Standing naked on my property

[Francisco Ferrer]

To be clear, laws protecting a person's reputation are incompatible with free speech.

Only if one assumes a view of free speech that is absolute, which almost no one does. If we did, then they're couldn't be any laws against fraud.

Fraud is a violation of rights not because it is a form of offensive speech but because it is breach of contract. Suppose, X sells Y a yellow metal disk which X claims is a solid gold coin. In fact it is solid brass. X has taken Y's money (or other form of property) without abiding by the terms of the contract (written or verbal) to deliver unto Y a gold coin. By taking Y's money without fulfilling the terms under which Y parted with that money, X is trespassing on Y's property.

:

Francisco Ferrer, on 19 Aug 2014 - 6:22 PM, said:

No doubt some may not be entirely comfortable biding adieu to our venerable anti-defamation laws. But can they answer this question, how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

Seriously? Laws against defamation assume ownership of opinions and reputation?

When a person files a slander or libel suit, his basis for action is that words written or spoken by the plaintiff have damaged his reputation. FindLaw's legal dictionary defines "libel" as "a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt."

Now where is the plaintiff's reputation stored? Does he keep it in a sock under his mattress? In a bank safe deposit box? In a heavily guarded mine shaft in Nevada?

Hardly. Again from FindLaw: "Reputation: overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general within a community."

In other words, the item that the plaintiff asserts is damaged is something he holds no real title to. Any claim to ownership over one's reputation is in effect a pretense to own/control what other people may think.

Now by what action did one come into legal ownership of another's thoughts? Did he buy them? Discover them? inherit them from Grandpa?

I guess imprisonment assumes ownership of criminals, too, right? This is so absurd on its face that it doesn't merit an answer.

Well, to some degree, yes. A criminal by reason of having violated the rights of another has forfeited his own right to freedom. Until his debt to the victim is repaid, he is temporarily and within strict limits owned by the victim or the victim's surrogate.

[George H. Smith]

The George H. Smith rules for adversarial public discourse:

>argue like hell

>both go into the kitchen and drink beer

>argue like hell

--Brant

the Internet is a little bit different

Around a week ago I pinched a nerve in my neck. The pain was so bad that I was unable to write my usual Cato Essay for last Friday; that was only the second time in 2-/1/2 years that I missed my weekly deadline. The pain is far less severe now, after days of being virtually unable to move my neck, so I'm gearing up for the next essay for this Friday. But I was rusty, so I figured that getting back into the OL Ring of Fire for some warm-up rounds might help. It did.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

"Innocent liberty" means the legal presumption of "not guilty" even though it's only metaphysically possible for the very young and old? Except for these two, "innocence" is only epistemological and before the bar? Thus in the name of determining guilt or innocence some coercion is justified to make the courts work. Anyway, as an adult you're guilty of something, some kind of force initiation in your life. So if you are innocent of one thing and are arrested for it, albeit with the presumption of innocence, that's the price of peaceful society and your un-original sin(?). While I really cannot get my head around this I can jump into it. The legal presumption, which seems to displace human rights, is the supremacy of such a legal system. The Declaration of Independence meets pragmatism?

I prefer to approach this subject from the perspective of freedom, what it is and what it means. Who's going to rally around the flag of a pile of legalisms? However much I might have misrepresented Wolf here, he, like the pure libertarians, intellectually mostly occupy the political realm in philosophy. Except for the NIOF principle, reduced here by Wolf to NAP, not much else outside the actual history of political philosophy seems to hold it together.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The George H. Smith rules for adversarial public discourse:

>argue like hell

>both go into the kitchen and drink beer

>argue like hell

--Brant

the Internet is a little bit different

Around a week ago I pinched a nerve in my neck. The pain was so bad that I was unable to write my usual Cato Essay for last Friday; that was only the second time in 2-/1/2 years that I missed my weekly deadline. The pain is far less severe now, after days of being virtually unable to move my neck, so I'm gearing up for the next essay for this Friday. But I was rusty, so I figured that getting back into the OL Ring of Fire for some warm-up rounds might help. It did.

Ghs

See your doctor to find out if you need physical therapy. I've got a problem going on with my right arm rotator cuff.

