Pages:
Author

Topic: Code as Law: How Bitcoin Could Decentralize the Courtroom (Read 1739 times)

legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
BADecker

my name is also not capitalised, shame your name is. but on a forum it is acceptable as words on a website is not a human being(man), i have already researched the words to use, but never been in breach of any contract between men, nor ordered by any government(corporate) entity. Thus never seen first hand common law truly utilized. but would like to see some examples of successful common law defences vs corporate legal entities.

i would truly love to start a payment schedule measured in bitcoins. after all common law does not care if it is pounds, canadian/australian dollars or bitcoins. only corporate court wants legal tender.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
my example was just about how to log the verdict. no need to knit pick the finer details of jury's discussions before they vote, or judges powers after.. it was simply to show that logging the verdict is as simple as sending coin to an address.

How is that 'simple', compared to just asking the jury?

because.....

title: How Bitcoin Could Decentralize the Courtroom

allows not 12 selectively chosen people to be jurers, but anyone in the UK watching a court trial via live streaming can become a jurer..

and send their 'vote' remotely

Sigh. This is just too silly. The system you describe is Britain's got Talent or Big Brother, not the legal system.
As someone above said, why not just use it as money, why the desperate attempt to see Bitcoin as the solution to every problem in the universe?
You could make all communication by embedded messages in the blockchain, but why not just use email?
I agree, this would be a horrible idea. In the US (and I assume in many other part of the world) jurors are screened by both the prosecution and the defense for potential bias, this helps ensure that the finding of the jury is based strictly on fact
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373


You need to try to work out whether you think you are talking about what is or what should be.
Because in the real world, the one that is, you don't get to avoid the consequences of your actions by just saying you don't agree to subject to the law. No matter how much you redefine the phrase common law, it simply doesn't have the effect that you seem to think it does.
Try it and see.

No matter how anyone defines anything, what counts is what works. Again, the three links to what works:

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

Smiley

i heard about people doing the 'common man' stuff, and i tried to ignore the whole drama about birth certificates being liable for the debt not the human being part. and if you call your self "frank of the family y-one" blah...

i seen many stuff about saying that people should start making their payment schedules/structure (charging for consultation, replying to letters, appearing in court)

but is there videos showing someone receiving a cheque from such practices? as it just seems like a bit of legal waffle just to waste courts time until their irritated enough to leave the courtroom, making your case automatically dismissed

Thanks, franky1. I noticed that you constantly use lower case when you use the pronoun "i." Normally, when people use this pronoun referring to themselves, they use the upper case "I." That's exactly what Karl says on his website, http://www.broadmind.org/. Take a look. Karl uses the lower case "i" when speaking about himself. For example, he says,"i : a man; Karl Lentz..." He also writes why he does it this way:

     CAPITALIZE: adj.: Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 §  4

     1. "To take advantage of - To use to ones own advantage."
 
     john doe: a person who is his own master, (sui juris)

Notice the lack of capitalization of the name "john doe." Doing it this way has legal significance. Look at Karl's website. So, you are doing it correctly.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534


You need to try to work out whether you think you are talking about what is or what should be.
Because in the real world, the one that is, you don't get to avoid the consequences of your actions by just saying you don't agree to subject to the law. No matter how much you redefine the phrase common law, it simply doesn't have the effect that you seem to think it does.
Try it and see.

No matter how anyone defines anything, what counts is what works. Again, the three links to what works:

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

Smiley

i heard about people doing the 'common man' stuff, and i tried to ignore the whole drama about birth certificates being liable for the debt not the human being part. and if you call your self "frank of the family y-one" blah...

i seen many stuff about saying that people should start making their payment schedules/structure (charging for consultation, replying to letters, appearing in court)

but is there videos showing someone receiving a cheque from such practices? as it just seems like a bit of legal waffle just to waste courts time until their irritated enough to leave the courtroom, making your case automatically dismissed
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373


You need to try to work out whether you think you are talking about what is or what should be.
Because in the real world, the one that is, you don't get to avoid the consequences of your actions by just saying you don't agree to subject to the law. No matter how much you redefine the phrase common law, it simply doesn't have the effect that you seem to think it does.
Try it and see.

No matter how anyone defines anything, what counts is what works. Again, the three links to what works:

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Are the above laws of nature for only a few people here and there? Or are they COMMON among all people?

No government or body invented the common law at its basic foundation. Governments and people may claim that they did, but at best, they adopted the TRUE AND REAL common law. When they add other laws to it, they are making civil law.



They really got you kids brainwashed, don't they? Or are you guys part of the movement to keep us in bondage?

Smiley

You need to try to work out whether you think you are talking about what is or what should be.
Because in the real world, the one that is, you don't get to avoid the consequences of your actions by just saying you don't agree to subject to the law. No matter how much you redefine the phrase common law, it simply doesn't have the effect that you seem to think it does.
Try it and see.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Are the above laws of nature for only a few people here and there? Or are they COMMON among all people?

No government or body invented the common law at its basic foundation. Governments and people may claim that they did, but at best, they adopted the TRUE AND REAL common law. When they add other laws to it, they are making civil law.



They really got you kids brainwashed, don't they? Or are you guys part of the movement to keep us in bondage?

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Are the above laws of nature for only a few people here and there? Or are they COMMON among all people?

No government or body invented the common law at its basic foundation. Governments and people may claim that they did, but at best, they adopted the TRUE AND REAL common law. When they add other laws to it, they are making civil law.

sr. member
Activity: 245
Merit: 250
Is it a law of nature that people need air to breathe? How about water to drink? Or food to eat? Look at the Declaration of Independence for the United States:...

...And we see a piece of written enactment, a statute, not common law by definition.  You tried.  You need to understand "common law" doesn't mean what you think it means, and it is based on people creating it, it just isn't/wasn't formally written.  What you should learn is the concept "natural law" is not the same as common law.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
natural law is the only real law, and bitcoin just so happens to be governed by it.

I concur. Too bad the math language of man is such a poor interpreter of what natural law is trying to tell us.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1611
Merit: 1001
natural law is the only real law, and bitcoin just so happens to be governed by it.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Common law, the real common law, has its basis in private property.

No it isn't, its based on law tradition defined in courts as a matter of tradition or interpretation of statute law.  You don't even understand the basics and have already contradicted yourself in previous posts.  You need to refresh your free-man-on-the-land scripts Grin Come back when you have so I can taunt you some more.

oh, and back to thread subject, daft idea agree with the poster that Bitcoin should keep to currency, its not a fix for all issues in the world.

Is it a law of nature that people need air to breathe? How about water to drink? Or food to eat? Look at the Declaration of Independence for the United States: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Are the above laws of nature for only a few people here and there? Or are they COMMON among all people?

No government or body invented the common law at its basic foundation. Governments and people may claim that they did, but at best, they adopted the TRUE AND REAL common law. When they add other laws to it, they are making civil law.

As long as people will not base their living and life on the REAL AND TRUE common law, they will continue to be slaves of governments. Bitcoin won't be able to help them much.

If, however, people go back to the TRUE AND REAL common law, governments and banks will fall before them, and Bitcoin will help it happen that way.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 245
Merit: 250
Common law, the real common law, has its basis in private property.

No it isn't, its based on law tradition defined in courts as a matter of tradition or interpretation of statute law.  You don't even understand the basics and have already contradicted yourself in previous posts.  You need to refresh your free-man-on-the-land scripts Grin Come back when you have so I can taunt you some more.

oh, and back to thread subject, daft idea agree with the poster that Bitcoin should keep to currency, its not a fix for all issues in the world.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Common law, the real common law, has its basis in private property. "I, a man or woman," am my own private property. Property that I own is my own private property. If I, through some agreement/contract, join my property with the property of others, then the contract controls the extent of the private property of all of us in the contract. The ability to contract is my own private property. If I, through some agreement/contract, join my property with the property of others, then the contract controls the extent of privacy regarding the private property of all of us in the contract. Depending on the way the contract is written, and the terms of the contract, the common law is the civil law of the contract. It is common civil law... common because it is civil law that applies to everyone that is bound by the contract.

If I have accidentally, or through stupidity, agreed to and contracted to something, because I have the right to contract, I also have the right to contract out of the contract. In civil law there are words and terms that show that I have the right to do this. Some of it is called "mistake of fact and mistake of law."

Let someone show that they own me or my property. If they can prove that they own me or my property, then they have the right to do with their property as they will. All United States law is against the idea of someone else owning me. It is called involuntary servitude.

If governments take away my right to use my Bitcoin property, or if they steal my bitcoins outright, they are going against the basic common law. If I don't call them to account under common law, then it is my own fault, and I am virtually giving them my property.

If anybody, person or government, wants to force me into something that I have not agreed to, it is called "under threat, duress, and coercion." Even the courts will throw out cases where law enforcement obtained contractual agreement under threat, duress or coercion. REAL and TRUE common law cuts directly to the basis of ALL law... private property, and the harming or damaging of the private property of someone else.

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
my example was just about how to log the verdict. no need to knit pick the finer details of jury's discussions before they vote, or judges powers after.. it was simply to show that logging the verdict is as simple as sending coin to an address.

How is that 'simple', compared to just asking the jury?

because.....

title: How Bitcoin Could Decentralize the Courtroom

allows not 12 selectively chosen people to be jurers, but anyone in the UK watching a court trial via live streaming can become a jurer..

and send their 'vote' remotely

Sigh. This is just too silly. The system you describe is Britain's got Talent or Big Brother, not the legal system.
As someone above said, why not just use it as money, why the desperate attempt to see Bitcoin as the solution to every problem in the universe?
You could make all communication by embedded messages in the blockchain, but why not just use email?
legendary
Activity: 1611
Merit: 1001
Probably the most important words in this topic are "code as Law." Here's why.

The United States, Canada and Britain, along with Australia, are common law nations. The CODE is not computer program scripting. Rather, it is the so-called laws that are made by governments. We need to learn that government laws are not laws. Rather, they are code. Try untangling government legal codes some time. It's harder that reverse engineering a computer script.

IF A PERSON IN A COMMON LAW COUNTRY HAS NOT CONTRACTUALLY AGREED TO THE CODES OF A GOVERNMENT, THEN THE CODE DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM AS A LAW.

So, why is it that we have to obey the laws of the country or the State? It's because government tricks us into make agreements with them through the words we use and the government papers we sign without understanding. For example. If you ever used an attorney for something, did you know that an attorney is an officer of the court? Did you know that the attorney's first obligation is to the court and not to you? If the judge says jump, the attorney needs to jump, and maybe on the way up ask, "How high?" The attorney's last obligation is to you.

Under common law, if you haven't entered into agreements with government by what you have said or signed, the only laws you are obligated to obey are:
1. Harm nobody;
2. Don't damage any property that is not yours;
3. Fulfill your contractual obligations.
That's it, PERIOD. The courts get you through #3. NOTE: If you are incorporated with a corporation, you are in contract with government who gave you permission to incorporate.

If you are interested in getting out from under all the thumbs of the government's non-law codes - like traffic tickets, and income taxes, and whatever the requirement government may have laid on you - and if you want to make a lot of money off of government at the same time, listen to the audios and the videos on the following three websites. If you have a situation, contact Karl.

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

There is a lot of "wasted" time and space on those audios and videos before you get to the nuggets of gold, but be patient. The rewards are great. They have to do with getting governments off our back so that we can use Bitcoin to get the banks out of our finances.

