Comment: Agreed on many points.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Antennas up! (see in situ)

Agreed on many points.

"Common Law?"

The term Common Law is a very good example of evidence proving the necessity of defining true meaning so as to avoid confusing the true meaning with the counterfeit (intentionally false/misleading) meaning.

Common law began (before the invention of the English language) as consent by the governed LAW, no one above the law, or law of the land, customary law, with Trial by Jury, based upon sortition.

An example of the voluntary LAW meaning (not the counterfeit version) is (competitively) here:

FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That customary practice of finding out who was victimized by who, and working to minimize crime without expending too much cost to anyone in the effort was, that common law was, changed, usurped, counterfeited, and that voluntary methodology was corrupted into an involuntary version.

Here is a competitive source offering information concerning how, when, and where the corruption occurred:

Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.

Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.

Read more: Historical Introduction | English Legal System Lecture Notes | Law Teacher
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook

From my point of view that information above appears to be missing vital information.

The next link, to me, helps in constructing the whole story:

Canon 2974

Common Law is an inequality system of law created by King Henry VIII and Venetian advisers in 1548 upon the complete remodeling ofthe Executive, Legislature and Judiciary Branches of Rule in England whereby the private Guild (Livery) of Judges and Notaries (from which the private Bar Associations were spawned) was granted royal warrant to convert judicial assemblies into their private courts (cautio) and for the rulings and judgments of the private Guild to take precedence over ancient customs of Anglo-Saxon law and rights, except those needed to make the law still technically function.

Canon 2975

The word “common” comes from 15th Century Latin communis meaning "to entrust, commit to a burden, public duty, service or obligation". The word was created from the combination of two (2) ancient pre-Vatican Latin words com / comitto = "to entrust, commit" and munis = "burden, public duty, service or obligation". Hence Common Law literally means “voluntary enslavement” or simply “lawful slavery”.

From that last source (which is a source that offers a weekly conference call where anyone can ask the person offering that information direct questions each Wednesday) is additional information concerning how English Language was invented and then made "current" through printing and through "schools".

So...the term "Common Law" existed before English language, and therefore the actual term used by people employing so called "common law" before it was called "common law" used another term for "common law" such as a term that once meant "the law of the land" or "trial by jury" or whatever term was used in the languages that were currently in use.

Common Law meaning "trial by jury of peers" where no one, not even kings, are above the law

Common Law meaning corporate, monopoly, dictatorial, law enforced by the few upon the many

Which does Karen Hudes understand, promote, and finance?

The proof will be obvious.

Competitive versions work to force those who offer services to produce higher and higher quality (money or government or fast food or computers or cell phones) while costs (to the consumers) are forced down.

When money (and government) become lower and lower in quality (less beneficial to the consumers) and higher and higher in cost (to the consumers) the obvious factor of VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION (competition) is missing.

So, or therefore, if the end result of all this rearranging (change) is more of the same MONOPOLY supply of ever lower quality and ever higher cost (to the consumer) money and government, then it is missing the vital element of true (not counterfeit) competition, or the same thing as competition which is free markets, or the same thing as competition and free markets which is LIBERTY.

Out with the old Monopoly and in with what?

New improved Monopoly


The proof of Liberty will be proven as producers who know how to start the day with less POWER will produce more POWER by the end of the day and those producers KEEP their POWER.

The end result is more POWER, and therefore the price of POWER goes down, and therefore the measure of PURCHASING POWER goes up (higher quality competitive money), since there are more things to buy with better money, and that happens because POWER reduces the cost of production.

The proof of just another name on the same Monopoly POWER will be POWER flowing from anyone who produces anything worth stealing flowing to the MONOPOLY POWER, and POWER becoming even more scarce, and POWER becoming even more expensive (to those who don't have any because what they produce is immediately stolen and used by the criminals to steal more) and Purchasing Power (money inflating, depreciating, becoming even more worthless) because the POWER stolen is being used to steal more POWER from the producers, and then that stolen POWER is spent in the work required to steal more from the producers (WAR).