--Brant

don't use a chiropractor, especially for anything to do with the neck or manipulation of the head relative to the rest of the body--extremely dangerous--and be very careful with the therapist if you go to one: you don't want an artificially induced stroke

[George H. Smith]

The George H. Smith rules for adversarial public discourse:

>argue like hell

>both go into the kitchen and drink beer

>argue like hell

--Brant

the Internet is a little bit different

Around a week ago I pinched a nerve in my neck. The pain was so bad that I was unable to write my usual Cato Essay for last Friday; that was only the second time in 2-/1/2 years that I missed my weekly deadline. The pain is far less severe now, after days of being virtually unable to move my neck, so I'm gearing up for the next essay for this Friday. But I was rusty, so I figured that getting back into the OL Ring of Fire for some warm-up rounds might help. It did.

Ghs

See your doctor to find out if you need physical therapy. I've got a problem going on with my right arm rotator cuff.

--Brant

I went to a chiropractor on Monday. In two sessions he pretty much took care of the problem with some adjustments. Much cheaper than a doctor, and probably more effective.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

If you ever figure out what you mean by "innocent liberty," please let us know.

Okay, supposing good faith. I've already shown that innocence is a matter for adjudication, case by case. The persistent presumption of innocence necessitates appellate review of fundamental fairness at civil or criminal trial, petitions of habeas corpus to challenge lawful imprisonment, and (according to Art. IV. of The Freeman's Constitution) severe penalty for wrongful use of the police power.

Equity jurisdiction is the key to litigating pollution, prospective harm, and other matters where money damages are an insufficient or irrelevant remedy. Family court questions (divorce, child custody) and bankruptcy are likewise matters of equitable justice in a context where no one can be made whole with a common law jury award of money damages. In all of these equitable cases and controversies, liberty is at issue, adjudicated, and very often taken by court order backed by force (sheriff and other sworn LEOs).

It has been settled law for centuries that "a dead thing can do no felony." Guns and knives are innocent. Dead people are innocent. Ditto farm animals, birds, human infants and most children. Senile elderly and comatose hospital patients may be represented by counsel, but are unable to give reliable testimony or to direct their own affairs. The competence and relevance of an otherwise healthy adult witness is always challengeable. Competent jurors can be struck by peremptory challenge. In short, due process has evolved to exclude everything and everyone that might prejudice or cloud the proceedings.

Innocence is a matter that cannot be decided by theory. It is tested, argued, and adjudicated case by case.

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial.

It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver. [Freeman's Constitution]

[George H. Smith]

"Innocent liberty" means the legal presumption of "not guilty" even though it's only metaphysically possible for the very young and old? Except for these two, "innocence" is only epistemological and before the bar? Thus in the name of determining guilt or innocence some coercion is justified to make the courts work. Anyway, as an adult you're guilty of something, some kind of force initiation in your life. So if you are innocent of one thing and are arrested for it, albeit with the presumption of innocence, that's the price of peaceful society and your un-original sin(?). While I really cannot get my head around this I can jump into it. The legal presumption, which seems to displace human rights, is the supremacy of such a legal system. The Declaration of Independence meets pragmatism?

I prefer to approach this subject from the perspective of freedom, what it is and what it means. Who's going to rally around the flag of a pile of legalisms? However much I might have misrepresented Wolf here, he, like the pure libertarians, intellectually mostly occupy the political realm in philosophy. Except for the NIOF principle, reduced by Wolf to NAP, not much else outside the actual history of political philosophy seems to hold it together.

--Brant

Again, "not guilty" of what? Breaking a law -- any law? If this is the intended meaning of "innocent freedom," and if we incorporate innocent freedom into our definition of "justice," then justice will vary according to the system of law in question. In a Sharia legal system, for example, blaspheming Islam would qualify as a unjust action, and punishing blasphemers would be just, provided the verdict conforms to the formal norms of that legal system. In short, to identify the "just" with the "legal" renders any concept of justice unnecessary and superfluous. And that's just one problem among many with this type of legal positivism, according to which no law (again, if passed according to the formal requirements of a given legal system) can be unjust, by definition.

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

Instead of defining freedom and justice in terms of a double negative such as the non-initiation of force principle with force being the second negative, I prefer to give freedom and justice positive definitions.

