OUT OF MIND
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Latest topics
» SpaceX adds 29 raptor engines to Super Heavy booster ahead of orbital launch
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 11:08 am by PurpleSkyz

» Solar Wind Forecast - A Dense Wave of Solar Wind Crashed Against Earth's Magnetic Field
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 11:06 am by PurpleSkyz

» The Critical Post Chicago's Live Stream of Dr. Steven Greer's Cosmic Hoax
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 10:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange lunar eclipse in Saudi Arabia
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 10:54 am by PurpleSkyz

» UFO NEWS ~ UAP ORB Sighted In The Scottish Highlands plus MORE
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 10:51 am by PurpleSkyz

» Hubble Space Telescope Sees Spiral Galaxy IC 1954
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 10:32 am by PurpleSkyz

» CERN Discover New Tetraquark Particle
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 10:29 am by PurpleSkyz

» EUDRA Adverse Reaction Stats Though July 31st, 2021
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 8:34 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dr. Stella Immanuel Files $100 Million Dollar Lawsuit Against CNN – Vows To Sue Them Into Oblivion
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 8:29 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dr. Ryan Cole shows the catastrophic damage Covid vaccines are doing
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 8:27 am by PurpleSkyz

» Vaccinated People May Play Key Role in Aiding Evolution of More Dangerous COVID Variants, Study Says
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 8:22 am by PurpleSkyz

» COVID Vaccine Mandates Strongly Opposed in Europe, U.S. as Vaccine Failures Increase
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyToday at 8:16 am by PurpleSkyz

» Here’s the Proof that Ivermectin Cures Covid and How to Get It
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:53 am by PurpleSkyz

» Nullifying Nuremberg
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:45 am by PurpleSkyz

» What Would a Complete Supply Chain Breakdown Really Look Like?
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:29 am by PurpleSkyz

» Covid-19 deaths are rising and official data shows 87% of the people who have died were VACCINATED
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:22 am by PurpleSkyz

» Remington Offers $33 Million Settlement to Families of Sandy Hook Shooting Victims
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:17 am by PurpleSkyz

» Benjamin bla bla blah Fulford - 8/02/2021 - Getting To Know The North Koreans
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:11 am by PurpleSkyz

» Covid vaccines make the virus MORE dangerous for the vaccinated, especially Pfizer’s viral vector jab
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 9:03 am by PurpleSkyz

» Portugal’s Children Are ‘Suddenly Becoming Ill All At Once’
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 8:58 am by PurpleSkyz

» Sweden: Despite Variants, No Lockdowns, No Daily Covid Deaths
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 8:54 am by PurpleSkyz

» CDC/VAERS Stats thru 7/23/21
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth EmptyYesterday at 8:48 am by PurpleSkyz

You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » THE INSANITY OF REALITY » SNOOP 4 TRUTH » HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth

HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

PurpleSkyz

PurpleSkyz
Admin
HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD by Snoop4Truth 160_F_48828656_veM95gOYnoiJW4myUAbEWiOigYjAmKhX

HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD

by Snoop4Truth


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 lawalso called Anglo-American law, is the body of customary lawBASED UPON JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EMBODIED IN REPORTS OF DECIDED CASESthat 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 LAWinstead 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 [size=15][size=18][b][b]single largest component of United States law in terms of sheer volume. Just look at the book shelves in any law library.[/b][/b][/size][/size]


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 LAWBlack'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 , "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 (lexnon scriptaI 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 [b][b][i][u](CASE LAW). [/u][/i][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][u][i][u](CASE LAW). [/u][/i][/u][/i][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][i][u](CASE LAW). [/i][/u]  [/i][/b][/b]

7).  TODAY, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM COURT PROCEDURE UNDER TODAY'S MODERN LAWALL OF TODAY'S COURTS ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM USE & FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW [b][b][i][u](CASE LAW). [/i][/u] [/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][u](CASE LAW).[/i][/u][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][i][u](CASE LAW).[/i][/u] [/i][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][i][u](CASE LAW).[/i][/u][/i][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][u](CASE LAW)[/u].   [/i][/b][/b]

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 [b][b][i][u](CASE LAW)[/u].   [/i][/b][/b]

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/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

















  

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum