!WANTED! Study Buddy(s)

I agree with your assertions about ED and CWC. Here is a little read on the topic. At the end of this I provide the link as well as a short tutorial on how to code a link for those who might want to know such stuff. "An Overview of Natural Law Theory by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Natural law theory is one of the most important theories in the philosophy of Classical Realism. It is also widely misunderstood by many who have either not taken the time to study it or have heard of it and dismissed it as a "medieval" relic. What I want to do here is merely sketch out a general presentation of natural law theory, with the hope that the reader will become interested enough to pursue further study of it. I will provide a link to more in-depth resources at the end of this essay. Before we get into an overview of the nature of natural law theory itself, let's take a brief look at some history. The concept of natural law has taken several forms. The idea began with the ancient Greeks' conception of a universe governed in every particular by an eternal, immutable law and in their distinction between what is just by nature and just by convention. Stoicism provided the most complete classical formulation of natural law. The Stoics argued that the universe is governed by reason, or rational principle; they further argued that all humans have reason within them and can therefore know and obey its law. Because human beings have the faculty of choice (a free will), they will not necessarily obey the law; if they act in accordance with reason, however, they will be "following nature." Christian philosophers readily adapted Stoic natural law theory, identifying natural law with the law of God. For Thomas Aquinas, natural law is that part of the eternal law of God ("the reason of divine wisdom") which is knowable by human beings by means of their powers of reason. Human, or positive, law is the application of natural law to particular social circumstances. Like the Stoics, Aquinas believed that a positive law that violates natural law is not true law. With the secularization of society resulting from the Renaissance and Reformation, natural law theory found a new basis in human reason. The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law. Natural law theory eventually gave rise to a concept of "natural rights." John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. When they enter society they surrender only such rights as are necessary for their security and for the common good. Each individual retains fundamental prerogatives drawn from natural law relating to the integrity of person and property (natural rights). This natural rights theory provided a philosophical basis for both the American and French revolutions. Thomas Jefferson used the natural law theory to justify his trinity of "inalienable rights" which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence. During the 19th century natural law theory lost influence as utilitarianism and Benthamism, positivism, materialism, and the historical school of jurisprudence became dominant. In the 20th century, however, natural law theory has received new attention, partly in reaction to the rise of totalitarianism and an increased interest in human rights throughout the world. With this contemporary interest in mind, let's now turn to our attention to the natural law theory as understood by the tradition of Classical Realism. What do we mean by "natural law"? In its simplest definition, natural law is that "unwritten law" that is more or less the same for everyone everywhere. To be more exact, natural law is the concept of a body of moral principles that is common to all humankind and, as generally posited, is recognizable by human reason alone. Natural law is therefore distinguished from -- and provides a standard for -- positive law, the formal legal enactments of a particular society. Since law must always be some dictate of reason, natural law also will be some dictate of reason. In fact, it is law discovered by human reason. Our normal and natural grasp of the natural law is effected by reason, that is, by the thinking mind, and in this service reason is sometimes called "conscience." We, in all our human acts, inevitably see them in their relation to the natural law, and we mentally pronounce upon their agreement or disagreement with the natural law. Such a pronouncement may be called a "judgment of conscience." The "norm" of morality is the natural law as applied by conscience. Lastly, we can say that the natural law is the disposition of things as known by our human reason and to which we must conform ourselves if we are to realize our proper end or "good" as human beings. To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law: * is not made by human beings; * is based on the structure of reality itself; * is the same for all human beings and at all times; * is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover; * is the naturally knowable moral law; * is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good. It is interesting to note that virtually everyone seems to have some knowledge of natural law even before such knowledge is codified and formalized. Even young children make an appeal to "fair play," demand that things be "fair and square," and older children and adults often apply the "golden rule." When doing so, they are spontaneously invoking the natural law. This is why many proponents of the natural law theory say it is the law which is "written upon the hearts of men." These are examples of what is called "connatural knowledge," that is, a knowledge which: * follows on the "lived experience" of the truth; * is the living contact of the intellect with reality itself; * is not always given expression in concepts; * may be obscure to the knower; * is overlaid with elements from the affective or feeling side of man's nature. Now, our reflection on our own conduct gives rise to the explicit formulation of the precepts of the natural law. We as human beings put our "commonsense" notions of natural law under "critical examination." In other words, our natural impulses toward "fair play," justice, and so on are subject to a rigorous investigation and rationalization. And our understanding of natural law becomes more precise as we consider and codify the principles or precepts of natural law. The primary precept of natural law will be the most basic principle about human action that can be formulated." <a href="http://radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm">Linkie</a> ************************************************************************************************************************************************ <A href="http://www.2createawebsite.com/build/html.html#hyperlinks">How to make a linkie</A> This <a href="http://www.davesite.com/webstation/html/chap04.shtml">linkie</a> is another example. Under some of the comment windows(main page comments for instance) you will be given a choice to use html or not, if you don't select html and you put your coded link in your link will appear with the all or part of the coding showing. If you forget a quotation mark or an = sign or any other part of the coding you will have problems with your link so check to make sure that your link works before you publish it and be careful to save your work or to return to your work page properly so that you don't lose whatever it is you were working on brfore you clicked on the link to check its functionality. Hope this works for you, if you have any questions let me know.

