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

The Common Law vs the Civil Law

Billboard

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
568
Reaction score
317
So in my search for the common law, I have come across very interesting things, for example:
americans-jpg.104624



You have to go back in history and study English and Roman history to find out how we end up with different jurisdictions for common law and civil law. See, Civil law is the successor to Roman Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_law "Roman law forms the basic framework for civil law, the most widely used legal system today, and the terms are sometimes used synonymously."

England was ruled by the Romans, and when they left: By the 5th century A.D. barbarian tribes were attacking other parts of the Roman Emperor Honorius decided that the Roman legions in Britain were needed elsewhere. He sent a letter to the people of Britain telling them the soldiers had to leave. They must fight the Anglo-Saxons and invaders on their own." http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/romans/roman_remains/

The Anglo-Saxons were on their own, they had to fight to protect themselves, they could no longer count on Rome. But the City of Londinium continued to this very day as an outpost of Roman law! See what Prof. Richard Werner says here scroll to the 14 minute and 50 second mark.

Now, see what is going on with the secretive City of London:


Now, many people are surprised to hear that the Governments are corporations and for profit, but they are and you have to study English history to find out why.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/romans/roman_remains/ What happened to Roman Britain?

"From the 2nd century A.D. Roman Britain found itself under attack from people who lived outside the Roman borders. The Romans thought these people were not civilised and called them barbarians . The Roman army and navy defended Britain.

By the 5th century A.D. barbarian tribes were attacking other parts of the Roman Emperor Honorius decided that the Roman legions in Britain were needed elsewhere. He sent a letter to the people of Britain telling them the soldiers had to leave. They must fight the Anglo-Saxons and invaders on their own. In AD 410 the last Romans left."

So, the Romans having left Britain, the Anglo-Saxons developed a concept of Natural Right to self-defense: In 1688, Englishmen ousted the Catholic King James II, and established the Protestant monarch, William of Orange, as king. Parliament finally achieved its longtime goal of asserting its legal superiority over the monarchy. One aspect of this assertion of power involved adopting a declaration of rights, listing such basic liberties as the right to petition and banning practices such as cruel and unusual punishments. The English Declaration of Rights also asserted: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” The right was limited to Protestants and the type of armament further restricted by social class. Finally, the right was limited in scope: Parliament retained the power to regulate or restrict the right as it saw fit to promote public safety and the general welfare of the nation. https://www.americanbar.org/publica...aw--and-the-english-right-of-self-defens.html

But as you saw back in the second video of the City of London, after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 William the Conqueror made a deal with the people that was running the Ancient City of London (that is to say the money changers)

So you can now see how the Dual Jurisdictions developed.
 

Attachments

  • AMERICANS.jpg
    AMERICANS.jpg
    365.2 KB · Views: 927

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
15,233
Reaction score
86,762
Location
third cove on the right
So, with the foregoing examination and understanding in mind, it then
becomes clear why the citizenship clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment
are phrased in the manner they are (implying U.S. citizenship by
birth but clearly unable to state such to be the case).

If those legislators who created the wording of these two amendments had been honest, they would have written the Fourteenth Amendment somewhat as follows:




"All persons born in the United States, who thereafter, upon attaining the age of reason, then voluntarily elect to place themselves under the jurisdiction thereof, such persons, by such voluntary act, thereby voluntarily become citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and in so volunteering, such citizens agree to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in every respect and agree to pay the national debt thereof, without complaint."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created.
That is done by getting them to claim they are citizens of that entity

(see Const. for the U.S.A., XIV Amendment, for the definition of a citizen of the United States.)
 

Goldhedge

Retired
Mother Lode
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
61,498
Reaction score
130,441
Location
Rocky Mountains
Why “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” has meaning.

Government has absolutely no duty to teach you the law, nor what law they might be using.
 

Billboard

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
568
Reaction score
317
You have to give it to those that are running the world, they make sure they know and understand how to keep power. And one of those keys is to keep people ignorant and divided.
 

Billboard

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
568
Reaction score
317
Btw, here is a slave in his own words as to what to he has to say about knowledge and freedom:

Very soon after I went to live with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, she very kindly commenced to teach me the A, B, C. After I had learned this, she assisted me in learning to spell words of three or four letters. Just at this point of my progress, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. To use his own words, further, he said, "If you give a ****** an inch, he will take an ell. A ****** should know nothing but to obey his master — to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best ****** in the world. Now," said he, "if you teach that ****** (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy." These words sank deep into my heart, stirred up sentiments within that lay slumbering, and called into existence an entirely new train of thought. It was a new and special revelation, explaining dark and mysterious things, with which my youthful understanding had struggled, but struggled in vain. I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty — to wit, the white man's power to enslave the black man. It was a grand achievement, and I prized it highly. From that moment, I understood the pathway from slavery to freedom. It was just what I wanted, and I got it at a time when I the least expected it. Whilst I was saddened by the thought of losing the aid of my kind mistress, I was gladdened by the invaluable instruction which, by the merest accident, I had gained

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/abaufda8t.html
Life of an American Slave
Frederick Douglass
Boston: Anti-Slavery Office, 1845
 

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 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
 

Silver

Midas Board Mmbr
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,103
Reaction score
14,665
Black's Law definition of Common Law:

What is COMMON LAW?

As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2.

As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common COMMON LAW 227 COMMON PLEAS law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 5G1, 45 L. Ed. 7G5; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 3G5, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Ilaggin, G9 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. G74; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104. 3.

As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Klever v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661. 4.

As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. 5. As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution.

This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the United States. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107. 6.

In a wider sense than any of the foregoing, the “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equitable” or to “criminal.” See examples below

More On This Topic

  1. Outdated & Weird Laws You Can Still Be Charged With
  2. What is Common Law vs. Civil Law?
  3. Martial Law: Everything You Need To Know In 2020
  4. Nepotism, Cronyism, & Favoritism: Illegal Or Unethical?
  5. Ten Cheap Law Schools That Are Actually Good
  6. Three Things to Know About Tenancy in Common
  7. Four Steps To Becoming A Lawyer And Joining A Wall Street Law Firm
  8. Important 2018 Law Changes You Should Know
  9. What Comprises the Common Body of Tax Law?
  10. Difference Between Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
Black's Law definition of Common Law:

What is COMMON LAW?

As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2.

As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common COMMON LAW 227 COMMON PLEAS law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 5G1, 45 L. Ed. 7G5; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 3G5, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Ilaggin, G9 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. G74; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104. 3.

As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Klever v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661. 4.

As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. 5. As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution.

This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most of the United States. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107. 6.

In a wider sense than any of the foregoing, the “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equitable” or to “criminal.” See examples below

More On This Topic

  1. Outdated & Weird Laws You Can Still Be Charged With
  2. What is Common Law vs. Civil Law?
  3. Martial Law: Everything You Need To Know In 2020
  4. Nepotism, Cronyism, & Favoritism: Illegal Or Unethical?
  5. Ten Cheap Law Schools That Are Actually Good
  6. Three Things to Know About Tenancy in Common
  7. Four Steps To Becoming A Lawyer And Joining A Wall Street Law Firm
  8. Important 2018 Law Changes You Should Know
  9. What Comprises the Common Body of Tax Law?
  10. Difference Between Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common

THE REAL DEFINITION OF THE COMMON LAW FROM THE REAL BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY

The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014, 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 [made] a law."

What is COMMON LAW?

As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2.

As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common COMMON LAW 227 COMMON PLEAS law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees OF THE COURTS recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 5G1, 45 L. Ed. 7G5; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 3G5, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Ilaggin, G9 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. G74; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104. 3.

As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Klever v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661. 4.

As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. 5. As concerns its force and authority in the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution.

This, so far as it has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the jurisprudence of most OF THE UNITED STATES. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107. 6.

In a wider sense than any of the foregoing, the “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory,” and sometimes also to “equitable” or to “criminal.” See examples below
 
Last edited: