Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/05/06 19:02

On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:31:53 GMT, "PTravel"
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:

>statutory law preempts common law,

Spoken like a true statist.

Zeig Heil!

>there is no longer common law of copyright.

The fact that this statuatory law does not have the consent of the
governed tells you that it is not legitimate under common law.

>That doesn't make it illegitimate.

However, we will have to wait for a jury trial to see Common Law in
operation.

Remember it was statuatory law that forced blacks to sit in the back
of buses. It was common law that freed them. It all began with that
lone juror who voted not guilty when a black violated statuatory law.

>> Statuatory law depends on the end of gun barrel. Common law depends on
>> 1 juror (cf. nullification).
>
>Nonsense. The purpose of law is to ensure predictability in social and
>commercial interactions, not to impose the will of a dictator on others.
>So-called jury nullification is not legal

You are full of it. A juror can vote his conscience if he wants to. It
is against the law to hold a juror accountable for his decision.

You are one of the biggest statists I have seen in a long time. Have
fun goosestepping in the street.

>and, in any event, a judge can
>always enter judgment non obstante verdicto ("not withstanding the
>verdict").

Only in certain states, the fascist ones.

>> That is not true. In the first place defendants who violate the law
>> can be exonerated by 1 juror.

>And that is not true.

You never heard of a hung jury?

As a statist you hold that a defendant is guilty until a unanimous
jury pronounced him innocent. That is clearly wrong.

A defendant is innocent until a unanimous jury pronounces him guilty.
A hung jury has not pronounced guilt, so the defendant remains
innocent. He has been exonerated, unless the persecution wants to try
him again. Even then he is innocent until a unanimous jury pronounces
him guilty.

>> Secondly the govt itself can violate any law it chooses with full
>> impunity.

>And that is also wrong.

Congress passed the Brady Law in which it made clear that the FBI is
required by law to destroy all information about applicants within a
short period of time. The FBI ignored that part of the law and kept
the information in clear violation of the express dictates of the law.

The US SC ruled that the FBI did not have to obey the law - it could
do whatever it wanted with the information, in defiance of the law.

You are so much of a statist that you no longer know what reality is.


--

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow

[Back to original message]