Time: Sun Dec 14 16:42:27 1997
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: auto insurance [corrected]
Cc: 
Bcc: 
References: 

The correct citations are California
Civil Code, sections 22.2, 1427, 1428,
and 1708, as of March 26, 1994, when we cited 
these in a federal case, which was quitely
dismissed.  The common law is the rule of
decison;  an obligation arises either from
the operation of law, or from the contract
of the parties, and nothing else.  The only
obligation which arises from the operation of
law is to abstain from injuring the person or
property of another, or infringing upon any of 
his rights.  Here is CCC 1708:

"1708.  Every person is bound, without contract,
to abstain from injuring the person of another,
or infringing upon any of his rights." [sic]

This is a very good restatement of the common
law, which is the rule of decision in 
California, pursuant to CCC 22.2, to wit:

"22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it 
is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the 
Constitution of the United States, or the 
Constitution or laws of this State, is the
rule of decision in all the courts of this State."

These latter citations were obtained from URL:

  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

These state laws can be "imported" into 
any federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1652:
State laws as rules of decision, which is 
what we did.

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com





At 06:20 PM 12/14/97 EST, you wrote:
>
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>
>In a message dated 97-12-14 12:50:48 EST, supremelooney writes:
>
><< Then, it goes on to say that the ONLY obligation
> which arises from the operation of law is        [was "obligation"]
> to avoid doing damage or injury to the person
> or property of others.  So, the operation of law [sic] 
> in California is, clearly, the common law, preserved 
> in the California Civil Code.  
>  >>
>
>No, it doesn't.  Everyone on this list is invited to check out the entirety of
>sections 1708 et seq. of the California Civil Code.  They prove very
>conclusively that supremelooney has no idea what he is talking about.
>
>For freedom,
>
>Nick
>
>-> Send "subscribe   snetnews " to majordomo@world.std.com
>->  Posted by: NMMJR <NMMJR@aol.com>
>
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail