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

THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE COMMON LAW

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#1
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:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#2
THE DESIGN OF THE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM, THE DEFINITION OF "STATE", THE "SOVEREIGN" AND THE "GOVERNED"

In the state court system in the United States, the head of every law enforcement agency (city, county, state) is ELECTED by "We the People", all of the judges are ELECTED by "We the People", all statutes enforced or otherwise used are written by lawmakers ELECTED by "We the People", all of the prosecutors are ELECTED by "We the People" and all of the public defenders are ELECTED by "We the People", The parties to every case (criminal or civil) even get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability of no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

The purpose of this system was to guarantee that "We the People" ELECT every person who is in a position to influence in any aspect of our own justice system, right down to the Clerk Of Court and the Property Appraiser. .

The federal court system in the United States is the same except that instead of these public servants being ELECTED by "We the People", they are APPOINTED by those that "We the People" ELECT to make those "APPOINTMENTS". Like the state court system, the parties to every case (criminal or civil) get to pick their own juries (who make the ultimate decision as to guilt or innocence or liability or no liability). The judge is only a referee between two opposing parties until the jury reaches its verdict.

IN THE UNITED STATES, THE "STATE" MEANS ALL OF THE PEOPLE RESIDING WITHIN TERRITORIAL BORDERS

1). See the very first definition here at 1:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck87nSn9Fcs


2). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state

3). See the third and forth definitions
https://www.definitions.net/definition/state


4). See definition number 5
https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/state.html


5).. See definitions 3 a.
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/state


6). See definitions 5 a & 5 b.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state


7). See definitions 5 a & 5 b
https://www.yourdictionary.com/state


WHEN DID "WE THE PEOPLE" BECOME DIABOLICAL AND TYRANNICAL?

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 77 consecutive 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/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(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/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&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/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#3
7TH GRADE CIVICS REVIEW:

In a republican form of government such as ours, there are THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. This prevents tyranny from any single branch of government. This legal principle is called the "SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE" which is found in the constitution of every state and in the constitution of the United States.

Our three branches of government are the ELECTED LEGISLATIVE branch (the ELECTED statutory law makers), the ELECTED EXECUTIVE branch (the ELECTED law enforcement officials and their appointees) and the ELECTED JUDICIAL branch (the ELECTED judges, the ELECTED prosecutors and the ELECTED public defenders of the courts). Through the ELECTION process, "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) control ALL THREE BRANCHES of our own government. But, as INDIVIDUALS, we have no such control.

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our state statutes, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT ELECTED state LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES to change or repeal the state statutes that we do not like. This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED LEGISLATORS (our SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN & WOMEN) as well as our locally ELECTED law/ordinance makers (county commissioners, city commissioners and city council members, etc.).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state law enforcement officials, their appointees or their practices, then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT DIFFERENT state ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS to change the appointees and/or practices that we do not like (different Governor, different County Sheriffs, different City Police Chiefs, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with our nationally ELECTED law enforcement officer (our PRESIDENT ).

In a republican form of government such as ours, if "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) do not like our ELECTED state judges, their practices or their rulings , then through the ELECTION process "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) have the power and ability to ELECT different ELECTED state JUDGES (different Supreme Court Justices, different appellate judges, different circuit judges, different county judges, different city judges, etc.). This ELECTION process works the same way with respect to our ELECTED state prosecutors (state attorneys and district attorneys) and our ELECTED state public defenders. NOTE: In the federal courts, judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, both of which are ELECTED by "We the People". But, those ELECTED representatives of "We the People" (who do the nominating and confirming of our federal judges) can be removed from office by the ELECTION process as well. The ELECTED President also appoints the federal prosecutors. But, the President can be removed from office by the ELECTION process too. Some state jurisdictions even use a combination of BOTH systems whereby judges are first APPOINTED to the bench by ELECTED representatives of "We the People", but then must withstand a "retention" vote by "We the People" every single ELECTION cycle thereafter in order to remain on the bench.

Regardless, EVERY single person in a position of power in EVERY single branch of our STATE and FEDERAL government is put into office DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY by "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.


FACT: In a republican form of government such as ours, every conviction of a single INDIVIDUAL involves the efforts of ALL THREE ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT (the ELECTED LAWMAKERS who write the statutes, the ELECTED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS whose appointees make the arrests and who file the charges, the ELECTED JUDGES who preside over proceedings in court AND the ELECTED PROSECUTORS who attempt to convict the statutory violators in court).

