Free Blacks Law Dictionary

Re: Free Blacks Law Dictionary

Postby MrFrodo » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:45 pm

So I'd like to know where Menard got his definition for statute being a 'legislative rule of a society given the force of law by consent of the governed' ?

I have highlighted in red a few points that interest me,

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

Perhaps this definitions is now no longer applicable OR is the context of artificial person always given (I've not seen it)

It is a general rule that when the provision of a statute is general, everything which is necessary to make such provision effectual is supplied by the common law; Co. Litt. 235; 2 Inst. 222; Bac. Ab. h. t. B; and when a power is given by statute, everything necessary for making it effectual is given by implication: quando le aliquid concedit, concedere videtur et id pe quod devenitur ad aliud. 12 Co. 130, 131 2 Inst. 306.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

So I do agree that definitions change and perhaps it is not a game worth playing HOWEVER i like to look into this as part of my own path of going back over what many figure heads of this movement have said that I have mistakenly believed and verify or deny it for myself.

You see what happens Larry? You see what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass?
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Free Blacks Law Dictionary

Postby Freeman-B » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:44 pm

Interesting discussion Frodo. I have, on occasion asked similar questions myself, and am still waiting for responses in substance on most of them (e.g. four-corner rule)

In UK legislation, the meanings of all words (unless specifically said to mean otherwise within the act itself) are governed by the "Interpretation Act 1978", which you can find here -

As BBD and V say, it is up to you whether you are interested in establishing what THEY mean, but I have once or twice, brought up something else - As THEY ARE bound by statute (being the rules of THEIR society), they are also bound by this chestnut:


Section 3
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
(my emphasis)

The point in bringing this up is - legalese is certainly NOT my first language, and I imagine that goes for everyone here, therefore we should ALL claim that "basic human right".

It can be a pain getting through them, but these gems exist in all sorts of statutes!

:peace: :love:
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Einstein
Banking doesn’t “involve” fraud...banking IS fraud. Tim Madden
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:04 pm
Location: Scotland/France


Return to Legal words and their meanings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest