Talk:Common law/Archive 2

Motion Before This Court to Change One Sentence
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)

++++

It appearing before this court that there are no objections from the members of this court to the above suggested change to the main common-law text related to this web-page, i have taken the liberty of completing the above motioned change.

I am contemplating making further changes to that text, in the same general direction and focus as the above recently-completed change. Similar to this change, i will post suggested changes prior to inserting them in the main common-law page, so that the members of this court will have ample opportunity to object to those suggested changes, &/or to share constructive-criticism in the final versions.

Any members of this court who actually know something of substance about true common-law, are respectfully asked to step forward and make their level of expertise known, in a timely manner.

Charles8854 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Add Paragraph Placing Foundation of Common-Law in Pre-Norman-Conquest Times
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)

Charles8854's Objection to Removal by "Thirty-seven" of Charles8854's contribution to this Common-Law web-page.
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)


 * 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)

= Motion to Replace Un-Explained Deletions of Charles8854's Common-Law History text. =

Unless someone here can articulate clearly, what is inaccurate or erroneous about my contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web-page, i intend to replace it on that page.

As shown by my comments above; my contribution was recently deleted from that page, with-out any explanation or discussion what-so ever. That seems to me to reflect a serious Lack of "Good Faith" which is suppose to be a "Rule" here in this Wikipedia community.

Charles8854


 * Charles, I believe we've traded messages in the past, and I have no quarrel with you personally. However, I feel it is important that you make note of several things:
 * WP:LAWYER - The tone you use on talk pages, as well as your inclination to want to personally confront other editors (be it in person or on the phone) is not acceptable. Furthermore, there needs to be a record of discussion for others to read (obviously there would be none if you had your discussions on the phone).
 * WP:RS and WP:CITE - You must cite reliable sources for any information you include in Wikipedia.
 * WP:OR - Original research (synthesis of thought) is prohibited. (See #2).  You can't cite yourself.
 * WP:VERIFY - Others must be able to verify information you include via the sources you cite.
 * Asked & Answered - It appears that thirty-seven did already answer your concern here -- also note he gave you a link above for the same info.
 * At this point, I won't address the actual content you wish to add due to the procedural problems (#2, #3, and #4). Hope this helps somewhat -- please read the aforementioned policies.  /Blaxthos 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I should point out that Charles had posted his comment "Motion to Replace Un-Explained Deletions..." here before I answered his similar questions on my talk page. --thirty-seven 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Balthos; I thank you for your informative intervention in this manifestation of frustration and slight anger from my end here in this common-law talk page. I do respect your obvious time-based seniority in this community, and i do recognize both your natural diplomatic skills and your advanced knowledge of Wikipedia conflict resolution techniques.  And to be clear, i am new to this forum, i have studied your above links, with appreciation, and i do intend to modify my future behavior on this realm so-as-to conform much more closely with the guide-lines expressed there-in.


 * However; i do wish to share some "constructive criticism" concerning some details of your choice of words, in your response to me, here-in above; as follows:


 * You accused me of harboring an "inclination to want to personally confront other editors". This is a false accusation against me, sir. I swear that I have No Desire to "personally confront other editors".  What you are mistaking for that "inclination" is my admittedly impassioned desire to remove seemingly institutionalized "Obstructions" to new but un-orthodox material being submitted here in Wikipedia.  As I have recently told "Thirty seven" in his personal talk page, there are many others besides myself who have attempted to submit well-documented research here at Wikipedia, only to have their well-researched material Deleted, with No Courteous Explanation, what-so ever.


 * That is "Wrong"; sir; and it needs to be changed. I had my request for constructive-criticism of my submission up in this talk page here for over 6 weeks, from October 24 to December 10; before I finally submitted it.  No one objected to that editorial addition being inserted for that entire 6 week period.  But with-in 24 hours of that submission, it was instantaneously Vaporized, and what was worse, there was Almost Zero Specific Explanation what-so-ever as-to Why it was so Vaporized.  Again; I am not the only researcher who has experienced this seeming hostility to my good faith contributions here at Wikipedia, and further, this is not the first time that such cold and un-feeling abuses to my edits have occurred here.


