Power of a Singular Judge ...

[palani]

... is limited to setting bail or releasing on own recognizance. A single justice has no further authority or jurisdiction.

Here is Iowa's rule

602.6202 Jurisdiction.
District judges have the full jurisdiction of the district court, including the respective jurisdictions of district associate judges and magistrates. While exercising the jurisdiction of magistrates, district judges shall employ magistrates’ practice and procedure.



Note the use of the PLURAL. 'District judges' have the full jurisdiction. Doesn't say a singular judge has any jurisdiction at all. The code requires multiple judges to exercise any jurisdiction at all.

[Publico]

So I get hauled into an Iowa court, now what?

[palani]

So I get hauled into an Iowa court, now what?

I suspect many states code have similar language.

If you accept the order of a singular judge as final then you agree. If you don't agree then do something about it.

[7th trump]

... is limited to setting bail or releasing on own recognizance. A single justice has no further authority or jurisdiction.

Here is Iowa's rule

602.6202 Jurisdiction.
District judges have the full jurisdiction of the district court, including the respective jurisdictions of district associate judges and magistrates. While exercising the jurisdiction of magistrates, district judges shall employ magistrates’ practice and procedure.



Note the use of the PLURAL. 'District judges' have the full jurisdiction. Doesn't say a singular judge has any jurisdiction at all. The code requires multiple judges to exercise any jurisdiction at all.
So Palani are you are trying your same old crap of making up a conspiracy?
Is a "justice" the same as a "judge"?

I bet not because one is appears limited while it seems the other doesnt.
They are comparing one with the other........theres a difference somewhere and I suspect its because we dont know the subject (what can a justice rule over and limitations) while the object is justices and judges.

You have to watch this guy palani....he never tells you the full story.....what is the subject where you got this piece of law Palani?
Are we talking juvenal court, traffic court, divorce court, or what is it?

[palani]

So Palani are you are trying your same old crap of making up a conspiracy? Is exercising proper use of the English language to be considered a conspiracy by you now?

Is a "justice" the same as a "judge"? Perhaps you could answer this first: Is electricity the same as an electron?

[7th trump]

Is exercising proper use of the English language to be considered a conspiracy by you now?
Perhaps you could answer this first: Is electricity the same as an electron?

Dont skirt the question palani because I question your motive.
Whats the subject here.........its simple English grammar of understanding "subject" from "object".

[palani]

Dont skirt the question palani because I question your motive. My motive has not been previously discussed.





Whats the subject here.........its simple English grammar of understanding "subject" from "object".
The subject is 'what are the limitations of power of a singular judge?' The topic is then of 'singular' as opposed to 'plural' or 'multiple'.

Here is what Eirenarcha has to say when statutes addressed 'counties' (plural) as opposed to 'every county' although I expect you lack the capacity to comprehend what is being discussed in this paragraph:


This, though it might seeme to be warranted (after 18.E.3) upon the Construction of the word Counties, used plurally in the Statute, 18.Ed.3.Stat.2.ca.2 yet was it much contrarie to the meaning of the former lawes (made 1.E.3.cap.15 & 3.4.E.3.cap2) where the same word is read (Everie Countie) in the Singular number. And therefore the Parliament (34.E.3.ca.I) restored ___ proper sense of these lawes, saying: In everie Countie of England there shall be assigned for the safe keeping of the Peace, one Lord, and with him, 3. or 4. of the mightiest men in that countie. And afterward it addeth, They shall have power to heare & determine (at the kings suit) al maner of Felonies & trespasses, done in the same County.

Here is where the authority of a single justice of the peace is discussed in Eirenarcha


70 CAP 2
The 2. Booke Suertie of peace.

What one Justice of Peace (out of the Sessions) may do to prevent the breach of the peace, and therein of Suertie of the peace, and the good behaviour, and of sundrie thinges incident unto the same.


and here is where is discussed the power of two or more justices of the peace


THE THIRD BOOKE

Containing the Practique of two (or moe) Justices of the Peace, out of the Sessions

What things any two Justices of the Peace may doe out of the Sessions : and therein first of Ryots, &c.

CAP 1


The authoritie and power of one Justice of the Peace, (without the Sessions) thus perused and passed over, let us now examine the like power of two both in generalitie, and particular.

It is universally true, that whatsoever thing one Justice of the Peace alone is permitted to do, either for the conservation of the Peace, or in the execution of the Commission (or Statutes) the same also may be no lesse lawfully perfourmed by two (or moe) Justices: except it bee in a verie few cases, where some Statutes do seme specially to appropriate the execution thereof to some one certaine Justice, either in respect that

307 CAP 1.
The 3. Booke.
Ryots, &c

That he is Next to the place, eldest of the Quorum or such like.