Excellent entry Milton, Thank you What I have in mind for study is it to gain the necessary knowledge to exercise those parts of encoded law has to its self, To wit, remedy and recourse. http://www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm Be certain, the court(s) most likely will not relinquish what I and other see as usurped law, is in The Bar, the Pulpit and the Press Nefariously combine To Cry up a Usurpt Pow'r And stamp it Right Devine. 1695 (Caps mine for emphasis) The maxims of law, an usurped law understand, require examination. Eg Dura lex, sed lex "The law [is] harsh, but [it is] the law". It follows from the principle of the rule of law that even draconian laws must be followed and enforced; if one disagrees with the result, one must seek to change the law. Ignorantia legis non excusat "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Not knowing that one's actions are forbidden by the law is not a defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_alia#L I am of the shared opinion man’s law is there to benefit mostly those who created it and therefore justly deserves critical eyed de-mystification. Dura lex, sed lex as defined above, flat out states ‘if one disagrees with the result, one must seek to change the law.’ As much as I acknowledge the power of One, one plus one= two thus creating a line and a line has direction. Two plus one = three. Three gives form or substance. I don’t begin to state I have all this down cold …Yet! That is why the call for Study Buddy(s)

NaturalLaw v Mans Law with respect to *rights* NL. Gifted by God ML. Claimed. here is where the maxim, Ignorantia legis non excusat, cuts both ways. Look at the Statue of Justice. observe the sword. It is two edged, is it not? Symbles are clues. All though I haven't viewed the movie. I suspect symbles play a significant role. All would be advised to, as soon as possible, familiarise themselve with the rules of the game books Blackstone's Comentaries http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-001.htm INTRODUCTION, SECTION 1 On The Study of The Law*

ah here we are Ultimately, the only way for us to have a "snowball's chance" is to understand the rules of the "game" and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this sphere of knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to. grasp. Are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers know procedure, not law. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye made men with burdens grievous to be born, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers... Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:45-52)

habeas corpus "you may have the body" A legal term from the 14th century or earlier. Refers to a number of legal writs to bring a person before a court or judge, most commonly habeas corpus ad subjiciendum ("you may have the body to bring up"). Commonly used as the general term for a prisoner's legal right to have the charge against them specifically identified Man*o*man Mammon at his best! Encoded law creates coin slots! And Man, without coin ya can’t play the game! And where does coin come from? And where doth it circulate? I’ve heard the analogy of electric current as a metaphor for *currency* Make the connection and learn the shocking truth! Who says you can’t have fun with learning? Under Papal Law, the Queen is "Defender of the Faith" Fidei Defensor (Fid Def) or (fd) "Defender of the Faith" A title given to Henry VIII of England by Pope Leo X on October 17, 1521 before Henry became a heresiarch*. Still used by the British monarchs, it appears on all British coins, usually abbreviated. generalia specialibus non derogant "universal things do not detract from specific things" A principle of legal statutory interpretation: If a matter falls under a specific provision and a general provision, it shall be governed by the specific provision. This important to know, and to which court the presentation is to be made must rightly be heard in. Supreme Court, as I understand, and hard evidence to the contrary must accompany the argument is the court a sovereign makes their claim heard Find the procedure on petitioning the Courts. (Dio) *A heresiarch (also hæresiarch, according to the Oxford English Dictionary) is a founder or leader of a heretical doctrine or movement, as considered by those who claim to maintain an orthodox religious tradition or doctrine. For example, according to traditional Roman Catholic doctrine, King Henry VIII of England was a heresiarch, as he influenced the Archbishop of Canterbury to break away from the Catholic Church to form the Church of England. The miller Domenicio Scandella (called Menocchio) of Carlo Ginzburg's The Cheese and the Worms was also declared a heresiarch by the inquisition judges. The first official heresy of the Christian church, Arianism, was created by heresiarch Arius. It taught that Jesus was of lesser substance than God, which was rebuked by Constantine's Council of Nicea, which asserted that Jesus and God were "of the same substance." Are you able to see Mans law usurping Gods law, And at the same time bestowing title, title that is part of the fabric of Canadian Jurisprudence.??? recent edit Observe the statue of Justice The scales that she holds represent the impartiality with which justice is served and the sword signifies the power that is held by those making the decision. During the 16th century, artists started showing the lady blindfolded to show that justice is not subject to influence. From this, the statue earned the name Blind Justice. There is significance in that the sword of Justice is double edged, it cuts both ways juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus "it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" Ignorantia legis non excusat "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Not knowing that one's actions are forbidden by the law is not a defense.

