Posted by PTravel on 11/05/06 19:37

"Citizen Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:454e3309.81688140@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:31:53 GMT, "PTravel"
> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
>
>>statutory law preempts common law,
>
> Spoken like a true statist.

No, spoken like a lawyer who understands the Constitutional framework for
this country and has no agenda.

>
> Zeig Heil!

Yes, that's right. I'm a Nazi because I understand the law.

>
>>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.

Consent of the governed has nothing to do with statutory preemption of
copyright common law. Congress made that determination.

>
>>That doesn't make it illegitimate.
>
> However, we will have to wait for a jury trial to see Common Law in
> operation.

There have been lots of copyright infringement jury trials. None of them,
since 1978 when the law was changed, recognize common law copyright and,
indeed, they can't since Congress precluded it.

>
> 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.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you're completely
wrong. It was the Civil Rights Act of (I think) 1968 that made segregation
illegal.


>
>>> 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.

No, son, I am not "full of it." You, however, are rude and insulting,
precluding any kind of rational conversation with you.

This is basic high school civics which, either, you haven't yet taken or
didn't pay much attention to. Perhaps if you had actually studied the
Constitution, instead of relying on whatever whacko websites, pamphlets and
radio pundits who spout this junk, you'd be able to discuss this topic
intelligently, calmly and in an adult fashion.

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

And, with that, it's back to your trailer with you.


>
>>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]