Time: Sun Dec 14 16:46:56 1997 To: snetnews@world.std.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: auto insurance [corrected] Cc: Bcc: sls, friends 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." Here is the definition of "obligation", to wit: "1427. An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is bound to do or not to do a certain thing." And right after that is source of obligation, to wit: "1429. An obligation arises either from: One -- The contract of the parties; or, Two -- The operation of law." That's it! So, the ONLY obligation which arises from the operation of law is to abstain from injuring the person of another, or infringing upon any of his rights, pursuant to CCC 1708. This is just as I had said in an earlier message, Nick's Nonsense Notwithstanding. These latter citations were obtained from URL: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov All such state laws can be "imported" into any federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1652: State laws as rules of decision, which is exactly 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