SOME LEGAL DEFINITIONS SO YOU KNOW BETTER WHEN FEDERAL LAW OBEYS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS OR NOT!

SOME LEGAL DEFINITIONS SO YOU KNOW BETTER WHEN FEDERAL LAW OBEYS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS OR NOT! I USED WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA, FOR SOME LEGAL DEFINITIONS AS I COULD QUOTE THEM WITHOUT NEEDING PERMISSION AND SEVERAL LAW DICTIONARIES WERE TOO RESTRICTIVE ON QUOTING THEM FOR THE SAME BASIC LEGAL DEFINITIONS AS QUOTED BELOW. FROM ERASMUS OF AMERICA, NOV. 21, 2013.

Bill of attainder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Writ of attainder" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Writ of attaint.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010)

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were used in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures. However, the use of these bills eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by the United States Constitution as well as the constitutions of all 50 US states.

Ex post facto law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

It has been suggested that Retroactivity be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since September 2013.

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact"), also called a retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts or alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such laws are also known by the Latin term in mitius.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation is no longer applicable to situations to which it previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of such laws is called Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, especially in European Continental systems.
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though new precedent generally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. In a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

Due process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Definition of due process is unclear. Please help improve this article if you can. (June 2013)

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Typically, "Due process" means 1) NOTICE, generally written, but some courts have determined, in rare circumstances, other types of notice suffice^{[citation needed]}. Notice should provide sufficient detail to fully inform the individual of the decision or activity that will have an effect on his/her rights or property or person. 2) right to GRIEVE (that being the right to complain or to disagree with the governmental actor/entity which has decision making authority) and 3) the right to APPEAL if not satisfied with the outcome of the grievance procedure. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due-process violation, which offends against the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so that judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation has proven controversial, and is analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
Due process is not used in contemporary English law, though two similar concepts are natural justice (which generally applies only to decisions of administrative agencies and some types of private bodies like trade unions) and the British constitutional concept of the rule of law as articulated by A. V. Dicey and others.^[1] However, neither concept lines up perfectly with the American theory of due process, which, as explained below, presently contains many implied rights not found in the ancient or modern concepts of due process in England.^[2]
Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England.^{[citation needed]} When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

Common law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other uses, see Common law (disambiguation).

Legal systems of the world

  Civil law

  Common law

  Bijuridical/mixed (civil and common law)

  Islamic law (Sharia)

A Common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.^[1] Common law systems also include statutes enacted by legislative bodies, though those statutes typically either codify judicial decisions or fill in areas of the law not covered by case law. In contrast to common law systems, civil law (codified/continental law) systems are founded on a set of legal codes,^[2] which are organized laws that attempt to cover exhaustively the various legal domains, and is characterized by an absence of precedent in the judicial application of those codes.^[3] In the modern period, both systems tend to include administrative regulations which may also be codified.^[4]
A common law system is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law,^[5] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.^[6] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.^[7] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.
In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction, and on future decisions of the same appellate court; but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authorities. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Particularly common law is in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,^[8] and in countries that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including India,^[9] the United States (with the partial exception of Louisiana^[10]), Pakistan,^[11] Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada (with the exception of Quebec, which uses a mix of civil law in areas of provincial jurisdiction and common law in areas of federal jurisdiction), Malaysia, Ghana, Australia,^[12] Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, Ireland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados,^[13] South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Botswana, Guyana and Israel.

Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

United States of America

This article is part of the series: United States Constitution

Original text of the Constitution

Preamble Articles of the Constitution I II III IV V VI VII

Amendments to the Constitution

Bill of Rights I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Subsequent Amendments XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments I(1) XIII(1) XIII(2) XX(1) XXVII(1) XXVII(2)

Full text of the Constitution

Original Constitution Bill of Rights Subsequent Amendments Unsuccessful Amendments

The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases, and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.
An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments to the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of this amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified as it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.
The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. Unlike many of the Bill's provisions, the Seventh Amendment has never been incorporated (i.e. applied to the states), although almost every state voluntarily complies with such a requirement. United States v. Wonson (1812) established the "historical test", which interpreted the amendment as relying on English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of the parties.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing; that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.

How to Prove that Documents Were Signed Under Duress

Steve Thompson, Yahoo Contributor Network
Dec 16, 2007 "Share your voice on Yahoo websites. Start Here."

Flag

Close

Post a comment

Duress is one of the most vague areas of U.S. law, and also one of the simplest. Essentially, duress is the act of forcing another person or party to do something against his or her will, usually with a threat of violence or other harm. Many times, agreements and contracts are signed under duress but there is no proof, or else the victim doesn't realize that he or she can contest the validity of the signed document. But how do you prove that documents were signed under duress?

Is the contract fair and equitable?
A contract - of any sort - should be a fair and equitable "meeting of the minds", which means that it benefits both parties equally. If a contract is biased toward the other party, you will have an easier time proving that you wouldn't have signed it in normal circumstances. Explain that the documents were signed under duress, and that you don't find a meeting of the minds anywhere in the contract.
Is there a history of hostility between the two parties?
It is also easier to prove that documents were signed under duress if you and the other party have a history of arguing, fighting or disagreeing. A court is more likely to believe that you didn't sign a contract of your free will if it is unlikely that you would enter into an agreement with the other party in the first place. But you'll need to provide evidence of past disagreements, such as testimony from eyewitnesses or proof of letters or phone calls.
Did someone see you sign the papers?
A witness is an invaluable asset when trying to prove that documents were signed under duress. Chances are, if someone witnessed the signing of the contract, he or she also witnessed the pressure - either physical or otherwise - administered to get you to sign. Perhaps the witness heard verbal threats or was privy to a physical beating that ultimately convinced you to sign the papers. Whatever the case, the witness will need to testify.
Do you have written proof of harassment or threats?
Although most people are smart enough not to put threats in writing, you will run across the occasional moron. If you have threats in writing, they are golden in a courtroom. Explain that you were threatened to sign the contract or documents, which proves duress, and submit the letter or communication as evidence. Remember that e-mail is admissible as long as it can be reasonably assumed that the e-mail originated from the defendant.
Were you physically assaulted?
If the defendant used physical force to get you to sign documents under duress, make sure you have photographs of the resulting injuries. It is also a good idea to have your medical records to show that you sought treatment on the day on which the contract was signed, further strengthening your case.

     COMMENTS FROM ERASMUS OF AMERICA. AS THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DECLARED IN 1776, THERE ARE "PRETENDED ACTS OF LEGISLATION" WHEN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN POWER GRANTS TO ITSELF LEGAL POWERS NOT GRANTED TO IT BY ITS OWN WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION (Britain has an unwritten constitution also called an oral constitution but still binding on law in England). ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, "ACTS OF PRETENDED LEGISLATION" IS DECLARED LAW BY A GOVERNMENT ACTING WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SUCH A LAW FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION AND SUCH LAW HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO FORCE THE PEOPLE TO OBEY SUCH AS AN INVALID LAW OR POLICY AS ATTEMPTED BY USURPERS AND TYRANTS IN GOVERNMENT. A "DE FACTO GOVERNMENT" IS ONE HOLDING POWER IN FACT, BUT NOT LEGAL AUTHORITY AS THE VALID GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION. A "DE JURE GOVERNMENT" IS ONE HOLDING LEGAL POWER AS THE VALID GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION AS IT OBEYS THE WRITTEN OR ORAL CONSTITUTION BINDING IT IN AUTHORITY WHAT IS LAWFUL OR NOT FOR IT TO DO AS A GOVERNMENT. I THINK THIS EXPLANATION IS EASIER FOR THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAN THE DEFINITIONS I FOUND IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES.
     PASS THIS REPORT AROUND AS MOST AMERICANS WERE NEVER TAUGHT IN SCHOOL MANY OF THE KEY LEGAL CONCEPTS EXPRESSED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. IN FIRST AMERICA, BASICALLY EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SO DEBATE ON ISSUES ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION WERE COMMON AMONG THE ORDINARY FOLKS OF AMERICA. TODAY, SUPPOSEDLY ONLY LAWERS ARE SUPPOSED TO UNDERSTAND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER TAUGHT WHAT MUCH OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS IN LEGAL LANGUAGE. 
     NOW WHEN YOU WANT TO STEAL THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE PEOPLE, THEN MAKE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SOUND MYSTERIOUS AND LIKE A LEGAL WITCH DOCTOR, NOW ONLY LAWYERS KNOW WHAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS AND SO THE GOVERNMENT IS STOLEN AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE NEVER CATCH ON TO THE LEGAL CON JUST PULLED ON THEM TO STEAL AMERICA AWAY FROM THEM!
     MY PROPOSED OMNI LAW IS POSTED ON MY NATIONAL WEBSITE AND IS BASED UPON THE CIVIL TRIBUNE CONCEPT OF ANCIENT ROME WHICH JAMES MADISON, "FATHER OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION," SAID WAS THE SMARTEST LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE ANCIENT WORLD TO PROTECT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO CARRY OUT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE NATION. HOWEVER, JAMES MADISON THOUGHT THAT THE AMERICAN LEADERS WOULD HAVE LEGAL INTEGRITY TOWARDS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS WHICH HE IS ALSO CALLED THE FATHER OF, SO IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO COPY THIS ANCIENT ROMAN CONCEPT OF LAW FOR THE ROMAN REPUBLIC. HE DID NOT ANTICIPATE HOW THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE CORRUPTED AND BOUGHT OFF FROM WITHIN AS AMERICA REJECTED CHRISTIAN LEADERS FOR THE NATION WHICH HE DID NOT THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD DO. AMERICA EITHER ADOPTS THE ANCIENT ROMAN LEGAL CONCEPT OF CIVIL TRIBUNES OR ELSE WASH., D.C. UNDER CORRUPT LEADERS AS RUN WASH., D.C. TODAY IS INCAPABLE OF POLICING ITSELF OF CORRUPTION WITHIN AND IS INCAPABLE OF ACTING AS A REPONSIBLE AND HONEST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT AT THIS TIME. SO TIME TO ADOPT THE ANCIENT ROMAN CONCEPT OF CIVIL TRIBUNES WHICH KEPT THE ROMAN REPUBLIC BASICALLY HONEST FOR SEVERAL CENTURIES AND MAINTAINED PROSPERITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF ROME UNTIL CORRUPT INTERESTS FIGURED OUT HOW TO OVERTHROW THE CIVIL TRIBUNES FROM POWER AND THEN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC BECAME AS CORRUPT AS WASH., D.C. IS TODAY AND LOVES BEING CORRUPT RATHER THAN FAITHFULLY SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
     A SIMPLE PROOF THAT WASH., D.C. HAS BEEN LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR DECADES IS THE MURDER OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY 50 YEARS AGO. IN INTERVIEWING WITNESSES TODAY WHO WERE THERE IN DALLAS 50 YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE MENTION OF THREE SHOTS HEARD, NOT JUST ONE, AND TWO WERE HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD. JACQUELINE KENNEDY CRAWLED OUT ONTO THE BACK OF THE LIMOUSINE TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF KENNEDY'S BRAINS AND PART OF HIS SKULL BLOWN OUT OF HIS HEAD HAVING BEEN HIT FROM THE FRONT AND NOT THE REAR WHERE LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS LOCATED! AND WHEN I HAD THE LEGAL TESTIMONY OF A NOTARY PUBLIC FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND A SECRET SERVICE AGENT WHO BOTH WANTED TO TESTIFY WHAT THEY OVERHEARD AT THE WHITE HOUSE SHOWING THAT C.I.A. HAD MURDERED PRESIDENT KENNEDY BEFORE HE COULD DISBAND C.I.A. AS HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO, CONGRESS WAS SO SCARED TO DEATH OF THIS TESTIMONY, THEY REFUSED TO CALL THE WITNESSES I HAD LINED UP. AT LEAST ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS RESPONDED ORALLY AND SAID, "THIS IS SO HOT, I WOULDN'T TOUCH THIS WITH A 50 FOOT POLE!" 
     COL. CURTIS B. DALL, ONE TIME SON-IN-LAW OF PRES. F.D.R. AND CHAIRMAN OF LIBERTY LOBBY IN WASH., D.C. HAD LINED UP THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT WHO HAD THE RECORDED TAPE WHERE NEW PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON TALKED BY PHONE FROM THE OVAL OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE TWO BANKERS FROM NEW YORK WHO ORDERED C.I.A. TO MURDER PRESIDENT KENNEDY. PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S BACK WAS TURNED AND HE DIDN'T SEE THE NOTARY PUBLIC ENTER THE OVAL OFFICE AND SHE OVERHEARD THE SAME PHONE CALL AS RECORDED BY THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT THERE. THERE WERE THREE OF US FROM MY INTELLIGENCE UNIT WHO HEARD HER TESTIMONY AND SHE WAS HOPING WE COULD FIND SOME WAY TO SAVE HER LIFE FROM MURDER. AS ONE SAID TO ME AS WE LEFT HER, WE HAVE HAD A MILITARY COUP IN WASH., D.C. AND NOWHERE WE CAN GO WITH THIS INFORMATION. THE NOTARY PUBLIC LATER DISAPPEARED FROM WASH., D.C. AND WE ASSUMED WAS MURDERED BY C.I.A. AS SHE THOUGHT LYNDON B. JOHNSON HAD SEEN HER AFTER ENTERING THE OVAL OFFICE. WE WERE ALL LATER THREATENED WITH FEDERAL MURDER OR "WOULD DISAPPEAR" IF WE EVER TRIED TO CONTACT THE NEWSPAPERS OR CONGRESS WITH OUR TESTIMONY. TWO FEDERAL AGENCIES WERE BEHIND THE THREATS! I WAS YOUNG THEN BUT INSTANTLY THE HEAD OF AN INTELLIGENCE GROUP AS SOON AS I CAME TO WASH., D.C. A RETIRED PENTAGON OFFICIAL WHO WAS MY RIGHT HAND WITH THIS UNIT ONCE COMMENTED HOW WE WERE "THE TEDDY ROOSEVELT ROUGH RIDERS OF AMERICAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE!" I HAD TREMENDOUS NERVE AND ALL WHO JOINED WITH US WERE SOON ALL INFECTED WITH THIS TREMENDOUS NERVE SOON AFTER AND LOVED TO OUTWIT SOVIET INTELLIGENCE, ETC.!
     OKAY, TEDDY ROOSEVELT ROUGH RIDER PATRIOTS OF AMERICA, LET'S RALLY AMERICA, PASS THE OMNI LAW AND FAST, AND RESTORE MANHOOD AND GREATNESS TO AMERICA AS AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON!
     OUR WEBSITE IS WWW.FASTBOOMAMERICANECONOMY.COM  OUR EMAIL IS FASTBOOMAMERICANECONOMY.COM@GMAIL.COM  OUR MAILING ADDRESS FOR THOSE WANTING TO SEND IN ORDERS BY MAIL INSTEAD OF THROUGH OUR WEBSITE, OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS NIFI, P.O, BOX 1465, SENECA, SC 29679 . MAKE ANY CHECKS, ETC. OUT TO NIFI AND WHAT THE PAYMENT IS FOR WHETHER PRODUCTS WHICH HELP FINANCE THE OMNI LAW DRIVE OR ELSE LOAN MONEY FOR OUR OMNI LAW LOAN PROGRAM WHICH DIRECTLY FINANCES OUR OMNI LAW DRIVE.
     YOURS FOR GOD AND COUNTRY, ERASMUS OF AMERICA (PEN NAME FOR ONE WHO HAS THE GUTS TO EXPOSE THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA AND RALLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TAKE BACK AMERICA FROM THOSE SECRETLY RUNNING WASH., D.C. BUT HAVE NO LOVE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOR AMERICA AS A NATION! IF YOU HAVE GUTS, YOU CAN HAVE THE INITIATIVE TO WIN IN AMERICA. THAT IS THE SECRET FOR WINNING BACK CONTROL OF AMERICA FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!)