They are by law his children

"Don't let anyone
   claim to be a true American. Don't let them claim the tribute of
   American patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from
   politics." George Washington's farewell address
  
  

When John Stuart Mill wrote in the 19th Century "they are by law his children" a father could not be "sued for divorce", and a woman who violated her oath to God to obey and honor him was guilty of a crime.  This was the patriarchal social contract which created the once highest standard of living the world had ever witnessed by the 1960s.  The American woman owned two thirds of that wealth as the result of the benefits of marriage, not by her participation in the labor force. Today that contract is no longer enforceable, so fifty million women of marriageable age remain unmarried where they have a 73% lower standard of living and a 50% higher premature mortality rate, even though they now constitute almost half of the labor force.

The unique American version of tort law is the legal concept which gave women the legal right to "sue for divorce" and receive half [theoretically] of the community property, even though she contributed an average of less than a fifth to family incomes, paid no federal or state taxes, and was not held as accountable to the law as a man. One third of the world's prison inmates but only 5% of the world's population are in the US, and there are 20 men in prison for each woman. The arrogance of feminists' demands for "equality" in the face of such superior rights and benefits conveyed upon women by patriarchy was bad enough.  But it was this demand which destroyed the image, status, self-respect, education quality, life style, standard of living, and motherhood of the American woman.

Many other countries watched the US destroy itself with this unique version of tort law and thus no other country ever implemented it. Excluding the damage it did to families and the compounding damages it did to the children of divorce and illegitimacy, it is estimated to cost $300 billion per year in increased product liability alone.  The American Bar Association may have been the key contributor to skyrocketing litigation in the US by including in its charter "to promote full and equal participation in the legal profession by minorities and women". In light of the superior benefits conveyed on women by patriarchy, and the fact that this Christian nation was founded on the strength of families and not "women's rights", this change in their charter is curious.  Such a change could not have been inspired by the Holy Bible which places the father as the head of the family. This is not an insignificant change:

1. It caused a gender war which continues to this day.
2. It gave feminists the "moral authority" to abuse our judicial system.
3. It inflicted immeasurable damage on the nation's children. 
4. It undermined our national economy.

Since the legal establishment is the recipient of half of that $300 billion, it could have been inspired by greed.  It's hard to imagine, though, how an American could be so greedy that he would willingly participate in the destruction of his own society.    The extreme danger which can be caused by such greed could have been the result of the absence of moral and religious instruction which was well recognized by John Adams who wrote:
  
   "We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human
   passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made
   only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the
   government of any other." [Editorial note: On June 21, 1776, Adams
   also said, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for
   liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish
   the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Only foundation
   of a free Constitution is pure and virtue, and if this cannot be
   inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now,
   they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they
   will not obtain a lasting liberty."]

Jews were not allowed to be judges for almost two centuries after Adams said this.   Mr. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, one of the framers of the Constitution, published his diary in which he said: "Dr. Benjamin Franklin, a venerable figure weighted down by years and wisdom, leaned one hand on his staff, the other on the table and said:

"There is a greater menace to these United States of America than the strictly Roman . . .

"This greater menace, gentlemen, is the Jew!"

In 1962, shortly after Jews became judges, our anti-American Supreme Court banned school prayer; in 1963 it outlawed Bible reading, and in 1980, it outlawed the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools where children could see them, which is a 180 degree about face from the principles of our Forefathers and the Holy Bible.

The only possible explanation for such an about face is enough Jewish judges and lawyers who understood enough about how to pervert tort law in order to uphold the principles of the Talmud, non-Jewish judges and lawyers who didn't understand what this would do to society, and ownership of three quarters of the mainstream media by those with similar principles.

Support The Christian Party.

The American civil liability system cost $161 billion in 1995, or 2.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, compared with 1.4 percent in 1970, and 0.6 percent in 1950, according to the latest data from Tillinghast.  Tort costs peaked in 1986 at 2.5 percent of G.D.P.    Breaking down tort costs, Tillinghast found that an estimated 24 cents go to litigants for their actual (economic) losses, and 22 cents to compensate for pain and suffering.  Of the remaining 54 cents, 16 cents pays for claimants' lawyers, 14 cents for defense costs, and 24 cents for administrative costs.  http://www.iii.org/inside.pl5?media=issues=/media/issues/liability.html

Abel, Richard L. (1981), 'A Critique of American Tort Law', 8 British Journal of Law and Society, 199-231.

The courts alone decide just who will pay, how much, and on what timetable. Unlike better-known taxes, this one was never put to a legislature or a public referendum, debated at any length in the usual public arenas, or approved by the president or by any state governor. And although the tax ostensibly is collected for the public benefit, lawyers and other middlemen pocket more than half the take.  The tort tax is a recent invention. Tort law has existed here and abroad for centuries, of course. But until quite recently it was a backwater of the legal system, of little importance in the wider scheme of things. For all practical purposes, the omnipresent tort tax we pay today was conceived in the 1950s and set in place in the 1960s and 1970s by a new generation of lawyers and judges. In the space of twenty years they transformed the legal landscape, proclaiming sweeping new rights to sue. Some grew famous and more grew rich selling their services to enforce the rights that they themselves invented. But the revolution they made could never have taken place had it not had a component of idealism as well. Tort law, it is widely and passionately believed, is a public-spirited undertaking designed for the protection of the ordinary consumer and worker, the hapless accident victim, the "little guy." Tort law as we know it is a peculiarly American institution. No other country in the world administers anything remotely like it. http://www.phuber.com/huber/liab/chap1.html

In spite of the significance of tort law and the economic analysis of it, the general public, practicing attorneys, and legislators often know little about the findings and informed opinions of those scholars specializing in law and economics. The purpose of this Article is neither to review contemporary issues surrounding tort law, nor to gauge the extent of the influence of specialists in law and economics; its purpose is to address whether a consensus exists among these scholars about a few fundamental doctrines of tort law. Because efficiency is a major concern in the field of law and economics, each proposition raises an issue of efficiency about a tort rule. We thus framed ten propositions about how efficiently tort rules achieve their purposes.  http://www.als.edu/life/lr/v62.2/moorhouse.html

Cato Policy Analysis No. 347, June 3, 1999 Restoring the Boundary:
Tort Law and the Right to Contract http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-347es.html

by Michael I. Krauss

Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law.

Executive Summary

Today courts regularly resolve disputes by applying tort principles when they should apply the law of contracts. When parties have an opportunity to negotiate the terms of their relationship, the resultant contracts ought to be enforced. Tort law is an acceptable substitute only if parties have no opportunity to bargain.

Over the years the boundary between tort and contract has shifted sharply toward tort. For example, physicians serving rural areas are often not allowed to contract with patients for a lower price in return for diminished care. And courts have allowed consumers who buy cars without air bags to recover from manufacturers for injuries that only air bags would have prevented. Sometimes courts even ignore compulsory arbitration provisions that waive the usual judicial procedures for resolving disputes.

Even worse, rules have sprung up that prohibit ordinary commercial contracts. A person forbidden to sell certain products—because a government agency has determined they are too dangerous—may also be forbidden to sell his own labor—because the state has determined that the wages he would accept are too low. Contracts once freely negotiated, and subject to private suit in the event of fraud or failure to perform, are increasingly replaced by regulation. Unhappily, once government has advanced a plausible rationale for prohibiting consensual behavior in one area, its tentacles inevitably extend to other areas as well.

Today's torts "crisis" does not exist because corporations are oppressing individuals, or because we need federal legislation to replace state tort rules. The crisis exists because our rights have been given increasingly less respect by government. The crisis exists because we have not allowed tort to be tort, and contract to be contract. We need to restore the boundary between contract and tort.

Michael I. Krauss, Tort Law and Private Ordering, 35 St. Louis U. L.J. 623 (1991). A searching examination of the common-law moral foundations of both contract and tort law which explains why both are vital in a free society. After identifying the property-rights justifications for both forms of law, Professor Krauss proceeds to explain how contemporary tort law has abandoned its moral underpinnings by attenuating the requirements of legal fault and true proximate causation. The result, argues Krauss, is a legal system that eschews the traditional function of tort law (compensating the victim of another's morally culpable behavior) in favor of a system that serves as a tool for social engineering and redistribution of wealth. Modern American tort law prohibits parties from voluntarily assuming risks ex ante, instead always allocating the risk to one party. Krauss concludes that this coerced "insurance" against injuries is both economically stifling and morally vacuous. http://www.fed-soc.org/biblio.htm#torts

The ABA was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The legal profession as we know it today barely existed at that time. Lawyers were generally sole practitioners who trained under a system of apprenticeship. There was no national code of ethics; there was no national organization to serve as a forum for discussion of the increasingly intricate issues involved in legal practice. The original ABA constitution, which is still substantially the charter of the association, defined the purpose of the ABA as being for "the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice and a uniformity of legislation throughout the country...."

It now includes:

2) to promote meaningful access to legal representation and American system of justice for all persons regardless of their economic or social condition;  9) to promote full and equal participation in the legal profession by minorities and women; 10) to preserve and enhance the ideals of the legal profession as a common calling and its dedication to public service; and 11) to preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary as fundamental to a free society. http://www.abanet.org/media/overview/phistory.html

Before 1890, the year America accelerated its descent into a statist society, the general rule of law in tort cases was caveat emptor, that the buyer buys at his own risk and he alone is responsible for the purchase and use of a product, not the producer of that product.  In the ensuing years, as America gradually sunk into the morass of statism, it slowly abandoned the principle that the individual is responsible for his own actions, including unsafe behavior.   Increasingly, the rule is: caveat producer—let the producer beware, because he is increasingly liable for the use and misuse of his products. http://www.fatalblindness.com/FREEDOM990117.htm

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition

de jure -- Descriptive of a condition in whcih there has been total compliance with all requirements of law. Of right; legitimate; lawful; by right and just title. In this sense it is the contrary of de facto (q.v). It may also be contrasted with de gratia in which it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia ,m in which case it means "as a matter of right," as de gratia means " by grace or favor." Again it may be contrasted with de aequitate; here meaning "by law," as the latter means "by equity."

de facto --In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. Thus, an office, position or status existing under a claim or color of right such as a de facto corporation. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure , which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession. MacLeod v. United States, 229 U.S. 416, 33 S.Ct. 955,57 L.Ed. 1260. A wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife < de jure or lawful wife. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure ; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade Compare de jure.

"De facto doctrine: will validate, on grounds of public policy and prevention of failure of public justice, the acts of official who function under color of law. People v. Davis, 86 Mich.App. 514, 272 N.W.2d 707,710.

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party