"If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." -- Benjamin Franklin posted as an example only http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights). also for your edification <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/idea.gif' alt='Idea'> now its some one elses turn to contribute http://vi.uh.edu/pages/bob/elhone/comcrts.html

Well, I should be done reading sometime next year if I try to read and comprehend the contents of the websites that you posted Dio.

Hey thats ok, My sourse spent a couple of decades now you have the distilation and essense of that Not knowing will cost you dearly, as the concept that creally states juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus "it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" ignoratio elenchi "ignorance of the issue" The logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion: making an argument that, while possibly valid, doesn't prove or support the proposition it claims to. An ignoratio elenchi that is an intentional attempt to mislead or confuse the opposing party is known as a red herring. Elenchi is from the Greek elenchos. Do you have offspring? People you love and care about? ps juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus "it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights" My invatation stands

A Maxim is “an established principle or proposition, a principle universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.” [Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary] Maxims in law or commerce are akin to axioms in geometry. They are the principles and the authority which stems from the general customs or Common Law of the land. As such, they are often construed to have the same strength as acts of a legislature or government statutes.

seeings as there are none interested in a long distance study buddy exchange this theread has reached its end.

The following comes from this site <a href="http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node1.html">Axioms</a>, wherein how we know anything is considered. "Introduction Humankind has, from the earliest glimmerings of sentience on, endeavored to answer certain questions. What time is dinner? What's for dinner? Who caught dinner? Once these questions were being answered satisfactorily and moderately regularly for at least a fraction of the proto-human population, we can only imagine that in that warm lull that follows a full belly around a fire beneath the stars, questioning thoughts turned to less important, but nevertheless intriguing, issues. I wonder what those little bitty lights are up there? I wonder how the fire comes out of chunks of cold rock or rubbing sticks? I wonder if I'll get dinner tomorrow, or turn out to be dinner for something else? Eventually, humankind developed rudimentary societies, and for the first time at least the ruling class of those societies experienced the luxury of not having enough to do. Others in those societies didn't have that luxury but wanted to. Together they conspired to extend these questions still further, so that they could spend their overabundance of leisure time working hard trying to answer questions that had little to do, at first glance, with dinner. Their experiment was wildly successful. It turned out that even the hardest of workers had an early form of ``attention deficit disorder''. We can speculate that their ready distractibility was an evolutionary advantage - it didn't do to become totally preoccupied with watching your prey in a world filled with other predators, or so engaged with your work at hand that you missed an opportunity for an easy meal. Also, even the hardest of workers in the hardest of times had some leisure, if only in that lull right after a big meal or when they were asleep. It is only natural that right in the middle of a big hunt or while nursing a child or plowing a field, humans would suddenly stop, somewhat dazed, and wonder things like: Who am I? Why am I here? What is all this? Of course they had no time to think of answers to all of this, so the appearance of professionals that would try to answer them for them in exchange for food was a welcome relief. The most profound of these musings, these questions, is also the most unanswerable: Why Is There Being? (Also known as why are we here, where did all this come from, why is God there (if you believe in God and consider It the answer), why is Physics there (if you believe in Physics and consider It the answer). Back when I studied philosophy, this was called the ``Super-Ultimate Why Question'' to differentiate it from the more mundane whys. This question has an infinity of possible answers (and no answer at all), and over time we've cranked away at generating a tiny fraction of this infinity for active consideration. However, the task is fairly obviously doomed. In absolute terms the question cannot be answered. This is not (just) because of the usual reason - that if we give any sort of an answer, the question can be repeated for the answer (ok, so the Universe is here because of the laws of physics, the laws of physics are there because of God, God is there because...). The task is doomed at a prior stage in the cognitive reasoning process. It is doomed at the epistemological stage, by the nature of the word ``why'' (or its many counterparts, where, what, who). It is natural for us to use these words as they have meaning and relevance in our daily lives. We feel like all questions should have answers, but when we look at them closely we find that certain questions, of certain kinds, don't. Here is one: Why should all questions (including this one) have answers? This is the kind of obnoxious question that parents eventually learn to answer (like all the rest of the related questions and question chains) with the simple word ``because...'' - which is, as any small child rapidly learns, code for ``this question cannot be answered''. ``Because'' as an answer to a ``big'' question often means that it isn't a question at all. At least, not one that we can answer in the same way that we can give somebody the time upon request. Such a ``question'' calls into question - sorry - the foundation of what we know, what it means to ask questions at all, and how we should cognitively interpret the answers (such as they are, if they exist). All of which leads us, by a roundabout way, to consider the issue of axioms." I think your enquiry is interesting and might bear sweet fruit but I don't have a lot of spare time, nor do I know when the spare time that I do have will appear, to devote to being a reliable study buddy. I am interested in your pointers though, so please don't spindle, fold and mutilate ( a popular anachronism at one time ).

