14 votes

Common Law

A lot of legal theories are out there amongst liberty lovers because we can see that the rules of the constitutional republic are not being followed by those who have been hired to follow them.

So ...

Let's have a conversation about what the current "law profession" (lawyers, judges, cops, and politicians) think our system IS, versus what it actually was intended to be, and how we can push the people who have it wrong into doing what is right.

Let's start with: What is the Common Law? The Common Law dates back before the Revolution to Merry Ol' England. Does it date back before England? (I don't know; I'm asking). Anyway, we (Americans) inherited the Common Law system. It is the "common practices" by the people, as determined in court cases. When enough court cases all say the same thing ("If you steal your neighbor's mule, you must pay him twice the amount in value" or something like that), then that was considered "the law." There was no need for a legislature to make up a "code" for this; it was determined by court cases.

Fast forward to today and the "Common Law" is still court cases. But now it is mixed with court cases that have to do with legal principles in general (not too many of those) and court cases that are adjudicating regarding statutes (almost all cases these days).

If you have a dispute with your neighbor, there MIGHT be a Common Law principle that COULD allow a judge to render a verdict, BUT most likely that judge will INSTEAD turn to the Municipal Code to figure out how to make a judgement.

That is my take on it. Seems like the Common Law has been pushed aside because now there are so many statutes that judges just do what is easy and written down: they enforce codes.

Do I have this basically right or not? Correct if I am in error.

Now then ...

Those of you who post (or don't post) various legal theories as to what is really going on these days, where up seems down and black seems white, I have some questions:

(1) In a few sentences, how did this change occur? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

(2) What legal basis is used by a judge to use a statute rather than the Common Law, and can this same legal basis be used by me in reverse to enforce the Common Law on the judge? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

(3) What are the SPECIFIC things someone can do to AFTER they are either dealing with a bureaucrat by mail who is making allegations that the person "must" do this or that, or when dealing with a judge AFTER some sort of ticket has been written or charge made, that can go around statutes that have nothing to do with anyone violating another person's rights? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

I don't know how clear all this is because I am trying to understand these issues myself, so I don't know for sure what the right questions are. In a nutshell: How did everything go to hell in a hand basket, and what can we do outside of political elections and within the legal system to re-assert our rights -- WITHOUT declaring "sovereignty" or anything that turns our life upside down.

After all, IF the power has been usurped and is being enforced unlawfully, then by definition it is not valid. WE shouldn't have to upend our lives because of THEIR unlawful actions.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Anyone got a spoon?

(1) In a few sentences, how did this change occur? (Do NOT point me to 3-hour videos or 10,000-word web pages -- tell me in YOUR words, and keep it simple.)

Impossible.. but will try...

War of 1812, Civil War, Organic Act 1871, Reconstruction Acts, Banking Act 1933, Trading with Enemies Act - Patriot Act - NDAA.

If you haven't done all your homework on these topics then it's impossible to explain how they did what they did. If it was "simple" then everyone would already have figured it out by now RIGHT?

The ESSENCE is the international banksters pulled a "bait and switch" on the American people. They created a dummy corporation called "United States" and made everyone think this was the "United States of America," aka Federal Government... counterfeited our original constitution and created a 14th amendment which also created the "US citizen" who was SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction of the "STATE OF" and also the District of Columbia.

You have seen the option to check where it says "Are you a US citizen" right? They then got the American people to opt-in (consent of the governed) to be controlled by the codes/acts/statutes this corporate board (congress) creates.

Any questions so far?

In short... to begin with... your voter registration is your consent to be governed.

Actually this is not true subject to proof

It all begins and ends with the 4 organic laws of the united states of America. ref.

The Declaration of Independence 1776 and Articles of Confederation 1777 assure us of English Common law which BTW is unwritten law. Up until this point in America history there was no federally owned land in the original 13 states of which to make written law, the federal government very limited.

