Quotes From "The Constitution That Never Was" by Ralph Boryszewski MUST READ TO BELIEVE (Note: Ralph does not respond to email) https://www.frontiernet.net/~ralphb1/purchase.htm

"Common Law came from England and was hated by the colonist

It allows judges to hold the Constitution as secondary

The contempt power violates our rights

The english jargon of Latin, French & unfamiliar terms were all tricks of the trade, designed to make the law hard for the common person to understand

Many early Americans felt a need for a law that was wholly American

Why should the states be governed by British law

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799 regarding his concerns of the "audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension without legislation"

In 1799, the State of New Jersey passed a statute forbidding the Bar to cite or read in court anything of the Common Law with heavy penalties otherwise doing so

In Pennsylvania fro 1802-05, impeachment trials were held against the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court charged with a single "arbitrary & unconstitutional act" by sentencing Thomas Passmore to jail for thirty days and imposing a $50 fine for a "supposed contempt." The ground for the mpeachment was punishment for contempt of court and was an English Common Law barbarism unsuited to this court and illegal.

The insistence of the American courts to enforce harsh doctrines of English Common law of criminal libel was no defense and the jury could pass on the fact of publication and innuendo.

In Colonial times there was a long struggle of Royal judges against the writers and printers.

"Criminal Libel" and "contempt" were Common law tools used by tyrant American AND Royal judges

Members of the legal profession were held in low position by early legal history of the Colonies.

Lawyers and Attorneys were held in disrepute and suspicion

English Common law had no respect and was not binding in seventeenth century New England, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Rhode Island.

A New York State Lieutenant Governor Colden stated on Jan. 22, 1765, if the law profession continues as now, the judges will not be able to restrain the lawyers....the lawyers influence every branch of our Government, a domination as destructive of justice, as Priests of the gospel.

Governor Colden wrote Earl of Halifax ...all associations are dangerous to good government, more so in distain dominations and associations of lawyers the most dangerous of any next to the military.

William Penn had been indicted for "tumultous assembly" in 1670 by English judges

The Quakers of Pennsylvania made known they did not want any English tyranny or lawcraft. For 70 years after settlement the courts of the Province were maintained with NO lawyers on the Bench or Bar.

The Quakers of Pennsylvania made known they did not want any English tyranny or lawcraft. For 70 years after settlement the courts of the Province were maintained with NO lawyers on the Bench or Bar.

 

 

 

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government. "THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188) The significance is that since the Erie decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1938. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The Common Law is the fountain source of Substantive and Remedial Rights, if not our very Liberties. (See also: Who is Running America?) In 1945 the United States gave up any remaining national sovereignty when it signed the United Nations Treaty, making all American citizens subject to United Nations jurisdiction. The "constitution" of the United Nations may be compared to that of the old Soviet Union.

 

"The Constitution is the last bastion of the Common law in our country. Were it not for the Constitution, the Common Law would have been history a long time ago. The interpretation of the Constitution is directly influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law: - https://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

"There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 891, 893 (1898)

How We Lost Our Common Law Heritage - https://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/heritage.html

Medieval Legal History - https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook-law.html

Common Law and Other Historical Documents - https://www.pixi.com/~kingdom/common.html

Organic Legal Documents - https://lonang.com/library/organic/

Our American Common Law (MUST READ)

THE CIVIL LAW AND THE COMMON LAW

The Common Law: Tradition & Stare Decisis - https://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/LawCom.htm#Tradition

The Common Law v. Legislation - https://www.blupete.com/Commentary/ComLaw&LegFeb'99.htm

The Common Law Right to Earn a Living - https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_1_sandefur.pdf

Common Law Venue - https://www.commonlawvenue.net/

"Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scene, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation." To quote the Supreme Court, "No fiction can make a natural born subject." Milvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a orporation, a statute law, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations. " - https://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm , page 8 of 20

"The exercise of federal citizenship is a statutory privilege which can be taxed with excises. The exercise of State Citizenship is a common Law Right which simply cannot be taxed, because governments cannot tax the exercise of a right, ever." Credit to Richard McDonald research based on Slaughter House Cases, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) https://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm, page 10 of 20

 

Related Articles

Related Sites