THE COMMON LAW HOAX by SNOOP4TRUTH

THE COMMON LAW HOAX


"Common law" simply means "case law" written by judges (as opposed to statutes or constitutions written by others).

THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/common-law
https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law
https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

"Common law" ("case law") is still the single most common form of law used in the United States today.

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, CASELAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10thed.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=%22State+v.+QUESTED%22+%22common+law%22&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. 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=%22State+v.+Hyde%22+%22common+law%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006

THE REASON FOR  ALL THE CONFUSION
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is also called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW", HOW CAN THE "COMMON LAW" POSSIBLY BE CASE LAW "WRITTEN" BY JUDGES?
THE ANSWER IS "BECAUSE IT [THE COMMON LAW] IS NOT WRITTEN BY ELECTED POLITICIANS, BUT RATHER [IS WRITTEN], BY JUDGES. IT IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS UNWRITTEN LAW [PROVING THAT "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT ACTUALLY MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN "ALTOGETHER]  OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." FOR PROOF,  CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 35-40% through the text ON THE WHITE BACKGROUND. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx.

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 over-ruling an earlier decision in Swift v. Thompson, the Supreme Court Of The United States wrote in Erie v. Tompkins, "FEDERAL COURTS exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... ." (in the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4671607337309792720&q=%22Erie+v.+Tompkins%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER. IT ONLY 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 ancient explanation makes clear. CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN SLIGHTLY ON THE PEACH-COLORED BACKGROUND. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx

HOW THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN A SEPARATE, IMAGINARY BODY OF LAW WHICH THE "WRITTEN LAW" ALLEGEDLY REPLACED
Yet, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believed that the term, "unwritten law", a synonym for the term, "common law", meant that the "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER. This colossal mistake 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 today's laws are). 
Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they falsely claimed that today's "written law" law replaced the "common law" (something that is not true) and that today's "written law" is in direct conflict with the "common law" (also something that is not true).  In so doing, amateur legal theorists thereby created a conspiracy (which does not actually exist) to be outraged about.
Amateur legal theorists have gone as far as falsely blaming attorneys, the American Bar Association and "corrupt judges" for allegedly "TAKING AWAY" all of the "common law" (which hasn't gone anywhere) and completely "REPLACING  IT" with "corporate statutes". Some have even gone further and claimed that if a law is "WRITTEN", it is not law at all. Note that under this absurd definition, amateur legal theorists would actually oppose and reject the very "common law" which they claim to support.

PROOF OF THIS COLOSSAL MISTAKE:
What follows is a written explanation of the "common law" based on the colossal mistake described above and based on the  false claims that mistake gave rise to. This explanation of the "common law" was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent peddler of this delusional belief system about the common law.
(QUOTE BEGINS)
4 – THE LAW IS UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE] YET KNOWABLE.  It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .
"NO WRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "WRITTEN" HERE, DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORD "UNWRITTEN" ABOVE] LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], 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 [NOTE THE TERM "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PRE-DATED THE JUDGES WHO WROTE IT]… ."
"THUS, UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN] LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, (sic) ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. … *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…<===!" ***** (emphasis in original)
"….On June 30, 1864…, Congress…changed...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…"
(QUOTE ENDS)
SUMMARY:
Thus, amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "common law" is literally "unwritten" altogether, that today's "written" law replaced the "common law", that "common law" is superior to today's "written law" and that today's "written law" is in direct conflict with the "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 every single day all over the globe.
WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?
1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES.  NOTHING MORE.
2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM "CASE LAW" WHICH IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
3). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION".
4). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS".
5). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" .
6). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES".
7).  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE".
8). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS".
9). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS".
10). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS".
11). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING".
12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.
13). BECAUSE "COMMON LAW" IS ACTUALLY CASE LAW WRITTEN BY JUDGES, IT IS THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.
14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, IT IS THE LARGEST SINGLE PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.
15). THIS MEANS, "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH TODAY'S LAWS, IT CONFIRMS TODAY'S LAWS, IT REINFORCES TODAY'S LAWS , IT VALIDATES TODAY/S LAWS. .
16). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN THE "COMMON LAW" BECAUSE THE "COMMON LAW" IS TODAY'S LAW.

Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.
SEE VIRGO TRIAD'S VIDEO ON THIS HOAX HERE.
"THE "COMMON LAW HOAX"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYXSdsnNSQI
BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves).
For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row when representing himself), 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 when representing himself), 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 when representing himslef), 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
Best Regards,
Snoop



https://youtu.be/tYXSdsnNSQI