In 1783 The Northwest Territory this land by new proprietary ownership of the United States of America, the real federal government, by virtue of the Treaty of Paris 1783 and under the temporary government for this new land to become Federal states this territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America organic law #3 The Northwest Ordinance 13 July 1787 became written law enacted by the Confederate Congress otherwise known as the United States in Congress, assembled and this law was written during the secret Constitutional Convention weeks, this is the law that introduced federal territory and began the duping of mostly all American and slowly did away with the unwritten law by corrupting this unwritten law with written statute law. This written law was made permanent by "this Constitution for the United States of America" September 17 1787. NOTICE the closeness in dates to the Northwest Ordinance 1787 and Constitution of 1787. The perpetual union of the Articles of Confederation never went away it was just ignored by the people and all the fuss was and has been for over 220 years is the Constitution of 1787, this union of Federal states, this union of Federal states has created every state constitution and incubates proliferates all political environment. This is all based on the concept of the new federal united states which is simply the territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America. This then begs the question are there 50 states of the United States of America, that make up this proprietary power, that are Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled? And are there 56 Federal States (Obama thinks there are 57) that are not free and have no sovereignty because it is territory owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States of America? the answer to both questions is yes. So everyone who is interested in this freedom quest must answer where do you want fit in.

Keep in mind no one and I mean no one since "The Constitution of the United States" inception that is a legislator politician etc has ever bound them self to the actual document labeled "The Constitution of the United States" This is why there is no English Common Law anymore the government employees have shrink wrapped away from ignorant United States citizens.

For your consideration...


NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

I highly advise against

messing with the UCC in any way.

The key is staying out of commerce - IMO.

Commentaries on The Laws of England - Sir William Blackstone

Commentaries on The Laws of England
- Sir William Blackstone 1753

Colonial Americans used these books as their foundation in knowledge of natural & common law because there was not as much formal instruction here as in England back then.

Online version:

Plan to start reading this soon. I'm interested in the history of common law because it will allow me to put ideas of Anarcy/Anarcho-capitalism in context.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?


9-11 Actors:

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

The Common Law

The change to statutory law from Common law occurred when people became ignorant. When government administers law it is by policy via codes of statutes, when people administer law it is by Common Law. That the legal dictionaries have been altered over the past 150 years does not help the ignorance.

2) What makes you think one persons opinion constitutes justice? Judges do not make rulings in Common Law. In Common Law they are not called judges, they are called magistrates and they are reserved to ministerial duties only. The court makes rulings based on the weight of the record. Contrary to what those black robed people think the judge or magistrate is not the court.

3) This does not make sense to me. To act in Common Law you must be the plaintiff. If a court has gone to judgement, you have lost your window of opportunity to act.

1215.org explains all that Common Law is. If you are not willing to take the time to educate yourself then you do not deserve the information.

THIS is how it happened (right to travel -> driving privilege)

I ran across a great treatise that goes into serious depth about the history of how our laws transformed over about a 50-year period in the 20th Century having to do with traffic laws.

When the automobile was first invented, the people, the legislatures, and the courts all pretty much agreed that every individual had a right to travel, and that included on the public roads by their method of choice, including automobile.

There is even a Kansas Supreme Court case specifically stating this. But that was over 100 years ago. By about the 1920's, there were public cries about regulating autos because they were dangerous (sound familiar?). At first legislatures passed laws for registering cars and licensing drivers, but courts ruled those laws to be unconstitutional.

But over time, more laws came and more public outcries came, and eventually the courts just started ignoring their own previous rulings and started claiming that driving for personal reasons was a right but for commercial reasons on the public roads was a privilege.

By the 1950's, the courts and the legislatures pretty much threw out any pretense of right and started saying it is 100% privilege. Today, that is their stance.

There were no constitutional amendments or anything. The courts just finally gave in to the pressures of the politicians and the people demanding "change" and the laws/court cases (i.e. "common law" for what it's worth) was changed.


George Washington would have called it usurpation.

And this is why we see people claiming there are court cases that say travel is a right or that licensing is only for commercial purposes, etc. Yes, those cases are out there, but they are no longer viewed by the courts as relevant. And that's the problem.

This is a long read, but excellent:


I disagree here:

By the 1950's, the courts and the legislatures pretty much threw out any pretense of right and started saying it is 100% privilege. Today, that is their stance.

Every supreme court case I have seen on this matter separates the question of whether you are using the roads for "private gain" or not. The high court has always upheld the right to travel for pleasure.


(1) In a few sentences, how

(1) In a few sentences, how did this change occur?

Generally, time. Legislatures pass laws over time, they are a full-time law-making body so that's what they're going to do. The longer a legislature is in place the less courts need to create common law, basically. Some states rely more on common law than others. Sometimes the common law is contrary to the ACTUAL wishes of the people. After all, a Judge is limited to a perception of law based on one person, whereas theoretically a majority would have a better conception of what the law/custom actually is. At the same time, a judge is FAR more educated and intelligent than the average legislator, so there's no easy answer.

(2) What legal basis is used by a judge to use a statute rather than the Common Law, and can this same legal basis be used by me in reverse to enforce the Common Law on the judge?

The form of government determines the law. At the Federal level, the Constitution is supreme, followed by statutes passed by the Constitutionally-empowered legislature and then interpreted by Constitutionally empowered Judges(common law clarifications of the statute or Federal common law when no statute is available). All of the states generally follow this model.

(3) What are the SPECIFIC things someone can do to AFTER they are either dealing with a bureaucrat by mail who is making allegations that the person "must" do this or that, or when dealing with a judge AFTER some sort of ticket has been written or charge made, that can go around statutes that have nothing to do with anyone violating another person's rights?

Not much, mainly you can attack statutes with other statutes or with the state or Federal Constitution. One common attack is that a statute is "unconstitutionally vague" or "did not provide notice".

Ventura 2012


Having society built on a foundation of human ownership (slavery) dates back before Merry Ol' England, and it's still with us. My guess is that we can construct a better foundation for society.

Read "The Iron Web."

Common law placed common sense limits on derivatives

During the 19th century wars between Britain and France, some enterprising individuals were insuring cargo they didn't own on British ships. Then they would alert the French and collect the insurance when the ships were sunk. This prompted a change in British common law that made it illegal to insure assets you didn't own. In this 90 second video, Michael Greenberger explains how this common sense aspect of common law applies to derivatives.


Lynn Stout specializes in securties law. She wrote an article explaining how a return to common law limits on speculative derivatives can help prevent another financial crisis. You can find the article here:


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Please consider


The concept of put options, selling short, or insuring things that you don't own, or any wording that hides the fact that someone or some group causes very bad things to happen so that that individual or that group profits (gains power) at the expense of those victims is crime.

Why put nice sounding words on crime instead of crime as the description of crime?

If I take it upon myself to be one of many self governors, which I do, then I'll call it crime, because that is what it is, and you all can call it fried chicken if it makes you feel better, at the perpetual expense of the victims; may I add for your consideration.

Note the Author of the Link above may still be in "jail" for reasons that my be obvious if not commonly known in a accurate sense.


Good point

Euphemistic terms and or minimizing language is an obstacle to holding criminals responsible. In my opinion, those who intentionally engage in such behavior are criminal co-conspirators. This was not my intent. If you click on the DP link in my previous comment (I've also posted it below), you'll find information that could lead to criminal convictions of elite bankers and politicians who've conspired with them.

Regarding the author of the link, that would be me. Before suggesting I might be in jail for nefarious activities , go to the link and check out the compelling evidence I've provided for the purpose of holding Wall Street criminals accountable. Thanks for the input.


My website: http://www.standupforyourrights.me

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)


"Regarding the author of the link, that would be me."

My error in not being specific. I meant the link at the beginning of my reply, not any other link.

The link I linked was authored by Jim Bell, and Jim Bell was, and probably still is, in prison.

The concept of "put options" or "insuring things you do not own" could be things that have genuine Free Market examples in Liberty, but there are obvious, and measurable, criminal counterfeit versions.

I think Jim Bell's Assassination Politics drew attention toward the criminals in office, basically exposing their games - to close to home.

Please excuse my error of not being very precise with the tools.


My mistake, I read your comment too quickly

You're a breath of fresh air. I've been saying for years that a truly "free" market would be anarchy, and when Wall Street hacks on CNBC reference the free market, I believe they mean anarchy. For example, some argue that markets are ammoral, i.e., free from any judgement whether moral or immoral. But all nations have laws against theft, fraud, murder, etc., and these laws are based on moral judgements. And markets are manmade conventions so the argument that markets are ammoral is just a clever attempt to place financial elites above the law.

