Video Player is loading.

Up next


AV10 - John Smith - Common Law Courts

BANNED.VIDEOS
BANNED.VIDEOS - 707 Views
509
707 Views
Published on 21 May 2020 / In News and Politics

A Lawful Remedy for the People :

John Smith explains why there is a need for the Common Law Court.

Natural law principles are the foundation for the Common Law Court; this court has been established as the highest court in the land. The existing judicial system is not here to ensure justice, it is here to protect vested interests and the state. We the people need to understand that the authority lies within ourselves and that the Common Law Court offers the opportunity to hold every individual accountable for their behaviour. It is no longer acceptable for people to suffer while others are rewarded for their abuse of power and trust.

Bio :

As a whistle-blower within the casino industry John made the mistake of thinking that the judicial system and government were there to protect the people. For this naivety John ended up bankrupt, homeless and unemployed. It was then the journey began with the principles of causing no harm, no loss or injury and to remain honourable within your contractual dealings.

Website : https://www.commonlawcourt.com/

Show more
5 Comments sort Sort by

snoop4truth
snoop4truth 3 years ago

COMMON LAW COUNTRIES ARE THE DARK PINK-COLORED COUNTRIES HERE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....Common_law#/media/Fi ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ SEE THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMON LAW IN ALL OF THESE LAW DICTIONARIES HERE.
https://www.goldismoney2.com/t....hreads/the-confusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... HOW THE COMMON LAW WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. The "common law" is merely "case law written by judges". It was once also called "unwritten law" SOLELY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ELECTED POLITICIANS AND NOT PUBLISHED IN STATUTE BOOKS. BUT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMON LAW WAS UNWRITTEN AND UNPUBLISHED ALTOGETHER. IT WAS (AND IT STILL IS). Common law was and still is written by appellate judges and is still published in "Court Reporters" (not statute or code books). But, amateur legal theorists do not know this. They mistakenly believe that the common law WAS NEVER WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE and that it has been replaced by modern written law. But, this is not so. COMMON LAW IS WRITTEN LAW and is still the single most commonly used form of law in the United States and many other countries that were once part of the English Empire, including Australia and New Zealand. ALL OF THE COURTS IN ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES ARE COMMON LAW COURTS AND ALL OF THEM STILL MAKE, STILL USE AND STILL FOLLOW THE COMMON LAW. Common law is still being made (written and published) every single day all over the globe. FOR PROOF, CLICK HERE. https://www.goldismoney2.com/t....hreads/the-confusion

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 years ago

READ THE COMMENTS BELOW THIS VIDEO.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1jxTJ8PrAYpf/

Reply   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 years ago

PART 2 (CONTINUED FROM PART 1)

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 1   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 years ago

PART 2 (CONTINUED FROM BELOW)

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
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 years ago

THE UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKE WHICH 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 AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY.

"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... .

“NO 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