Home Law What Do the Wise Maxims Have To Say to Our Distressed Protectors?

What Do the Wise Maxims Have To Say to Our Distressed Protectors?

19

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

On account of GumshoeNews’ barrage of articles about Family Court, I now have a mother asking me if she can refuse to give up her child when her share in the school holidays ends circa January 10, 2019.  The child is age six and a half.

The father is a known pedophile.  I am not a practicing attorney, but I am not an idiot.  I know that 2 and 2 make four, that the sun rises in the east, and that the capital of Florida is Tallahassee. And naturally I know that a parent does not have to hand a child over to a person who is almost certain to harm that child.

Is there anyone, anywhere, who does not know that?

Of course this mother – “Mrs X” — wants to hear more than my common-sense prattle. She wants to hear law.

The first thing that popped into my head to tell her was the law maxim: Necessitas non habet legem. Necessity has no law.

If the rule at your local swimming pool is that everyone has to be out of the pool by 5pm, and one of the swimmers is busy drowning at 4.59pm you can’t very well apply the rule to him. It would be absurd to say he is breaking the law.  Necessity has no law.

I will now gather together some maxims that are on point for the mother in question. She may ask if they supersede what the Court has to say.  I believe they do. Given that she is living in a state of fear, I expect to be emailed with the question “Can you please show me the proof that they supersede it?” Yes I can, Mrs X, but first let me power you up with 12 maxims that say, basically, “A parent’s gotta do what a parent’s gotta do.”

Here they are. I won’t clutter it up with the Latin.

  1. No one is bound to do what is impossible.
  2. No one is bound to arm his adversary.
  3. To a judge who exceeds his office or jurisdiction no obedience is due.
  4. When laws imposed by the state fail, we must act by the law of nature.
  5. The law regards the order of nature.
  6. Necessity makes that lawful which otherwise is unlawful.
  7. Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall.
  8. Nothing is more just that what is necessary.
  9. Nothing against reason is lawful.
  10. What is prohibited in the nature of things, cannot be confirmed by law.
  11. What necessity forces, it justifies.
  12. We must have recourse to what is extraordinary, when what is ordinary fails.

I think it may help to give the Latin just for Number 3 above, so Mrs X can be extra-assertive vis-à-vis the Court. It’s: Judici officium suum excedenti non paretur. And maybe number 11: Quod necessitas cogit, defendit.

In regard to Protective parent’s typical circumstances, the following 12 maxims may come in handy:

  1. An act of a judge which does not relate to his office, is of no force.
  2. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.
  3. The law does not require that to be proved, which is apparent to the court.
  4. Mayhem is incipient homicide. Mahemium est homicidium inchoatum
  5. Paternal power should consist in affection, not in atrocity.
  6. Offences against nature are the heaviest. Peccata contra naturumsunt gravissima.
  7. What has been admitted against the spirit of the law, ought not to be heard.
  8. What is proved by the record, ought not to be denied.
  9. The safety of the people is the supreme law.
  10. It is safer to err on the side of mercy.
  11. Where there is a right, there is a remedy.
  12. Force is inimical to the laws.

You can send the following dozen maxims directly to the attention to the judge:

  1. Twisting of language is unworthy of a judge. Augupia verforum sunt judice indigna..
  2. Violence may also put on the mask of law.
  3. One out of the pale of the law (an outlaw) is civilly dead.
  4. The laws themselves require that they should be governed by right.
  5. A multitude of ignorant practitioners destroys a court.
  6. The law always intends what is agreeable to reason.
  7. A greater inheritance comes to every one of us from right and the laws.
  8. An evil custom is to be abolished. Malus usus est abolendus.
  9. What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors neither pleases nor appears right.
  10. Power should follow justice, not precede it.
  11. Truth fears nothing but concealment.
  12. Where there is culpability, there punishment ought to be.