PBS Frontline did a documentary called "The Warning". It chronicles the story of Brooksley Born, director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) during Clinton's second term. She warned Clinton that the dark derivatives market would cause a financial crisis, but Clinton's economic advisors "shut her up and shut her down". Leading the effort to shut her up was Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. The documentary exposes bipartisan leaders who are ideologically opposed to regulating financial fraud. And we see the disasterous consequences of this anarchical world view today. I highly recommed watching the video.


In a Constitutional Republic based on moral principles, self regulation means voluntarily following a moral code without heavy handed gov't regulations. The greatest amount economic freedom within the moral framework of a Constitutional Republic, is provided by a competitive, capitalist market economy based on the rule of law. You might like my post titled "Morals, Ethics and the role of gov't in a capitalist economy".


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I'm not buying the lies

I looked at the PBS video and I'm not buying the lies.

The "meltdown" is a lie. Just before World War the "Nations" who are on the schedule to act in the play, moving all the stuff required to perpetrate War, "print money", which is another lie, what they are doing is borrowing from the productive people, and they tell the lenders that the lenders are borrowing, not lending, and they tell the lenders that the borrowers are the lenders, not the borrowers, and it is very confusing, but the actual borrowers (borrowing to perpetrate War) do convince the lenders that the lenders are borrowing not lending, so the borrowers "charge interest" on the money they borrow, and the borrowers "collect interest" from the lenders on the money that the borrowers borrow from the lenders.

Sure, it is complicated, but that should clue the lenders in on the scam.

I can't listen to the lies anymore, it is too disgusting for me, repulsive to me, I can't stand it.

So no, I'm not going to listen to the PBS show, it is couched in Newspeak of the highest order, and I won't subject myself to any more of that same crap.

Sure, I get it, there are whistle blowers who sort of, and kind of, blow the whistle, but it is all nonsense.

The lenders are The People who produce anything worth lending, also know as The Good Faith and Credit of The American People.

The borrowers are The Federal Reserve System of Fraud and Extortion and it is now Global. The FUND is where all the stolen loot is collected (borrowed) and those criminals are so outrageous they are demanding that the lenders pay them interest on the wealth that they steal.

So no, no, no, I'm not going to give those criminals any credit whatsoever.

Giving those criminals, even if they have made their crimes legal, any credit is how we got into this mess, and giving those criminals credit is how their crimes perpetuate.

They are buying World War III and America is on the schedule to lose, and "National Debt" is always paid by those who have anything of value worth stealing, so the "winners" of World War III will be doing what they always do, they will be stealing all the wealth, and they will have a new name, a new color, whatever, it is a False Front.

It is a False Front now, it will be a different color False Front after World War III, and you can't claim that there will be no World War III because it has already started.

Where do you think all the POWER goes?

If it isn't powerful it isn't money.

It goes somewhere.

How much does it cost to destroy Palestine, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and who knows what else, and who else will be destroyed by that stolen POWER?

How much does that cost, and who pays the bill?

"is provided by a competitive, capitalist market economy"

No, I'm not buying that either, but I may misunderstand the symbols that you arrange, publish, and offer to me, and anyone else caring enough to listen to and evaluate, competitively, your viewpoint.


Even propaganda has fragments of truth....

so finding the fragments and connecting the dots brings the picture into focus. However, you're much more informed than most, so I can understand your lack of interest in PBS (Public Bull S**t), but most people don't realize that bipartisan leaders oppose the regulation of financial fraud. I'm curious though, do you think home and pension fund values didn't drop and the 11 Trillion dollar loss to home equity and retirement funds didn't happen?

I believe the "meltdown" was intentionally created as a means to further consolidate power in global financial institutions. It also institutionalized systemic financial fraud and the bailout structure necessary to prop it up. One word describes the whole event; slavery.


http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

I am not that person.

"I'm curious though, do you think home and pension fund values didn't drop and the 11 Trillion dollar loss to home equity and retirement funds didn't happen?"

If you want to talk to someone who may remotely resemble that perspective in some nebulous, obscure, and abstract way, then you will have to look for that person, it is not me, so what do I have to do with those words quoted above, written in the form of a question?


"I believe the "meltdown" was intentionally created as a means to further consolidate power in global financial institutions. It also institutionalized systemic financial fraud and the bailout structure necessary to prop it up. One word describes the whole event; slavery."

OK, there you go, now I have something in common with that arrangement of symbols.

Now what?


Wasn't sure...

what you meant by the "meltdown" being a lie. Now I know and it's very similar, is not the same, as my understanding of the Big Lie.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Only Part Correct - The Foundation is the Law of God and Nature:

John Locke 2nd Treatise on Civil Government:

It has to do with a "foundation" in the "LAWS OF GOD and of NATURE" that are NOT subject to Courts - Such as the BILL of RIGHTS.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

John Locke #135: "...Thus the "LAW OF NATURE" stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for, other men's actions must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the "LAW OF NATURE" -- i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental "LAW OF NATURE" being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it."

Samuel Adams in the absolute rights of the Colonists says it this way:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

"...Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty" in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their "FOUNDATION in the FORMER".--"

Without these foundations, the laws would have no foundation, and they would change at the will of man. No one's rights, liberty or property would be secure. (see more of Locke on the subject at bottom)


Patrick Henry and George Mason during the Virginia Ratifying Convention establishes the difference between the two and need for rights that are "NOT" determined "only" by COURT CASES (i.e. Civil Law or solely "Human Legislation") - But are Obvious in the LAWS of GOD (i.e. ten commandments, etc.) and NATURE that are the FOUNDATION of COMMON LAW:

Here Patrick Henry and George Mason draw out the intention of James Madison and other federalists - much to James Madison's distress (a great convention).

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. GEORGE MASON still thought that there ought to be some express declaration in the Constitution, asserting that rights not given to the general government were "retained by the states". He apprehended that, unless this was done, many valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given up by "implication".

All governments were drawn from the people, though many were perverted to their oppression. The government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the people; yet there were "certain great and important rights", which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be "paramount to the power of the legislature". He asked, Why should it not be so in this Constitution? Was it because we were more substantially represented in it than in the state government? If, in the state government, where the people were substantially and fully represented, it was necessary that the "great rights of human nature" should {445} be >>>"secure from the encroachments of the legislature", he asked if it was not more necessary in this government, where they were but inadequately represented?

He declared that "artful sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him". He could see no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a bill of rights, implication might "swallow up all our rights".


Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the "necessity" of a"BILL of RIGHTS" appears to me to be "greater" in this government "than ever it was in any government before"."I have observed already, that the sense of the European nations, and particularly Great Britain, is against the construction of rights being retained which are not expressly relinquished. I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction that all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are "impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers", as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great Britain; for every possible right, which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the king's "prerogative". It is so in that country which is said to be in such full possession of freedom. It is so in Spain, Germany, and other parts of the world. Let us consider the sentiments which have been entertained by the people of America on this subject.

At the revolution, it must be admitted that it was their sense to set down "those great rights" which ought, in all countries, to be held "inviolable and sacred". Virginia did so, we all remember. She made a compact to reserve, expressly, "certain rights".

When fortified with full, adequate, and abundant representation, was she satisfied with that representation? NO.

She most cautiously and guardedly reserved and secured "those invaluable, inestimable rights and privileges", which no people, inspired with the least glow of patriotic liberty, ever did, or ever can, abandon. She is called upon now to abandon them, and dissolve that compact which secured them to her. She is called upon to accede to another compact, which most infallibly supersedes and annihilates her present one. Will she do it? This is the question. If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation; >>>for, if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to {446} reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up. How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were not then contented with implied reservation.

No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that "every right was retained by the states", respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States.

But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government.

Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, "you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw" government that has abandoned all its powers the powers of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a bill of rights without check, limitation, or control. And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers pointed where?

Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated STATE government!

You have a bill of rights to defend "you" against the state government, which is "bereaved of all power", and yet you have "none" against Congress, though in fill and exclusive possession of all power! You arm yourselves against the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed and powerful.

>>>Is not this a conduct of unexampled absurdity?

What barriers have you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up.

This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman.

When our government was first instituted in Virginia,

>>>>>>>>we declared the "COMMON LAW" of England to be "in FORCE".

>>>>>>>>THAT SYSTEM OF LAW which has been admired, and "has protected us" AND "our ancestors", is excluded by that system.

>>>>>>>>Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights.

By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are "thrown away".

Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights? By the ancient common law, the trial of all facts is decided by a jury of impartial men from the immediate vicinage. This paper speaks of different juries from the common law in criminal cases; and in civil controversies {447} excludes trial by jury altogether. There is, therefore, more occasion for the supplementary check of a bill of rights now than then. Congress, from their general, powers, may


They may legislate, in criminal cases, from treason to the lowest offence petty larceny. They may define crimes and prescribe punishments. In the definition of crimes, I trust they will be directed by what wise representatives ought to be governed by. But when we come to punishments, no latitude ought to be left, nor dependence put on the virtue of representatives.

What says our bill of rights? "that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Are you not, therefore, now calling on those gentlemen who are to compose Congress, to prescribe trials and define punishments without this control? Will they find sentiments there similar to this bill of rights?

>>>>>You let them loose; you do more you "depart from the genius of your country".

That paper tells you that the trial of crimes shall be by jury, and held in the state where the crime shall have been committed. Under this extensive provision, they may proceed in a manner extremely dangerous to liberty: a person accused may be carried from one extremity of the state to another, and be tried, not by an impartial jury of the vicinage, acquainted with his character and the circumstances of the fact, but by a jury unacquainted with both, and who may be biased against him. Is not this sufficient to alarm men? How different is this from the immemorial practice of your British ancestors, and your own!

I need not tell you that, by the common law, a number of hundreds were required on a jury, and that afterwards it was sufficient if the jurors came from the same county. With less than this the people of England have never been satisfied. That paper ought to have declared the common law in force.

In this business of legislation, your members of Congress will loose the restriction of not imposing excessive fines, demanding excessive bail, and inflicting cruel and unusual punishments. These are prohibited by your declaration of rights.

>>>>>>>>>What has distinguished our ancestors? That they would not admit of tortures, or cruel and barbarous punishment.

>>>>>>>>>But Congress may introduce the practice of the "CIVIL LAW" (i.e. laws made by man's will alone), in preference to that of the "COMMON LAW" (i.e. Founded by God's and Nature's Laws).

They may {448} introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany of torturing, (Sound familiar??? Like our government making excuses for toture?) to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity.

We are then lost and undone.

And can any man think it troublesome, when we can, by a small interference, prevent our rights from being lost? If you will, like the Virginian government, give them knowledge of the extent of the rights retained by the people, and the powers of themselves, they will, if they be honest men, thank you for it. Will they not wish to go on sure grounds?

But if you leave them otherwise, they will not know how to proceed; and, being in a state of uncertainty, they will "assume" rather than give up powers by "implication".

A bill of rights may be summed up in a few words.

What do they tell us?

That our rights are reserved.

Why not say so?

Is it because it will consume too much paper?

Gentlemen's reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful. A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, but the government ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy. A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the BEST way is to "have NO dispute". In the present Constitution, they are restrained from issuing general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named, without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection, guarded those indefeasible rights which ought ever to be held sacred!

The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of "paramount federal authority". Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows.

They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear.

They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds.

With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as "little as possible" the rights of human nature. This will result from their ""integrity".

They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents.They are not, however, "expressly" restrained. But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not,I leave you to determine. "


George Nicholas respoonded: "...But the"COMMON LAW"is"NOT EXCLUDED".There is"NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion.

A bill of rights is only anacknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING CLAIM TO RIGHTS IN THE PEOPLE".

They BELONG TO US "AS MUCH" as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."


We have Much to thank Patrick Henry and George Mason who won the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

But History is beginning to repeat itself, it seems, as our government attempts to place Civil Law or as Patrick Henry compares it, "the BUSINESS" of "HUMAN LEGISLATION", over that of Common Law.

You can thank these two for championing our Bill of Rights and Respect for "Common Law" which has it's "foundations" in "The Law of God and of Nature".


I will end with John Locke:

6. But though this be a state of liberty (a man in the state of nature without government), yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some "NOBLER" use than its bare preservation calls for it.

The "State of Nature" has a "LAW OF NATURE" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

195. I will not dispute now whether princes are exempt from the laws of their country, but this I am sure, they owe subjection to the laws of "GOD AND NATURE". Nobody, NO power can exempt them from the obligations of that eternal law. Those are so great and so strong in the case of promises, that Omnipotency itself can be tied by them. Grants, promises, and oaths are bonds that hold the Almighty, whatever some flatterers say to princes of the world, who, all together, with all their people joined to them, are, in comparison of the great God, but as a drop of the bucket, or a dust on the balance -- inconsiderable, nothing!"

American Patriot Party.CC

Educate yourself, Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

I Wish that Law Was Based on The Bible

In simple terms (as you requested), modern American law is based on judges opinions. As others have pointed out, laws should have been based on natural law.

The disconnect probably started with Marbury V. Madison in the early 1800's. The judges began to give themselves the power to overrule the Constitution and gain control over the other branches.

As time went on, judges kept testing the waters to see how much they could get away with.

Today, judges have the final say on all law. They are no longer the weakest branch as was intended by the victors of the Revolution. Now they are the controlling branch.

There are many excellent (simple) books on this subject.

Gene Louis
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Much of the basic foundations in fact are. See above post.

Without the those foundations, there would not exist the principles in that, or any Law.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Common law is now "the case method"

... Where common practice was once the guide now so-called "legal precedent" is now used to usurp our rights incrementally...

"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body - working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noisless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

- Thomas Jefferson 1821

Excellent Quote ...

... and I think you are right.

I think what happened is that common law was determined by court cases over the years and very few statutes were considered necessary.

But over time, more statutes came in and when a court was presented with a case, instead of utilizing the common law principles, instead cited the statutes and made up new principles that had nothing to do with common law principles (in fact, were opposite).

Then when future courts looked to other cases as precedent, all they had to go on was the cases that were using statutory type precedent and not common law principles.

I'm going to post an article I found about the traffic laws showing that this is EXACTLY what happened to our "right to travel."

English Common Law

started with King Alfred the Great. He based it on God's Law found in the book of Deuteronomy in the Bible.

King Alfred was an amazing man and the time it takes to read a few biographies of him is time well spent. One of my favorites is The White Horse King: The Life of Alfred the Great, by Ben Merkle.

The precepts of law are to

The precepts of law are to live honestly, injure no one, and give every man his due. -Institutes of Justinian

Law is not complicated. A competent witness in the capacity of a Man or Woman testifies under an oath or affirmation (ie. full liability of thou shall not bear false witness) to first hand knowledge of something seen or heard. First hand knowledge is the basis of facts that can be relied upon.

What happens in the present matrix is there is a legal mafia that feels it can loot you for not paying tribute to the state to use fictional or arbitrary titles subject to its jurisdiction. There are no Men or Women testifying under full liability. There are only Men or Women using a title while operating in the capacity of some person under limited liability making complaints without first hand knowledge.

The solution built into the Constitution is the 2nd Amendment. The American people have no duty or obligation to be compelled or coerced by criminal gangs of officers abusing their discretion and exceeding their jurisdiction to eat out of the substance of the people. The solution to tyranny hasn't changed since the beginning of civilization. It is to defend life, liberty, and property pledging life, fortunes, and sacred honor if necessary.

Law is not complicated

At all, but crime is complicated when crime is made legal.

I have such a hard time conveying this competitive perspective, which is not complicated, and it is easy to see if you see it, measure it, and then know it.

At the time of the American Revolution there were Counter Revolutionary Forces whereby mass media was monopolized to the extent where the mass of people, the common people, the MOB, were directed by a few people to think and act along a specific path, and this process has been perfected since, and certainly employed earlier in human history.

The process can be called behavioral modification, response conditioning, manufactured consent, brainwashing, or simply called False Advertizements.

The example I speak of at the time of the American Revolution was the case of those papers that became known as The Federalist Papers. The fact of the matter is that those papers were campaign promises, that sounded good, but they hid, they placed a false front on, the actual designed usurpation of Liberty, by those Counter Revolutionary Forces that were a group of people who were known as Nationalists/Monarchs/and Consolidated/Energetic Government men, who were also Central Bankers if I can use a more modern term for what those people are based upon what those people do once those people get into power as they employ the means to sway, direct, and manipulate people, masses of people, knowable as "Public Opinion".

So the old days were days where Common Law worked because enough people had enough of crime and they found effective ways of dealing with crime, including Trial by Jury based upon sortition, but in the old days the only way to manipulate the masses was by way of one person contacting one other person and assembling people into rooms, and writing books.

The Federalist Papers were newspaper advertizements published by the newspaper business people who were either in on the usurpation or who were as duped by the false advertizements, which were promises to be broken, so the masses of people fell for the lies and they were the power that constituted the power that moved this country away from Voluntary Free Market type government, under The Articles of Confederation, into Slavery Made Legal with The Constitution.

That was a case of mass manipulation done in 1787.

Now there is television.

Look up a guy named Edward Bernays.

The Nazi's learned from Edward Bernays.

I'm sure that the Bolsheviks (communists) learned from Edward Bernays.

Edward Bernays is the father of "Spin", and he worked here in America on these common people here in America, before Nazi German and before Bolshevik Russia (which were both financed by Wall Street).

So, control of mass media, beginning legal slavery in America (The Constitution), Mob Rule by proxy, ushering in a Central Bank, and progress made in perfecting effective control of the MOB since, to a point where books and movies like 1984 and The Matrix can spell it all out, in almost no uncertain terms, and almost no one actually knows The Big Lie.

Yet The Big Lie is unambiguous.


The Criminals have taken over and they make criminals of all of us.

That is not common law, that is crime made legal and forced upon the victims by way of deception, threats of violence, and well documented violence.


Destroying evidence is evidence.



Common Law Divorce

I ran across a VERY interesting article from eHow (of all places), after thinking about that common law marriage thing.

What if there is a common law marriage and the people want to divorce? Is there such a thing as a common law divorce?

According to the article:

"Know that if you are living with a partner and decide you want a divorce, you will need to first consult your state's law to determine if common-law marriages are recognized by your state."

"File divorce papers if common-law marriages are recognized, you can file divorce papers, asking a court to dissolve your marriage, divide your property and determine custody, child support and alimony."

"Realize that if common-law marriage is not recognized in your state, or if it is and you would rather not go to court for a divorce, there are several options available to you that will help you end your relationship and tie up legal loose ends."

Ahah! This is saying that we have a CHOICE. The statute is there as a "default" situation.

If two people get married and they DO go to the state for a "license," then they MUST go through the state to get a divorce.

BUT ... if they do NOT involve the state in their marriage, then they have a CHOICE to either handle it themselves OR go through the state!



Very true

Or a couple can get married in a Church for example and have the religious authority witness the marriage and disappear with the marriage license lol


I think that much, if not

I think that much, if not all, depends upon one's status. To what body politic does one belong?

According to the Treaty of Peace in Paris, 1782, the King of England acknowledged that the former British colonies were now free and independent States. That is, they were individual countries or nations. The people of each American nation, by their own hand, had adopted constitutions which affirmed their position as superior to the government, and as further acknowledged in the Declaration Of Independence where "governments are instituted among men.." and therefore can be altered or abolished by the same. The created does not order around, or pass laws which govern his/her creator. This concept seems to have been the fullest expression of the principles of Common Law as it had been inherited by them from the English.

This means that as a national of any State in the American union only the Common Law and the Laws of Nature, or God, were binding or restrictive of one's natural unalienable rights. Not the law of man nor that of the government.

When the 14th Amendment came into affect the people the several states did not realize that there was now a "presumtion" in law that they were United States citizens or nationals of the United States instead of nationals of their respective state.

You will notice that state nationals do not vote. Only U.S. citizens can vote.

What then is the United States? It is simply an international agent for the several states (nations) in the American union. It's only purpose is to make "regular" the relationships between the states, and present a united front to the rest of world. When any state wishes to interact with another state in the union it is an international matter. When any state wishes to interact with any state not in the union it is equally an international matter, just one without the union.

The United States was established for these purposes only and it was located in another international jurisdiction: the District of Columbia, which is not a state in the union, NOT a country, and has its own extra constitutional government. Meaning it is not a republican form of government, and has no constitution. The Common Law does not exist for nationals of this territory, or any territory possessed by the United States for the same reason.

People who are U.S. citizens have pledged allegiance to this government, and support it by voting for it in the states where they reside. But they are not members of those states' native population to whome the Common Law applies. U.S. citizens are not protected by U.S. Constitution because D.C. is not a state participating in the American union.

I think it's as simple... or complex.. as that. Though considerably more nuanced.

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/