[drafter]

Your stuff always makes technical sense, but in reality it's useless because we long ago left that world. I have to ask if you've ever actually been in front of a "judge" in an american courtroom. I've been in front of them a few times armed with "facts" and "law" and I've pretty much always got "you're wasting our time" from the judge and in most cases hurt rather than helped anything I was trying to accomplish. Your "rights" are irrelavent.

So in the end, your law proffesor stuff is fascinating, but merely from an educational point of view. It has zero application in todays unconstitutional society where "laws" aren't in black and white, but merely how the tools of government happen to "feel" that day. They're the ones that have the guy in the room with the gun on his side.

[Cebu_4_2]

Your stuff always makes technical sense, but in reality it's useless because we long ago left that world. I have to ask if you've ever actually been in front of a "judge" in an american courtroom. I've been in front of them a few times armed with "facts" and "law" and I've pretty much always got "you're wasting our time" from the judge and in most cases hurt rather than helped anything I was trying to accomplish. Your "rights" are irrelavent.

So in the end, your law proffesor stuff is fascinating, but merely from an educational point of view. It has zero application in todays unconstitutional society where "laws" aren't in black and white, but merely how the tools of government happen to "feel" that day. They're the ones that have the guy in the room with the gun on his side.

You sir have summarized why most people just skip this shit.

[palani]

Your stuff always makes technical sense, but in reality it's useless because we long ago left that world.

If you know none of your rights then you have abandoned them. Reason is law. Reason is the entire basis for law. When you lose reason then you lose the law. So essentially you have all the rights of your ancestors but if you decide not to assert them then they are abandoned.

Don't you think your ancestors also had to put up with corrupt officials who attempt to expand their jurisdiction? What world were you born in that you believe you can give away all that they worked so hard to achieve?

[palani]

You sir have summarized why most people just skip this shit. You, sir, have just summarized why people who choose not to fight absolutely deserve the shit they get handed.

[drafter]

I "know" that I'm within my lawful right to cross a busy intersection. Drivers MUST legally stop for me. I know this as lawful "fact". Do you see me willy nilly walking out into traffic to exercise my "right"? No. It isn't that I "choose" to not "fight", but that I know what my odds of success are before hand and adjust my actions to preserve my life as best I can. Who's more deserving of the "shit they get handed"? The guy that just blindly walks into traffic asserting his "rights" or the guy that waits for a break in traffic so as to still get across the road but preserve his life in the process??

[palani]

It isn't that I "choose" to not "fight", but that I know what my odds of success are before hand and adjust my actions to preserve my life as best I can.

Try to separate the action from the action that brought you to the attention of the authorities. Your right as a pedestrian to cross at a crosswalk may be modified by the presence of stop lights and crossing lights. With no lights at all but the existence of a crosswalk and a law that states 'pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks' does not give someone the right to jump out in front of traffic. However, if hauled into court because of your actions you certainly must bring up your right to cross because otherwise you will be charged for an illegal action.

So don't be comparing apples and oranges. The topic here is the power of a singular judge not your right to jump into traffic at a marked crosswalk because of your belief in the power to a singular judge. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Try to stay on topic.

[7th trump]

Just as I thought.
You, palani, are attempting more bullshit conspiracy
Justices of the Peace are mainly, local, which are not required to have any legal background and are mainly elected.
District judges, however, are on the federal playing field and deal with law far superior of that jurisdiction of a JP.

So why are you taking law out of context palani?
Are you trying to dumb-down the good people of this forum so they are completely confused about law as you are?

[drafter]

"With no lights at all but the existence of a crosswalk and a law that states 'pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks' does not give someone the right to jump out in front of traffic. "


Actually in the State of Oregon the "law" states that as a pedestrian you do indeed have the "right" to jump out in traffic even at an intersection devoid of a crosswalk. The driver's are required to stop. I don't think it's apples and oranges at all. You're pointing out that "law" gives you "rights" in a courtroom in front of a judge just like the "law" gives me "rights" as a pedestrian at a busy intersection. In my example the driver becomes the judge. He can choose to respect your "rights" or he can run you over. Ultimately, regardless of who's interpretation of the "law" you choose to respect, you're still screwed. The Judge, like the driver, holds your life in their hands lawfully or not.

[palani]

Just as I thought.
You, palani, are attempting more bullshit conspiracy
Justices of the Peace are mainly, local, which are not required to have any legal background and are mainly elected.
District judges, however, are on the federal playing field and deal with law far superior of that jurisdiction of a JP.

So why are you taking law out of context palani?
Are you trying to dumb-down the good people of this forum so they are completely confused about law as you are?
You are an idiot if you believe district judges are federal only. Explain that Iowa code that I posted then. Do you suppose Iowa is dictating to the feds how to handle their business? Why don't you just admit you are an idiot because that is how you come across in your posts.

[palani]

Actually in the State of Oregon the "law" states that as a pedestrian you do indeed have the "right" to jump out in traffic even at an intersection devoid of a crosswalk. The driver's are required to stop. I don't think it's apples and oranges at all. You're pointing out that "law" gives you "rights" in a courtroom in front of a judge just like the "law" gives me "rights" as a pedestrian at a busy intersection. In my example the driver becomes the judge. He can choose to respect your "rights" or he can run you over. Ultimately, regardless of who's interpretation of the "law" you choose to respect, you're still screwed. The Judge, like the driver, holds your life in their hands lawfully or not.
I used to sail Sunfish 14 foot sailboats in San Juan harbor. As such I had the right of way over any power boats. Do you suppose I exercised this right when the QEII happened to visit?

So you attempt to expand the subject into an area not intended and then declare it nonsense. Nice tactic for diverting the thread.

[7th trump]

You are an idiot if you believe district judges are federal only. Explain that Iowa code that I posted then. Do you suppose Iowa is dictating to the feds how to handle their business? Why don't you just admit you are an idiot because that is how you come across in your posts.

Well this reply isn't explaining away why you are using a statute relating to district judges, having a completely different jurisdiction, ofr justices of the peace.

Speaking of accusing drafter of "diversion tactics" why are you using a statute relating "district judges" and unintended for "justices of the peace"?
The two are not in the same law and jurisdiction arena.
The equivalent here is trying to bolt a Chevy crank shaft in a Ford engine block.........doesn't work.........duh!

Why didn't you research the two before making yourself look stupid?

Just admit the obvious palani, you're lost in the law, because you want to believe in conspiracy's. You are doing your damnest in convincing yourself everything is a conspiracy.

[palani]

Just as I thought.
You, palani, are attempting more bullshit conspiracy
Justices of the Peace are mainly, local, which are not required to have any legal background and are mainly elected.
District judges, however, are on the federal playing field and deal with law far superior of that jurisdiction of a JP.

So why are you taking law out of context palani?
Are you trying to dumb-down the good people of this forum so they are completely confused about law as you are?

Why are you ignoring history?

The Iowa code given in the first post speaks of district judges exercising the same jurisdiction as magistrates. The Eirenarcha paragraphs I gave cited the power of justices of the peace or of a singular justice of the peace. We are discussing here DISTRICT JUDGES. I doubt if they consider peace to be one of their prime duties whether I think it should be or not. Magistrate would be the present day equivalent of justice of the peace.

If you insist upon discussing Justices of the Peace then feel free to chew on this a while. Just recognized that YOU are the one who directed this shift in the topic.


Peace hath man significations

Of the Latine worde Pax, the Normans framed their Paix, and we (out of that) our Peace: the which hath sundry significations both in the holy scripture of God, and in the lawes of our country: for there is an inwarde, and an outward Peace. And this inward Peace, is either good, or evill: first then, there is Pax apud Deum, that is to say, our reconciliation with God the faher by the obedience of Christ his sonne our Saviour; for he is pax nostra, and hath appeased the wrath of God for our sinnes.

Out of this, proceedeth an other inward peace, named the peace of Conscience, for that our conscience is (by faith in Christ) at Peace, both with God and it selfe. The evill inward peace is that same munbane peace, whereof our Saviour Christ spake, saying: Pacem do vobis, non quemadmodum mundus dat. And this Peace, the kingly prophet David calleth Pacem peccatorum, because it is no better than carnall securitie.

The outward Peace, hath respect to other men, and that is two sorts also: the one is opposed (offset) against all manner of striving and contention, whether it bee in countenance, gesture, word, or worke of the which S. Paul spake to the Romans,

[6 CAP 2]

In these words: Si fieri potest quantum in vobis est, cum omnibus himinibus pacem habetote: And in the same meaning, the Latine men say, Pace tua, by your good leave, or favour, without your offence or displeasure. The other is onely an abstinence from actuall force, and offer of violence, and is rather contrarie to arma prelium, and bellum (which cannot be without force of armes) then it is to lie pugna, or certain, which (as Laurence Valla confesseth) may be nudis verbie, and citra arma. Ane hereof also our Saviour Christ spake, when he said, Non veni vt mitterem pacem, sed gladium.

