• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

English Common Law: Structure and Principles ~ Free Classes

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
61,498
Reaction score
130,448
Location
Rocky Mountains
Free classes! June 23rd we start again

University of London

English Common Law: Structure and Principles

For anyone with an interest in learning about one of the oldest and most influential legal systems in the world.

About the Course

The Common Law of England and Wales is one of the major global legal traditions. In order to understand the common law, we need to deal with its history, and the development of its characteristic institutions like the jury, judge made law, parliamentary sovereignty and due process. We also need to ask some critical questions. What role does democracy play in the development of the common law? To what extent are human rights central to the modern common law? How does the common law of England and Wales relate to the law of the European Union? Answering these questions will give us insights into the current challenges the law faces and its possible futures.

We've set up social media pages for the course

Twitter http://bit.ly/eclawtwitter
Facebook http://bit.ly/eclawfacebook
Google plus http://bit.ly/eclawgoogleplus

and you can email us at laws.coursera@london.ac.uk

Course Syllabus

Week One: Dead Kings and Presidents: A Brief History of the Common Law
Week Two: See You In Court: The Court System and the Common Law
Week Three: Supreme Power: Parliamentary Sovereignty and Law Making
Week Four: Wigs and Pens: Judicial Law Making and the doctrine of Precedent
Week Five: Reading the Riot Act: How Statutes are Interpreted
Week Six: After the War, Before the Peace: The European Union and Human Rights

Recommended Background

This course does not require any existing legal knowledge.

Course Format

The course is designed to be flexible to how people want to learn. We use short videos, discussions and challenges as well as longer lectures, course readings and interactions. People will be able to go through the course at their own pace.

FAQ

What is Common Law?

Historically the common law originated in England in the Kings Courts and emerged from the Kings Judges who travelled round the country adopting what they considered to be the best legal rules from each area. The common law has developed through judicial decisions in cases that articulate principles and rules, but one must bear in mind the important role that Parliament plays in enacting statutory laws. .Indeed, in UK common law Parliament is seen as the sovereign law making power. A robust understanding of the common law also requires some knowledge of its distinctive institutions and ideas such as the jury, due process and the centrality of the judge to the trial. .

Will this cover other jurisdictions?

English Common Law underpins the law in many jurisdictions which in turn have contributed to the evolution of the common law.

Will this course count towards the study of a qualifying law degree?

No. Most jurisdictions will have their own rules regarding what is required to qualify as a solicitor or a barrister and you should refer to the appropriate bodies in the country where you wish to practice.

Where can I find out about more information regarding this subject and the University of London programmes?

The content of this course is drawn from the extensive world renowned portfolio of flexible study programmes offered through the University of London International Programmes. These programmes result from a collaboration between the University of London International Academy and 12 Colleges of the University of London. Established in 1858, the International Programmes is the world’s oldest provider of flexible learning. Today there are 52,000 students in 180 countries studying through the University of London International Programmes, for more than 100 qualifications at degree, higher education diploma and certificate level. The University also works with a network of independent teaching centres worldwide, all of which provide teaching, tutoring and pastoral care. For more information please visit http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/coursera

https://www.coursera.org/course/engcomlaw

 
Last edited by a moderator:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
THE UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MADE ABOUT THE "COMMON LAW" WHICH RESULTED IN THEM BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW WHICH NEVER EXISTED AND THE OUTRAGE THAT UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE CAUSED IN THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY COMMUNITY

"FACT: Common law" simply means "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES (as opposed to statutes or constitutions WRITTEN BY OTHERS).

THE PUBLISHED LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
Common law is law that is derived from JUDICIAL DECISIONS instead of from statutes. AMERICAN COURTS originally fashioned common law rules based on English common law until the AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM was sufficiently mature TO CREATE COMMON LAW rules either from direct precedent or by analogy to comparable areas of decided law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or JUDGE-MADE LAW, or CASE LAW) is the body of law CREATED BY JUDGES and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, A COMMON LAW COURT looks to past precedential DECISIONS OF RELEVANT COURTS, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the PRIOR DECISION (a principle known as stare decisis).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
Common law, also called Anglo-American law, is the body of customary law, BASED UPON JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EMBODIED IN REPORTS OF DECIDED CASES, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved THE TYPE OF LEGAL SYSTEM NOW FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations).