 * From Thirty-sevens courteous follow-up communication, it seems to me that this problem probably is not a problem with the individual Wikipedia members, but that it is more of a problem with the general Wikipedia policy for submitting editorial changes or additions. I suggest, that, Wikipedia (as an institution) consider embracing some "Growing Pains", so that new good-faith contributors do not experience future similar impressions that there are conspiratorial "Gate Keepers" here, who are committed to obstructing all efforts to use the well-documented research (which is already out there, and commonly known among those who have searched for it), in efforts to Dispel the institutionalized Propaganda of the authoritarian, control-oriented, empire-building, "powers that be".


 * Times are changing. Wikipedia is a fairly new institution. Wikipedia policies are not written in stone, but they are designed to be effective tools for facilitating consensus-building around well-documentable research. The present policies in place are not optimally engineered for achieving those ends, sir. And so you have people turning away in frustration, muttering to their friends and colleagues about the conspiratorial gate-keepers over there at Wikipedia;  or else you have them venting, as I did, in less than perfectly graceful manners and with some anger, in efforts to finally get some attention concerning the seemingly institutionalized injustice in editorial policy which seems to be manifesting here at Wikipedia.


 * So please, go light when you criticize newbies for their "Tone". Further; please go light on newbies when they request more fluid communication concerning precisely what the problems here are.  Please do not accuse them of holding an "inclination to want to personally confront other editors", by merely focusing on a telephone option, when it was obvious from their previous words that EMail was also proposed as a "Consensus-Building Devise" there-in.  There was no justification for you to focus on my phone communication suggestion exclusively, in support of your accusation against me that i was being un-justifiably confrontational, when I clearly also suggested (at the same time) that email was acceptable also.  I believe, in this larger context, sir;  my intent at merely building consensus concerning these editorial controversies, was clearly my primary motivation.  I think you were being overly insensitive by your surgical removal of my email consensus-building tool as a devise i suggested in seeking to build that consensus.


 * Further; my proposed change to the common-law page was on this common-law talk page for over 6 weeks before i finally posted it. There-in I clearly stated that " I Welcome All Constructive Criticism.".  Yet absolutely No One, including "Thirty-seven" or your-self Balthos, saw fit to inform me, that i needed to provide "Supportive Citations" for this un-orthodox but common-knowledge part of our Anglo/American History.


 * Yet, when I get slightly angry about what seems (still) to me to amount to a "sniper attack", with no advanced warning what-so-ever, and no significant consensus-seeking trail for me to follow in seeking any remedy, for the coldly un-friendly deletion of my impassioned work;  then suddenly I am accused by prominent Wikipedia members (such as yourself) of being harboring an "inclination to want to personally confront other editors".


 * I believe your choice of words there was "Un-Fair", sir; and i sincerely hope that you will come to recognize that, and to choose your words more sensitively to good-faith newbies in the future.


 * I now recognize that my article was advancing such significant changes in the common-law article that present Wikipedia policy demands that i provide supportive citations before implementing these changes. Although i do believe that better (and more newbie-sensitive) policies can and should be developed, i will conform to these policies so long as they are in place.


 * I did not "cite myself". My composed paragraph contains words which are verifiable by reputable sources, which i will soon post in this common-law talk page, at least unless directed by authority figures to post them some-where else.


 * By the way; where are all of the other citations for all of the other paragraphs in the common-law article? Did I just some-how over-look them?  I do not believe I have seen any citations at all in support of the present lengthy, dis-jointed, and rambling work.  This demand for supportive citations is not being applied against myself in a prejudicial manner, is it?


