text:
Talk:Common law/Archive 1

We need a marriage and divorce law template
The topics of alimony, child custody, pre-niptuals are very popular ones for common people to look up. Good topics for encyclopedias. Maybe we should add a template on family law? Erisa Goss 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re restoration of the talk page
On this talk page 4.14.105.57 did The last of these wiped out all contributions by others to the page, except a passage he commented on because of a misunderstanding. The content of his edits appears after the text he deleted (to which headings have now been added).
 * two edits in 1-3 minutes on 2004 Apr 12, and
 * one edit on 03:53, 2004 Apr 18

Simpson
Article said:
 * For an informative discussion of the common law as related to a) duck blinds and b) cannibalism, see the works of A.W. Brian Simpson.

Is that comment serious, or is it just nonesense? (It sounds a bit like nonsense to me, but I may be wrong, since I'm too lazy to check.) Also, even if it is real, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph -- which should be about what the thing is, fundamentally, not about peripheral miscellena such as this. -- SJK

 * Acttually Professor Simpson's books about the common law are remarkable in their depth and historical accuracy. Should they be in the intro about common law? no. Alex756 03:14, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Law vs Equity
It might be worth pointing out that in the U.S. courts of law and courts of equity are (now) the same courts, even if in theory different. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

They are in most states. They aren't in others.

I changed the page to remove the staement that the distinction between law and equity is "archaic" and explained instead how the separate courts developed into legal and equitable principles applied by the same courts. That is the case in the UK and many Commonwealth jurisdictions but i can't speak for the US. Chris R 19:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it works like this:  The original intent in the US of A was to give the government a civil law system. The common law system was reserved to the people by Amendment Nine. The common law system was the juries in county courts. The United States courts are combination courts of civil law and equity. The Common Law Courts have been abandoned by the people who failed to reorganize these systems after the civil war. (Richard Fuselier)

A few thoughs I had for the discussion:

Though the common law courts *had* been abandoned/shelved,

a) they didn't ceace to exist, and;

b) they have been being unshelved over the last several years (20? at least 10) in the individual State republics.

I know of 3 for sure that are functioning at this time (2005) in the republics of Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico. Here are links to the sites some of the people who compose them have created:

 * Minnesota common law venue
 * Nevada superior court
 * New Mexico common law venue

I have served as a Justices a few times for the Nevada superior court and have a little first hand knowledge on this particular court. (Yet I am no expert.)

Others had been formed, but due to circumstances, caused by what appears to be a lack of a clear enough understanding of a common law court, on both the People's side and more so, the Governments, they were disbanded or simply ceaced to function because the people composing them quit.

At this time, other courts are in the process of being formed and the People in all the State republics based upon the successful models of the 3 functional courts mentioned above. It is taking time due to,

a) the vast ammount of information needed to be learned; b) the vast ammount of misinformation needing to be dispelled, and; c) the efforts of some of the 'public servants' not wanting to lose their de facto power over their de jure masters.

To clarify how and why this is how it works (probably goes without saying, but for sake of clarity); the People of the sovereign republic State are themselves sovereigns. They (the People) have delegated a *small portion* of their powers, yet delegation of power dosn't convey a relenquishment of it.

The all government powers (and more) have always been inherent in the People. These 'governments' are obviously subject to the jursdiction of the People by the Right of Creation (simply, the creator of a thing is its master).

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law [the constitution], for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself, remains with the People, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power."

-- Justice Matthews in Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356

The initial statement of this section that courts of Law and Equity are the same thing is not true. The Constitution has NOT been ammended. This is an obvious fraud and lie.

Aksis

Specific Jurisdictions
I moved this discussion from the article page to here:

 * (isn't California also common-law based?)**

 * ** California is arguably not a common law state, because it has enacted "codes" that completely state the law of the land. Codes as opposed to Acts etc. are normally meant to be comprehensive. California is not a civil law state in the sense that its laws derive from or directly from Roman or Napoleonic law, like Louisiana.
 * no codes "completely" state the law of the land if that were the case send the legislature home their work is done? There are cases where courts convene in common law when a statuet does not cover the tort or alledged crime. Jack Kavorkian's physician assisted suicide being a common recient example until legislatures tried to cover that with statuets.

And I added a paragraph explaining California's status to the article. -- Cjmnyc 03:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * May want to add Israel specifically to the list of Common Law countries, as it's not a Commonwealth country. (Although, admittedly, Israel has a really weird mix of Ottoman and British laws, I think mostly British (and post-Independence) statutes are used.) -Penta 00:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Isreal didn't get its system of law from Britian, Britian got some of its system of law from Isreal. Britian didn't even exsist when Isreal was founded! Isreal system of law is rooted in the common law, though not "English common law". English common law was derived from the root common law. Aksis 03:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally - no common law jurisdictions have existed in the United States since the civil war. While the fundamental law of all state was common law - the statutes (civil code) has replaced virtually all of the common law. The 14th Amendment would prevent these civil law states from being a true common law jurisdiction. The common law would have to be restarted by the people -not government.

His Comments

 * (The following has been reformatted to replace unintended effects of wiki markup, and the last edit has been broken into sections for ease of reference in commenting on it. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

To discover the true history of Common-Law, one must reach back beyond "Legal Memory", to before the Norman Conquest of England in 1066 ad. Even "Magna Charta", of 1215 ad, only gives glimpses of its true grandour. Most who have written here-in on this subject, are seriously lacking in desire to discover &/or propogate accurate knowledge of this monumentally important social-justice field of study. Common-Law is the source of the Anglo/American concepts of Townships, Precincts, & Counties. It is the Source of our most prescious Anglo/American Constitutional "Jury Trial" Process, & of our Seventh Amendment limitation on the Civil Jurisdiction of the acting Federal Government. I can write more, but i need to know my work is being appreciated. Charles Bruce, Stewart; Sandy Oregon; charles@commonlawgov.us
 * (The above 2 'graphs are the content of two edits to this talk page by 4.14.105.57, each summarized as 'The True Fundamenrtals of Anglo/American "Common-Law"'. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

 * (About 45 minutes later, 4.14.105.57 edited the 266-word article, with the summary "Common-Law is Social Justice in Action".
 * Of the first 53 words, he replaced 10 with 63 of his own.
 * He replaced the next 106 words of the first 'graph with 4 new 'graphs of his own content (comprising 175 words) and an additional 54 words of denunciation:
 * of an 11th-century monarch as a bastard,
 * of the remainder of the article,
 * and of its authors for "ignorance &/or malice".
 * He left the remainder (the original 107-word 2nd 'graph) untouched.
 * (His contribution was reverted 7 minutes later.)

 * (In a later edit six days after his first two edits to this page, 4.14.105.57 reformated, as follows, the result of an automated conversion script from 15:51, 2002 Feb 25. --Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

Article said:
 * For an informative discussion of the common law as related to

a) duck blinds and b) cannibalism, see the works of A.W. Brian Simpson.

Is that comment serious, or is it just nonesense? (It sounds a bit like nonsense to me, but I may be wrong, since I'm too lazy to check.) Also, even if it is real, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph -- which should be about what the thing is, fundamentally, not about peripheral miscellena such as this. -- SJK

 * (In the same edit, 4.14.105.57 was perhaps anxious for a response, and apparently read the item following his contribution for the first time. Since he had put his contribution at the head of the article, that next item was the oldest one on the page.  He states his assumption that posts are added from the top, but seems for some reason to have suspected that "is it just nonesense?" made reference to the item before it (his), rather than to the material re Simpson, which precedes and follows the question.

 * (As if fearing that discussions by established contributors were distracting from his questions, he deleted all the existing content of this talk page, except his own previous edits and the item that he was concerned might be impugning his seriousness. He has that possibility in mind as he proceeds.--Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC))

'Graphs 1-4
cbs> I see "SJK" has asked if one of the preceding posts is serious. I would respectfully suggest hat "SJK" clarify his question as to Which of the Two preceding posts is "serious".

There was one earlier (lower) than my post, which referenced “cannibalism” and “buck-blinds”.

If SJK was questioning the seriousness of that post, i would emphatically agree with him.

But if he is questioning my article, i would confirm that i am totally “serious”.

'Graphs 5-8
And i am a bit frustrated here. I have done my homework.

The moderator, has taken the liberty of moving my (admittedly incomplete) article to this archive.

I can live with that.

But he also has butchered the heck out of it, reducing the actual substance to about 1/4th of what it was. This is shown in the history page.

'Graphs 9-10
I object, mr moderator.

If we are going do discuss the "seriousness" of my article, i want the whole thing in here.

'Graph 11-16
And in light of the anguish of the world, and the profound peace-making solutions which i have claimed for the true common-law, i really believe that, even in its incomplete form, that it should be included in the main article.

