mrjaycanadian wrote:Hey Pottapaug1938.
The law & physics are to totally different topics.
You completely missed my point, Pal. Let me repeat it: whether it be physics, law, French cuisine or how to get the Red Sox to be able to hit their way out of a wet paper bag, I defer to the experts if I don't have enough knowledge of the subject. And yes, you WOULD have a bunch of physicists telling you that your assertions were gibberish if you cut and pasted them from various crank Internet sources and obsolete physics textbooks and journals. Your legal fantasies are NOT being rejected, just because you don’t have a Bar card and a membership to the lawyer’s club; they are rejected because they have no basis in the law. I no longer have a Bar card or a membership in any Bar association; but I am trained in how to study and interpret the law. An old friend of mine went to law school but never took the Bar Exam, simply because, as a retired Army colonel, he felt that he wanted to be able to know how to research the law correctly.
Crain and Wnuck are indeed legal opinions; and THEY ARE THE LAW, at least in the jurisdictions which handed them down. I commend them to you, because they will tell you a lot about why we don't like to dignify word salad with a reasoned response.
I'm not sure what you mean -- if anything worthwhile, by asking if you "can use" common law in the USA and Canada; but along with statutory law, it defines your rights and liabilities in a given jurisdiction.
And yes, the problem IS "word salad" -- out-of-context quotes taken from fringe sites and out-of-date legal dictionaries.