 * Also; who are the main contributing editors of the present common-law article? It seems that present Wikipedia policy encourages "Anonymous Authorship".  If that is correct, I respectfully suggest that, in the long term, and in light of the Propaganda-Wars which are clearly manifesting on the eastern horizon, that such a policy is un-maintainable.


 * I wish also here to publicly thank "Thirty-seven" for his non-escalating and friendly response to my last words of frustration towards him, as posted above, and on his talk page. For those interested, my more recent and personal response to him is posted on his talk page.


 * And i do thank you again, Balthos; for your generally constrictive words posted here-in.


 * Sincerely; Charles8854 15:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

=Citations in Support of Defining "Common-Law" as Pre-1066-ad, Pre-Norman-Conquest, "Anglo/Saxon Common-Law".=

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)

=Compromising Editorial Change to Last Sentence in the Norman-Conquest History Text Submitted by Charles8854.=

"Thirty-seven", "Blaxthos", and all others concerned; in efforts to compromise, i have removed much of the specific wording from my last paragraph which Thirty-seven has itemized as being objectionable. Those objections by Thirty-seven were to text which appeared mostly in the last sentence of the original paragraph which i had first submitted; and that last sentence originally read as follows: "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'."

Specifically; Thirty-seven had objected to the words "Adulterated", "Propagandized", and "True". I have removed all of those words. Thirty-seven also objected to the word "Hybridized". I find myself un-able to abandon the use of that specific word with-out abandoning the main point which is sought to be communicated through this text. In fact, due to the former changes, i have had to use the word "hybridized" twice. The resulting last sentence reads as follows:

"This resulted in a new, hybridized, and much more centrally-controlled form of the previously-existing and original Anglo/Saxon 'Common-Law'; and it is that later, non-original, hybridized, centrally-controlled, Romanist/Normanist version of Common-Law which is modernly and fashionably, but erroneously, said to embody the essence of the our original Anglo/American 'Common-Law'."

I hope the resulting paragraph is acceptable to all honorable Wikipedia members. If not, please let me know here on this talk page, before butchering my article, and i will promptly make sincere attempts to achieve an honorable consensus with all concerned Wikipedia members.

Sincerely,

Charles8854 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing
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)

Gate Keeping
Balthos; you object to many elements of my editorial contribution to the common-law article. Two specific words you have objected to are "Erroneously" and "Adulterated". I had removed the word "Adulterated" from my last post of my editorial contribution, and so i have no idea why you are still objecting to it.

"Erroneously" is a word that i could consider deleting, in efforts to keep the peace, but i am beginning to wonder if the peace-table is even with-in reach. The fashionable, authoritarian, status-quo, view, that common-law is properly defined After the "Hostile Take-Over" of the Norman/Roman Conquers, Is "Erroneous". The directly related word "Error" is used in modern judicial opinions, every time a higher court over-turns the opinion rendered in a lower court. I see no common-sense based Reason Why the use of such a word should be prohibited here at Wikipedia, but should be allowed as common practice in the highest court of the land.

Thirty-seven also objected to my use of the word "True". Am i to comprehend that your version of Wikipedia policy does not allow for contributing editors to separate unfashionable but obvious "Truth" from fashionable but obvious "Error"? Are the masses of humanity doomed to searching else-where than Wikipedia for sources of non-status-quo "Truth"?

If so, this seems to me to be the very definition of the word "Gate-Keeper"; sir.

You use the phrase "Burden of Proof" in support of your accusation that it is I who must go to great lengths to provide mountains of evidence in support of my summary of this obscured but un-controverted history. In my last general-discussion-post here on the common-law talk page, i wrote to you as follows:

" ... where are all of the other citations for all of the other paragraphs in the common-law article? Did I just some-how over-look them? I do not believe I have seen any citations at all in support of the present lengthy, dis-jointed, and rambling work. This demand for supportive citations is not being applied against myself in a prejudicial manner, is it?"