Freedom is the state in which all human interactions are voluntary.

Justice is the state in which any person that violates the freedom of another is punished.

An interaction is voluntary so long as all of the parties consent.

In order to attain freedom, two other concepts or principles are necessary: The concept of property and the principle that the first person has priority (or, first come, first served).

The concept of property is the concept that whatever a person creates or acquires from another through trade or as a gift belongs to him and he controls it. Some human interactions involve the exchange of property. When a piece of property changes hands, control over it passes from one person to another. In a state of freedom, all changes in the ownership of property are voluntary.

The notion that the first person has priority explains what happens when one encounters an unowned object. The first person to encounter such an object may claim it as his property.

Freedom and justice as defined above are ideals. They are the goal of a proper political system. Such goals are probably impossible to realize in practice. Wolf, George, FF, and the other readers of this forum undoubtedly know a great deal about such systems and their limitations. Wolf seems to know a tremendous amount about existing legal systems, but seems unclear about the goal of such systems. Sorry, Wolf, if that is an unfair characterization. I am simply going on the above discussion.

The fact that such systems are idealizations does not make a clear understanding of the ideals a merely academic exercise. Without a clear understanding of the goal towards which such systems should be directed, it is impossible to judge their success or failure or to suggest ways to improve them or to know whether they are getting better or worse. The question is, better or worse with respect to what standard (or goal or end)?

Darrell

Edited August 21, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Brant Gaede]

"Innocent liberty" means the legal presumption of "not guilty" even though it's only metaphysically possible for the very young and old? Except for these two, "innocence" is only epistemological and before the bar? Thus in the name of determining guilt or innocence some coercion is justified to make the courts work. Anyway, as an adult you're guilty of something, some kind of force initiation in your life. So if you are innocent of one thing and are arrested for it, albeit with the presumption of innocence, that's the price of peaceful society and your un-original sin(?). While I really cannot get my head around this I can jump into it. The legal presumption, which seems to displace human rights, is the supremacy of such a legal system. The Declaration of Independence meets pragmatism?

I prefer to approach this subject from the perspective of freedom, what it is and what it means. Who's going to rally around the flag of a pile of legalisms? However much I might have misrepresented Wolf here, he, like the pure libertarians, intellectually mostly occupy the political realm in philosophy. Except for the NIOF principle, reduced by Wolf to NAP, not much else outside the actual history of political philosophy seems to hold it together.

--Brant

Again, "not guilty" of what? Breaking a law -- any law? If this is the intended meaning of "innocent freedom," and if we incorporate innocent freedom into our definition of "justice," then justice will vary according to the system of law in question. In a Sharia legal system, for example, blaspheming Islam would qualify as a unjust action, and punishing blasphemers would be just, provided the verdict conforms to the formal norms of that legal system. In short, to identify the "just" with the "legal" renders any concept of justice unnecessary and superfluous. And that's just one problem among many with this type of legal positivism, according to which no law (again, if passed according to the formal requirements of a given legal system) can be unjust, by definition.

Ghs

Well, of course. I simply approach the matter from individual (natural) rights and go from there. Goodbye Sharia.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

If you ever figure out what you mean by "innocent liberty," please let us know.

Okay, supposing good faith. I've already shown that innocence is a matter for adjudication, case by case. The persistent presumption of innocence necessitates appellate review of fundamental fairness at civil or criminal trial, petitions of habeas corpus to challenge lawful imprisonment, and (according to Art. IV. of The Freeman's Constitution) severe penalty for wrongful use of the police power.

Equity jurisdiction is the key to litigating pollution, prospective harm, and other matters where money damages are an insufficient or irrelevant remedy. Family court questions (divorce, child custody) and bankruptcy are likewise matters of equitable justice in a context where no one can be made whole with a common law jury award of money damages. In all of these equitable cases and controversies, liberty is at issue, adjudicated, and very often taken by court order backed by force (sheriff and other sworn LEOs).

