Jun 05, 2013 9:16 PM

Actor sequitur forum rei: The plaintiff follows the forum (jurisdiction) of the defendant.

Rerum ordo confunditur, si unicuique jurisdictio non servetur: The order of things is confounded if the proper jurisdiction of each is not maintained.

Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti: A judgment given by a person who is not its proper judge (not in the proper jurisdiction) is of no consequence. 10 Coke 76

Ubi est forum, ibi ergo est jus: Where the forum (or place of jurisdiction) is, there accordingly is the law.

Unusquisque debet esse gnarus conditionis ejus cum quo contrahit: Everyone ought to be cognizant of the condition of the person with whom he makes contract.

Nemo ex alterius facto praegravari debet: No one ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.

Nemo ex proprio dolo consequitur actionem: No one acquires a right of action from his own wrong (or deception).

Actio non datur non damnificato: An action is not given to one who is not injured.

This one for Dean Kory :D

MAXIM OF LAW: Where there is NO act, there can be NO force.

My Favourite. Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

In a nutshell, why we're all on this page (to answer Beverly's earlier question):

Ut poena ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat: So that punishment afflict few, (and) fear affect all. _ Blackstone cites Cicero (pro Cluentio 46) emphasizing deterrence. 4 BL Com. 11.

I think this might apply to Scott's NOTICE of MISTAKE:

Unumquodque dissolvitur eodem ligamine quo ligatur: Everything is dissolved by the same binding by which it is bound together.

Unumquodque eodem modo quo colligatum est dissolvitur: In the same manner in which anything was bound, it is loosened.

No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.

That one makes me think: Who created my PERSON ?

Fuckin' eh Pierre Daoust, now DATS what im talkin' about!!...

Nemo ex alterius facto praegravari debet: No one ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.

"No one ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act"...well there goes insurance !

You cannot PAY a debt LAWFULLY, you can only DISCHARGE it...

Nemo potest nisi quod de jure potest: No one is able to do a thing, unless he can do it lawfully.

What I can not do by my self, I can not by ANOTHER

An agent, as such, does not have title to the PRICIPAL'S property, although he may be ENTRUSTED with possession, and although he may have power to pass title.

I think this would cover your entitled RIGHT to a FAIR-and-IMPARTIAL trial/hearing...

Nemo inauditus condemnari debet, si non sit contumax: No one ought to be condemned unheard, unless for contempt. — This maxim is sometimes written Nemo inauditus nee insummonitus eondemnari debet, si non sit contumax (meaning "no one should be condemned unheard and unsummoned, unless for contempt").

Ooh, where is the link to this book?

A communi observantia non est recedendum. There should be no departure from common observance or usage.

...what the hell is legalese then?

This would be the Fiona Munro-section... :(

Nemo dedomo sua extrahi potest: No one can be dragged (taken by force) from his own house.

Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium: Everyone's house is his safest refuge.

Domus tutissimum cuique refugium atque receptaculum sit: Everyone's house should be his safest refuge and shelter.

Nemo debet rem suam sine factu aut defectu suo amittere: No one should lose his property without his own act or negligence.

SHITT...!!! :/

The law permit the taking up arms against armed persons.

Where there is no authority for establishing a rule, there is no necessity of obeying it.

I KNEW I WAS RIGHT ALL THESE YEARS :D

A BENEFIT is not conferred on one who is UNWILLING to receive it; that is to say, no one can be compelled to ACCEPT a benefit against his consent.

Where the law is uncertain, there is no law

Being on the government DOLE...

Beneficium invito non datur: A privilege or benefit is not granted against a person's will.

Adjuvari quippe nos, non decipi, beneficio oportet: Surely we ought to be helped by a benefit, not be entrapped by it.

Equal knowledge on both sides makes contracting parties equal.

BURDEN-OF-PROOF. . .

Affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio: The proof is incumbent on the one who affirms, not on the one who denies.

Affirmantis est probare: The person who affirms must prove.

Unfortunatly, QRA and CRA haven't read that maxim :D

The law help persons who are deceived, not those deceiving.

It is safer to be deceived than to deceive.

:/

All man are freeman or slaves

The government can not load a citizen with imposition against his will or consent.

OK..a last one...

Every Man's house is his castle; and even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, the king (government) cannot enter it.

The Birth Certificate/Security of the Person. . .

Occultatio thesauri inventi fraudulosa: The concealment of discovered treasure is fraudulent.

Donatio perficitur possessione accipientis: A gift is rendered complete by the possession of the receiver.

Donator nunquam desinit possidere antequam donatarius incipiat possidere: A donor never ceases to have possession until the donee obtains possession.

Actio non datur non damnificato. An action is not given to him who has received no damages.

Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.

"KNEEL before MAXIMS-of-law!". . .

Regula pro lege, si deficit lex: If the law is inadequate, the maxim serves in its place.

(this one seems somewhat convoluted). . .

Rei turpis nullum mandatum est: There is no mandate for a thing immoral (or illegal). - Hence, there is no action for failing to act on such a mandate.

Nothing is so contrary to consent as force and fear

He who mistakes is not considered as consenting :-D

"What I can not do by my self, I can not by ANOTHER" ok then, go fix the car. (cut a tree with a herring)

this one? weissman? http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/58/fb/ab7d51c88da0153b94a6d110.L._SY300_.jpg

Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.

Idem est scire aut scire debet aut potuisse. To be able to know is the same as to know. This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law

Well, Ed O'Eamonn O Brien, I'm not even sure I know what "knowing the law" means anymore. We can all know you shouldn't kill people, take their things through theft or fraud. But should we also know how to write a compelling brief, how to defend an important point viva voce, or that we can't build a birdhouse in some municipalities? And what do you do when you acquire this mystical enlightenment only to find out that those who have sworn to uphold these principals are colouring outside the lines?

RE: " "What I can not do by my self, I can not by ANOTHER" ok then, go fix the car. (cut a tree with a herring)"

This maxim does not speak to one's lack of ability to do a thing.

From Nothing, Nothing comes :/

Not only what is permitted, but what is convenient, is to be considered, because what is inconvenient is illegal. :) or :( depends...

What ever is acquired by the servant is aquired for the master. So it's a good thing ME being the master of PIERRE DAOUST :)

Ignorance of the "LAW" is no excuse....Ignorance of the kajillion statutes/acts/by-laws?....hmmmm

Man, Kelleran Holman. I probably shouldn't divide my time, or type this in public - but I was thinking, What are "kajillion" statutes? I started looking them up before I sounded the word out and thought, "Oh crap!"

The government cannot confer a favor which occasions injury and loss to others.

No one is considered as doing damage, unless he is doing what he has no RIGHT to do.

An action is NOT given to one who is not injured.

You ought to know with whom you deal.

An UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in LEGAL contemplation, as inoperative a though it had never been passed. :D

Jurisdiction is a POWER to declare the law; and when it ceases to exist, the ONLY function remaining to the court is that of announcing the FACT and dismissing the cause.

He who questions well learns well.

Where there is no authority to establish, there is no necessity to obey (I knew it !!! :-D ) It's all freaking common sense....

An idiot parroting 2+2=4 is only factually correct. They're still stupid.

Didn't Tara Duncan write about this very thing?

Viva voce is a Latin phrase literally meaning "with living voice," but most often translated as "by word of mouth."

If one neglect to insist on his right, he is deemed to have abandoned it.

And to all those who peed on my thread, "culpae poenae par esto".

And so I ask you, Scott Duncan,

If a parrot parrots 2+2=4, being functionally illiterate and only factually correct, is he a fucking rock star?

Nice segue from Latin phrase to Latin maxim, tie in to previous comment...nameless retribution, sprinkling of humour, parrots and profanity.

So very alone.

Tell me what that's like! :P

So very alone, indeed :P

Profanity ? o_O

Its lonely being alone. Especially when I've so much to give & share with the Ladies. S I g h ...if they onky knew what they're missing out on.

The most important lil lady in my universe is about to be with her Daddy in about 38 mins...5 days of unadulterated Love & happiness... WOOHOO..Broken leg or not we're going to have some fun times & lots of larfs :-D

Just bought that fucker... :D

Dictionnaire de Maximes de LOI ( in French)

Product Details Paperback: 575 pages Publisher: Carswell (January 1, 2002) ISBN-10: 2890739813 ISBN-13: 978-2890739819 Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds

I will translate :D

I dont know whats more preposterous: You correcting a First Nation peoples CHIEF for gawdsakes, or, correcting ChiefRock on MY thread, ABOUT, MAXIMS, of fucking, LAW. . . . .or do you not COMPREHEND what ONLY means, also? LOL

“It is a wretched state of slavery which subsists where the law is vague or uncertain.” (Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum — Black’s Law Dictionary Revised 4th Edition page 1151).

A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved of all.

To be able to know is the same as to know. This maxim is applied to the duty of every one to know the law.

Ignorance of fact may excuse, but not ignorance of law.: Fuck, I had no idea that the government created a PERSON for me :/

This one is good :D

Those awake, not those asleep, the laws assist.

Officers

Ignorance of the Law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a sworn officer of the law. Summonses or citations should not be granted before it is expressed under the circumstances whether the summons ought to be made. A delegated power cannot be again delegated. A deputy cannot appoint a deputy. An office ought to be injurious to no one. A neglected duty often works as much against the interests as a duty wrongfully performed. Failure to enforce the law does not change it. It is contrary to the Law of Nations to do violence to Ambassadors. An Ambassador fills the place of the king by whom he is sent, and is to be honored as he is whose place he fills. The greatest enemies to peace are force and wrong. Force and wrong are greatly contrary to peace. Force is inimical to the laws.

What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent

Things taken or captured by pirates and robbers do not change their ownership

Servants and Slaves

Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. A slave is not a person. A slave, and everything a slave has, belongs to his master. He who acts by or through another, acts for himself. He who does anything through another, is considered as doing it himself. The master is liable for injury done by his servant. He is not presumed to consent who obeys the orders of his father or his master.

http://www.mcgill.ca/maritimelaw/glossaries/conflictlaws/#in_rem

As I read maxim's of law, I am noticing that a LOT of them have opposites. It would seem then, that they too are not really law.

Derek Moran thanks for all the great posts. Have nothing to post, still back about 10 posts. Keep it up please.

Ive said it before and ill say it again, best way you can thank me is to thank Scott for starting this page- without sounding like an ingrate to you Chad, that is... ;)

What concerns me HOWEVER, is how Scott clicked the 'Like' button on Cara's post just above. No Clubhouse Rules...maxims-of-law that seem to cancel each other out...Justices "Doing Business As" the Government of Ontario: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiMhuOegTw

True, true. Scott Duncan and Derek Moran it's not said enough considering the amount of time and effort required to do what you do. As I've said before, we benefit at your expense. What else can I say for free knowledge and tutoring.

Would not even a Maxim of Law need to be agreed upon? Or are they really ment as guide posts for judicial Desiion's ?

I say the the first if you are capable of standing your ground. The second if the man or woman in question is deemed unfit to care for themself.

..oh, Chad- and encourage Daniel J Wentz to drop-by and input more often?

Signed, THE BORG in Dr. Who ;)

It is important to distinguish between commercial law and maxims of law, when quoting from their law. We should never, ever quote their codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, common law, merchant law, public policies, constitutions, etc., because these are commercial in nature, and if we use their commercial law, they can presume we are engaged in commerce (which means we are of the world), which will nullify our witness (because we are not of the world). Maxims of law are not commercial law, but are mostly based upon scripture and truth.

Here is a court case which demonstrates a typical example of the fruitlessness of describing oneself in the terms of the world, as distinguished from who and what our Heavenly Father has already told us we are.

It was rendered by JOHN V. PARKER, Chief Judge:

"Petitioner's shield of the "Common Law" as an "Unenfranchised Sovereign Individual of the United States of America, a Republic," provides him with the same degreee of protection from federal income taxation as did the Ghost Dance of the Sioux warrior from the repeating rifles of the federal Calvary - ZERO." 599 F.Supp. 126, George E. McKinney, Sr. v. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Civ. A. No. 84-470-A., United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana, November 19, 1984.

Custom of merchants: A system of customs, originating among merchants, and allowed for the benefit of trade as part of the common law. Page 303

Law-merchant; law of merchants: The rules applicable to commercial paper were transplanted into the common law from the law merchant. They had their origin in the customs and course of business of merchants and bankers, and are now recognized by the courts because they are demanded by the wants and conveniences of the mercantile world. Pages 670-671.

Roman Law: The common law of England has been largely influenced by the Roman law, in several respects:“Through the development of commercial law. Page 910

All of man's laws, except for many maxims of law, are commercial in nature.

The following are the definitions of "maxims," and then the relevant maxims of law will be listed.

Maxim (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856): An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com. 68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of parliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud. Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, is generally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.

Maxim (William C. Anderson's A Dictionary of Law, (1893), page 666): So called—because it's value is the highest and its authority the most reliable, and because it is accepted by all persons at the very highest.

2. The principles and axioms of law, which are general propositions flowing from abstracted reason, and not accommodated to times or men, are wisely deposited in the breasts of the judges to be applied to such facts as come properly before them.

3. When a principle has been so long practiced and so universally acknowledged as to become a maxim, it is obligatory as part of the law.

Ive heard that ANDERSON's is another very well respected law-dictionary, too...

Maxim of Law (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, (1933), page 1171): An established principle of proposition. A principle of law universally admitted as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to reason. Coke defines a maxim to be "a conclusion of reason" Coke on Littleton, 11a. He says in another place, "A maxim is a proposition to be of all men confessed and granted without proof, argument, or discourse." Coke on Littleton. 67a.

Maxim (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition): Maxims are but attempted general statements of rules of law and are law only to the extent of application in adjudicated cases."

If you need more info about this go to:

http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

Fiona Munro: Commercial Maxims (Basic Rules)

1. A workman is worthy of his hire

Legal maxim: It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property.

2. All are equal under the Law

Legal maxim: No one is above the law.

3. In Commerce truth is sovereign

Legal maxim: to lie is to go against the mind.

4. Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit

Legal maxim: (none)

5. An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce

Legal maxim: He who does not deny, admits.

6. An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce

Legal maxim: (none . . . concept of the duel without weapons)

7. A matter be expressed to be resolved

Legal maxim: He who fails to assert his rights has none.

8. He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default

Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.

9. Sacrifice is the measure of credibility

Legal maxim: He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit. 10. A lien or claim can be satisfied only through rebuttal by Counter affidavit point-for-point, resolution by jury, or payment

Legal maxim: If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.

Aren't you presenting your own 'law' to the courts ie: presenting principles and facts that you are relying upon to support your position/claims etc?

If this assumption is correct, then you provide a maxim or other evidence & if it is not rebutted, it becomes evidence supporting your position...

Similarly, a maxim can be used as a rebuttal of another's position...last man/fact/principle standing wins

Like fruit of the poisonous tree. One can not break the law that he is trying to uphold thous by doing so he has broken the very same law he intended to up hold.

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" is a legal concept that is ONLY accepted in the U.S. It's not valid elsewhere, as it denies reality.

what was the maxim that stated contradiction loses credibility or similar to the effect.

There's one that says to the effect- "One who contradicts himself, shall not be heard"....but im still looking for it in the back of Black's 9th

He who mistakes is not considered as consenting .... do you get it ??? :D

auegans contraria non est audiendus.

One who contradicts himself is not to be heard. A rule of evidence relative to the credibility of a witness. Cross-examination is frequently used to this end.

Quum principalis causa non consistit, ne ea quidem quaesequuntur locum habent:

"When the main cause does not stand its ground, then the things which ARISE out of it have no place EITHER."

Nec solere succurri stultis sed errantibus :D

Qui utitur suo jure laedit neminem C.E.C.M. c. Lambert (1984) C.A. 179, 181; Sylvestre c. Lapierre, (1979) C.A. 268,271; Katz c. Reitz, (1973) C.A. 230, 237.

And MY English translation would be: Who, does excercise his RIGHTS, do not harm no one.

I received this French 600 pages book about Maxims Derek Moran, they cite the Maxims in Latin, the translation in French, the explaination in French, and they also cite some court cases that happened in Quebec ... :D

Powerful one: :D Nemo debet praegravari ex facto alterius :D

. No man ought to be burdened in consequence of another's act.

Now....who created my person ? Is that consider as an ACT ?

Interesting- CASE-LAW based on a MAXIM, in The Dictionary of Canadian Law...

MALA PROHIBITA: "At common law...conduct, otherwise LAWFUL, which is prohibited in the public interest...today...such prohibited acts are...classified as...REGULATORY OFFENCES." R v. Wholesale Travel Group (1991)

*Peter Hogg to Derek* "Remember who Acts-and-statutes actually apply to, son...Government Actors...Government Actions...performing a public function-of-government - oh...and can you get for me a copy of Scott Duncan's NOTICE OF MISTAKE, id like to get a copy of that for myself"

See they all want that NOTICE... WHY?? POWER.

Derek Moran. Maxim. THE INCLUSION OF ONE IS TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.

Maxim. AS IT IS WRITTEN SO SHALL IT BE DONE.... Meaning.....don't give one fuvk what they SAY......ITS THE WRITTEN WORD THAT MATTERS MOST......

BoE.... B O M B...

THE INTENT SHALL OVER RIGHT THE ACT......

Hey Pete Daoust baby...stop the french fries thing...please...you're teaching me....how to read FROG.....LOL...LOL....REEDIT....REDDIT...

Blue Collar Moto...this thread is definitely for you ;)

Interesting MAXIM-of-Law i came across yesterday in The Dictionary of Canadian Law - that is NOT, in Black's 9th...

Wreccum maris significat illa bona quae naufragio ad terram pelluntur: A wreck of the sea, means the GOODS, which are brought to SHORE, from the SHIPWRECK.

...this should be at the top

Scott Duncan "Fruit of the poisonous tree" is a legal concept that is ONLY accepted in the U.S. It's not valid elsewhere, as it denies reality.