Peace in our Law

The law of our Realme likewise useth the word Peace diversly, but yet so, as it is altoghether occupied about these outward Peaces. For as Cicero said of frauds, aliter leges, aliter Philosophi, tollunt astutias; ;eges quatenus manu tenere res possut, Philosophi quatenus ratione and intelligentia: even so may I truly affirme, that (in this matter of Peace) the Lawe of God (which is the onely true Philosophie) respecteth the mind and conscience, although the Lawes of men so looke but to the body, hands, and weapons.

Sometimes therefore, the worde Peace is taken for Protection, or defence: as where M. Braeton calleth the Writtes of Protection, Brevia de pace: Sometimes (as it seemeth to me) it is taken of Rights, Priviledges, and Liberties., as in the oth of the Queene at her Coronaction, she Swearreth Sernare Ecclesia Dei, Cleri, and populi, pacem ex in-tegro;

[7 CAP 2]

Tegro: the meaning whereof is, (as I suppose) that she will maintaine each degree and estate of her subjects, as well Ecclesiasticall, as Termporall (for pupulus there comprehendeth all the Laitie) according to their severall customes, Lawes and priviledges.

Peace for Justices of the peace

And sometimes it is taken for a withholding (or abstinence) from that injurious force and violence whereof I spake before. And this is that which is most commonly understood by the word Peace, in our Law: and for the maintenance hereof chiefly were these Wardens and Justices of the Peace first made and authorized.

[7th trump]

Why are you ignoring history?

The Iowa code given in the first post speaks of district judges exercising the same jurisdiction as magistrates. The Eirenarcha paragraphs I gave cited the power of justices of the peace or of a singular justice of the peace. We are discussing here DISTRICT JUDGES. I doubt if they consider peace to be one of their prime duties whether I think it should be or not. Magistrate would be the present day equivalent of justice of the peace.

If you insist upon discussing Justices of the Peace then feel free to chew on this a while. Just recognized that YOU are the one who directed this shift in the topic.

Now there's a whole lot going on here Palani.
This is why I ask why are you using a statute that jurisdictionally pertains to justices of the peace for a district judge?


United States

Magistrates are somewhat less common in the United States than in Europe, but the position does exist in some jurisdictions.

The term "magistrate" is often used (chiefly in judicial opinions) as a generic term for any independent judge who is capable of issuing warrants, reviewing arrests, etc.[7][8] When used in this way it does not denote a judge with a particular office. Instead, it denotes (somewhat circularly) a judge or judicial officer who is capable of hearing and deciding a particular matter. That capability is defined by statute or by common law. In Virginia, for example, the Constitution of 1971 created the office of magistrate to replace the use in cities and counties of the justice of the peace, which is common in many states for this function.

As noted above, the terms "magistrate" or "chief magistrate" were sometimes used in the early days of the republic to refer to the President of the United States, as in President John Adams's message to the U.S. Senate upon the death of George Washington: "His example is now complete, and it will teach wisdom and virtue to magistrates, citizens, and men, not only in the present age, but in future generations, as long as our history shall be read" (December 19, 1799).

Federal courts

Main article: United States magistrate judge

In the United States federal courts, a magistrate judge is a judge authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. Magistrate judges are appointed by the life-term federal district judges of a particular court, serving terms of eight years if full-time, or four years if part-time, and may be reappointed. Magistrate judges conduct a wide range of judicial proceedings to expedite the disposition of the civil and criminal caseloads of the United States District Courts. Congress set forth in the statute powers and responsibilities that could be delegated by district court judges to magistrate judges. To achieve maximum flexibility in meeting the needs of each court, however, it left the actual determination of which duties to assign to magistrate judges to the individual courts.

State courts

In many state court systems in the United States, magistrate courts are the successor to Justice of the Peace courts, and frequently have authority to handle the trials of civil cases up to a certain dollar amount at issue, applications for bail, arrest and search warrants, and the adjudication of petty or misdemeanor criminal offenses.

[palani]

This is why I ask why are you using a statute that jurisdictionally pertains to justices of the peace for a district judge?

You mean magistrate don't you? And the section that code came from is for district judges. All the reference to magistrates means is that a district judge has duties that include those of a lesser office.

Perhaps you had best just concentrate on one issue (as I wouldn't want to overtax your capacities)... that of the power of JUDGES. That subject in itself excludes a singular judge from the same powers.