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

The Law: Spirit and Letter, Enforcers and Corruption

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
73,146
Reaction score
34,654
[h=2]The Law: Spirit and Letter, Enforcers and Corruption[/h]Friday, 11 October 2013 12:55 Szandor Blestman


Here's something not too many people know. Back in the mid 1980s, I was accepted to a couple of graduate school law programs. I never really told anyone because I decided I didn't want to go. Or rather I told myself that life had decided for me and that I couldn't afford to go. There have been times in my life when I have wondered how things would have turned out for me had I gone. Perhaps my life would have been better, perhaps not. I wonder if I would have let knowledge of the law corrupt me, as it seems to have done to so many others. I wonder if I would have let knowledge of this secretive and highly influential language taint my world view, or if I would have somehow managed to remain true to my morals and principles despite subjecting myself to the poisonous rot that passes itself off as law these days.

As it stands today, I have the clarity of hindsight to base my thoughts upon. I think that perhaps I have a better understanding of the law than many current day lawyers. At least I don't have the burden of knowing that I need the masses of people to not understand the nuances of law in order to make a living. I believe, as do many others, that the law should be written in plain English, or whatever language the masses understand, so that everyone understands it, not just a few who can then manipulate the language to their benefit. I believe we should do away with this language known as legalese which has a tendency to take common words and change their meaning for uncommon purposes.

The law should be simple. You don't harm others. You don't steal from others. Things like that. Of course there's going to be extenuating circumstances that might come about from time to time and these things should be considered, but the basics remain simple. So many people seem to worship this thing we call "the law" that it almost seems spiritual in nature. Yet spirit can be evil as well as good. Spirit can be detrimental as well as beneficial. There is a spirit behind these laws and that spirit should be designed to provide justice for someone who may be victimized by a powerful entity. The law ceases to be legitimate when it becomes the powerful entity that is victimizing the common folk.

In today's society, it is not the spirit of a law that is enforced, but the letter of the law. For instance, if a law says do not cross a street except at the crosswalk or you will be fined, you could be fined even if you had a legitimate reason for breaking that law such as trying to avoid someone who means to cause you harm. We'd like to think that those who enforce the law could use their discretion to understand when the spirit of the law is being violated as opposed to the letter of the law, but this is hardly ever the case. We'd like to think that judges and juries would be able to do the same, but this is again hardly ever the case. Enforcers enforce the letter of the law, no matter how much harm that letter might do to another human being. Judges and juries only judge guilt or innocence via interpreting the letter of the law, not it's spirit.

The power of the law is its spirit. That power has been usurped due to the desire for expedience and the laziness of the common folk. It has been corrupted due to governmental greed and the desire of the ruling class to control the masses. The justice system itself has become one huge injustice, one huge miscarriage of justice, one huge revenue generating mill that punishes the innocent by encouraging plea bargains where they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid attorney costs and jail time, protects the guilty in the same way, and upholds bad laws by not allowing or encouraging juries to judge the law itself over and above the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Today's laws are selectively enforced. They are often created by the dictates of government agencies controlled by the executive branch rather than through the conscientious debates of the legislative branch. Those with political power or who are able to afford the cost of political favors can oft times be excluded from the law while those without who can't afford it must suffer the consequences of a law that causes harm. Such is what we see in this huge 1600+ page monstrosity of a law that is fallaciously entitled the "Affordable Care Act" and more commonly known as Obamacare. It may have a well meaning spirit, but its letter is malicious and malignant. It is the letter of this law that will be enforced and as this happens its spirit vanishes into the ethers as a dystopian society sprouts into being.

The federal government has attempted to shut down some of its more innocuous aspects supposedly over the attempt to defund the implementation of this bill. The executive branch has failed miserably in its attempts to deny the public certain services (that should cost it extremely little to no money to provide) and to point the finger of blame at a certain political party. Many people now understand what this is really all about and that closing national monuments and parks is no way to go about solving this problem. It is my hope that those in the political class who are making a stand against funding Obamacare will take it one step further and repeal the entire law.

Yet I don't hold much hope that this will happen. There are powerful interests that want this law implemented no matter the consequences. As many have discovered and as I have said from the beginning it is the insurance companies who benefit greatly from this law, not the common folk. Think about it for a moment, how much better off would you be if you could get the federal government to mandate that everyone had to own the product or buy the service that you offer? With premiums going through the roof and the government forcing all to either buy the insurance or get fined, many will soon find that they will have much less cash to spend on things like food, rent, gas for the car, clothes, and other little necessities of life. Some may find they won't be able to afford such luxuries as new shoes for their kids. Some may have to leave their nicer homes in favor of more affordable abodes. Some may find they just can't afford to be alive after they are fired or reduced to part time labor all for the sake of a few insurance company executives whose companies' profits needed to be boosted by law.

Someday this law may indeed go into effect, and it may be someday soon. When this happens the people need to disobey. They need to simply not sign up for the mandated insurance. They need to simply say "no." When this happens they need to refuse to pay the fines. They need to, whenever possible, dare the establishment to come arrest them. They need to, in effect, grow a pair. When enough of the productive in society are threatened by government, something has to give. When this happens, it is my hope that the enforcers will side with the people who produce, not with the criminal, parasitic government. Bad law should not be enforced. When the letter of the law is harmful it should be judged illegitimate. No law that does such harm should be implemented in a free society, but if it is than it will be time for the people to stand and push back against it.

http://szandorblestman.com/index.ph...aw-spirit-and-letter-enforcers-and-corruption
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
47,331
Location
ORYGUN
In today's society, it is not the spirit of a law that is enforced, but the letter of the law. For instance, if a law says do not cross a street except at the crosswalk or you will be fined, you could be fined even if you had a legitimate reason for breaking that law such as trying to avoid someone who means to cause you harm. We'd like to think that those who enforce the law could use their discretion to understand when the spirit of the law is being violated as opposed to the letter of the law, but this is hardly ever the case. We'd like to think that judges and juries would be able to do the same, but this is again hardly ever the case. Enforcers enforce the letter of the law, no matter how much harm that letter might do to another human being. Judges and juries only judge guilt or innocence via interpreting the letter of the law, not it's spirit.

The power of the law is its spirit. That power has been usurped due to the desire for expedience and the laziness of the common folk. It has been corrupted due to governmental greed and the desire of the ruling class to control the masses. The justice system itself has become one huge injustice, one huge miscarriage of justice, one huge revenue generating mill that punishes the innocent by encouraging plea bargains where they plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid attorney costs and jail time, protects the guilty in the same way, and upholds bad laws by not allowing or encouraging juries to judge the law itself over and above the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Great post, searcher, Thanks.

This is so very true, I know, I am living it.
 

Malus

Gold Chaser
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,386
Reaction score
2,790
Location
In a world gone mad....
We as a society have moved far from "common law" and have been roped in/bamboozled to consent to admiralty law (corporate law/merchant law). It is why the "officers" demand consent to do anything, because corporations cannot enforce sh*t without it. Legalese should be abolished and the criminals that use it to subjugate the masses should be hung. Its just one more scam implemented slowly through the ages to enforce slavery, even in these modern times, on the poor unthinking masses. The cops don't even know the difference and that to me is the scariest part. When confronted with the "real law" (common), they get confused and generally turn violent. How do you fight a system where the enforcers don't give a damn and ignore the law in favor of their corporate masters.


Lawyers are the most vile individuals around. Knowingly deceptive/secretive and ultimately supporting the system to further their needs and control the masses for their criminal masters......
 

pre-64'

Slaying Debt for Gold
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,292
Reaction score
1,090
I do not understand how courts can be asked to place juries in charge of laws that only a majority of lawmakers passed.


For example, the ACA(Obamacare) was passed by Democrats only. How can a court entertain upholding the mandate if presumably you have around 50% of jurors against the mandate? And it takes a unanimous decision to convict a criminal.


I hope we can take the teeth outta many of these laws in this way. A majority can be a tyranny just as much as one person. This is especially so if the Court tells its jurors they can not ruleon the law itself and must rule on facts only.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Sr Midas Sup +++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Survivor
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
47,331
Location
ORYGUN
I do not understand how courts can be asked to place juries in charge of laws that only a majority of lawmakers passed.


For example, the ACA(Obamacare) was passed by Democrats only. How can a court entertain upholding the mandate if presumably you have around 50% of jurors against the mandate? And it takes a unanimous decision to convict a criminal.


I hope we can take the teeth outta many of these laws in this way. A majority can be a tyranny just as much as one person. This is especially so if the Court tells its jurors they can not ruleon the law itself and must rule on facts only.

This is why EVERYONE needs to join FIJA & understand the power of "JURY NULLIFICATION". :s1:
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
73,146
Reaction score
34,654
I do not understand how courts can be asked to place juries in charge of laws that only a majority of lawmakers passed.


For example, the ACA(Obamacare) was passed by Democrats only. How can a court entertain upholding the mandate if presumably you have around 50% of jurors against the mandate? And it takes a unanimous decision to convict a criminal.


I hope we can take the teeth outta many of these laws in this way. A majority can be a tyranny just as much as one person. This is especially so if the Court tells its jurors they can not ruleon the law itself and must rule on facts only.

Taezzar beat me to it. Jury Nullification................firmly believe in it.
 

Ragnarok

I'd rather be
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,946
Reaction score
5,111
I'm surprised he didn't mention JURY NULLIFICATION.

R.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
636
Reaction score
134
We as a society have moved far from "common law" and have been roped in/bamboozled to consent to admiralty law (corporate law/merchant law). It is why the "officers" demand consent to do anything, because corporations cannot enforce sh*t without it. Legalese should be abolished and the criminals that use it to subjugate the masses should be hung. Its just one more scam implemented slowly through the ages to enforce slavery, even in these modern times, on the poor unthinking masses. The cops don't even know the difference and that to me is the scariest part. When confronted with the "real law" (common), they get confused and generally turn violent. How do you fight a system where the enforcers don't give a damn and ignore the law in favor of their corporate masters.


Lawyers are the most vile individuals around. Knowingly deceptive/secretive and ultimately supporting the system to further their needs and control the masses for their criminal masters......

Hello Malus,

YOUR COMMENT: We as a society have moved far from "common law" and have been roped in/bamboozled to consent to admiralty law (corporate law/merchant law). It is why the "officers" demand consent to do anything, because corporations cannot enforce sh*t without it. Legalese should be abolished and the criminals that use it to subjugate the masses should be hung. Its just one more scam implemented slowly through the ages to enforce slavery, even in these modern times, on the poor unthinking masses. The cops don't even know the difference and that to me is the scariest part. When confronted with the "real law" (common), they get confused and generally turn violent. How do you fight a system where the enforcers don't give a damn and ignore the law in favor of their corporate masters.

Lawyers are the most vile individuals around. Knowingly deceptive/secretive and ultimately supporting the system to further their needs and control the masses for their criminal masters....

MY RESPONSE:

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