Waiting it out may seem to the Protective parent to be the best option. But the law does not favor that and actually sees holding back as condoning the status quo. As follows:

  1. Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.
  2. An error not resisted is approved.
  3. The law always abhors delay. Lex dilationes semper exhorre.
  4. The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.
  5. He who does not prevent what he can, seems to commit the thing.
  6. He who spares the guilty, punishes the innocent.
  7. One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.
  8. The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.
  9. He who consents cannot receive an injury.
  10. Where there is culpability, there punishment ought to be. Ubi culpa est ibi paena subesse debet.
  11. Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
  12. Evil deeds ought not to remain unpunished, for impunity affords continual excitement to the delinquent.

Finally, I said I would pronounce on the authority of the maxims themselves.  In a recent Gumshoe article I opined that such things as proof, blame, and evidence occur in ordinary social interactions.  As customs develop over time, we enshrine some of them in law.

So it’s not as though law exists on its own and we have to scurry to discover it and obey it. We made the law.  Many thinkers worked on it, with an eye to actual lives.  And many thinkers are still working on it, and always will be!

It helps us to be able to cite authority.   Indeed one of the maxims of law is: “The two brightest lights in the world are reason and authority.”

There are meta-maxims, too, such as this:

“A maxim is so called because its dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all.”

Or if you prefer:

Maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxime omnibus probetur.

The law that developed in England has as its premise that the Court was there to help individuals get a fair settlement of their plaint, but that the welfare of the community was even more essential. England was not a nation of Thatcherites with everyone watching out only for himself.

Thus we saw, as Number 31 above:

“A greater inheritance comes to every one of us from right and the laws.”

What Is Going On?

Today in Australia, Canada, and the United States, a most peculiar thing is happening. Courts – without any prompting from litigants — are engaging in child-trafficking. It is shocking and outrageous.  This is one of those times when one may have to break the law, even though that could result in more judicial crime, such as imprisoning the innocent.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in asking for a Royal Commission to study this problem. The 5-year RC that ended with an apology from Prime Minister Morrison last month was touted as the great reliever of abused children.  Not on your Nellie!

The terms of reference made it OK for the commissioners to look into the child-stealing by courts, and the collusion of police, but just as happened with South Australia’s Mulligan Report and New South Wales’ Wood Royal Commission, government kept the facts from the people.

Even very recently when Protective parents brought their woes to the Royal Commission they were given the same crazy brush-off that happens when they approach a doctor or a police officer.  They are told “We can’t help you because your case is before the Family Court.”

Pardon me but accuracy is important.  They should have said “We refuse to help you as we are afraid to contravene the wishes of a bunch of sadists and murders.”

I ask our activists to study the wisdom of the ages as expressed in these law maxims and forge ahead with whatever is necessary. Common sense says no parents should endanger their children by allowing anyone – including judges – to — oh come on, I don’t have to finish that sentence.

All the stolen kiddies are hereby restored to the Protective parent on the basis of society’s well-known humane values.

— Mary W Maxwell was pleased to learn of the existence of maxims from her teacher Janie Green at Adelaide Law School

SHARE

19 COMMENTS

  1. Those maxims are from a time of English Constitutional Law that still held the ‘natural law’ and reason to be central to English law. The frauds sitting on the Bench in Oz, despite their ceremonial dress, don’t practice English law.

    https://gumshoenews.com/2018/06/19/review-of-australian-law-and-its-decline/

    Perhaps the maxims may have some influence in a Court of Equity, but I doubt it (the judges in Equity are still cut from the same cloth as other jurisdictions).

    I’ve been away from the practice of law since 2007, I’m sure a lot has changed. It may be that an advice from a lawyer that has a primary practice in Equity may be of some assistance. If an action was filed in Equity, at least you may be able to get it away from the Family Law Courts.

    If someone was to seek an advice from such a lawyer, I strongly suggest that they take along a copy of my above article. It will help to explain why English Law still applies in Oz.

    • Yay! Proper law to the rescue!

      Terry, after I graduated (2011) they changed the law school core curriculum so that now there is no mandatory course on Evidence. But I was surprised to learn that there is still a mandatory course on Equity.

      Except for my Equity lecturer (now known as Assistant Professor — and the Vice Chancellor at Adelaide is now called the President), I never heard of maxims. And she mainly taught the ones governing equity cases such as “The court helps minors” and “A man’s house is his castle.”

      I think the maxims are fabulous if for no other reason that they show that Henglishmen were using the old nog.

      Terry, you (or anyone) can join the Federalist Society. Dues are 50 USD. They have telefora once a fortnight wherein the speakers, and the callers, use the old nog most impressively.. I have not once heard a bullsh*t discussion in that forum.

      They wouldn’t dream of mentioning 9-11 though.

      What does it all mean?

      And Darlene, please note, you CAN ask for Equity in your case. It has nothing to do with owning “equity” in your home. It has to do with the judge being allowed to make a constructive remedy, tailored to your circumstances.

      Arm yourself with this:

      https://gumshoenews.com/2018/06/19/review-of-australian-law-and-its-decline/

      And maybe bring along a large, laminated copy of the Rowlandson painting shown above, just to intimidate everybody. Intimidation is the name of the game, isn’t it?

  2. How heartwarming! It was only in yesterday’s Comments that I announced a talent contest at my Fringe play (March 17) and already Fair Dinkum has offered to come to Adelaide (again) and dance his Mr Bojangles routine. Diane is going to do a bungee jump (only from the balcony at the Burnside Ballroom to the stage, but that’s good, that’s good).

    Mal has asked if he could sing the non-Elvis version of Return to Sender (sure, Mal!). For Bryant’s Moot Court, Mal came all the way from Perth.

    So far, no one has signed up to do bird calls. How ’bout you, Phil? We know you can do a cockatoo – this would be your chance to bypass the censors on our Etiquette Panel ….

  3. I refer tolaw 9, all is within this maxim, when has their been a alligance to the rational? insanity is wide spread, now enshrined in institutions and individuals.

  5. To clarify: there are umpteen maxims; I chose these 48 according to relevance to Mrs X. The numberings are arbitrary.

    Now that Barrister Shulze has raised the subject of equity, I see there is an appropos maxim:

    Bonum judex secundum aequum et bonum judicat, et aequitatem stricto juri praefert.

    A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law.

    In a previous article, about a pardon for Martin Bryant, I quoted Blackstone to the effect that the Queen can do a pardon because “she has a court of equity in her bosom.”

    Go, equity! Go bosomsful of equity! Go pardon for Bryant! !

    • Yes!!! Now we just have to tell that to the Feds who drag (with force) our children away kicking & screaming!!! These are the monsters who are upholding the bogus courts & distressing our children!!!

  7. Hope I don’t offend some readers with these thoughts .
    Demoncracy here is a fascade , just like the sets in the old westerns that were part of the brainwashing agenda . We still vote with pencils but don’t think voting via Internet will make it any fairer . In the peoples republic of CCP they have evolved to a points system with social credit cards that is , if one does not have enough credit points , one cannot buy food or anything else . People have points deducted for walking when the red no walk sign is flashing at crossings .
    Scientific technology , that is the net , is the biggest oppressor in history . With all these so called advancements murders and wars escalate exponentially . A child dies in Yemen every ten minutes!
    Clearly the Maker is not at the controls around here these days .

    When Jugoslavia and the Soviet Union were dismantled , many of the fat cats from those dystopias bought up big in the east burbs of Sydney and elsewhere . Not only were they welcomed by their Masonic mates but also promoted to many jobs in security and other fields of influence .
    Globalism is run by a brotherhood of masons . They cross all borders .
    The same events are happening today with the CCP elite coming here but on a much grander scale . At the same time our leaders flood our cities with the world’s poor to entice them as punters in the bankers scam of usury . That is loan a dollar to get back three !

    The middle working class has gone the way of the dodo …extinct .
    As Keating foretold , a banana republic . The obscenely wealthy living on top of the poor masses .
    Communism is satanism enforced by the banksters of freemasonry . That is why the courts impose suffering and hardship upon all that come naively seeking just ice !

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.