Video Player is loading.

Volgende


Karl Lentz - Common Law - Talkshoe Call In

bodhi_mantra
bodhi_mantra - 1,304 Bekeken
474
1,304 Bekeken
gepubliceerd op 14 Aug 2019 / In Film en Animatie

Visit the website here to learn more:
http://esotericawakening.com

Laat meer zien
4 Comments sort Sorteer op

shotgunslade
shotgunslade 1 jaar geleden

If you want to understand that there is a difference between legalease 'common law' and standard common law of the people, many States do not recognize common law marriage. Why not? Because this common law is different than the common law of the government. That's why Karl Lentz went to the word 'lore' rather than law. It's easier to see the difference that way. Search on it.

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
shotgunslade
shotgunslade 1 jaar geleden

Seems to me that judges are part of the legalease system. They are part of the courts defined by law. So, make the distinction that 'common law' is common law understood by the people in their everyday operations in life, rather than a legalease term called 'common law'.

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 3 jaar geleden

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 BUT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMON LAW WAS UNWRITTEN AND UNPUBLISHED ALTOGETHER.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 They mistakenly believe that the common law WAS NEVER WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE and that it has been replaced by modern written law.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

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 jaar geleden

KARL LENTZ DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE COMMON LAW ACTUALLY IS.

"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/

"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 WRITTEN BY JUDGES, THEN WHY IS "COMMON LAW" SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW" ?

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 OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." Scroll down to about 30% through the text HERE. 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,"First. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18, "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].... ." (iIn 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" 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. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/L/LexNonScr

HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN AN ALLEGED "CONFLICT":

But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", another name for the "common law", meant that the "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 it conflicted with today's law and thereby created a scandalous legal conspiracy to be outraged about.

This imaginary "conflict" between the "common law" and modern laws is arguably the number one gripe of amateur legal theorists today. But, they are mistaken about what "unwritten law" really is and they are mistaken about whether it really conflicts with today's law. It does not. Unknown to amateur legal theorists, today's law INCLUDES THE COMMON LAW which is still "case law" written by judges and which is still being made every single day all over the globe.

WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS MEAN?

1). "COMMON LAW" IS SIMPLY "CASE LAW" WRITTEN BY JUDGES. NOTHING MORE.

2). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "COMMON LAW" WHICH IS SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM "CASE LAW" WHICH IS WRITTEN BY JUDGES. THEY ARE THE SAME THING.

3). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTION".

4). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW COURTS".

5). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW STANDING" .

6). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULES".

7). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PROCEDURE".

8). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW MOTIONS".

9). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW PLEADINGS".

10). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SEPARATE "COMMON LAW RULINGS".

11). THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEPARATE "COMMON LAW ANYTHING".

12). "COMMON LAW" (CASE LAW) IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.

13). BECAUSE "COMMON LAW" IS ACTUALLY CASE LAW WRITTEN BY JUDGES, IT IS THE SINGLE MOST COMMON FORM OF LAW USED IN TODAY'S LEGAL SYSTEM.

14). SO, "COMMON LAW" IS NOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, IT IS THE LARGEST SINGLE PART OF TODAY'S LAWS.

15). THIS MEANS, "COMMON LAW" DOES NOT REFUTE, CONTRADICT OR CONFLICT WITH TODAY'S LAWS, IT CONFIRMS TODAY'S LAWS, IT REINFORCES TODAY'S LAWS , IT STRENGTHENS TODAY/S LAWS. .

16). IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM TODAY'S LAWS, YOU WILL NOT FIND IT IN THE "COMMON LAW", BECAUSE THE "COMMON LAW" IS TODAY'S LAWS.

Any understanding to the contrary is mistaken.

Best Regards,

Snoop

BEWARE OF THESE FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves).

For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77 consecutive cases in a row), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum....4/showthread.php?994

For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.
http://projectavalon.net/forum....4/showthread.php?995

For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1328

For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1316

For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1323

For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.
https://www.waccobb.net/forums..../showthread.php?1303

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
bodhi_mantra
bodhi_mantra 4 jaar geleden

You do not know what common law is, you are an idiot friend

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
snoop4truth
snoop4truth 4 jaar geleden

@bodhi_mantra:

Antwoord   thumb_up 0   thumb_down 0
Laat meer zien

Volgende