In a republican form of government such as ours, NO SINGLE ELECTED BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CAN CONVICT AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE OTHER TWO ELECTED BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

THE FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE THAT ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MAKE


The fundamental mistake made by ALL AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS is their inability to comprehend the difference between the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (which is almost absolute) and the ABSENCE of power of the SINGLE INDIVIDUAL (which is almost nothing) when opposing the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY.

Every single amateur legal theory ever promoted reflects a basic misunderstanding of this simple legal principle, "THE MAJORITY RULES and the INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT." All amateur legal theorists get this simple legal principle exactly BACKWARDS (or OPPOSITE) to what the law really is (a common problem in amateur legal theory).

ABOUT EMPOWERMENT OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THE CONFUSION ABOUT "CONSENT"

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state LAWMAKERS to pass our state statutes and to make them binding upon all of the INDIVIDUALS in the state without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state HEADS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES to ticket, arrest and charge any INDIVIDUAL in the state who violates our state statutes without the INDIVIDUAL'S "consent" (“contractual” or otherwise), etc.

It is the power of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) through the ELECTION process that empowers our ELECTED state JUDGES to preside over state court proceedings of such an INDIVIDUAL and to order the punishment of such an INDIVIDUAL in accordance with the law without that INDIVIDUAL’S "consent" (“contractual or otherwise”).

This means that in a republican form of government such as ours, an INDIVIDUAL'S "consent” (“contractual” or otherwise) is NOT REQUIRED in such matters. Instead, in a republican form of government such as ours, "CONSENT” COMES FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, NOT FROM THE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OUTSIDE THE ELECTION PROCESS.

THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ALREADY HAVE THE COLLECTIVE “CONSENT” OF “WE THE PEOPLE” TO MAKE OUR LAW, TO ENFORCE OUR LAW AND TO PUNISH FOR VIOLATIONS OF OUR LAW.

Under our federal and state constitutions, OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT DO NOT ALSO NEED THE INDIVIDUAL “CONSENT” OF ANY INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY OUT THOSE FUNCTIONS.


So, every single legal burden placed on the INDIVIDUAL in a republican form of government such as ours is a legal burden that is placed upon the INDIVIDUAL directly or indirectly by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY through the ELECTION process.

RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL


In a republican form of government such as ours, the power of the INDIVIDUAL is limited to VOTING, RUNNING FOR OFFICE and to enforcing what few INDIVIDUAL rights and protections that "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (not INDIVIDUALLY) allow the INDIVIDUAL to have (such as those INDIVIDUAL rights and protections listed in the Bill Of Rights of the United States Constitution).

In a republican form of government such as ours, these INDIVIDUAL rights and protections of the INDIVIDUAL are determined by the constitution and by the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY (NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL).

ELECTIONS AND THE VALIDITY OF GOVERNMENT


This is why in a republican form of government, such as ours, ELECTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT. In a republican form of government such as ours, ELECTIONS (which reflect the will of the majority of "We the People" COLLECTIVELY) DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONTROL EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT, including any amendments and/or repeals to sections of the constitution..

THESE ELECTIONS DETERMINE WHAT OUR LAWS ARE, WHO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE, WHO OUR JUDGES ARE, WHO OUR PROSECUTORS ARE, WHO OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT ANY DESIRED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OR REPEALS MIGHT BE.

FACT: THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR STATUTES VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS VALID. THESE ELECTIONS BY "WE THE PEOPLE" MAKE OUR COURTS VALID, OUR JUDGES VALID, OUR PROSECUTORS VALID AND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS VALID.


FACT: The people who oppose, defy and seek the overthrow our ELECTED government, our ELECTED legislatures, our ELECTED executive (law enforcement) officials, our ELECTED judges, our ELECTED prosecutors and our ELECTED public defenders ACTUALLY OPPOSE, DEFY AND SEEK THE OVERTHROW OF OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF and in so doing, SEEK TO OVERTHROW THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF "WE THE PEOPLE" OURSELVES.

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 77 consecutive 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/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(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/showthread.php?132369-Debra-Jones-amp-quot-The-Debra-Jones-Hoax-quot&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/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-(conspiracy-weaponized-weather-fires-depopulation)&p=226016#post226016