It appears to me that the internet trolls are pushing the point that people can use common law to make the law work for their benefit and elude criminal charges .Either they are ignorant or just idiots because anyone that has spent even a reasonable amount of time trying to grasp common law can figure out its not a get out of jail free scam . Its called defending your rights that are being abused by the people that are paid to serve us but instead are enslaving us by hiding common law and creating their own laws to which we fall victim to without our knowledge or consent . Example : If a drivers license & insurance is not require of you as long as you are not engaging in commercial business on the roads than why in the world would you not take advantage of that RIGHT and avoid playing the unlawful rules created by the MVA in order to extort you of your hard earned money . Why bow down to them and pay them when you are well within your rights not to . In fact you are actually breaking the law by having a license when you are not engaging in commercial business How would you feel if they stopped you and gave everyone a fine for driving with a license that is not required . Knowing and applying common law is our only defense left to take back what has been stolen by the people that we pay to protect us from this . If we dont use this to our full advantage and collapse the current ileagle law system it will surly be the enslavement of humanity and we are running out of time . We all need to be educated in common law so we can stand up to the real criminals and stop this treason before its too late . Investing a little bit of your time to educate yourself should not be a burden upon you it should be a task you are more than willing to complete . Know the law and know your rights or you will soon find yourself without any rights to defend
AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE COMMON LAW ACTUALLY IS.
"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/
"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 (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=%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
But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is sometimes called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES, THEN WHY IS "COMMON LAW" SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW" ?
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 OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." Scroll down to about 30% through the text HERE. 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,"First. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, "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].... ." (iIn 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" 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. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx
HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN AN ALLEGED "CONFLICT":
But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", another name for the "common 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 today's laws are). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they claimed that it conflicted with today's law and thereby created a scandalous legal conspiracy to be outraged about.
This imaginary "conflict" between the "common law" and modern laws is arguably the number one gripe of amateur legal theorists today. But, they are mistaken about what "unwritten law" really is and they are mistaken about whether it really conflicts with today's law. It does not. 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.
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 A 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 STRENGTHENS 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 LAWS.
Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.
Best Regards,
Snoop
BEWARE OF THESE 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), 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
It appears to me that the internet trolls are pushing the point that people can use common law to make the law work for their benefit and elude criminal charges .Either they are ignorant or just idiots because anyone that has spent even a reasonable amount of time trying to grasp common law can figure out its not a get out of jail free scam . Its called defending your rights that are being abused by the people that are paid to serve us but instead are enslaving us by hiding common law and creating their own laws to which we fall victim to without our knowledge or consent . Example : If a drivers license & insurance is not require of you as long as you are not engaging in commercial business on the roads than why in the world would you not take advantage of that RIGHT and avoid playing the unlawful rules created by the MVA in order to extort you of your hard earned money . Why bow down to them and pay them when you are well within your rights not to . In fact you are actually breaking the law by having a license when you are not engaging in commercial business How would you feel if they stopped you and gave everyone a fine for driving with a license that is not required . Knowing and applying common law is our only defense left to take back what has been stolen by the people that we pay to protect us from this . If we dont use this to our full advantage and collapse the current ileagle law system it will surly be the enslavement of humanity and we are running out of time . We all need to be educated in common law so we can stand up to the real criminals and stop this treason before its too late . Investing a little bit of your time to educate yourself should not be a burden upon you it should be a task you are more than willing to complete . Know the law and know your rights or you will soon find yourself without any rights to defend
ReplyDeleteAMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE COMMON LAW ACTUALLY IS.
ReplyDelete"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/
"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 (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=%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
ReplyDeleteBut, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is sometimes called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES, THEN WHY IS "COMMON LAW" SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW" ?
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 OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." Scroll down to about 30% through the text HERE. 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,"First. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, "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].... ." (iIn 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" 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. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/L/LexNonScripta.aspx
HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN AN ALLEGED "CONFLICT":
But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", another name for the "common 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 today's laws are). Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they claimed that it conflicted with today's law and thereby created a scandalous legal conspiracy to be outraged about.
This imaginary "conflict" between the "common law" and modern laws is arguably the number one gripe of amateur legal theorists today. But, they are mistaken about what "unwritten law" really is and they are mistaken about whether it really conflicts with today's law. It does not. 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?
ReplyDelete1). "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 A 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 STRENGTHENS 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 LAWS.
Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.
Best Regards,
Snoop
BEWARE OF THESE 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), 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