That main article is despotic authoritarian disinformation propaganda, and Wikepedia is swallowing it “hook line and sinker”.

I have work to do.

If you folks want my quality of cutting edge common-law research to further empower your otherwise insightful work here, you will shake loose from your leftist prejudices, and invoke true scientific logic/reasoning process, to conclude that i know precisely what the heck i am talking about.

There under, you should place my article back on the main page.

With all due respect,

charles bruce, stewart / http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/

In response to him
--Jerzy(t) 05:35, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * With regard to the question you raise in your first two edits of this page, no sign of interest in your work is apparent at Wikipedia.
 * With regard to issues you raised in your most recent edit of this page:
 * Re the material you retained on the page but did not write yourself: It had been, in its entirety, on the page for over two years before you first edited this page.
 * Re your 'Gr. 1-4, the first 4 'graphs following "cbs>": As the preceding point shows, your concern that SJK might be questioning your seriousness is unfounded.
 * Re your 'Gr. 5-8: You may not have learned how to read our histories. The history of the article is (unless you used other IP addresses to edit it prior to using  4.14.105.57) quite clear: Your contribution to the article was neither truncated nor moved to this page; rather the article's text was restored to the precise state it had before you first edited it.  It may be you are confusing your short contribution on this page (where none of your work has been removed) with your long contribution on the article, in judging your work to have been moved here in truncated form.
 * Re your 'Gr. 9-10: As previously noted seriousness is not at issue.
 * Re your 'Gr. 11-16: Your contribution was quite appropriately removed from the article, for reasons that should become clear to you upon study of our tutorial and FAQs (accessible through our Community Portal); the number of areas involved in your case being large, i shall not address them individually.
 * With regard your future at WP:
 * Vandalism
 * You have vandalized the article by inclusion there of
 * discussion of how the article should be written and why,
 * judgements on other editors, and
 * your EMail address
 * As to this talk page, you have
 * vandalized it by removing essentially all its previous content, and
 * compounded that offense by failing to make any note that fact, as should be done on the page and in the summary in the cases where there is justification for it.
 * This has not resulted in your being listed with Problem Users, but you should regard this as a warning.
 * While editors are not expected to necessarily ROTFL at an early point, you should treat these matters as a sign that it is crucial for you to do so.
 * The nature of WP incudes:
 * not publishing original research (i.e., to the degree you have been accurate in describing your "cutting-edge ... research", your material will not be acceptable here), and
 * strict standards of neutral point of view in matters where multiple points of view find significant adherants, rather than presuming to present the correct point of view. (And your obvious passion for your subject might mean working effectively here would require extraordinary self-control on your part.)

Yea, ok.

Sorry i wiped out the insignificant chatter at the bottom. I presumed the discussion was suppose to evolve and focus. I guess I was wrong.

And i do suppose you could ban me for that, or something.

But you seem to fail to realize that the field in question contains socially explosive materials.

And you sit there like a bump on a long, preaching at me about how to learn to get along with intellectual derelicts who seem to take delight in obstructing serious efforts at achieving social justice.

Fine.

I admit the work being accomplished here is very insightful and useful to the movement.

But know this. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. And the upper levels of every social hierarchy are immensely pressurized to obstruct truly liberating social advancement.

And with all due respect, that seems to be precisely what is happening here.

Ill go do my work somewhere else.

cbs ...

Re: "Jerzy's" Critique of Charles Stewart's Attempted Contribution:
 * Newer Response;
 * Newer Response;

 * With regard to the question you raise in your first two edits of this page, no sign of interest in your work is apparent at Wikipedia.

cbs> There is lots of interest in common-law. And even if there was not, that is no reason for you to delete my work.

 * With regard to issues you raised in your most recent edit of this page:
 * Re the material you retained on the page but did not write yourself: It had been, in its entirety, on the page for over two years before you first edited this page.

cbs> Yes. But it was "Wrong". Where are the "original authors" or "stake-holders"? Are you one of the "original authors"? Let an "original author" or "stake-holder" confront me !!! You have no idea who is composing the better material here, do you?

"cbs>": As the preceding point shows, your concern that SJK might be questioning your seriousness is unfounded.
 * Re your 'Gr. 1-4, the first 4 'graphs following
 * Re your 'Gr. 5-8: You may not have learned how to read our histories. The history of the article is (unless you used other IP addresses to edit it prior to using  4.14.105.57)

cbs> My ip may change over time (it is a "dynamic ip") but i made no conscious effort to mask my ip, & i made no previous edits to this article.

quite clear: Your contribution to the article was neither truncated nor moved to this page; rather the article's text was restored to the precise state it had before you first edited it.

cbs> Yes. You deleted all of my added text. Why? Was there noting there-in which you found worthy? Are you even a contributor on this article? What is your interest here-in? Do you specialize in this area of research, as do i?

 * With regard your future at WP:
 * Vandalism
 * You have vandalized the article by inclusion there of
 * discussion of how the article should be written and why,

cbs> Im a new user. I made a small mistake in editorial policy. Im sorry. That was not "Vandalism", as defined by Wikipedia; because i was honestly trying to produce a better article. I made No "Deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

 * judgements on other editors,

cbs> You judge me. Everyone judges. But you are probably trying to object to my direct critique of the ignorant (at best) wording of the other editors in the article itself.

cbs> Yea, ok. I see now how that effort to dispel false doctrine can be handled more gracefully. But again, it was Not "Vandalism", because i did not intend any bad effect.

 * your EMail address

cbs> Oh wow! Yea, i can really see how that was some really nasty "Vandalism". Cheez.

cbs> Ok. I will quit inserting my email address; at least until i can find influence to possibly change that goofy Wikipedia policy through universally accepted channels.

 * As to this talk page, you have
 * vandalized it by removing essentially all its previous content,

I admit i made errors there. There was No "Deliberate Attempt" to undermine the other-wise good-work happening at Wikipedia. So it was Not "Vandalism".

and as should be done on the page
 * compounded that offense by failing to make any note that fact,

cbs> First you complain that i am making too big of changes; then you complain that i did not make sufficient note to let everyone know what i did.

cbs> I posted cutting-edge quality material, and you "Jerzy" gutt my work, because you apparently do not have any idea what-so-ever what True "Common-Law" is really all about.

cbs> Why are you even in this discussion? Did an Editor or a "Stake-Holder" Ask for you to get involved here? Have you contributed one singe iota to this article???? If so, WHAT ????

and in the summary in the cases where there is justification for it. but you should regard this as a warning.
 * This has not resulted in your being listed with Problem Users,

cbs> Yea, yea. Maybe you (as an experienced moderator) should try to talk to new users before you go blasting their gutts all over cyberspace.

 * While editors are not expected to necessarily ROTFL at an early point,

cbs> Yea, see? You Know that i am "New". you should treat these matters as a sign that it is crucial for you to do so.

cbs> I know i made mistakes, as least according to present Wikipedia statutory-rules. . But you are not the ultimate arbitrator here "Jerzy".

 * The nature of WP incudes:
 * not publishing original research (i.e., to the degree you have been accurate in describing your "cutting-edge ... research", your material will not be acceptable here),

cbs> Huh? How about some 'good faith" explanation of what the heck you are saying there, gate-keeper?

Who are you to decide if my material is "Acceptable" here, or not? What the heck do you know about "Common-Law"? If you have any credentials in this field, produce them. and
 * strict standards of neutral point of view in matters where multiple points of view find significant adherants, rather than presuming to present the correct point of view.

cbs> Yea. I get the picture. I can only push "Truth" as far as the "lowest-common-denominator" allows. Mediocrity for the masses. That is precisely how you want it, yes?

(And your obvious passion for your subject might mean working effectively here would require extraordinary self-control on your part.)

cbs> Maybe.

But before i agree to any such self-imposed censorship, way dont you produce some Legitimization for your censorship tactics.

Tell me Who do i talk to about getting my original text back in the main Common-Law article? And Who are the "Stake-Holders" in this "Common-Law" article? You "Jerzy"? Who Else?

And what part did each "Stake-Holder" contribute?

That data is necessary in-order for all "Stake-Holders" to make rational decisions concerning whether or not there are Malicious People attempting to Subvert the Higher-Truths involved in this "Common-Law".

Instead of destroying, How about helping to Build something useful, "Jerzy"?

Notation: I had recently responded by submitting a couple of edits of Jerzy's section of this post.

Then, searching through the orientation documents, i see that i am suppose to make entirely new posts of my own. I guess that does make more sense.

I am used to email debating, & there-in, the last post always gets heavily edited by the current respondent, because everyone has back-up copies of the old emails.

I then reverted back to the previous version, so that my hacking of "Jerzy's" comments are fully removed.

I apologize sincerely for any confusion this has caused for anyone.

Charles Bruce, Stewart Sandy Oregon (Id leave my email address, but presently, it seems against the rules.)

Former Soviet bloc
What is the "former Soviet bloc"? Many (if not all) countries of that are included in the "Continental Europe" mention already. How about former Soviet Union? Is anybody sure that civil law is still used in ''certain central-Asian states, formerly parts of the Soviet Union?

Scope of common law
IN "America"/ the several states united as "The united States of America" ; the "common law" clock was reset if you will. All law has to be measured by and with the so called u.S Law #1 the Declaration of Independance; then the state constitions in their "republican form" including their natural rights and bill of rights sections. Lastly the articals of confederation and federal or "general goverment" bill of rights (restrictions with preamble) and [Constition of/for the United States"]

The "patriot" or militia or common law "crank" movements use these concepts in attempting to poke holes in the statuetory/civil/commercial/admistrative law that is promulgated under the defacto forms of government today. The artical is incomplete without some discussions of these areas. NPOV or not. Anon editor.

"Today common law is generally thought of as applying only to civil disputes"'' (near the beginning)

Where is the evidence for this statement? Indeed the article contradicts this statement later. Certainly untrue for UK. Can someone neutralise the national jurisdiction assumptions please.

I agree - done Chris R 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally - today common law is only used to decide issues when no controlling civil code exist. Each civil law state has adopted the common law when no specific statute exist. Common Law Courts are not open for general litigation at this time(in the United States or the United States of America). The only issue being litigated using common law is the existence of the common law state. It does reach to criminal activity when no specific statute exist (such as the common law right to make monetary restitution for wrongs).

In the UK at least, the common law continues to exist unless expressly changed by statute, and statute law is interpreted and amplified using the common law. Chris R 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the common law encompasses all venues.

In fact, Articles, Ammendments, Clauses of any Constitution that are in confilct of the common law are void; civil code in conflict with the common law is void; Clauses of any contracts in conflict are void; etc...

The root of the common law is the spirit of the statement: "Do naught unto others as you would not have done to you."

The common law, is the root of all other venues. --Aksis 03:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not always "civil codes", more usually "statute" - ie the law made by Parliaments as opposed to judicial interpretation of the uncodified body of law of the jurisdiction. Lizby 11:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The maxim or concept in latin is "Ab Initio" or void from the begining; Any "law" that contradicts the founding legitimate form for government of the land of the several states is "void ab initio"; and is no law at all. No one is bound to obey it and no one is bound to enforce it. This is not what happens of course. With all sorts of "law" as prima facia legislative acts and resolutions as well as executive orders directives, signing statements and the like are put "in force" the guys with the guns listen to their bosses so they can collect their pensions and only occasionally are things hiccuped with a ruling like "U.S. v. Lopez" et c. ad nausium; {annon editor}

bug
For some reason, the first "t" of "The" at the beginning of the History of Common Law section does not appear in both internet explorers 5.0 on a Windows 2000 computer. Also, the numbers of the sections do not appear.

What category of common law does a covenant come under?
See above question. I'm trying to find a category for the term covenant under the common law categories. Any assistance would be welcome. --Randolph 00:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A covenant(at common law) is a principal common law action (there are ten). The purpose of the action is to recover damages for breach of a convenant, or promise under seal(notarized). See Blackstones, Chapter 8, Section 135 (Private wrongs, or civil injuries, and their remedies).(RAF)

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

COVENANT,  contracts . A covenant, conventio, in its most general signification, means any kind of promise or contract, whether it be made in writing or by parol. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 27, Sec. 7, s. 4. In a more technical sense, and the one in which it is here considered, a covenant is an agreement between two or more persons, entered into in writing and under seal, whereby either party stipulates for the truth of certain facts, or promises to perform or give something to the other, or to abstain from the performance of certain things. 2 Bl. Com. 303-4; Bac. Ab. Covenant, in pr.; 4 Cruise, 446; Sheppard, Touchs. 160; 1 Harring. 151, 233 1 Bibb, 379; 2 Bibb, 614; 3 John. 44; 20 John. 85; 4 Day, 321.

There is quite a bit more, didn't feel it all needs to be posted.... --Aksis 03:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"Basic principles"
I removed the following:
 * The root principle of the common law is simply:

 * "Do naught unto others as you would not have done unto you."

 * The spirit of this single principle is the law common in all cultures, that have ever existed. It is and was the law even before it, and the clarifications of it, were encompassed by the more formal title "common law".

"All cultures that have ever existed" is an extraordinary claim that will require documented proof. And the comments in general take a Biblical POV, which discounts any influences on common law before the introduction of Christianity to Great Britain. David Iwancio 09:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I replaced it with a change:

I will concede "all" for "most",

Biblical POV huh? Plato dates Zoroastrianism to 64 centuries BC.... which preceds even the old testament of the Bible.

Who would argue, that the essance of crime, is the act of someone doing something, to you, that you don't want done? Answer: Someone who wants to do things to people thazt people don't want done to them.

Also make note, I chose the words I did to abate the age old agrument:'Well what if I am a machosist?..."

 * Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. -- Mahabharata 5,1517

 * Shinto - "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form."

 * Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. -- Analects 12:2

 * Buddhism - "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." -- Udana-Varga 5,1

 * Islam - "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." -- Sunnah

 * Christianity - "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:1

 * Judaism - "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." -- Talmud, Shabbat 3id

 * Taoism - "Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." -- Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien, 213-218

 * Zoroastrianism - "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." -- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

 * Baha'I Faith - "Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself." -- Baha'u'llah Gleanings

 * Sikhism - "I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all." -- Guru Granth Sahib, pg.1299

 * Roman Pagan Religion - "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

 * Jainism - "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." -- Acarangasutra 5.101-2

 * Native Spirituality - "Respect for all life is the foundation." -- Great Law of Peace

 * Sufism - "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." -- Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

 * Unitarian - "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." -- Unitarian principles.

 * Wicca "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. -- Wiccan Rede

 * Ancient Egyptian - "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do."
 * -- The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written.

 * Brahmanism - "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". -- Mahabharata, 5:1517

 * Humanism - "Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you." -- British Humanist Society.

 * Scientology - "Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." -- The Way to Happiness #20

--aksis

 * Okay, fair enough. But I think you miss the point.  Common law, as discussed in this article, is not "the law everyone seems to follow" (you probably want natural law, or something similar).  Even if it was (and it's not), your addition strikes me as an after-the-fact etymology like the old "pluck yew" joke. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't believe I did miss your point. I understand that, what was once simply a discription of what travlers/merchants found to be the law everywhere they travled, the common law, did evolve into a more formal title of a system given structure. As English 'common law' preceeds other 'common law' systems, so did this law that was common everywhere preceed England.

 * My point, is that without looking to the very root principles of law, the point of orgin, even more doors for distortions and misinterpertations of all the systems built one on another will occure.

 * England is NOT the origin point of the common law, no Nation is. This article is biased. If any group should recive credit for being the origin, the travlers/merchants would be it.

 * England, being an island, would have seen it in Its best interests to develop a system that was firmilar to the merchants. Prehaps this is why it *appears* to be the origin point.

 * Also, those cites I posted have nothing to do with 'natural law' (ie: gravity, etc..) nor is it the "Law of Nature", they are the very 'traditions' and 'customs' that are being alluded to in the article. How can you remove the 'root' and expect the 'tree' to 'bear fruit'? Or, prehaps your purpose is to kill the tree, which you have done. Prehaps you have an interest in doing things to people they don't want done to them, and, would make use of an overly complicated *corrupted* legal system to further your aims or are a lacky for such people. --aksis

Reformatting the Article
Maybe I'm just a little low on sleep, but this article is extremely wordy. Should this article be cleaned up so it's less of a wall of words? I'm proposing rewording and bringing in some bulleted lists to make this article a much easier read. Anyone else agree?

Veluet 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikification
I would like to assist in "cleaing up" this page.

I am the main author of the above in-questioned post.

I need someone with authority and concern for this subject being clearly expressed to voice support of this effort.

Charles Stewart charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org

Napoleonic Code
Speaking as a lay person, my understanding is that there are some significant differences between Common law and Napoleonic Code law (which is of course important in much of the world). Can somebody please include some sort of "compare and contrast" on this as appropriate? Thanks -- 29 October 2005

The best tretise on explaining the difference between English Common-Law & the Napoleonic-Code is by an Oxford University Professor, A.V. Dicey.

http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1678

Self-reference
Removed the section I've emboldened below, being self-referential:

 * In England, courts of law and equity were combined by the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875, with equity being supreme in case of conflict. In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation) survived well into the 20th century in most jurisdictions. The United States federal courts separated law and equity until they were combined in the 1920's or 1930's - the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity (I think this is the way it worked - would someone wiser than I please confirm or correct?), which of course led to all kinds of problems when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. Delaware still has separate courts of law and equity, and in many states there are separate divisions for law and equity within one court.