You failed to respond at all to that very pointed request. By your silence, it appears that you are admitting, that, you are purposefully targeting my contributions to the common-law article, in a prejudicial manner; correct?

You are heaping mountains of "Burden of Proof" on myself; all while Totally Ignoring the fact, that, there is  "Absolutely Zero Counter-Evidence" in Any of the commonly accepted versions of the History of the Common-Law of England.

I could go into greater depth, responding to each of your objections, point by point, and i may do so later; but presently, that seems not the most efficient use of my limited time/energy recourses.

More to the point; you declare that you personally have had "years of formal education ... on the subject", apparently referencing the subject of "common-law". I am beginning to get the feeling that this is the essence of the real problem i am facing. This all seems rather like jesus/yeshuah, being criticized by the pharisees, because he did not have the "formal education" which they possessed.

Just like in that case with jesus/yeshua and the pharisees; i see you do not respond to the merits of my citations. I see you do not accuse the encyclopedia americanna, the georgetown law journal, black's law dictionary, or lawyers-co-op, of being "un-credible sources". I see you do not make the specific accusation that my pains-taking and comprehensive summary of this mountain of evidence, that the Norman Conquest caused significant despotism-inducing changes among the previously existing Anglo/Saxon common-law practicing peoples of England. This all seems generally "Admitted" by you, correct?

Rather you seem to base the entire thrust of your argument on the admitted fact that my summary of the mountain of evidence on this subject is only held by a minority of the people who claim knowledge of the subject. I feel like copernicus or galileo, confronting the inertia of the roman catholic church here; and the pope is telling me that all of my evidence of a round earth, is only my un-substantiated "Point Of View" (POV).

I have clearly stated above; numerous others have affirmed to me that aristocratic class-warfare  "Gate-Keepers" are alive and well here at Wikipedia; and that no "out-side-the-box" views, no matter how well documented, will be allowed here-in. In further support of their counsel, i note that you offer no olive branches to me in any good-faith efforts to work towards consensus regarding these significant concerns.

Instead, you dwell extensively on my old-english, old-legal, style of punctuation; which is based on phonetics, intuitive-logic, and important-word emphasis; as opposed to the non-fluid, non-intuitive, narrow-minded, and statutory obedience-commands of "The Queens English". You complain about the splinters in the eyes of others, but you ignore the rafter in your own; and all for no greater reason than that your rafter has the blessing of the queen of england and the pope of rome. You strain-out the gnat, but ignore the camel; for these same reasons.

I could delete my past use of unique capitalization and quotation habits, in efforts to seek consensus; but you seem more intent on using those concerns as additional nails in my coffin, than up-on sharing good-faith constructive-criticism, in efforts to reach consensus. After all, you have your "formal education", oh yea, "Years" of it; and i merely have studied law-books (for years) outside of the exclusive aristocratic franchise of the babylonian-whore capitalist/money-changer supported educational jurisdiction. Of what benefit would it be to you, to actually Engage in "Open Debate", "On The Merits", of these differing views of the True "Historical Legitimacy and Legacy of the Common Law". You are sitting in your ivory tower, with your "Years of Formal Education", and your cushy position as status-quo gate-keeper here at Wikipedia. Why should you risk all of that tumbling down around your shoulders, when you can just continue slamming doors in the faces of good-faith commoners like myself, who obviously have no respect for your babylonian-whore/capitalist financed aristocratic education; Correct?

And perhaps worst of all, you assert that more fluid communication, through email, and (oh my gosh) phone-numbers, is some-how counter-productive to the "Consensus-Building" efforts, which are Suppose to be the main goal here at Wikipedia. Cheez. If this is not he very definition of "Hypocrisy", then i have never seen it.

As i type this, i am seeing more and more how entrenched you gate-keepers are. On the out-side, you, and the others similar here, may actually be fairly nice people. But it is becoming very clear to me that you have zero heart-felt concern for the welfare of the common man. To you people, both your entrenched status here at Wikipedia, and the "Common-Law", are mere "Tools", to be used to Maintain "Class Distinctions"; correct? In your view, there is no room for Anglo/American common-law juries to unanimously declare what will be applicable "Law" with-in this nation; for that would surely render the "years of formal education" of you and your aristocratic associates, essentially worthless.

Look; I have bigger battles to fight than this. You gate-keepers for the capitalist, slave-trading, babylonian-whore jurisdiction, seem to have won this round. You-all go on ahead and continue on with your ivory-tower sniper-attacks against the hapless commoners attempting to contribute good material here at Wikipedia. There are many battles available in the fight to remove the oppressors of the common people of this earth, from their despotic controlling positions of authority. In this larger view, you gate-keepers here at Wikipedia are low on the priority list.

I just reviewed your controversy with "Cbuhl79". I do not know which of you are more honorable in that controversy; but i can easily see how our differing views here could easily escalate to the same hostile intensity, and monumentally cataclysmic waste of my limited time/energy recourses. It seems present Wikipedia policy is conducive to such a chaotic, anarchistic, status-quo-preserving, zoo-like environment. And i am beginning to think it has been purposefully designed by the Wikipedia organizers to function in that precise manner, so-as-to provide camouflage for the ivory-tower sniper-attackers who lurk in the shadows here.

I will check back to see if there are any responses here. Although i do not expect it, i would be pleasantly surprised to discover an olive branch, in response to my post here. As Blackstone noted, there is a supreme being in this universe, who is concerned about the "eternal, immutable laws of good and evil"; and he will eventually render all positive and negative judgements as are necessary in order to cause all karma to come back into balance. The karma of you gate-keepers here at Wikipedia is significantly out-of-balance. The supreme judge of the universe is capable of rendering negative judgements, sir. And by your clear refusal to engage me on the merits of my central propositions, while removing my un-controverted and well-documented historical research on "True Common-Law", i am quite convinced that he is inclined to render such negative judgements against you, sir. Your use of your Fictional "Balthos" Name, will not allow you to escape from his judgement.

The work here at Wikipedia is powerfully influential, and "True Common-Law" has very powerful potential to relive the suffering of the masses of humanity on this planet. You have an opportunity to correct this significant bad karma which you have generated, here and now; sir. If you refuse this opportunity; then when you render your final accounting, for your soul, on the spiritual-plane;  you will face a negative judgement;  and you will regret all such bad-karma actions which you have actively participated in.

Please re-consider your position, sir.

Yhwh's will be done.

Charles8854 09:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear User Charles8854: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. You may want to consider reviewing the following materials which could be beneficial:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
 * (official policy)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * (official policy)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
 * (official policy)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
 * (official policy)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
 * (guideline)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
 * (guideline)


 * Yours, Famspear 15:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Famspear; I have already reviewed most of that material. I do not perceive how i am in any possible violation of any of those guidelines.


 * Further; I believe my contributions here are being prejudicially kept from the public view, and i have expressed this in my earlier commentary above in this talk-page; and i do not see how your additional commentary here-in immediately above is at all responsive to the concerns of prejudicial gate-keeping which i have raised.


 * If i am missing something, please inform me of it.


 * Sincerely;


 * Charles8854 02:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. That's the most severe form (and lengthy!) personal attack I've ever seen.  I will not continue discussing this point with an editor who blatantly violates policies, and then attacks those who take note of said behavior.  Warning posted on user's talkspace.  /Blaxthos 03:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you still refuse to address the merits of my accusations that you are prejudicially removing my posts. I see you threaten to block me from any more posts here at Wikipedia for my objections to your admitted by silence gate-keeping. I see you scoff at my admonition that the supreme being of the universe takes note of your abusive practices against the common people. Jesus/Yeshuah was crucified for his labeling of the abusers of the poor and the children of darkness as the serpents and off-spring of vipers which they were. Do what you will, child of darkness. Charles8854 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)