This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blaxthos (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 18 October 2006 (archive finalization and talk header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:54, 18 October 2006 by Blaxthos (talk | contribs) (archive finalization and talk header)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Common law/Archive 2 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| 1 |
Motion Before This Court to Change One Sentence
Comes Now; one "Charles Bruce, Stewart"; of "Sandy Oregon"; who here-by makes Motion before this Court, to Change One Sentence in the Text of the Main "Common-Law" Article, which is directly linked to this talk page. Note please that it is this author's humble opinion that almost this entire article needs to be substantially re-worded, from an entirely different and Less Imperial-Roman, Top-Down Authoritarian, & Confusion-generating (Anarchist?) point of view. But this seems a good place to start.
That single sentence which is here-by motioned to be changed, is presently placed as the first sentence of the first paragraph in an early section entitled "History of the common law"; and that first sentence presently reads as follows: :
"Common law originally developed under the adversarial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent."
That sentence is here-by motioned to be changed to read as follows:
"Common law originally developed under the inquisitorial system in England from judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom, and precedent."
In support of this motioned change, i submit the following reputable citation;
Civil Procedure; West Publishing Company, Friedenthal, Kane & Miller, West Hornbook Series on Civil Procedure, 1985: Chapter 11, Jury Trial; 11.2 The Judge Jury Relationship; Pages 474 & 475:
"To understand the jury’s role better, it is useful to examine briefly the evolution of the jury since its inception in England in the eleventh century. Originally Jurors were chosen on the basis of their fitness as witnesses. They typically were selected from the neighborhood in which the facts in issue occurred, the presumption being that they would have the best possible background for evaluating the evidence in light of their own experiences in the locale. The jurors were expected to inform each other on the issues relying on their personal knowledge of the events and to consult any other reliable sources including direct communication with the parties. They were entitled to decide the case on the basis of their own knowledge, even when this contradicted the testimony.
Over time the inquisitorial nature of the juries role changed ... the jury became increasingly dependent on the materials presented to them at trial and the responsibility for providing this information shifted to the parties themselves. This foreshadowed the establishment of the now familiar adversarial system, which is based on the philosophy that the fairest and most efficient process for arriving at justice is the evaluation by the jury of testimony presented by both parties in open court."
Because Misplaced Pages requires good-faith efforts at achieving "Consensus" on all articles that appear in this forum; this moving party here-by respectfully demands that all participants in this forum/court make timely objections to this motioned proposed change, along with their reasoning "Why" they are so objecting; or else refrain from making any dishonorable sneak-attack vandalizing changes, after i claim "Justification" for making this change.
I welcome all constructive criticism. It seems Misplaced Pages rules presently prohibit my publishing of my email address or phone-number; but my Misplaced Pages user-talk page is available, & upon personal request i will make that more direct contact data available to members of this forum/court who seem to be of minimally honorable character.
And of course, feedback in this commonlaw-talk forum is not only welcome, it is actively sought.
Glory to God.
Charles Bruce, Stewart. Charles8854 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
++++
It appearing before this court that there are no objections from the members of this court to the above suggested change to the main common-law text related to this web-page, i have taken the liberty of completing the above motioned change.
I am contemplating making further changes to that text, in the same general direction and focus as the above recently-completed change. Similar to this change, i will post suggested changes prior to inserting them in the main common-law page, so that the members of this court will have ample opportunity to object to those suggested changes, &/or to share constructive-criticism in the final versions.
Any members of this court who actually know something of substance about true common-law, are respectfully asked to step forward and make their level of expertise known, in a timely manner.