I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.

It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.

The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.

Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.

Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.

England was different.

England developed the common law. Under common law, the people have natural rights, so they can do whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

England did not strictly develop this principle. Philosophers did, and the American founders enshrined these ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

But England developed the overall basic working structure. Some of the common law ideas even England borrowed from other cultures in Europe before them.

In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.

But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.

So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.

But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes and courts.

Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king was not interested in such petty disputes of the surfs and peasants.

However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, well that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.

Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.

So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.

Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.

When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.

So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.

The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.

Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.

The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more and more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).

At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.

But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.

Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.

I will just make 2 points here:

(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.

(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...

Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.

You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.

I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.

It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.

The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.

Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.

Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.

England was different.

England developed the common law. Under common law, the people have natural rights, so they can do whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

England did not strictly develop this principle. Philosophers did, and the American founders enshrined these ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

But England developed the overall basic working structure. Some of the common law ideas even England borrowed from other cultures in Europe before them.

In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.

But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.

So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.

But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes and courts.

Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king was not interested in such petty disputes of the surfs and peasants.

However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, well that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.

Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.

So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.

Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.

When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.

So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.

The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.

Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.

The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more an more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).

At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.

But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.

Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.

I will just make 2 points here:

(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.

(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...

Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.

You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.

I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.

It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.

The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.

Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.

Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.

England was different.

England developed the common law. Under common law, the people have natural rights, so they can do whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

England did not strictly develop this principle. Philosophers did, and the American founders enshrined these ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

But England developed the overall basic working structure. Some of the common law ideas even England borrowed from other cultures in Europe before them.

In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.

But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.

So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.

But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes.

Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king could not be bothered.

However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, wll that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.

Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.

So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.

Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.

When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.

So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.

The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.

Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.

The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more an more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).

At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.

But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.

Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.

I will just make 2 points here:

(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.

(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...

Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.

You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.

I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.

It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.

The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.

Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.

Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.

England was different.

England developed the common law. Under common law, the people have natural rights, so they they can do whatever they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

England did not strictly develop this principle. Philosophers did, and the American founders enshrined these ideas in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

But England developed the overall basic working structure. Some of the common law ideas even England borrowed from other cultures in Europe before them.

In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.

But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.

So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.

But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes.

Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king could not be bothered.

However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, wll that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.

Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.

So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.

Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.

When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.

So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.

The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.

Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.

The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more an more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).

At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.

But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.

Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.

I will just make 2 points here:

(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.

(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...

Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.

You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.

I think things become more clear when it is put into historical context.

It all comes from England, and they got parts of it from Rome, and other parts they created.

The common law is of the common people. Statutory law, also known as civil law, is of the king.

Civil law started in Rome. The emperors and/or Senate would write a law and that was the law. Everyone was supposed to obey it.

Most of the world still works under a civil law system. The government employees pass a law, and that is that. The people are supposedly only allowed to do what the law says they can do.

England was different.

In England, there was a time before William the Conqueror (it wasn't officially England back then), when the people largely resolved their own legal issues and the common people came up with a system of law that more or less worked out for the best.

But as the king gained more power, the king did not like the people deciding everything. So, the king (don't remember off hand which one), studied old Roman law, and decided he like it. So, he started creating civil law within England, which already had the common law of the people.

So, when the people had a dispute with each other, they settled it with common law. They had their own trials, their own judges, and their own juries.

But when the king's money and powers were involved, the king enforced civil law and his own statutes.

Want to enter into a contract with your neighbor? Fine. But any dispute arising from that will be settled in a common law court. The king could not be bothered.

However, if you decided you did not want to participate in the annual king's tax, wll that was a different story. That was under the civil law system, and the king would enforce it in his own court -- with the obvious result being that the king would win any dispute.

Over time, this sytem developed such that different parts of the kingdom were following different common law ideas.

So, King Edward II decided to unify the common law system by sending judges around the kingdom to find out what everyone was doing. The result was a more unified common law system.

Out of that, we get such principles as a right to jury trial, due process, no search and seizure except under judicial order, etc.

When England's colonies in America won independence, the American system mostly adopted the English legal system, which they already had in place -- modified by American ideas.

So, England and all former English colonies utilize the common law system, while the rest of the world is under the civil law system.

The problem is that the common law system is "common law" in name only. Over the centuries, and especially ramping up in the 20th century, the civil law ideas of "top-down edicts from the government" have crept into the American common law system.

Law schools today bascially teach that the common law does not really exist anymore and it is more of a civil law system. Yet, we still have common law and its principles. Most "licensed attorneys" (it is unlawful to require a license to engage in the profession of law, per the Supreme Court, but every State does it anyway) have no idea how the common law really works.

The concept of admiralty law came in as there was more an more activity at sea, with bigger and more powerful ships (with larger crews).

At sea, the captain is the law, subject only to maritime (admiralty) law.

But they have tricked the People into an admiralty/civil law system in what SHOULD be common law courts.

Unraveling it all from there is a very deep topic.

I will just make 2 points here:

(1) Understanding this dual nature of a government (and its employees) who want to impose a civil law system within a common law structure is very important to understand, as I believe it is the key to unlocking the corruption within the legal industry. Keep one thing uppermost in mind: The US Constitution is a common law document, written for a people who understood the common law and its principles, adopted from England.

(2) By keeping all this in mind, you might be able to free yourself from some of the oppression that government employees would want to impose upon you. For example, I got a speeding ticket dismissed by challenging subject matter jurisdiction. I think what happened was that the "judge" (not a real judge in the true, common law sense) had no real idea what I was talking about, but did not want to look stupid (which she clearly was). While she huffed and puffed and was overbearing and outright rude in the extreme towards me, the case was ultimately dismissed because supposedly the "prosecution did not have anyone available to move forward with the case." Yeah, right! AS IF! This was TRAFFIC COURT. The ONLY job of that particular employee from the prosecutor's office was to handle these types of cases all day long. In reality, they were unsure of my constitutional grounds that I was raising, and decided to punt rather than cause themselves a potential legal problem. So, there can be power in understanding this stuff, BUT ...

Beware of claims around admiralty law and such, because when I have seen anyone try that in a real court room, they lose and lose BIG.

You have to meet the judges and attorneys (as corrupt as they and their system are) at a place where they can understand that a REAL legal issue they THEY recognize is possibly in play, and it might be a hot potato they don't want to touch.