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW, or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/
Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which WAS LATER ADOPTED IN THE U.S. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier CASE LAW) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region CREATED BY JUDGES when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time. THE U.S. IS A COMMON LAW COUNTRY.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
The body of law developed in England primarily from JUDICIAL DECISIONS based on custom and precedent, UNWRITTEN in statute or code, and CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF the English legal system and of THE [LEGAL] SYSTEM IN ALL OF THE U.S. except Louisiana

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law
LAW DEVELOPED BY JUDGES. ...through their decisions and opinions (ALSO CALLED CASE LAW) (as opposed to statutes promulgated by legislatures and regulations promulgated by the executive branch. ...Synonyms. CASE LAW, DECISIONAL LAW, JUDGE-MADE LAW, PRECEDENTIAL LAW.

https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law
Common Law is the system of legal rules developed over the centuries by English JUDGES IN THEIR DECISIONS ON CASES.

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW,” or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

"Common law" ("case law") is STILL the single most commonly-used form of law in the United States today. Common law is also BY FAR the largest single component of United States law in terms of sheer volume. Just look at the book shelves in any law library.

HOW THE "COMMON LAW" IS DEFINED BY THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!

.ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!
State v. Quested: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS, CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10th ed.2014)." (in the 7th paragraph of Justice Johnson's "Dissent", at about 75% through the text HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4145277851828805289&q="State+v.+QUESTED"+"common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

MORE ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON L:AW" ITSELF:
State v. Hyde: "THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS. CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 293 (8th ed. 2004)." (in the 7th paragraph, at about 75% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7712646074919813387&q="State+v.+Hyde"+"common+law"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006


THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION:
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" was ALSO sometimes called,"unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, "IF THE 'COMMON LAW' WAS ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED, 'UNWRITTEN LAW', THEN HOW CAN THE 'COMMON LAW' POSSIBLY BE 'WRITTEN' BY JUDGES?" That is a fair question.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 30% THROUGH THE TEXT ON THE WHITE BACKGROUND HERE. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx. (QUOTE BEGINS) "Because it is NOT WRITTEN by elected politicians BUT, RATHER BY JUDGES, it is also referred to as unwritten law or lex non scripta." (QUOTE ENDS)

Indeed, that is precisely the way that the Supreme Court Of The United States uses the term, "unwritten law" (referring to laws written by judges as opposed to laws written by elected lawmakers). In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court Of The United States quoted an earlier decision and wrote, "In exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship [FEDERAL COURTS] NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... .[T]HEY ARE FREE TO EXERCISE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE COMMON LAW OF THE STATE IS [USING THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" AND "COMMON LAW" INTERCHANGEABLY.].. . " (iIn the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&q="Erie+v.+Tompkins"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" REALLY MEANS LAWS WRITTEN BY JUDGES (AS OPPOSED TO STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN BY OTHERS.). "Lex non scripta" is Latin for "unwritten law". But, this term also means laws written by judges rather than laws written by others, as this.

AN ANCIENT EXPLANATION OF THIS CONFUSION IN ANCIENT TIMES
The ancient English text below explains what "unwritten law" or "Lex non scripta"(in Latin) actually means.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 45% THROUGH THE TEXT TO THE PEACH-COLORED BACKGROUND HERE.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx

(BEGIN QUOTE)

"... when I call those parts of our laws (lex) non scripta, I DO NOT MEAN AS IF THOSE LAWS WERE ONLY ORAL or communicated from the former ages to the later, merely by word; for ALL THOSE LAWS HAVE THEIR MONUMENTS IN WRITING whereby they are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose all kind of certainty; for as the civil ... laws have their ... determinations extant in writing; so those laws of England which are not comprised under the titles of acts of parliament, are for the most part extant IN RECORDS of pleas, proceedings and judgments; IN BOOKS OF REPORTS AND JUDICIAL CASES; in tractates of learned men's argument and opinions, preserved from antient (sic) times, and still extant IN WRITING."

(QUOTE ENDS)

FACT: ALL OF THE COMMON LAW IS IN WRITING. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE KNOW EVERY SINGLE WORD OF IT TODAY!

HOW THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW", RESULTED IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW THAT NEVER EXISTED:

Amateur legal theorists mistakenly thought that the term, "unwritten law" meant that the "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER This resulted in amateur legal theorists simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the common law should be (as long as it was more favorable to them than their perception of written laws). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they claimed that the common law "has been taken away" BECAUSE ALL MODERN LAW IS WRITTEN AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE POSSIBLY BE "COMMON LAW". They claim that the reason that common law was "taken away" was to eliminate all personal freedom and liberty and reduce humanity to slaves. Accordingly, they claim that today's written laws are in direct conflict with the unwritten common law which they mistakenly believe shielded people from all responsibility and accountability to society as a whole absent injury to another person or that person's property.

ACTUAL PROOF OF THIS MISTAKEN BELIEF:
What follows is a written explanation of the "common law" based on this very mistake described above (that common law is "UNWRITTEN" law) and based on the mistake that the "common law" is no longer used in today's legal system. This explanation was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent promoter of this mistaken belief about the law.


(QUOTE BEGINS)

4 – THE COMMON LAW IS UNWRITTEN YET KNOWABLE. It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .

“NO WRITTEN LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE THAT TRANSCEND HUMAN LEGAL SYSTEMS [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" WAS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN]. " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rule+of+law

“…[The common law is] UNWRITTEN, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of…[AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PREDATED THE JUDGES WHO ACTUALLY WROTE IT]"

THUS, UNWRITTEN LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. "… *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…<===!***** (emphasis in original)

"….On June 30, 1864…, CONGRESS CHANGED beginning with the revenue act of that date, THE REASON OF (SIC) LAW IN AMERICA FROM PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO CIVIL LIBERTY UNDER MUNICIPAL (ROMAN CIVIL LAW), i.e., rules and regulations commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong…[REFLECTING A "TAKING WAY" OF THE IMAGINARY UNWRITTEN "COMMON LAW" BY MODERN WRITTEN LAW] "

(QUOTE ENDS)

Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "common law" is literally "unwritten" altogether, that it is morally and legally superior to today's written law and that today's written law is in direct conflict with the unwritten "common law". But, none of this is so. Unknown to amateur legal theorists, today's law INCLUDES THE COMMON LAW which is STILL "case law" written by judges and which is still being made by judges every single day all over the globe.

THE OUTRAGE CAUSED BY THIS UNDERSTANDABLE M(STAKE
Regardless, the foregoing mistaken beliefs resulted in an outrage in the amateur legal theory community over an imaginary injustice which never occurred in connection with an imaginary, UNWRITTEN body of law which never existed. As a result of these mistaken beliefs, amateur legal theorists now demand a "return" to the "UNWRITTEN" common law (WHICH NEVER EXISTED), common law courts (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE), common law jurisdiction, common law rules of court, common law procedure, common law motions, common law pleadings, common law rulings and so forth.


DEMANDS FOR A "RETURN" TO THE UNWRITTEN COMMON LAW (WHICH NEVER EXISTED) AND TO COMMON LAW COURTS (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE TODAY):
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nVOCbxuQ-Y

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwmGbAFaso
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zky4TRz5hU
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr3lpMA58EE
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ecNc0ZLAU
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9Ntr-JL44
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9ifWnloDo


SO, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO US TODAY IN COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. NOTHING MORE. IT IS A BODY OF LAW WHICH BEGAN IN ANCIENT ENGLAND AND CONTINUES TO BE MADE AND CONTINUES TO BE USED BY ALL OF THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND IN MOST OF THE COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE ENGLISH EMPIRE, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png

2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. ALL COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) IS NOTHING BUT "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THERE IS NO OTHER TYPE OF COMMON LAW.

3). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE JURISDICTION OF MODERN COURTS. SO, YOU CANNOT "INVOKE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT (LIKE FLIPPING A SWITCH). NOTHING ELSE EXISTS (TO FLIP A SWITCH TO). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

4). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S MODERN COURTS. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

5). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "STANDING" UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

6). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES OF COURT" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE RULES OF COURT UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

7). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM COURT PROCEDURE UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

8). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM MOTIONS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

9). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS" (IN USE OR WHICH CAN BE USED) WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM PLEADINGS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. TODAY'S MODERN PLEADINGS INCLUDE COMMON LAW PLEADINGS (COMMON LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, COMMON LAW CLAIMS AND COMMON LAW DEFENSES). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

10). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM RULINGS OF MODERN COURTS. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

11). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY FEATURE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF TODAY'S MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

13). "COMMON LAW" IS STILL THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.

14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, COMMON LAW IS THE SINGLE LARGEST COMPONENT OF TODAY'S LAWS (IN TERMS OF SHEER VOLUME).

15) IT IS TRUE THAT STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CHANGED MANY AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). BUT. IS ALSO TRUE THAT MANY LEGISLATIVE BODIES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CODIFIED THE COMMON LAW INTO STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN), THEREBY PRESERVING SOME AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). FURTHERMORE, CONSIDER THIS. VIRTUALLY EVERY STATUTE (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) ITSELF BECOMES THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN THE COURTS AND ALL OF THE WRITTEN DECISIONS IN ALL OF THOSE COURT CASES THEMSELVES ALSO BECOME PART OF THE COMMON LAW. SO, THE BODY OF THE COMMON LAW IS ALWAYS BECOMING LARGER AND IS STILL USED IN AREAS OF THE LAW WHICH ARE ALSO REGULATED BY STATUTE.

16). IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT TODAY THE COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE ARE NOW GOVERNED BY RULE BOOKS. BUT, LIKE THE "COMMON LAW", THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO WRITTEN BY JUDGES (SUPREME COURT JUSTICES) (OR AT THEIR REQUEST), NOT BY LEGISLATURES. FURTHERMORE, THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO BASED ON PRECEDENT (MOST OF WHICH IS ANCIENT). SO, IN THAT SENSE, THE COMMON LAW STILL EFFECTIVELY GOVERNS MODERN COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE.

17). THIS MEANS THAT TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH OTHER MODERN LAWS, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

18). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN TODAY'S "COMMON LAW", BECAUSE TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 80 consecutive administrative and judicial cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes


For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax


For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion


For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\


For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,958
Reaction score
11,258
And who here would be most afraid of propagation of this topic.

The admirality hoax itself...
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
The most important thing about the common law is it is NOT JUDGE MADE LAW.

The law is judged by a Jury of twelve and the guy who sits at the table keeps things even and according to the rules of law.

This means the Jury can decide if the law they are using is a valid law.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
The most important thing about the common law is it is NOT JUDGE MADE LAW.
.

YOUR COMMENT: The most important thing about the common law is it is NOT JUDGE MADE LAW.

MY RESPONSE: Your should immediately notify every legal dictionary publisher on the planet, every court that has ever ruled on the subject over the last several centuries in England and the United States, including the Supreme Court Of The United States and every law school and university in the world and tell them they all got it wrong.

Be sure to tell them where you got your Doctor's Degree in the Law and tell them about all the years you spent in the courtroom winning cases and I am certain they will immediately reverse themselves to conform to your amateur legal theory.
 
Last edited:

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,947
Reaction score
5,072
YOUR COMMENT: The most important thing about the common law is it is NOT JUDGE MADE LAW.

MY RESPONSE: Your should immediately notify every legal dictionary publisher on the planet, every court that has ever ruled on the subject over the last several centuries in England and the United States, including the Supreme Court Of The United States and every law school and university in the world and tell them they all got it wrong.

Be sure to tell them where you got your Doctor's Degree in the Law and tell them about all the years you spent in the courtroom winning cases and I am certain they will immediately reverse themselves to conform to your amateur legal theory.


http://svpvril.com/OACL.html

THE Courts of Common Law into the Courts of Equity, where a trial by jury could not be had, and where there was merely a summary proceeding with no semblance of a "due process of Law". In other words, a merchant can, with a flick of his Pen, deprive anyone of their property without due process of Law (Common Law). Sound familiar?

This case is known as:

Moses y MacFerian
2 Burroughs 1005

and is the case that sparked the American Revolution and caused Thomas Jefferson to say that English law since that date (1760) should not ever be used over here as Equity/Merchant laws had become an instrument through which merchants could, from then on, assume power over anyone else's property solely at their discretion and whim.

