Talk:Common law/Archive 1

Re restoration of the talk page

On this talk page 4.14.105.57 did

• two edits in 1-3 minutes on 2004 Apr 12, and
• one edit on 03:53, 2004 Apr 18

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).

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.

---

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.

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)

---

Regarding 4.14.105.57

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 “cannibalism” and “buck-blinds”.

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 “serious”.

'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 “hook line and sinker”.

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

• 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.)

--Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

---

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 ...

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

"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.

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.