| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Common Law | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Jun 4th, 2014 11:48 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
From Frank and Unique Collective Awareness or UCADIA: http://blog.ucadia.com/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=11 I have trouble understanding the timeline. Common Law to me is the concept of Trial by Jury (trial by the country, or trial by the whole people, randomly selected, or selected by sortition, presumed to be innocent, 1 jurist can nullify, it takes more than one in agreement to condemn/punish), Democracy (everyone is as legally powerful as everyone else), Republic (rule of law not rule by man, or "for the public good"), and Federation (voluntary defense association or "insurance" fund), as I see it from my single viewpoint as only one of many people in the whole, and those principles governing good people remain as the same principles. So when Frank says there is only one law, whereby no one is above the law, then as far as I am concerned that is common law, the real thing, not the counterfeit thing. So my understanding is such that common law existed before English language existed, and THEN, not before then, but after English language is invented, and after English language "gains currency," THEN, not before then, there is, in use, the words Common Law, and THEN, not before then, there is an effort to counterfeit Common Law. As such: 1. Common Law genuine (existing even before English Language) The principles driving good behavior whereby the people agree to be driven by these obvious principles, such as truth, and such as The Golden Rule, whereby the real Golden Rule Principles are sought after, as truth, and the false versions of The Golden Rule are accurately identified as false, so that people are driven by the true principles and not the false principles. 2. Common Law Counterfeit In order for me to convey to a reader what I mean by Common Law Counterfeit I see a usefulness of using an example as such: http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes/equity.php Equity Lecture Notes | Historical Introduction Which sources are true? Which sources are counterfeit? I am not the one who (on my own authority) can enforce which one is true and which one is counterfeit. I can offer words that sound reasonable: "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." That makes sense to me as follows: People once driven by good principle are divided into local governments and each local government is strictly formed by those good principles. Each is divided in time and place, while each is bound by the same good principles, therefore they are UNITED by the common principle, actually, really, factually, voluntarily, agreeably, they are all ONE group and the glue binding them is good principle. People once driven by good principle are then driven insane by falsehood. People once driven by Rule of Law, no one above the law, and those who claim to be above the law are known, truly, accurately, as those who are criminals. People once driven by good principle are then sold a pack of lies that claim that one man, and rule by man, upon man, is better than rule of law, in fact the lie goes even deeper, as the liars claim, the criminals claim, that rule by them is rule of law, and the suckers, the dupes, the fools, are then LED to believe that lie, LED by that lie, the POWER of that lie works gradually over time to turn everyone into liars, criminals, and beasts of burden, and beasts of torture and horror. So that source, which may well be a counterfeit source, places the date by which common law (the true version ) is replaced by the counterfeit version: at 1066, as a significant date for specific reasons that are not specified precisely in time and place. What precisely happened on that date? Who did what precisely in time and place? The general statement is this: "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)."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:19 am | |
| Power Independence > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Liberty Day Challenge 2013 > Common Law | Top |