Smiley

legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
my example was just about how to log the verdict. no need to knit pick the finer details of jury's discussions before they vote, or judges powers after.. it was simply to show that logging the verdict is as simple as sending coin to an address.

How is that 'simple', compared to just asking the jury?

because.....

title: How Bitcoin Could Decentralize the Courtroom

allows not 12 selectively chosen people to be jurers, but anyone in the UK watching a court trial via live streaming can become a jurer..

and send their 'vote' remotely

(there are many other hypothetical situations some with flaws some without. im not saying my idea is right or wrong, and knit picking every post is just boring.. what we discuss here is just hypertheticals, its not like this is a law making website, so chill out on knit picking fictional idea's by trying to sound smart with fact.)

edit: cant be arsed to make a new post..
Sigh. This is just too silly. The system you describe is Britain's got Talent or Big Brother, not the legal system.
As someone above said, why not just use it as money, why the desperate attempt to see Bitcoin as the solution to every problem in the universe?
You could make all communication by embedded messages in the blockchain, but why not just use email?

no one is saying that bitcoin should take over every activity. we are just shouting out 'brain farts' and other idea's that it could b possible. so dont take it too seriously, relax, its only opinion and idea's .. its not like forum members will change the world tomorrow
newbie
Activity: 29
Merit: 0
When the only tool you have is a hammer.....

Seriously, why can't we just accept that bitcoin is very, very good at doing exactly what it was designed to do (allow irreversible transfers of funds between parties without the need for a trusted third party) and leave it at that?  Why do we have to try and shoehorn every damn thing we can think of into it?

You're right, Bitcoin doesn't need the added baggage.

Thats why we have altcoins/DACs.  Check out wiki.bitshares.org for a great example. 

It doesn't mean everything has a better decentralized implementation for that which is possible, but it is a lot of fun to push it !
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Thank you for responding, however. Even though you are trying to throw some bad light on the REAL common law by advocating that I am wrong about it, your posts are keeping this topic near the top of the forum, where lots more people will get a chance to view it. Some of them will use Karl's info to beat the "system."

I bet they won't.
If you actually try to apply any of his ideas, you'll see exactly how far you get.
He either believes what he says, in which case he is a fool, or doesn't, in which case he is a charlatan.
If you break the law of the land and get caught, you will be fined/locked up as appropriate, regardless of whether you recognize their jurisdiction or not.

When people talk about 'common law countries', or 'common law jurisdictions', they mean places whose legal systems are based on the English one. That is what the term means. If you want to say something else, you should use a different term. There is nothing about the English common law system which says that you are only obliged to follow those laws you 'contractually' agree to.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373

...is rubbish. It is simply wrong.

Now it is you who are wrong. It seems that you want to almost skirt the point. The point is, listen to Karl. See the successes he and others have been having. Consider that it is only since the 1950s or so that the attorney and judicial systems have become bloated, the reason being that they have convinced or coerced the people out from under common law into civil law. The true, basic, original common law isn't dead. It is simply almost empty of users.

Consider a group of families living in a community, without any formal government system. They are simply living in close proximity to one another. The law is simple for them. It is: harm nobody; damage the property of nobody else; live up to your agreements; if you accidentally damage someone in some way, whether you know it or not, when you become aware of it, make it right. That's it! There is nothing else... at least not until the people as a group agree on something else. But then it starts to become civil law. The common law that we mainly exercise in the United States is really civil common law. It is a form of common law that has been adopted by the civil law government, to look like common law when it really is NOT, so that the government can craftily drag the people out from under the REAL common law, and turn the country into a civil law nation.

Believe what you want. But do yourself a favor and listen to the audios at the three links for Karl, the links in my post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7716631.

Thank you for responding, however. Even though you are trying to throw some bad light on the REAL common law by advocating that I am wrong about it, your posts are keeping this topic near the top of the forum, where lots more people will get a chance to view it. Some of them will use Karl's info to beat the "system."

Smiley
Pages:
Jump to: