• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

The Common Law vs the Civil Law

Billboard

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
483
Likes
255
#1
So in my search for the common law, I have come across very interesting things, for example:



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

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
2,952
Likes
9,552
Location
third cove on the right
#2
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

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
31,496
Likes
39,833
Location
Rocky Mountains
#3
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

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
483
Likes
255
#4
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

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
483
Likes
255
#5
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 nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master — to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now," said he, "if you teach that nigger (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