It has been settled law for centuries that "a dead thing can do no felony." Guns and knives are innocent. Dead people are innocent. Ditto farm animals, birds, human infants and most children. Senile elderly and comatose hospital patients may be represented by counsel, but are unable to give reliable testimony or to direct their own affairs. The competence and relevance of an otherwise healthy adult witness is always challengeable. Competent jurors can be struck by peremptory challenge. In short, due process has evolved to exclude everything and everyone that might prejudice the proceeding.

Innocence is a matter that cannot be decided by theory. It is tested, argued, and adjudicated case by case.

Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial.

It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a lawgiver. [Freeman's Constitution]

Let's assume that I am satisfied with your explanation of innocence and/or the presumption of innocence. You still have not explained what "innocent liberty" is supposed to mean.

In a previous post you claimed that "justice is the armed defense of innocent liberty." May this be reworded, without any change of meaning, to read "justice is the armed defense of the presumption of innocence?" Is that what you meant to say? If not, then how does innocent liberty differ from the presumption of innocence?

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

You still have not explained what "innocent liberty" is supposed to mean.

Golly.

You're at liberty, presumed innocent.

Accused of wrongdoing, you are summoned to appear in court. If acquitted, you are discharged and returned to liberty.

The courts and cops use armed force to defend your innocent liberty.

It ain't complicated.

[Samson Corwell]

To be clear, laws protecting a person's reputation are incompatible with free speech.

Only if one assumes a view of free speech that is absolute, which almost no one does. If we did, then they're couldn't be any laws against fraud.

Fraud is a violation of rights not because it is a form of offensive speech but because it is breach of contract. Suppose, X sells Y a yellow metal disk which X claims is a solid gold coin. In fact it is solid brass. X has taken Y's money (or other form of property) without abiding by the terms of the contract (written or verbal) to deliver unto Y a gold coin. By taking Y's money without fulfilling the terms under which Y parted with that money, X is trespassing on Y's property.

:

Francisco Ferrer, on 19 Aug 2014 - 6:22 PM, said:

No doubt some may not be entirely comfortable biding adieu to our venerable anti-defamation laws. But can they answer this question, how do we arrive at a law that preserves reputation against falsehoods unless we grant one man ownership over another's opinions?

Seriously? Laws against defamation assume ownership of opinions and reputation?

When a person files a slander or libel suit, his basis for action is that words written or spoken by the plaintiff have damaged his reputation. FindLaw's legal dictionary defines "libel" as "a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt."

Now where is the plaintiff's reputation stored? Does he keep it in a sock under his mattress? In a bank safe deposit box? In a heavily guarded mine shaft in Nevada?

Hardly. Again from FindLaw: "Reputation: overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general within a community."

In other words, the item that the plaintiff asserts is damaged is something he holds no real title to. Any claim to ownership over one's reputation is in effect a pretense to own/control what other people may think.

Now by what action did one come into legal ownership of another's thoughts? Did he buy them? Discover them? inherit them from Grandpa?

I guess imprisonment assumes ownership of criminals, too, right? This is so absurd on its face that it doesn't merit an answer.

Well, to some degree, yes. A criminal by reason of having violated the rights of another has forfeited his own right to freedom. Until his debt to the victim is repaid, he is temporarily and within strict limits owned by the victim or the victim's surrogate.

1. Hey, I mean, Joe Schmoe was stupid enough to believe what I said. If you support laws against fraud, then you are necessarily making requirements regarding how they must communicate. You're weaseling out of this with word play.

2. I asked in what way it assumes a claim of ownership. I don't think it should be legal to take pictures of someone without their consent, but I'm not assuming ownership at all with this view.

3. Rubbish. A criminal does not become their victim's property (nor should they). They are punished with time in prison. A man who tries to enslave, say, a vandal in order to recover the costs of the damage should have their house burned down (presuming they live alone). I do not take kindly to forced labor of any kind (i.e., debt peonage, forced prison labor, conscription, execution contracts, etc.) and I will very well kick the ass of anyone who tries it myself.

[Wolf DeVoon]

A criminal does not become their victim's property (nor should they). They are punished with time in prison. A man who tries to enslave, say, a vandal in order to recover the costs of the damage should have their house burned down (presuming they live alone). I do not take kindly to forced labor of any kind (i.e., debt peonage, forced prison labor, conscription, execution contracts, etc.) and I will very well kick the ass of anyone who tries it myself.

Agreed. Two thumbs up.

To be convicted of fraud or adjudged a debtor does not end one's right to life... nor does a verdict of legal 'guilt' appoint and constitute a complainant counterparty or lender to an office of retribution. No honest court of law will hand someone into slavery, not for any reason.

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. Hey, I mean, Joe Schmoe was stupid enough to believe what I said. If you support laws against fraud, then you are necessarily making requirements regarding how they must communicate. You're weaseling out of this with word play.

If you believe in a society in which contracts are regarded as mere word play and are not enforced, then don't expect any enterprise above the level of tiny corner markets. Taking someone's money through deception is no different than changing property line markers or deeds in the courthouse without the consent of all owners. It is trespass.

2. I asked in what way it assumes a claim of ownership. I don't think it should be legal to take pictures of someone without their consent, but I'm not assuming ownership at all with this view.

You cannot make a claim for damages to something you don't own. You cannot collect when a vandal wrecks a house you don't have title to. If you claim your reputation is damaged, then you must show it belonged to you in the first place. Since your reputation exists only in the minds of others, how can you assert a right to collect for damages? You don't own what other people think.

3. Rubbish. A criminal does not become their victim's property (nor should they). They are punished with time in prison. A man who tries to enslave, say, a vandal in order to recover the costs of the damage should have their house burned down (presuming they live alone). I do not take kindly to forced labor of any kind (i.e., debt peonage, forced prison labor, conscription, execution contracts, etc.) and I will very well kick the ass of anyone who tries it myself.

Then I assume you will be spending a great deal of time kicking ass in the U.S., which has the the world's highest prison population at 724 people per 100,000.

And why shouldn't vandals pay for the cost of their destruction of property? Why should anyone be allowed to consume something and not pay for it?

[Samson Corwell]

1. Hey, I mean, Joe Schmoe was stupid enough to believe what I said. If you support laws against fraud, then you are necessarily making requirements regarding how they must communicate. You're weaseling out of this with word play.

If you believe in a society in which contracts are regarded as mere word play and are not enforced, then don't expect any enterprise above the level of tiny corner markets. Taking someone's money through deception is no different than changing property line markers or deeds in the courthouse without the consent of all owners. It is trespass.

2. I asked in what way it assumes a claim of ownership. I don't think it should be legal to take pictures of someone without their consent, but I'm not assuming ownership at all with this view.

You cannot make a claim for damages to something you don't own. You cannot collect when a vandal wrecks a house you don't have title to. If you claim your reputation is damaged, then you must show it belonged to you in the first place. Since your reputation exists only in the minds of others, how can you assert a right to collect for damages? You don't own what other people think.

3. Rubbish. A criminal does not become their victim's property (nor should they). They are punished with time in prison. A man who tries to enslave, say, a vandal in order to recover the costs of the damage should have their house burned down (presuming they live alone). I do not take kindly to forced labor of any kind (i.e., debt peonage, forced prison labor, conscription, execution contracts, etc.) and I will very well kick the ass of anyone who tries it myself.

Then I assume you will be spending a great deal of time kicking ass in the U.S., which has the the world's highest prison population at 724 people per 100,000.

And why shouldn't vandals pay for the cost of their destruction of property? Why should anyone be allowed to consume something and not pay for it?

1. You're trying make fraud=trespass, just as many libertarians try to make pollution=trespass instead of simply making a new category for it. Fraud is fraud. Trespass is trespass. Rothbard pulled the same exact shit with regard to breach of contract and bankruptcy, attempting to paint them as theft so he could say that he wasn't betraying his (empty) principles. He also flat out declared fractional reserve banking "fraud". And more to the point: who would say that their in favor of fraud? No one, that's who!

2. False. People sue for emotional damages all the time. No ownership assumed. Deal with it. Next!

3. Prison isn't slavery. Trying to paint me as inconsistent isn't going to work here. As to your questions, look up "cruel and unusual punishment". No civilized society would ever permit your barbaric notion of "justice" and would rightly punish you if you tried carrying it out.

[Selene]

No honest court of law will hand someone into slavery, not for any reason.

How should the trier of fact be selected?