It was this Equitable debt action in assumpsit which the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was specifically meant to outlaw, by specifically providing that

"In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved..."

The significance of this is pointed up by the fact that any controversy involving Money (Gold and Silver Coins) in an amount greater than twenty dollars, or any property such as real estate can only be tried in a Court of Common Law with the right of trial by jury who decides Law as well as the Facts of the case!

This means that any Mortgage Foreclosure action can be tried only in a Court of Common Law, and that the State Legislature has no Constitutional authority to provide, by statute (statutes are not real Law but are in reality 'color' of Law only and therefore are only binding on a voluntary or mutually agreed upon basis), that mortgage foreclosure actions shall be Equity actions! This means that Sheriff's Sales as a result of these Equitable Mortgage Foreclosure actions are null and void! ! And that the Sheriffs have participated in criminal confiscation of real property in violation of the Constitution and of their oaths of office! !

So, it can be seen that summary and arbitrary confiscation of income and property is nothing new in American tradition and history out of an illicit (meaning unlawful and unconstitutional) Equitable jurisdiction. It is precisely this Equitable jurisdiction wherein the Chancellor enforces the combination of unconstitutional Executive and Legislative Equity which is the jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution referred to in the Declaration of Independence. This is precisely what our American Revolution was all about and what our Bill of Rights was designed to prevent.

It is also a measure of the extent that the Bankers (both foreign and domestic) and other merchants, and their stooges, the lawyers and Judges, as well as the politicians of both major political parties, have betrayed the Public Trust and have attempted to place us in a Dictatorship of Unelected Rulers (being the "judges" and bureaucrats) ! !

Thus it can be seen that there is a direct similarity of our political/legal situation today with what it was in the years immediately preceding the Revolution of 1776. Only today we have a written Constitution that spells out our Rights and our freedoms, giving us precedents, whereas two hundred years ago they did not.

The Common Law Jury members (acting as judges of the Law) were sworn to "Do equal law, and execution of Right, to all the King's subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person" and that they will deny no man Common Right; but they were NOT sworn to obey or execute any statute of the King, or of the King and Parliament. Indeed, they are virtually sworn NOT to obey or execute any statutes that are against "Common Right", or contrary to the Common Law, or "Law of the Land"; but to certify the King thereof "... that is, to notify the King that his statutes are against the Common Law;.... and then proceed to execute the Common Law, notwithstanding such legislation to the contrary. The words of the oath on this point are these:

"That we deny no man Common Rights by (virtue of) the King's letters, nor none other mans', nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the Law, (that is, the Common Law) that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the King thereof, and proceed the execute the Law (that is, the Common Law), notwithstanding the same letters"

In Federalist Papers #48, Alexander Hamilton wrote in part, "No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid." "The Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as a fundamental law."

The Sheriff is also a servant of the People, elected and paid by and for Them; upon taking office he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution (the People's Law) and keep the peace.

In American Jurisprudence, on Sheriffs, Police and Constables, we find the following:
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
THE UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MADE ABOUT THE "COMMON LAW" WHICH RESULTED IN THEM BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW WHICH NEVER EXISTED AND THE OUTRAGE THAT UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE CAUSED IN THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY COMMUNITY

"FACT: Common law" simply means "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES (as opposed to statutes or constitutions WRITTEN BY OTHERS).

THE PUBLISHED LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"

The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014 [the current edition], is"The body of law derived from JUDICIAL DECISIONS, rather than from statutes or constitutions; [synonym] CASELAW, [contrast] STATUTORY LAW". ... In this connotation, "common law" distinguishes the authority [lawmaker] that promulgated [makes] a law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
Common law is law that is derived from JUDICIAL DECISIONS instead of from statutes. AMERICAN COURTS originally fashioned common law rules based on English common law until the AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM was sufficiently mature TO CREATE COMMON LAW rules either from direct precedent or by analogy to comparable areas of decided law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or JUDGE-MADE LAW, or CASE LAW) is the body of law CREATED BY JUDGES and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, A COMMON LAW COURT looks to past precedential DECISIONS OF RELEVANT COURTS, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is usually bound to follow the reasoning used in the PRIOR DECISION (a principle known as stare decisis).

