Video Player is loading.

Up next


Alex Drops Common Law BOMBSHELLS!πŸ’£πŸ’£πŸ’£

BANNED.VIDEOS
BANNED.VIDEOS - 478 Views
510
478 Views
Published on 12 Jul 2020 / In News and Politics

Alex Drops common law BOMBSHELLS!πŸ’£πŸ’£πŸ’£
Lawers, solicitors and barristers will lose their mind if they were to discover this information!
Information for you... It is ILLEGAL to pay parking fines, speeding fines, citylink tolls, registration etc...
You don't have to pay any of them! You have just been fooled into thinking you have to, like we used to believe until we researched the LAW!

πŸ”₯ A brief history on how the settlers claimed "Terra Australis" through clever deception based in Norfolk Island.

πŸ”₯ We dive into the deception and lies around vicroads, car registration, licences and travelling VS driving.

πŸ”₯ How the Police are an invading illegal foreign force and much more into the legitiamacy of the ones who carry guns.

πŸ”₯ The courts and judiciary system and how you don't become a magistrate or judge without being "selected" from freemasonry.

πŸ”₯ We break down letters from fines victoria and vicroads and explain how they are illegal and fraudulent documents.

There is an absolute plethora of information contained in this explosive interview!

Follow the Youtube Channel below
https://www.youtube.com/channe....l/UCY-tPt5V4mKPiyb9k

The facebook page here
https://www.facebook.com/TheConsciousTruthNetwork/

The facebook group here
https://www.facebook.com/groups/281070686354651/

Remember to like, comment and share this video! I rely upon you to spread this message!

- James

Show more
1 Comments sort Sort by

snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 years ago

THE UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS MADE WHICH RESULTED IN THEM BELIEVING IN AN IMAGINARY BODY OF LAW WHICH DID NOT ACTUALLY EXIST AND THE OUTRAGE THAT UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE CAUSED IN THE AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY COMMUNITY.

"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/

https://www.merriam-webster.co....m/dictionary/common-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law

https://www.collinsdictionary.....com/us/dictionary/en

https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law

https://legaldictionary.net/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/sch....olar_case?case=41452

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/sch....olar_case?case=77126

THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION

But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is sometimes called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW", HOW CAN THE "COMMON LAW" POSSIBLY BE CASE LAW "WRITTEN" BY JUDGES? That is a fair question.

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 [PROVING THAT "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT ACTUALLY MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN ALTOGETHER"] OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." FOR PROOF, CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 35-40% through the text to the black letters ON THE WHITE BACKGROUND. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/C/CommonLaw

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, "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].... ." (in the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page. https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=46716

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER. IT ONLY 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. CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN SLIGHTLY TO THE LIGHT PEACH-COLORED BACKGROUND. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/L/LexNonScr

HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN A SEPARATE, IMAGINARY BODY OF LAW WHICH NEVER EXISTED.

But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", a nickname for the "common law", meant that "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 today's "written law" law is in direct conflict with the "common law" it "replaced" and thereby created an nonexistent conspiracy to be outraged about.

Amateur legal theorists have even gone as far as blaming attorneys, the American Bar Association and "corrupt judges" for allegedly "TAKING AWAY" all of the "common law" and completely "REPLACING IT" with "corporate statutes". Some have even claimed that if a law is "WRITTEN", it is not law at all. Note that under this absurd definition, amateur legal theorists would actually oppose and reject the very "common law" which they claim to embrace.

PROOF: What follows is a written explanation of the "common law" based on the mistake described above and based on the hoax that the "common law" conflicts with today's"written law". This explanation was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent peddler of this delusional belief system about the common law.

(QUOTE BEGINS)

4 – THE LAW IS UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE] YET KNOWABLE. It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .

β€œNO WRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "WRITTEN" HERE, DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORD "UNWRITTEN" ABOVE] LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], 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.thefre....edictionary.com/rule ."

".…[The common law is] UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PRE-DATED THE JUDGES WHO WROTE IT]… .

THUS, UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN] LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, (sic) ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. … *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Show more

Up next