These are excellent additions by ANON. AndyJones 11:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit to this talk page
Note this edit, where a user has refactored existing comments further up this page, rather than adding new discussion at the end. I haven't reverted as it seems likely that User:Aksis and User:63.226.12.96 are one and the same and if so the user is refactoring his or her own comments. (I have nothing to add on the comments themselves.) AndyJones 09:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some strange artifacts left in this article lately... For example, "weell like what ever" inserted in a seemingly random place. And recently, there was a change of "murder and theft" to "murder and murder", which I changed back. Dylan Hardison

jurisprudence
"with the growing importance of jurisprudence (almost like case law but in name)" What does this mean?? --24.94.191.191 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Common Law History
There should be many more articles on the history of the common law and the English courts and legal system e.g. nisi prius. Pliny 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Common law/Archive 1


text:
Cheshire

Cheshire is a ceremonial county in North West England. It is bordered by Merseyside to the north-west, Greater Manchester to the north-east, Derbyshire to the east, Staffordshire to the south-east, and Shropshire to the south; to the west it is bordered by the Welsh counties of Flintshire and Wrexham, and has a short coastline on the Dee Estuary. Warrington is the largest settlement, and the city of Chester is the county town.

The county has an area of 905 sqmi and had a population of 1,095,500 at the 2021 census. After Warrington (211,227), the largest settlements are Chester and Crewe. The south and east of the county are primarily rural, while the north is more densely populated and includes the settlements of Runcorn, Widnes, and Ellesmere Port. For local government purposes Cheshire comprises four unitary authority areas: Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, and Warrington. The county historically included all of the Wirral Peninsula and southern Greater Manchester but excluded Widnes and Warrington, which were part of Lancashire.

The landscape of the county is dominated by the Cheshire Plain, an area of relatively flat land divided by the Mid-Cheshire Ridge. To the west, Cheshire contains the south of the Wirral Peninsula, and to the east the landscape rises to the Pennines, where the county contains part of the Peak District National Park. The River Mersey runs through the north of Cheshire before broadening into its wide estuary; the River Dee forms part of the county's border with Wales, then fully enters England and flows through the city of Chester before re-entering Wales upstream of its estuary. Red Triassic sandstone forms the bedrock of much of the county, and was used in the construction of many of its buildings.

The culture of Cheshire has impacted global pop culture by producing actors such as Daniel Craig, Tim Curry, and Pete Postlethwaite; athletes such as Shauna Coxsey, Tyson Fury, and Paula Radcliffe; authors such as Lewis Carroll; comedians such as John Bishop and Ben Miller, and musicians such as Gary Barlow, Ian Curtis, and Harry Styles. Most places are involved in agriculture and chemistry, leading to Cheshire's reputation for the production of chemicals, Cheshire cheese, salt, and silk.

Toponymy
Cheshire's name was originally derived from an early name for Chester, and was first recorded as Legeceasterscir in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, meaning "the shire of the city of legions". Although the name first appears in 980, it is thought that the county was created by Edward the Elder around 920. In the Domesday Book, Chester was recorded as having the name Cestrescir (Chestershire), derived from the name for Chester at the time. Through the next few centuries a series of changes that occurred in the English language, which have included simplifications and elision, has resulted in the name Cheshire.

Because of the historically close links with the land bordering Cheshire to the west, which became modern Wales, there is a history of interaction between Cheshire and North Wales. The Domesday Book records Cheshire as having two complete Hundreds (Atiscross and Exestan) that later became the principal part of Flintshire. Additionally, another large portion of the Duddestan Hundred later became known as English Maelor (Maelor Saesneg) when it was transferred to North Wales. For this and other reasons, the Welsh language name for Cheshire, Swydd Gaerlleon, is sometimes used.

Earldom
Wales 1234 (Marchia Wallie and Pura Wallia).svg; the only county palatine on the Welsh Marches.

{{legend|#87de87|Pura Wallia (independent Wales)}}{{legend|#aaeeff|Lands gained by Llywelyn the Great in 1234}}{{legend|#ffb380|Marchia Wallie (lands controlled by Norman Marcher barons)}}]]

After the Norman conquest of 1066 by William I, dissent and resistance continued for many years after the invasion. In 1069 local resistance in Cheshire was finally put down using draconian measures as part of the Harrying of the North. The ferocity of the campaign against the English populace was enough to end all future resistance. Examples were made of major landowners such as Earl Edwin of Mercia, their properties confiscated and redistributed amongst Norman barons.

The earldom was sufficiently independent from the kingdom of England that the 13th-century Magna Carta did not apply to the shire of Chester, so the earl wrote up his own Chester Charter at the petition of his barons.

County Palatine
William I made Cheshire a county palatine and gave Gerbod the Fleming the new title of Earl of Chester. When Gerbod returned to Normandy in about 1070, the king used his absence to declare the earldom forfeit and gave the title to Hugh d'Avranches (nicknamed Hugh Lupus, or "wolf"). Because of Cheshire's strategic location on the Welsh Marches, the Earl had complete autonomous powers to rule on behalf of the king in the county palatine.

Hundreds
Cheshire in the Domesday Book (1086) is recorded as a much larger county than it is today. It included two hundreds, Atiscross and Exestan, that later became part of North Wales. At the time of the Domesday Book, it also included as part of Duddestan Hundred the area of land later known as English Maelor (which used to be a detached part of Flintshire) in Wales. The area between the Mersey and Ribble (referred to in the Domesday Book as "Inter Ripam et Mersam") formed part of the returns for Cheshire. Although this has been interpreted to mean that at that time south Lancashire was part of Cheshire, more exhaustive research indicates that the boundary between Cheshire and what was to become Lancashire remained the River Mersey. With minor variations in spelling across sources, the complete list of hundreds of Cheshire at this time are: Atiscross, Bochelau, Chester, Dudestan, Exestan, Hamestan, Middlewich, Riseton, Roelau, Tunendune, Warmundestrou and Wilaveston.

Feudal baronies
There were 8 feudal baronies in Chester, the barons of Kinderton, Halton, Malbank, Mold, Shipbrook, Dunham-Massey, and the honour of Chester itself. Feudal baronies or baronies by tenure were granted by the Earl as forms of feudal land tenure within the palatinate in a similar way to which the king granted English feudal baronies within England proper. An example is the barony of Halton. One of Hugh d'Avranche's barons has been identified as Robert Nicholls, Baron of Halton and Montebourg.

North Mersey to Lancashire
In 1182, the land north of the Mersey became administered as part of the new county of Lancashire, resolving any uncertainty about the county in which the land "Inter Ripam et Mersam" was. Over the years, the ten hundreds consolidated and changed names to leave just seven—Broxton, Bucklow, Eddisbury, Macclesfield, Nantwich, Northwich and Wirral.

Principality: Merging of Palatine and Earldom
In 1397 the county had lands in the march of Wales added to its territory, and was promoted to the rank of principality. This was because of the support the men of the county had given to King Richard II, in particular by his standing armed force of about 500 men called the "Cheshire Guard". As a result, the King's title was changed to "King of England and France, Lord of Ireland, and Prince of Chester". No other English county has been honoured in this way, although it lost the distinction on Richard's fall in 1399.

District
Through the Local Government Act 1972, which came into effect on 1 April 1974, some areas in the north became part of the metropolitan counties of Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Stockport (previously a county borough), Altrincham, Hyde, Dukinfield and Stalybridge in the north-east became part of Greater Manchester. Much of the Wirral Peninsula in the north-west, including the county boroughs of Birkenhead and Wallasey, joined Merseyside as the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. At the same time the Tintwistle Rural District was transferred to Derbyshire. The area of south Lancashire not included within either the Merseyside or Greater Manchester counties, including Widnes and the county borough of Warrington, was added to the new non-metropolitan county of Cheshire.

District and Unitary
Halton and Warrington became unitary authorities independent of Cheshire County Council on 1 April 1998, but remain part of Cheshire for ceremonial purposes and also for fire and policing. Halton is part of Liverpool City Region combined authority, which also includes the five metropolitan boroughs of Merseyside.

A referendum for a further local government reform connected with an elected regional assembly was planned for 2004, but was abandoned.

Unitary
As part of the local government restructuring in April 2009, Cheshire County Council and the Cheshire districts were abolished and replaced by two new unitary authorities, Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester. The existing unitary authorities of Halton and Warrington were not affected by the change.

Current
Cheshire has no county-wide elected local council, but it does have a Lord Lieutenant under the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and a High Sheriff under the Sheriffs Act 1887.

Local government functions apart from the Police and Fire/Rescue services are carried out by four smaller unitary authorities: Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Halton, and Warrington. All four unitary authority areas have borough status.