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
Common law, also called Anglo-American law, is the body of customary law, BASED UPON JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EMBODIED IN REPORTS OF DECIDED CASES, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved THE TYPE OF LEGAL SYSTEM NOW FOUND IN THE UNITED STATES and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations).

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW, or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/
Common law is the system of deciding cases that originated in England and which WAS LATER ADOPTED IN THE U.S. Common law is based on precedent (legal principles developed in earlier CASE LAW) instead of statutory laws. It is the traditional law of an area or region CREATED BY JUDGES when deciding individual disputes or cases. Common law changes over time. THE U.S. IS A COMMON LAW COUNTRY.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
The body of law developed in England primarily from JUDICIAL DECISIONS based on custom and precedent, UNWRITTEN in statute or code, and CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF the English legal system and of THE [LEGAL] SYSTEM IN ALL OF THE U.S. except Louisiana

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law
LAW DEVELOPED BY JUDGES. ...through their decisions and opinions (ALSO CALLED CASE LAW) (as opposed to statutes promulgated by legislatures and regulations promulgated by the executive branch. ...Synonyms. CASE LAW, DECISIONAL LAW, JUDGE-MADE LAW, PRECEDENTIAL LAW.

https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law
Common Law is the system of legal rules developed over the centuries by English JUDGES IN THEIR DECISIONS ON CASES.

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
Common law is a term used to refer to LAW THAT IS DEVELOPED THROUGH DECISIONS OF THE COURT, rather than by relying solely on statutes or regulations. Also known as “CASE LAW,” or “CASE PRECEDENT,” common law provides a contextual background for many legal concepts. Common laws vary depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, the ruling of a judge is often used as a basis for deciding future similar cases.

"Common law" ("case law") is STILL the single most commonly-used form of law in the United States today. Common law is also BY FAR the single largest component of law in the United States in terms of sheer volume. Just look at the book shelves in any law library.

HOW THE "COMMON LAW" IS DEFINED BY THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!

.ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!
State v. Quested: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS, CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10th ed.2014)." (in the 7th paragraph of Justice Johnson's "Dissent", at about 75% through the text HERE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4145277851828805289&q="State+v.+QUESTED"+"common+law"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

MORE ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON L:AW" ITSELF:
State v. Hyde: "THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS. CASE LAW. Black's Law Dictionary 293 (8th ed. 2004)." (in the 7th paragraph, at about 75% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7712646074919813387&q="State+v.+Hyde"+"common+law"&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006


THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION:
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" was ALSO sometimes called,"unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, "IF THE 'COMMON LAW' WAS ALSO SOMETIMES CALLED, 'UNWRITTEN LAW', THEN HOW CAN THE 'COMMON LAW' POSSIBLY BE 'WRITTEN' BY JUDGES?" That is a fair question.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 30% THROUGH THE TEXT ON THE WHITE BACKGROUND HERE. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx. (QUOTE BEGINS) "Because it is NOT WRITTEN by elected politicians BUT, RATHER BY JUDGES, it is also referred to as unwritten law or lex non scripta." (QUOTE ENDS)

Indeed, that is precisely the way that the Supreme Court Of The United States uses the term, "unwritten law" (referring to laws written by judges as opposed to laws written by elected lawmakers). In Erie v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court Of The United States quoted an earlier decision and wrote, "In exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship [FEDERAL COURTS] NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... .[T]HEY ARE FREE TO EXERCISE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AS TO WHAT THE COMMON LAW OF THE STATE IS [USING THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" AND "COMMON LAW" INTERCHANGEABLY.].. . " (iIn the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&q="Erie+v.+Tompkins"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" REALLY MEANS LAWS WRITTEN BY JUDGES (AS OPPOSED TO STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN BY OTHERS.). "Lex non scripta" is Latin for "unwritten law". But, this term also means laws written by judges rather than laws written by others, as this.

AN ANCIENT EXPLANATION OF THIS CONFUSION IN ANCIENT TIMES
The ancient English text below explains what "unwritten law" or "Lex non scripta"(in Latin) actually means.

SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 45% THROUGH THE TEXT TO THE PEACH-COLORED BACKGROUND HERE.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx

(BEGIN QUOTE)

"... when I call those parts of our laws (lex) non scripta, I DO NOT MEAN AS IF THOSE LAWS WERE ONLY ORAL or communicated from the former ages to the later, merely by word; for ALL THOSE LAWS HAVE THEIR MONUMENTS IN WRITING whereby they are transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose all kind of certainty; for as the civil ... laws have their ... determinations extant in writing; so those laws of England which are not comprised under the titles of acts of parliament, are for the most part extant IN RECORDS of pleas, proceedings and judgments; IN BOOKS OR REPORTS AND JUDICIAL CASES; in tractates of learned men's argument and opinions, preserved from antient (sic) times, and still extant IN WRITING."

(QUOTE ENDS)

FACT: ALL OF THE COMMON LAW IS IN WRITING. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE KNOW EVERY SINGLE WORD OF IT TODAY!

HOW THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW", RESULTED IN AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY, UNWRITTEN BODY OF LAW THAT NEVER EXISTED:

But, amateur legal theorists mistakenly thought that the term, "unwritten law" meant that the "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER This resulted in amateur legal theorists simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the common law should be (as long as it was more favorable to them than their perception of the written law). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the unwritten "common law" should be, they claimed that the UNWRITTEN common law "has been taken away" BECAUSE ALL MODERN LAW IS WRITTEN AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE POSSIBLY BE "COMMON LAW". They claim that the reason that UNWRITTEN common law was "taken away" was to eliminate all personal freedom and liberty and reduce humanity to slaves. Accordingly, they claim that today's written laws are in direct conflict with the unwritten common law which they believe shielded people from all responsibility and accountability to society as a whole absent injury to another person or that person's property.

ACTUAL PROOF OF THIS MISTAKEN BELIEF:
What follows is an actual written explanation of the UNWRITTEN "common law" based on this very mistake described above (that common law is "UNWRITTEN" law) and based on the mistake that the "common law" is no longer used in today's legal system. This explanation was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent promoter of this mistaken belief about the law. SCROLL DOWN TO ABOUT 65% THROUGH THE TEXT HERE. https://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/karl-lentz-unkommonlaw/


(QUOTE BEGINS)

4 – THE LAW IS UNWRITTEN YET KNOWABLE. It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .

“NO WRITTEN LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE THAT TRANSCEND HUMAN LEGAL SYSTEMS [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" WAS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN]. " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rule+of+law

“…[The common law is] UNWRITTEN, UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of…[AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PREDATED THE JUDGES WHO ACTUALLY WROTE IT]"

THUS, UNWRITTEN LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. "… *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…<===!***** (emphasis in original)

"….On June 30, 1864…, CONGRESS CHANGED beginning with the revenue act of that date, THE REASON OF (SIC) LAW IN AMERICA FROM PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER THE COMMON LAW TO CIVIL LIBERTY UNDER MUNICIPAL (ROMAN CIVIL LAW), i.e., rules and regulations commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong…[REFLECTING A "TAKING AWAY" OF THE IMAGINARY UNWRITTEN "COMMON LAW" BY MODERN WRITTEN LAW] "

(QUOTE ENDS)

Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "common law" is literally "unwritten" altogether, that it is morally and legally superior to today's written law and that today's written law is in direct conflict with the unwritten "common law". But, none of this is so. Unknown to amateur legal theorists, today's written law INCLUDES THE COMMON LAW which is STILL "case law" written by judges and which is still being made by judges every single day by judges all over the globe.

THE OUTRAGE CAUSED BY THIS UNDERSTANDABLE M(STAKE
Regardless, the foregoing mistaken beliefs resulted in an outrage in the amateur legal theory community over an imaginary injustice which never occurred (the "taking away") of an imaginary, UNWRITTEN body of law which never existed (the imaginary UNWRITTEN common law) . As a result of these mistaken beliefs, amateur legal theorists now demand a "return" to the "UNWRITTEN" common law (WHICH NEVER EXISTED), to common law courts (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE), to common law court jurisdiction, to common law rules of court, to common law procedure, to common law motions, to common law pleadings, to common law rulings and so forth.


PROOF OF DEMANDS FOR A "RETURN" TO THE UNWRITTEN COMMON LAW (WHICH NEVER EXISTED) AND TO COMMON LAW COURTS (WHICH ALL MODERN COURTS STILL ARE TODAY):
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nVOCbxuQ-Y

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwmGbAFaso
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zky4TRz5hU
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr3lpMA58EE
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ecNc0ZLAU
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET9Ntr-JL44
7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9ifWnloDo


SO, WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN TO US TODAY IN MOST COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE?

1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. NOTHING MORE. IT IS A BODY OF LAW WHICH BEGAN IN ANCIENT ENGLAND AND CONTINUES TO BE MADE AND CONTINUES TO BE USED BY ALL OF THE COURTS IN ENGLAND AND IN MOST OF THE COUNTRIES THAT WERE ONCE PART OF THE ENGLISH EMPIRE, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND. SEE PROOF HERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#/media/File:Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en).png


2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. ALL COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) IS NOTHING BUT "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THERE IS NO OTHER TYPE OF COMMON LAW.

3). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE JURISDICTION OF MODERN COURTS. SO, YOU CANNOT "INVOKE COMMON LAW JURISDICTION" OF A COURT (LIKE FLIPPING A SWITCH). NOTHING ELSE EXISTS (TO FLIP A SWITCH TO). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

4). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S MODERN COURTS. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

5). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM "STANDING" UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

6). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES OF COURT" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE RULES OF COURT UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

7). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM COURT PROCEDURE UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

8). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM MOTIONS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

9). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS" (IN USE OR WHICH CAN BE USED) WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM PLEADINGS UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAW. TODAY'S MODERN PLEADINGS INCLUDE COMMON LAW PLEADINGS (COMMON LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, COMMON LAW CLAIMS AND COMMON LAW DEFENSES). ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

10). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS" WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM RULINGS OF MODERN COURTS. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

11). TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ANY FEATURE OR CHARACTERISTIC OF TODAY'S MODERN JUDICIAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS STILL AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM. THIS IS BECAUSE ALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW (CASE LAW).

13). "COMMON LAW" IS STILL THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.

14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, COMMON LAW IS THE SINGLE LARGEST COMPONENT OF TODAY'S LAWS (IN TERMS OF SHEER VOLUME). JUST LOOK AT THE BOOKSHELVES IN ANY LAW LIBRARY.

15) IT IS TRUE THAT STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CHANGED MANY AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). BUT. IS ALSO TRUE THAT MANY LEGISLATIVE BODIES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) HAVE CODIFIED THE COMMON LAW INTO STATUTES (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN), THEREBY PRESERVING SOME AREAS OF THE COMMON LAW (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN). FURTHERMORE, CONSIDER THIS. VIRTUALLY EVERY STATUTE (BOTH ANCIENT AND MODERN) ITSELF BECOMES THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION IN THE COURTS AND ALL OF THE WRITTEN DECISIONS IN ALL OF THOSE COURT CASES THEMSELVES ALSO BECOME PART OF THE COMMON LAW. SO, THE BODY OF THE COMMON LAW IS ALWAYS BECOMING LARGER AND IS STILL USED IN AREAS OF THE LAW WHICH ARE ALSO REGULATED BY STATUTE.

16). IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT TODAY THE COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE ARE NOW GOVERNED BY RULE BOOKS. BUT, LIKE THE "COMMON LAW", THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO WRITTEN BY JUDGES (SUPREME COURT JUSTICES) (OR AT THEIR REQUEST), NOT BY LEGISLATURES. FURTHERMORE, THESE REGULATIONS ARE THEMSELVES ALSO BASED ON PRECEDENT (MOST OF WHICH IS ANCIENT). SO, IN THAT SENSE, THE COMMON LAW STILL EFFECTIVELY GOVERNS MODERN COURT RULES, PROCEDURES, MOTIONS, PLEADINGS AND THE LIKE.

17). THIS MEANS THAT TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH OTHER MODERN LAWS, IT IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

18). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN TODAY'S "COMMON LAW", BECAUSE TODAY'S "COMMON LAW" IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.

BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 80 consecutive administrative and judicial cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes


For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax


For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...x-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850
For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion


For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352;\


For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...ather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited: