law of Peace


 * Sufism - "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." -- Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.


 * Unitarian - "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." -- Unitarian principles.


 * Wicca "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. -- Wiccan Rede


 * Ancient Egyptian - "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."
 * -- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.


 * Brahmanism - "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". -- Mahabharata, 5:1517


 * Humanism - "Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you." -- British Humanist Society.


 * Scientology - "Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." -- The Way to Happiness #20

--aksis


 * Okay, fair enough. But I think you miss the point.  Common law, as discussed in this article, is not "the law everyone seems to follow" (you probably want natural law, or something similar).  Even if it was (and it's not), your addition strikes me as an after-the-fact etymology like the old "pluck yew" joke. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I did miss your point. I understand that, what was once simply a discription of what travlers/merchants found to be the law everywhere they travled, the common law, did evolve into a more formal title of a system given structure. As English 'common law' preceeds other 'common law' systems, so did this law that was common everywhere preceed England.


 * My point, is that without looking to the very root principles of law, the point of orgin, even more doors for distortions and misinterpertations of all the systems built one on another will occure.


 * England is NOT the origin point of the common law, no Nation is. This article is biased. If any group should recive credit for being the origin, the travlers/merchants would be it.


 * England, being an island, would have seen it in Its best interests to develop a system that was firmilar to the merchants. Prehaps this is why it *appears* to be the origin point.


 * Also, those cites I posted have nothing to do with 'natural law' (ie: gravity, etc..) nor is it the "Law of Nature", they are the very 'traditions' and 'customs' that are being alluded to in the article. How can you remove the 'root' and expect the 'tree' to 'bear fruit'? Or, prehaps your purpose is to kill the tree, which you have done. Prehaps you have an interest in doing things to people they don't want done to them, and, would make use of an overly complicated *corrupted* legal system to further your aims or are a lacky for such people. --aksis

Reformatting the Article
Maybe I'm just a little low on sleep, but this article is extremely wordy. Should this article be cleaned up so it's less of a wall of words? I'm proposing rewording and bringing in some bulleted lists to make this article a much easier read. Anyone else agree?

Veluet 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikification
I would like to assist in "cleaing up" this page.

I am the main author of the above in-questioned post.

I need someone with authority and concern for this subject being clearly expressed to voice support of this effort.

Charles Stewart charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org

Napoleonic Code
Speaking as a lay person, my understanding is that there are some significant differences between Common law and Napoleonic Code law (which is of course important in much of the world). Can somebody please include some sort of "compare and contrast" on this as appropriate? Thanks -- 29 October 2005

The best tretise on explaining the difference between English Common-Law & the Napoleonic-Code is by an Oxford University Professor, A.V. Dicey.

http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1678

Self-reference
Removed the section I've emboldened below, being self-referential:


 * 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 jurisdictions. The United States federal courts separated law and equity until they were combined in the 1920's or 1930's - the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity (I think this is the way it worked - would someone wiser than I please confirm or correct?), which of course led to all kinds of problems when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.

These are excellent additions by ANON. AndyJones 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit to this talk page
Note this edit, where a user has refactored existing comments further up this page, rather than adding new discussion at the end. I haven't reverted as it seems likely that User:Aksis and User:63.226.12.96 are one and the same and if so the user is refactoring his or her own comments. (I have nothing to add on the comments themselves.) AndyJones 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some strange artifacts left in this article lately... For example, "weell like what ever" inserted in a seemingly random place. And recently, there was a change of "murder and theft" to "murder and murder", which I changed back. Dylan Hardison

jurisprudence
"with the growing importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name)" What does this mean?? --24.94.191.191 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Common Law History
There should be many more articles on the history of the common law and the English courts and legal system e.g. nisi prius. Pliny 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)