Arbitration. generally, using the American Arbitration Associations paradigm:

Arbitrator and Mediator Selection

Arbitrators and mediators are selected at the case-filing stage for those clients who utilize the full-service case administration prowess of the AAA. With the inauguration of the new service ARBITRATOR SELECT, however, the AAA offers innovative, cost effective, and unprecedented access to the AAA's distinguished and experienced Roster of Neutrals.

Arbitrator Select: List Only. The AAA provides users with a list of the best, most appropriate arbitrators for their dispute, according to clients' specifications.

Arbitrator Select: List and Appointment. The AAA goes further to facilitate conflicts checks with specific arbitrators and to assist parties in arbitrator selection or appointment.

At any point, parties can opt for full case administration. For more information, click on Arbitrator Select, below.

https://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules?_afrLoop=24224689943036&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=j5h9pirpa_309#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dj5h9pirpa_309%26_afrLoop%3D24224689943036%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dj5h9pirpa_353

[Samson Corwell]

No honest court of law will hand someone into slavery, not for any reason.

How should the trier of fact be selected?

Arbitration. generally, using the American Arbitration Associations paradigm:

Arbitrator and Mediator Selection

Arbitrators and mediators are selected at the case-filing stage for those clients who utilize the full-service case administration prowess of the AAA. With the inauguration of the new service ARBITRATOR SELECT, however, the AAA offers innovative, cost effective, and unprecedented access to the AAA's distinguished and experienced Roster of Neutrals.

Arbitrator Select: List Only. The AAA provides users with a list of the best, most appropriate arbitrators for their dispute, according to clients' specifications.

Arbitrator Select: List and Appointment. The AAA goes further to facilitate conflicts checks with specific arbitrators and to assist parties in arbitrator selection or appointment.

At any point, parties can opt for full case administration. For more information, click on Arbitrator Select, below.

https://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules/searchrules?_afrLoop=24224689943036&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=j5h9pirpa_309#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dj5h9pirpa_309%26_afrLoop%3D24224689943036%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dj5h9pirpa_353

Arbitration ain't trial.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Went over my head. How did an arbitrator get jurisdiction for fraud or unpaid debt?

[Selene]

Yes gentlemen, I've been involved in both.

I was inarticulate in the beginning of the post.

In a charge of fraud, how would the trier of fact be chosen?

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

In a charge of fraud, how would the trier of fact be chosen?

In what jurisdiction? -- small claims, U.S. state, U.S. federal, Russia, France, Nigeria, Libertopia, Ancapistan?

Are we talking about a misdemeanor, felony, or civil case?

Maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. I still can't figure out why the FBI is investigating a St. Louis County internal affairs case,

or why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is being tried in U.S. District Court for conspiracy to damage buildings?

[Selene]

In a charge of fraud, how would the trier of fact be chosen?

In what jurisdiction? -- small claims, U.S. state, U.S. federal, Russia, France, Nigeria, Libertopia, Ancapistan?

Are we talking about a misdemeanor, felony, or civil case?

Cute. You can take them one at a time.

Sorry guys, that prior post was not clear.

For example, the State of New York's "judge's/JHO's/etc:

The structure of the New York judiciary is one of the most complex among the fifty states. There are courts that function throughout the state, including the court of appeals, the appellate division of the supreme court, the supreme court, the court of claims, the surrogate's court, and the family court. There are courts that operate only in New York City, such as the civil and criminal courts of the city of New York; there are courts that exist only outside of New York City, including county courts, city courts, and town and village justice courts; and there are district courts that reside in only two of the state's counties. Additional confusion is created by the fact that New York calls its major trial court the supreme court, a title given to the court of last resort in most other states.

Most of New York's trial court judges are chosen in partisan elections, with judicial candidates competing in primary elections to determine who will represent the party in the general election. According to statute, however, candidates for the supreme court (the major trial court) are chosen through a party convention system, in which primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Unsuccessful candidates for supreme court judgeships and a watchdog group recently challenged the constitutionality of this process, asserting that it discouraged party outsiders from seeking these seats, but in early 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the system in a unanimous decision (New York Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres). According to Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the Court's opinion, "None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination." http://www.judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=NY

How should the trier of fact in a criminal case be determined?

