Code as Law: How Bitcoin Could Decentralize the Courtroom

[franky1]

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

[str4wm4n]

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.

[murraypaul]

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?

[BADecker]

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.

[pening]

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 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.

[BADecker]

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 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.

[str4wm4n]

natural law is the only real law, and bitcoin just so happens to be governed by it.

[BADecker]

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.

[pening]

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.

[murraypaul]

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.

[BADecker]

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?

[murraypaul]

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?

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.

[BADecker]

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

[franky1]

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

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

[BADecker]

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

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.

[DannyElfman]

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

[franky1]

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.