"A primary maxim of law states:" Might is right. I'm of the opinion that the law is an artificial concept that has no meaning other than inside ones head. No matter what the law states, it is meaningless unless there's an entity available to enforce it through force alone. No matter how well educated you are about the written law, the law forced on you at the point of a gun is the only law that matters. But, educate away, it's interesting to see what little of your so-called natural rights are still being enforced, and how much abuse you are forced to take under threat of violence by the state.

"But, educate away, it's interesting to see what little of your so-called natural rights are still being enforced, and how much abuse you are forced to take under threat of violence by the state." the call was and is to those who wish to join in the study of law and its applications. I zm not here to "educate" but give you this, It is not "my so-called natural rights" as Natural law is not owned by me. One here will take what is given and the other chooses to argue that which he has no knowledge of. I do agree that as we see it and we see only that which we are exposed to rather than that which hwe enquiry after by our own efforts appears to be as you, rearguard, say. "I'm of the opinion that the law is an artificial concept..." On that I agree, further, A) the Bar (LAWYERS) group noun [S] 1 UK lawyers who are allowed to argue a case in a higher court 2 US all lawyers thought of as a group bar (PREVENT) verb [T] -rr- to prevent something or someone from doing something or going somewhere, or to forbid something: The centre of the town was barred to/US USUALLY barred off to football supporters. The incident led to him being barred from the country/barred from playing for England. I tried to push past her but she barred my way/path (= stood in front of me and prevented me from getting past). I believe it is fair to say there is no happenstancial coincidence using the word ‘bar’ as in ‘the Bar’ as it is applied to courts of law. To step across the Bar can be seen as captured by the opponent. When one steps across the bar or is invited to enter the bar they become in joinder with the opponent. It is curious to me that in the game of tennis, as apposed to the game of law, the judge sits off to the side of the playing field (the court) and at the centre line Whereas in a court of law the sits elevated IN the court. Judges are known to say “In MY court…” which ought to clue you in to the arrogance of the court. I witness a conversation between two men holding degrees in law, one told the other, “You will never win in THEIR court.”, Which begs the question, “of ownership?” As it stands all appearances imply those who stand before the court are owned by the law where as a Sovereign is not ‘owned’. a for the restt of yor post, gobbly gook! And I have no time for debate in that direction or at least show you have more than opinion to offer. Of course law as it stands is an artifical concept, an artifical concept that also provides Remedy and Recourse for those seriously interested in my call to gain knowledge caontact me viathe send a message feature provided by 'vive le...' I provide no more on this thread.

OK Dio, I see what you are getting at. I've been through this kind of study before, and I guess my cynicism comes from the realisation that no matter what we may come to understand as being our rights, in the end the thugs with their stun guns and the robe wearing weirdos define what the law is. No matter, I won't pursue that line of thinking any further, and may add something here and there concerning what I learned from my previous study. Interesting observation about the "Bar" btw, it peaked my interest again, but I have so little time these days.

Some of you may find this website of interest (US based however): <a href="http://www.suijuris.net">http://www.suijuris.net/</a>