Let's start with the most difficult one.

District Court Judges are elected to 6 year terms.^{[citation needed]} Full-time city court judges serve 10-year terms, and part-time city court judges serve six-year terms.^{[citation needed]} Justice court justices are elected to four-year terms.^{[citation needed]} The majority of justice court justices are not attorneys, and non-attorney justices must successfully complete a certification course and participate in continuing judicial education.^{[citation needed]} Surrogates serve 14-year terms within New York City and 10-year terms elsewhere in the state.^{[citation needed]}Family court judges serve 10-year terms; those outside New York City are elected, while those in New York City are appointed to by the Mayor.[

Limited jurisdiction courts

New York's limited jurisdiction courts vary in their selection processes:^[3]

Court of Claims Family Court Surrogate's Court Civil Court Criminal Court District Court City Court Town Court Selection: Comm. select., Gov. appt. with senate consent Partisan election Partisan election Partisan election Mayoral appointment Partisan election Varies Partisan election Re-election method: Comm. select., Gov. appt. with senate consent Re-election Re-election Re-election Reappointment Re-election Varies Re-election Qualifications: state resident; at least 10 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; county resident; at least 10 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; county resident; at least 10 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; city resident; at least 10 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; city resident; at least 10 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; county resident; at least 5 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; city resident; at least 5 years of state practice; minimum age of 18; mandatory retirement age of 70 state resident; local resident; minimum age of 18

[Wolf DeVoon]

Having read the above (NY judges), all I can say is I'm with Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin devised a pretty good procedure for the selection of judges, during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It's a pity that he wasn't taken seriously. He suggested that lawyers should elect judges, because they will almost certainly choose the most successful and most reputable of their number, in order to divide his lucrative law practice among themselves. https://web.archive.org/web/20020527043105/http://www.zolatimes.com/v3.43/internet_law.html

Docr. FRANKLIN observed that two modes of chusing the Judges had been mentioned, to wit, by the Legislature and by the Executive. He wished such other modes to be suggested as might occur to other gentlemen; it being a point of great moment. He would mention one which he had understood was practiced in Scotland. He then in a brief and entertaining manner related a Scotch mode, in which the nomination proceeded from the Lawyers, who always selected the ablest of the profession in order to get rid of him, and share his practice among themselves. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/0605-2/

On the question of jurisdictions and trier of fact for fraud:

misdemeanor fraud

U.S. states: city or county judge

U.S. federal: plea deal http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-state-rep-ford-to-plead-guilty-to-bank-fraud-20140804-story.html

Russia: bribery common http://jalopnik.com/why-russians-are-obsessed-with-dash-cams-5918159

France: magistrate

Nigeria: seldom prosecuted

Libertopia: arbitration

Ancapistan: covered by insurance

felony fraud

U.S. states: jury trial

U.S. federal: jury trial or plea, see Section 1347 of Title 18 (health benefits)

Russia: used to jail whistleblowers http://finance.townhall.com/news/finance/2012/10/19/tnkbp_manager_arrested_on_suspicion_of_fraud_in_russia

France: tribunal of judges

Nigeria: EFCC http://allafrica.com/stories/201408190241.html

Libertopia: arbitration

Ancapistan: collapse of PDA system

civil case

< $2500 city or county small claims judge

> $2500 jury trial or labor commission

U.S. federal: regulatory agencies http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/bank-of-america-expected-to-settle-huge-mortgage-case/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Russia: used to seize assets, expel foreigners

Nigeria: used to seize assets, expel foreigners

Libertopia: arbitration

Ancapistan: no civil courts

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. You're trying make fraud=trespass, just as many libertarians try to make pollution=trespass instead of simply making a new category for it. Fraud is fraud. Trespass is trespass. Rothbard pulled the same exact shit with regard to breach of contract and bankruptcy, attempting to paint them as theft so he could say that he wasn't betraying his (empty) principles. He also flat out declared fractional reserve banking "fraud". And more to the point: who would say that their in favor of fraud? No one, that's who!

