Re: A Disservice to Mr. Bell

[hallam@vesuvius.ai.mit.edu]

>As for the "self-selected" issue:  In almost all areas of human endeavor, 
>things are (often?  usually?) done by people who are "self-selected."  I 
>suggest that there is simply no reason that even "self-selected" courts 
>cannot work.

Oh I forgot to mention, last week we found you guilty of sedition, it
was a pity you were not present to put your case but maybe if you had 
bothere to read the court roster you would have attended.

You are allowed to put your case in person at the sentencing hearings
if you like but since its a mandatory sentence you would probably
prefer an appeal.


	Phill

>1.  Commonlaw courts predate the US Constitution by a few hundred years.  
>The former does not depend on the latter for authority or credibility.  

Untrue, the US constitution replaced all previous constitutions. Thats
what the supremacy clause is all about. All previously existing courts
were extinguished.

>2.  The US Constitution is, at most, a statement of the authority of the 
>FEDERAL portion of government.

It also includes a supremacy cluase and a "due process" clause. The
due process clause means amongst other things that noone can be subjected 
to proceedings that are not authorised under the constitution.

>3. The Federal Constitution only references states, and I don't think it 
>references state Constitutions at all.

There is no logical reason why it should, if a state exists it has a process
of government, a boundary to its authority and performs legislative,
excutive and judicial functions. The explicit recognition of the states
was necessary since otherwise the supremacy clause would claim to extinguish
their rights. The authority of the states to make law is explicitly 
stated. It is also implicit in the use of the term "state" rather than 
"county".

>You should have said, SOME courts.  Not "the courts," implying ALL the 
>courts.  Notice that the US Federal Constitution (at least, to my 
>recollection) does not describe or regulate state courts, or for that matter 
>local courts.

It recognises the states, and thus their constitutions. If you can find 
a state which omitted a supremacy clause from its constitution then you
might have a point.


As a practical matter however the immediate effect of claiming to issue
proceedings under "common law courts" is from now on almost certain to 
be criminal and civil proceedings followed by long jail sentences.

While Jim Bell can pick nits and pretend that he is a lawyer the people
recognised as lawyers in our society act in a different matter. It is 
an empirical fact that those convicted in federal and state courts
go to jail, those convicted in "common law kangeroo courts do not". In
fact the only people who do are the judges, jurors and other 
instigators.


It is an empirical fact that the authority of "common law" courts 
is not recognised by society. They can be dealt with easily enough,
the intended victim need only apply to a real court for an injuction
prohibiting proceedings, turn up to the "court" to serve the injunction
and if people insist on proceeding apply to the real court for 
enforcement of the original order since anyone participating in the 
"common law court" would then be in contempt. 


	Phill