Policing and fire and rescue services are still provided across the county as a whole. The Cheshire Fire Authority consist of members of the four councils, while governance of Cheshire Constabulary is performed by the elected Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

Winsford is a major administrative hub for Cheshire with the Police and Fire & Rescue Headquarters based in the town as well as a majority of Cheshire West and Chester Council. It was also home to the former Vale Royal Borough Council and Cheshire County Council.

Transition into a lieutenancy
From 1 April 1974 the area under the control of the county council was divided into eight local government districts; Chester, Congleton, Crewe and Nantwich, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Macclesfield, Vale Royal and Warrington. Halton (which includes the towns of Runcorn and Widnes) and Warrington became unitary authorities in 1998. The remaining districts and the county were abolished as part of local government restructuring on 1 April 2009. The Halton and Warrington boroughs were not affected by the 2009 restructuring.

On 25 July 2007, the Secretary of State Hazel Blears announced she was 'minded' to split Cheshire into two new unitary authorities, Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East. She confirmed she had not changed her mind on 19 December 2007 and therefore the proposal to split two-tier Cheshire into two would proceed. Cheshire County Council leader Paul Findlow, who attempted High Court legal action against the proposal, claimed that splitting Cheshire would only disrupt excellent services while increasing living costs for all. On 31 January 2008 The Standard, Cheshire and district's newspaper, announced that the legal action had been dropped. Members against the proposal were advised that they may be unable to persuade the court that the decision of Hazel Blears was "manifestly absurd".

The Cheshire West and Chester unitary authority covers the area formerly occupied by the City of Chester and the boroughs of Ellesmere Port and Neston and Vale Royal; Cheshire East now covers the area formerly occupied by the boroughs of Congleton, Crewe and Nantwich, and Macclesfield. The changes were implemented on 1 April 2009.

Congleton Borough Council pursued an appeal against the judicial review it lost in October 2007. The appeal was dismissed on 4 March 2008.

Physical
A plain of glacial till and other glacio-fluvial sediments extends across much of Cheshire, separating the hills of North Wales and the Pennines. Known as the Cheshire Plain, it was formed following the retreat of a Quaternary ice sheet which left the area dotted with kettle holes, those which hold water being referred to as meres. The bedrock of this region is almost entirely Triassic sandstone, outcrops of which have long been quarried, notably at Runcorn, providing the distinctive red stone for Liverpool Cathedral and Chester Cathedral.

The eastern half of the county is Upper Triassic Mercia Mudstone laid down with large salt deposits which were mined for hundreds of years around Winsford. Separating this area from Lower Triassic Sherwood Sandstone to the west is a prominent sandstone ridge known as the Mid Cheshire Ridge. A 55 km footpath, the Sandstone Trail, follows this ridge from Frodsham to Whitchurch passing Delamere Forest, Beeston Castle and earlier Iron Age forts.

The western fringes of the Peak District - the southernmost extent of the Pennine range - form the eastern part of the county. The highest point (county top) in the historic county of Cheshire was Black Hill (582 m) near Crowden in the Cheshire Panhandle, a long eastern projection of the county which formerly stretched along the northern side of Longdendale and on the border with the West Riding of Yorkshire. Black Hill is now the highest point in the ceremonial county of West Yorkshire.

Within the current ceremonial county and the unitary authority of Cheshire East the highest point is Shining Tor on the Derbyshire/Cheshire border between Macclesfield and Buxton, at 559 m above sea level. After Shining Tor, the next highest point in Cheshire is Shutlingsloe, at 506 m above sea level. Shutlingsloe lies just to the south of Macclesfield Forest and is sometimes humorously referred to as the "Matterhorn of Cheshire" thanks to its distinctive steep profile.

Green belt
Cheshire contains portions of two green belt areas surrounding the large conurbations of Merseyside and Greater Manchester (North Cheshire Green Belt, part of the North West Green Belt) and Stoke-on-Trent (South Cheshire Green Belt, part of the Stoke-on-Trent Green Belt), these were first drawn up from the 1950s. Contained primarily within Cheshire East and Chester West & Chester, with small portions along the borders of the Halton and Warrington districts, towns and cities such as Chester, Macclesfield, Alsager, Congleton, Northwich, Ellesmere Port, Knutsford, Warrington, Poynton, Disley, Neston, Wilmslow, Runcorn, and Widnes are either surrounded wholly, partially enveloped by, or on the fringes of the belts. The North Cheshire Green Belt is contiguous with the Peak District Park boundary inside Cheshire.

Borders
The ceremonial county borders Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Shropshire in England along with Flintshire and Wrexham in Wales, arranged by compass directions as shown in the table. below. Cheshire also forms part of the North West England region.

Flora and fauna
In July 2022, beavers bred in Cheshire for the first time in 400 years, following a reintroduction scheme.

Population

Based on the Census of 2001, the overall population of Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester is 673,781, of which 51.3% of the population were male and 48.7% were female. Of those aged between 0–14 years, 51.5% were male and 48.4% were female; and of those aged over 75 years, 62.9% were female and 37.1% were male. This increased to 699,735 at the 2011 Census. The population for 2021 is forecast to be 708,000.

In 2001, the population density of Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester was 32 people per km2, lower than the North West average of 42 people/km2 and the England and Wales average of 38 people/km2. Ellesmere Port and Neston had a greater urban density than the rest of the county with 92 people/km2.

Ethnicity
In 2001, ethnic white groups accounted for 98% (662,794) of the population, and 10,994 (2%) in ethnic groups other than white.

Of the 2% in non-white ethnic groups:

 * 3,717 (34%) belonged to mixed ethnic groups
 * 3,336 (30%) were Asian or Asian British
 * 1,076 (10%) were black or black British
 * 1,826 (17%) were of Chinese ethnic groups
 * 1,039 (9%) were of other ethnic groups.

Religion

In the 2001 Census, 81% of the population (542,413) identified themselves as Christian; 124,677 (19%) did not identify with any religion or did not answer the question; 5,665 (1%) identified themselves as belonging to other major world religions; and 1,033 belonged to other religions.

The boundary of the Church of England Diocese of Chester follows most closely the pre-1974 county boundary of Cheshire, so it includes all of Wirral, Stockport, and the Cheshire panhandle that included Tintwistle Rural District council area. In terms of Roman Catholic church administration, most of Cheshire falls into the Roman Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury.

Economy
Cheshire has a diverse economy with significant sectors including agriculture, automotive, bio-technology, chemical, financial services, food and drink, ICT, and tourism. The county is famous for the production of Cheshire cheese, salt and silk. The county has seen a number of inventions and firsts in its history.

A mainly rural county, Cheshire has a high concentration of villages. Agriculture is generally based on the dairy trade, and cattle are the predominant livestock. Land use given to agriculture has fluctuated somewhat, and in 2005 totalled 1558 km2 over 4,609 holdings. Based on holdings by EC farm type in 2005, 8.51 km2 was allocated to dairy farming, with another 11.78 km2 allocated to cattle and sheep.

The chemical industry in Cheshire was founded in Roman times, with the mining of salt in Winsford, Middlewich and Northwich. Salt is still mined in the area by British Salt. The salt mining has led to a continued chemical industry around Northwich, with Brunner Mond based in the town. Other chemical companies, including Ineos (formerly ICI), have plants at Runcorn. The Essar Refinery (formerly Shell Stanlow Refinery) is at Ellesmere Port. The oil refinery has operated since 1924 and has a capacity of 12 million tonnes per year.

Crewe was once the centre of the British railway industry, and remains a major railway junction. The Crewe railway works, built in 1840, employed 20,000 people at its peak, although the workforce is now less than 1,000. Crewe is also the home of Bentley cars. Also within Cheshire are manufacturing plants for Jaguar and Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port.

The county also has an aircraft industry, with the BAE Systems facility at Woodford Aerodrome, part of BAE System's Military Air Solutions division. The facility designed and constructed Avro Lancaster and Avro Vulcan bombers and the Hawker-Siddeley Nimrod. On the Cheshire border with Flintshire is the Broughton aircraft factory, more recently associated with Airbus.

Tourism in Cheshire from within the UK and overseas continues to perform strongly. Over 8 million nights of accommodation (both UK and overseas) and over 2.8 million visits to Cheshire were recorded during 2003.

At the start of 2003, there were 22,020 VAT-registered enterprises in Cheshire, an increase of 7% since 1998, many in the business services (31.9%) and wholesale/retail (21.7%) sectors. Between 2002 and 2003 the number of businesses grew in four sectors: public administration and other services (6.0%), hotels and restaurants (5.1%), construction (1.7%), and business services (1.0%). The county saw the largest proportional reduction between 2001 and 2002 in employment in the energy and water sector and there was also a significant reduction in the manufacturing sector. The largest growth during this period was in the other services and distribution, hotels and retail sectors.