Now that that's been said, we can return to the subject and see that the man who is fined, jailed, or made to pay compensation for selling a brass coin as a gold coin is not being punished for his words but for failing to perform what he was paid to do: deliver the gold. Two coin dealers can make the same promise, but if one of them fails to deliver what is proffered, only he is punished. Thus, fraud laws do not penalize speech but breach of contract.

2. False. People sue for emotional damages all the time. No ownership assumed. Deal with it. Next!

Then feel free to sue anytime you're on the street and see a building, a billboard or a bloated belly that you find emotionally distressing. If you own none of those items that upset you, you'll have scant luck getting the law to help remove them from your sight.

3. Prison isn't slavery. Trying to paint me as inconsistent isn't going to work here. As to your questions, look up "cruel and unusual punishment". No civilized society would ever permit your barbaric notion of "justice" and would rightly punish you if you tried carrying it out.

Then the 50 states must be what you call "barbaric," for all of them "have laws providing that convicted defendants pay restitution to their victims." See here. In California, for example, "The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation automatically collects 50 percent of prison wages or other money deposited into your trust account to pay your restitution."

[PDS]

You still have not explained what "innocent liberty" is supposed to mean.

Golly.

You're at liberty, presumed innocent.

Accused of wrongdoing, you are summoned to appear in court. If acquitted, you are discharged and returned to liberty.

The courts and cops use armed force to defend your innocent liberty.

It ain't complicated.

This seems complicated, however, or at least more complicated than necessary. I have seen this phrase in your tag-line and wondered what it meant.

20+ years ago I once represented a man charged with murder. I have prosecuted others for lesser felonies. The courts and cops in those situations did not seem--nor did I, per your formulation above-- to be using armed force so much to "defend" someone's innocent liberty as they/I were striving to take it away.

The question I am struggling with is: how is "innocent" liberty materially different than regular liberty?

[Wolf DeVoon]

The question I am struggling with is: how is "innocent" liberty materially different than regular liberty?

Liberty is an abstraction, a glittering generality. There are two connotations I recognize, the most important of which is defacto liberty. Vast aspects of daily life are unregulated and anarchistic, governed only by our desire to stay alive and avoid disaster, or to raise as much hell as possible, and often both from time to time. I've argued for The Right To Do Wrong, but more importantly Defacto Anarchy.

We live in practical liberty to do right or wrong, with very few moral guidelines to follow.

The job of living is infinitely complex. No myth, no received wisdom can exempt you from the direct, immediate task of sizing up your situation and making the best decision you can, often in stressful circumstances. Slogans and symbols do not tell you how to conduct your life in detail, nor would you want to obey unquestioningly someone else's creed. [COGIGG, p.23]

Of necessity, we make mistakes. Liberty is spent with promises that can't be kept, idiotic ventures, and secret vices. The innocence of childhood is short-lived. Adolescence is marked by deliberate misbehavior. Teens are notoriously susceptible to adventure. Perhaps there are exceptions among Mormons and Orthodox Jews. Baptists are said to be like cats: they raise hell, but you can't catch them at it. The rest of us are inclined to illicit, risky experiments with drugs, alcohol, sex and deceit -- the last two being naturally synergistic.

The second sort of liberty I recognize is perfectly legal, but often immoral or at best amoral. This comprises all competitive enterprise, salesmanship, advertising, faking it until you make it, brown-nosing the boss, sabotaging coworkers, and using the law as a weapon. Nothing innocent about it. Spouses, children, and voters are frequently told lies and fed despicable trash on television.

Innocent liberty is honest, circumspect, and provable in a court of law. Under the current legal regime, this includes having a valid driver license, tags, and insurance during a traffic stop, being sober enough to drive, volunteering information in the event of an accident and remaining at the scene. But one's innocence (notwithstanding due process presumption of innocence) is not infrequently disbelieved by envious competitors in life, by regulators, and of course LEOs. This occasions a public test of guilt or innocence, and if found not guilty, one's innocent liberty is adjudicated and adversaries are forbidden to punish, harm, or harass those duly discharged.

It is in this exact sense that due process of law defines and defends innocent liberty by force of arms.

When someone is found guilty of crime, or ordered to pay damages or to do or refrain from doing something as equitable relief, all those whose innocent liberty was not adjudicated are likewise defended by the operation of legal due process and vigorous law enforcement.