Cheshire is considered to be an affluent county. However, towns such as Crewe and Winsford have significant deprivation. The county's proximity to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool means counter urbanisation is common. Cheshire West has a fairly large proportion of residents who work in Liverpool and Manchester, while the town of Northwich and area of Cheshire East falls more within Manchester's sphere of influence.

Education
All four local education authorities in Cheshire operate only comprehensive state school systems. When Altrincham, Sale and Bebington were moved from Cheshire to Trafford and Merseyside in 1974, they took some former Cheshire selective schools. There are two universities based in the county, the University of Chester and the Chester campus of The University of Law. The Crewe campus of Manchester Metropolitan University was scheduled to close in 2019.

Arts and entertainment
Cheshire has produced musicians such as Joy Division members Ian Curtis and Stephen Morris, One Direction member Harry Styles, the members of The 1975, Take That member Gary Barlow, The Cult member Ian Astbury, Catfish and the Bottlemen member Van McCann, Girls Aloud member Nicola Roberts, Stephen Hough, John Mayall, The Charlatans member Tim Burgess, and Nigel Stonier.

Actors from Cheshire include Russ Abbot, Warren Brown, Julia Chan, Ray Coulthard, Daniel Craig, Tim Curry, Wendy Hiller, Tom Hughes, Tim McInnerny, Ben Miller, Pete Postlethwaite, Adam Rickitt, John Steiner, and Ann Todd. The most famous author from the county is Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and named the Cheshire Cat character after it. Other notable Cheshire writers include Hall Caine, Alan Garner, and Elizabeth Gaskell. Artists from Cheshire include ceramic artist Emma Bossons and sculptor/photographer Andy Goldsworthy.

Local news and television programmes are provided by BBC North West and ITV Granada. Television signals are received from the Winter Hill TV transmitter.

Local radio stations in the county include Chester's Dee Radio, Capital North West and Wales, Smooth Wales, Cheshire's Silk Radio and Hits Radio Staffordshire & Cheshire. It is one of only four counties in the country (along with County Durham, Dorset, and Rutland) that does not have its own designated BBC radio station; the south and parts of the east are covered by BBC Radio Stoke, while BBC Radio Merseyside tends to cover the west, and BBC Radio Manchester covers the north and parts of the east. The BBC directs readers to Stoke and Staffordshire when Cheshire is selected on their website. There were plans to launch BBC Radio Cheshire, but those were shelved in 2007 after the BBC license fee settlement was lower than expected.

Sports
Athletes native to Cheshire include sailor Ben Ainslie, cricketer Ian Botham, rock climber Shauna Coxsey, boxer Tyson Fury, oarsman Matt Langridge, mountaineer George Mallory, marathon runner Paula Radcliffe, cyclist Sarah Storey, and hurdler Shirley Strong. It has also been home to numerous athletes from outside the county. Many Premier League footballers have relocated there over the years upon joining nearby teams such as Manchester United FC, Manchester City FC, Everton FC, and Liverpool FC. These include Dean Ashton, Seth Johnson, Jesse Lingard, Michael Owen, and Wayne Rooney. The "Cheshire Golden Triangle" is the collective name for a group of adjacent Cheshire villages where the amount of footballers, actors, and entrepreneurs moving in over the years led to the average house prices becoming some of the most expensive in the UK.

Cheshire has one Football League team, Crewe Alexandra, which plays in. Chester F.C., a phoenix club formed in 2010 after ex-Football League club Chester City was dissolved, competes in the. Northwich Victoria, another ex-League team which was a founding member of the Football League Division Two in 1892/1893, now represents Cheshire in the Northern Premier League along with Nantwich Town, Warrington Town, and Witton Albion. Macclesfield Town another former League club, went into liquidation in 2020; a phoenix club, Macclesfield F.C., was formed in 2021.

The Warrington Wolves and Widnes Vikings are the premier rugby league teams in Cheshire; the former plays in the Super League, while the latter plays in the Championship. There are also numerous junior clubs in the county, including Chester Gladiators. Cheshire County Cricket Club is one of the clubs that make up the minor counties of English and Welsh cricket. Cheshire also is represented in the highest level basketball league in the UK, the BBL, by Cheshire Phoenix (formerly Cheshire Jets). Europe's largest motorcycle event, the Thundersprint, is held in Northwich every May.

Other
The Royal Cheshire Show, an annual agricultural show, has taken place since the 1800s.

Cheshire also produced a military hero in Norman Cyril Jones, a World War I flying ace who won the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Unofficial county flower
As part of a 2002 marketing campaign, the plant conservation charity Plantlife chose the cuckooflower as the county flower. Previously, a sheaf of golden wheat was the county emblem, a reference to the Earl of Chester's arms in use from the 12th century.

Landmarks
Prehistoric burial grounds have been discovered at The Bridestones near Congleton (Neolithic) and Robin Hood's Tump near Alpraham (Bronze Age). The remains of Iron Age hill forts are found on sandstone ridges at several locations in Cheshire. Examples include Maiden Castle on Bickerton Hill, Helsby Hillfort and Woodhouse Hillfort at Frodsham. The Roman fortress and walls of Chester, perhaps the earliest building works in Cheshire remaining above ground, are constructed from purple-grey sandstone.

The distinctive local red sandstone has been used for many monumental and ecclesiastical buildings throughout the county: for example, the medieval Beeston Castle, Chester Cathedral and numerous parish churches. Occasional residential and industrial buildings, such as Helsby railway station (1849), are also in this sandstone.

Many surviving buildings from the 15th to 17th centuries are timbered, particularly in the southern part of the county. Notable examples include the moated manor house Little Moreton Hall, dating from around 1450, and many commercial and residential buildings in Chester, Nantwich and surrounding villages.

Early brick buildings include Peover Hall near Macclesfield (1585), Tattenhall Hall (pre-1622), and the Pied Bull Hotel in Chester (17th-century). From the 18th century, orange, red or brown brick became the predominant building material used in Cheshire, although earlier buildings are often faced or dressed with stone. Examples from the Victorian period onwards often employ distinctive brick detailing, such as brick patterning and ornate chimney stacks and gables. Notable examples include Arley Hall near Northwich, Willington Hall near Chester (both by Nantwich architect George Latham) and Overleigh Lodge, Chester. From the Victorian era, brick buildings often incorporate timberwork in a mock Tudor style, and this hybrid style has been used in some modern residential developments in the county. Industrial buildings, such as the Macclesfield silk mills (for example, Waters Green New Mill ), are also usually in brick.

Settlements
The county is home to some of the most affluent areas of northern England, including Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Prestbury, Tarporley and Knutsford, named in 2006 as the most expensive place to buy a house in the north of England. The former Cheshire town of Altrincham was in second place. The area is sometimes referred to as The Golden Triangle on account of the area in and around the aforementioned towns and villages.

The cities and towns in Cheshire are:

Some settlements which were historically part of the county now fall under the counties of Derbyshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester:

Railways
The main railway line through the county is the West Coast Main Line. Trains on the main London to Scotland line call at Crewe (in the south of the county) and Warrington Bank Quay (in the north of the county). Trains stop at Crewe and Runcorn on the Liverpool branch of the WCML; Crewe and Macclesfield are each hourly stops on the two Manchester branches. The major interchanges are:
 * Crewe (the biggest station in Cheshire) for trains to London Euston, Glasgow Central, Edinburgh Waverley, Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street (via the WCML). Trains on other routes travel to Wales, the Midlands (Birmingham, Stoke and Derby) as well as suburban services to Manchester Piccadilly, Chester and Liverpool Lime Street.
 * Warrington stations (Central and Bank Quay) for suburban services to Manchester Piccadilly, Chester and Liverpool Lime Street and regional express services to North Wales, London, Scotland, Yorkshire, the East Coast and the East Midlands
 * Chester for urban services (via Merseyrail) to Liverpool Central, suburban services to Manchester, Warrington, Wrexham General and rural Cheshire and express services to Llandudno, Holyhead, Birmingham, the West Midlands, London and Cardiff and, from May 2019, to Leeds.

In the east of Cheshire, Macclesfield station is served by Avanti West Coast, CrossCountry and Northern, on the Manchester–London line. Services from Manchester to the south coast frequently stop at Macclesfield. Neston on the Wirral Peninsula is served by a railway station on the Borderlands line between Bidston and Wrexham.

Roadways
Cheshire has 3417 mi of roads, including 214 mi of the M6, M62, M53 and M56 motorways; there are 23 interchanges and four service areas. It also has the A580 "East Lancashire Road" at its border with Greater Manchester at Leigh. The M6 motorway at the Thelwall Viaduct carries 140,000 vehicles every 24 hours.

Bus transport in Cheshire is provided by various operators. The major bus operator in the Cheshire area is D&G Bus. Other operators in Cheshire include Stagecoach Chester & Wirral and Network Warrington.

There are also several operators based outside of Cheshire, who either run services wholly within the area or services which start from outside the area. Companies include Arriva Buses Wales, Aimee's Travel, High Peak, First Greater Manchester, D&G bus and Stagecoach Manchester.

Some services are run under contract to Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East, Borough of Halton and Warrington Councils.

Waterways
The Cheshire canal system includes several canals originally used to transport the county's industrial products (mostly chemicals). Nowadays they are mainly used for tourist traffic. The Cheshire Ring is formed from the Rochdale, Ashton, Peak Forest, Macclesfield, Trent and Mersey and Bridgewater canals.

The Manchester Ship Canal is a wide, 36 mi stretch of water opened in 1894. It consists of the rivers Irwell and Mersey made navigable to Manchester for seagoing ships leaving the Mersey estuary. The canal passes through the north of the county via Runcorn and Warrington. Rivers and canals in the county are:

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Cheshire


text:
County town

In Great Britain and Ireland, a county town is the most important town or city in a county. It is usually the location of administrative or judicial functions within a county, and the place where public representatives are elected to parliament. Following the establishment of county councils in England 1889, the headquarters of the new councils were usually established in the county town of each county; however, the concept of a county town pre-dates these councils.

The concept of a county town is ill-defined and unofficial. Some counties in Great Britain have their administrative bodies housed elsewhere. For example, Lancaster is the county town of Lancashire, but the county council is in Preston. Due to the creation of unitary authorities, some county towns in Great Britain are administratively separate from the county. For example, Nottingham is separated from the rest of Nottinghamshire, and Brighton and Hove is separate from East Sussex. On a ceremonial level, both are in their own respective counties geographically.

England
This list shows towns or cities which held county functions at various points in time.

Wales
Following the Norman invasion of Wales, the Cambro-Normans created the historic shire system (also known as ancient counties). Many of these counties were named for the centre of Norman power within the new county (Caernarfonshire named for Caernarfon, Monmouthshire named for Monmouth) others were named after the previous medieval Welsh kingdoms (Ceredigon becomes Cardigan, Morgannwg becomes Glamorgan). The 1535 Laws in Wales Act established the historic counties in English law, but in Wales they were later replaced with eight preserved counties for ceremonial purposes and the twenty two principal areas are used for administrative purposes. Neither of these subdivisions use official county towns, although their administrative headquarters and ceremonial centres are often located in the historic county town.

Great Britain, post 19th-century reforms
With the creation of elected county councils in 1889, the administrative headquarters in some cases moved away from the traditional county town. Furthermore, in 1965 and 1974 there were major boundary changes in England and Wales and administrative counties were replaced with new metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. The boundaries underwent further alterations between 1995 and 1998 to create unitary authorities, and some of the ancient counties and county towns were restored. (Note: not all headquarters are or were called County Halls or Shire Halls e.g.: Cumbria County Council's HQ up until 2016 was called The Courts and has since moved to Cumbria House.) Before 1974, many of the county halls were in towns and cities that had the status of a county borough i.e. a borough outside the county council's jurisdiction.

Wales

 * 1) Due to its better transport links and more central location, some administrative functions were moved to Llangefni.
 * 2) Cardigan was often still referred to as 'the county town' due to the name link. However, assizes were held at Lampeter while Aberystwyth housed the administration of the county council. Aberystwyth was therefore the de facto county town.
 * 3) Due to its better transport links and more central location, some administrative functions were moved to Llandrindod Wells.

Republic of Ireland
The follow lists the location of the administration of each of the 31 local authorities in the Republic of Ireland, with 26 of the traditional counties.

Northern Ireland
Note – Despite the fact that Belfast is the capital of Northern Ireland, it is not the county town of any county. Greater Belfast straddles two counties – Antrim and Down.

Jamaica
Jamaica's three counties were established in 1758 to facilitate the holding of courts along the lines of the British county court system, with each county having a county town. The counties have no current administrative relevance.

title: County town


text:
Constitution of Canada

The Constitution of Canada (Constitution du Canada) is the supreme law in Canada. It outlines Canada's system of government and the civil and human rights of those who are citizens of Canada and non-citizens in Canada. Its contents are an amalgamation of various codified acts, treaties between the Crown and Indigenous Peoples (both historical and modern), uncodified traditions and conventions. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world.

The Canadian constitution includes core written documents and provisions that are constitutionally entrenched, take precedence over all other laws and place substantive limits on government action; these include the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act, 1867) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides for a constitution "similar in principle" to the largely unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, recognizes Canada as a constitutional monarchy and federal state, and outlines the legal foundations of Canadian federalism.

The Constitution of Canada includes written and unwritten components. Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that "the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada" and that any inconsistent law is of no force or effect. It further lists written documents which are included in the Constitution of Canada; these are the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982), the acts and orders referred to in its schedule (including in particular the Constitution Act, 1867), and any amendments to these documents.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that this list is not exhaustive and that the Constitution of Canada includes a number of pre-confederation acts and unwritten components as well. The Canadian constitution also includes the fundamental principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. See list of Canadian constitutional documents for details.

History of the constitution
The first semblance of a constitution for Canada was the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The act renamed the northeasterly portion of the former French province of New France as Province of Quebec, roughly coextensive with the southern third of contemporary Quebec. The proclamation, which established an appointed colonial government, was the constitution of Quebec until 1774 when the British parliament passed the Quebec Act, which expanded the province's boundaries to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers (one of the grievances listed in the United States Declaration of Independence). Significantly, the Quebec Act also replaced French criminal law with the English common law system; but the French civil law system was retained for non-criminal matters.

The Treaty of Paris of 1783 ended the American War of Independence and sent a wave of British loyalist refugees northward to Quebec and Nova Scotia. In 1784, the two provinces were divided: Nova Scotia was split into Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Island (rejoined to Nova Scotia in 1820), Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, while Quebec was split into Lower Canada (southern Quebec) and Upper Canada (southern through lower northern Ontario). The winter of 1837–38 saw rebellion in both Canadas, contributing to their re-union as the Province of Canada in 1841.

The British North America Act, 1867 established the Dominion of Canada as a federation of provinces. Initially, on 1 July 1867, four provinces entered into confederation as "One dominion under the name of Canada": Canada West (former Upper Canada, now Ontario), Canada East (former Lower Canada, now Quebec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Title to the Northwest Territories was transferred by the Hudson's Bay Company in 1870, out of which the province of Manitoba (the first to be established by the Parliament of Canada) was created. British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871, followed by Prince Edward Island in 1873. The Yukon Territory was created by Parliament in 1898, followed by Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 (all out of parts of the Northwest Territories). Newfoundland, Britain's oldest colony in the Americas and by then also a Dominion, joined Confederation in 1949. Nunavut was created in 1999 from the Northwest Territories.

An Imperial Conference in 1926 that included the leaders of all Dominions and representatives from India (which then included Burma, Bangladesh, and Pakistan), led to the eventual enactment of the Statute of Westminster 1931. The statute, an essential transitory step from the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, provided that existing Dominions became fully sovereign of the United Kingdom and any new Dominions would be fully sovereign upon the grant of Dominion status. Although listed, Newfoundland never ratified the statute so was still subject to imperial authority when its entire system of government and economy collapsed in the mid-1930s. Canada did ratify the statute but with a requested exception—the Canadian federal and provincial governments could not agree on an amending formula for the Canadian constitution. It would be another 50 years before this was achieved. In the interim, the British parliament periodically passed constitutional amendments when requested by the government of Canada. This was never anything but a rubber stamp.

The patriation of the Canadian constitution was achieved in 1982 when the British parliament, with the request and assent of the Canadian parliament, passed the Canada Act 1982, which included in its schedules the Constitution Act, 1982. The United Kingdom thus renounced any remaining responsibility for, or jurisdiction over, Canada. In a formal ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed the Constitution Act, 1982 into law on 17 April 1982.

The Constitution Act, 1982, includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before the Charter, various statutes protected an assortment of civil rights and obligations but nothing was enshrined in the constitution until 1982. The Charter has thus placed a strong focus upon individual and collective rights of the people of Canada. The enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has fundamentally changed much of Canadian constitutional law. The act also codified many previously oral constitutional conventions and made amendment of the constitution in general significantly more difficult. Previously, the Canadian constitution could be formally amended by an act of the British parliament, or by informal agreement between the federal and provincial governments, or even simply by adoption as the custom of an oral convention or performance that shows precedential but unwritten tradition. Since the act, textual amendments must now conform to certain specified provisions in the written portion of the Canadian constitution.

Constitution Act, 1867
This was an Act of the British parliament, originally called the British North America Act, 1867. It outlined Canada's system of government, which combines Britain's Westminster model of parliamentary government with the division of sovereignty (federalism). Although it is the first of 20 British North America Acts, it is the most famous as the primary document of Canadian Confederation. With the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, this Act was renamed Constitution Act, 1867. In recent years, the 1867 document has mainly served as the basis on which the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government is analyzed.

Constitution Act, 1982
Endorsed by all provincial governments except that of Quebec, this was the formal Act of Parliament that effected Canada's full legislative independence from the United Kingdom. Part V of this act established an amending formula for the Canadian constitution, the lack of which (due to more than 50 years of disagreement between the federal and provincial governments) meant Canada's constitutional amendments still required enactment by the British parliament after Statute of Westminster in 1931.

The Constitution Act, 1982 was enacted as a schedule to the Canada Act 1982, a British Act of Parliament which was introduced at the request of a joint address to Queen Elizabeth II by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. The version of the Canada Act 1982 which is in force in Britain is in English only, but the version of the act in force in Canada is bilingual, English and French. In addition to enacting the Constitution Act, 1982, the Canada Act 1982 provides that no further British acts of Parliament will apply to Canada as part of its law, finalizing Canada's legislative independence.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
As noted above, this is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter is the constitutional guarantee of the civil rights and liberties of every citizen in Canada, such as freedom of expression, of religion, and of mobility. Part II addresses the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

It is written in plain language to ensure accessibility to the average citizen. It applies only to government and government actions to prevent the government from creating unconstitutional laws.

Amending formula
Instead of the usual parliamentary procedure, which includes the monarch's formal royal assent for enacting legislation, amendments to any of the acts that collectively form the constitution must be done in accordance with Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides for five different amending formulae. Amendments can be brought forward under section 46(1) by any province or the federal legislature. The general formula set out in section 38(1), known as the "7/50 formula", requires: (a) assent from both the House of Commons and the Senate; (b) the approval of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures (at least seven provinces) representing at least 50 per cent of the population of the provinces (effectively, this would include at least Quebec or Ontario, as they are the most populous provinces). This formula specifically applies to amendments related to the proportionate representation in Parliament, powers, selection, and composition of the Senate, the Supreme Court and the addition of provinces or territories.

The other amendment formulae are for particular cases as provided by the act. An amendment related to the Office of the King, the use of either official language (subject to section 43), the amending formula itself, or the composition of the Supreme Court, must be adopted by unanimous consent of all the provinces in accordance with section 41. In the case of an amendment related to provincial boundaries or the use of an official language within a province alone, the amendment must be passed by the legislatures affected by the amendment (section 43). In the case of an amendment that affects the federal government only, the amendment does not need the approval of the provinces (section 44). The same applies to amendments affecting the provincial government alone (section 45).

Sources of the constitution
Canada's constitution has roots going back to the thirteenth century, including England's Magna Carta and the first English Parliament of 1275. Canada's constitution is composed of several individual statutes. There are three general methods by which a statute becomes entrenched in the Constitution:
 * 1) Specific mention as a constitutional document in section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (e.g., the Constitution Act, 1867).
 * 2) Constitutional entrenchment of an otherwise statutory English, British, or Canadian document because its (still in force) subject-matter provisions are explicitly assigned to one of the methods of the amending formula (per the Constitution Act, 1982)—e.g., provisions with regard to the monarchy in the English Bill of Rights 1689  or the Act of Settlement 1701.
 * 3) *English and British statutes are part of Canadian law because of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865; section 129 of the Constitution Act, 1867; and the Statute of Westminster 1931. If still at least partially unrepealed those laws then became entrenched when the amending formula was made part of the constitution.
 * 4) Reference by an entrenched document—e.g., the Preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867 entrenchment of written and unwritten principles from the constitution of the United Kingdom or the Constitution Act, 1982 reference to the Proclamation of 1763.
 * 5) *Crucially, this includes Aboriginal rights and Crown treaties with particular First Nations (e.g., historic "numbered" treaties; modern land-claims agreements).

Unwritten or uncodified sources
The existence of unwritten constitutional components was reaffirmed in 1998 by the Supreme Court in Reference re Secession of Quebec. "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

In practice, there have been three sources of unwritten constitutional law:

 * Conventions: Constitutional conventions form part of the constitution, but they are not judicially enforceable. They include the existence of the office of prime minister and the Cabinet, the practise that the Crown in most circumstances is required to grant royal assent to bills adopted by both houses of Parliament, and the requirement that the prime minister either resign or request a dissolution and general election upon losing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons.
 * Royal prerogative: Reserve powers of the Canadian Crown, being remnants of the powers once held by the British Crown, reduced over time by the parliamentary system. Primarily, these are the orders in Council, which give the government the authority to declare war, conclude treaties, issue passports, make appointments, make regulations, incorporate, and receive lands that escheat to the Crown.
 * Unwritten principles:Principles that are incorporated into the Canadian constitution by the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, including a statement that the constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom", much of which is unwritten. Unlike conventions, they are justiciable. Amongst those principles most recognized as constitutional to date are federalism, liberal democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Others include responsible government, representation by population, judicial independence, parliamentary supremacy, and an implied bill of rights. In one case, the Provincial Judges Reference (1997), a law was held invalid for contradicting an unwritten principle (in this case judicial independence).

Provincial constitutions
Unlike in most federations, Canadian provinces do not have written provincial constitutions. Provincial constitutions are instead a combination of uncodified constitution, provisions of the Constitution of Canada, and provincial statutes.

Overall structures of provincial governments (like the legislature and cabinet) are described in parts of the Constitution of Canada. Governmental structure of the original four provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario) is described in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1867. The three colonies that joined Canada after Confederation (British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador) had existing UK legislation which described their governmental structure, and this was affirmed in each colony's Terms of Union, which now form part of Canada's Constitution. The remaining three provinces (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta) were created by federal statute. Their constitutional structures are described in those statutes, which now form part of Canada's Constitution.

All provinces have enacted legislation that establishes other rules for the structure of government. For example, every province (and territory) has an act governing elections to the legislature, and another governing procedure in the legislature. Two provinces have explicitly listed such acts as being part of their provincial constitution; see Constitution of Quebec and Constitution Act (British Columbia). However, these acts do not, generally, supersede other legislation and do not require special procedures to amend, and so they function as regular statutes rather than constitutional statutes.

A small number of non-constitutional provincial laws do supersede all other provincial legislation, as a constitution would. This is referred to as quasi-constitutionality. Quasi-constitutionality is often applied to human rights laws, allowing those laws to act as a de facto constitutional charter of rights. For example, laws preventing discrimination in employment, housing, and services have clauses making them quasi-constitutional in ten of thirteen jurisdictions.

Amending provincial constitutions
Section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982 allows each province to amend its own constitution. This applies, for example, to provincial statute laws like Constitution of Quebec and Constitution Act (British Columbia). However, if the desired change would require an amendment to any documents that form part of the Constitution of Canada, it would require the consent of the Senate and House of Commons under section 43. This was done, for example, by the Constitution Amendment, 1998, when Newfoundland asked the federal government to amend the Terms of Union of Newfoundland to allow it to end denominational quotas for religion classes.

A small number of statutes within provincial constitutions cannot be amended by a simple majority of the legislative assembly, despite section 45. For example, section 7 of the Constitution of Alberta Amendment Act, 1990 requires plebiscites of Métis settlement members before that Act can be amended. Courts have not yet ruled about whether this kind of language really would bind future legislatures, but it might do so if the higher bar was met when creating the law.

Three amendments to provincial constitutions in the 2020s have been controversially framed as amendments to the Constitution Act 1867. These are Quebec statutes purporting to add sections 90Q and 128Q and a Saskatchewan statute purporting to add section 90S. Because the Senate and House of Commons did not authorise these amendments, they would only have effect if they are amendments to provincial constitutions under the section 45 amending procedure. Constitutional scholars are divided on the validity of an amendment to a provincial constitution framed as an addition to part of the Constitution of Canada.

Vandalism of the proclamation paper
In 1983, Peter Greyson, an art student, entered Ottawa's National Archives (known today as Library and Archives Canada) and poured red paint mixed with glue over a copy of the proclamation of the 1982 constitutional amendment. He said he was displeased with the federal government's decision to allow United States missile testing in Canada and had wanted to "graphically illustrate to Canadians" how wrong he believed the government to be. Greyson was charged with public mischief and sentenced to 89 days in jail, 100 hours of community work, and two years of probation. A grapefruit-sized stain remains on the original document; restoration specialists opted to leave most of the paint intact, fearing that removal attempts would only cause further damage.

title: Constitution of Canada