AWAKENED AMERICANS DEMAND A RETURN TO
COMMON LAW, BUT WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT MEAN?
In recent decades, American Patriots demand common law – a return to a law form at times from much earlier in America’s history. Since the time of the “Reagan revolution” in the 80’s, to the Ruby Ridge and Waco era folks, to the Bible-belt religious Christians, the pro-second amendment/gun-rights community, to the Info-warriors, 9/11 truthers, Alex Jones fans, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party movement that supported Trumps 2016 campaign, to the Texas or Hawaii or other State Secessionist movements, the supporters of Cliven Bundy and the land rights movement, and also to the full-blown dare I say “conspiracy theory” (or “conspiracy fact”) truther movement, as well as “Q drop” and “Q Anon” followers/believers.
We are indeed at the era of a Great Awakening movement encompassing all these groups beliefs into one big colossal mistrust and detest against the big bad government.
Probably the biggest win on the health freedom from is the appointment of RFK Jr. as the HHS secretary, and the COVID crimes being exposed openly in congressional testimony….
All in the Great Awakening at some point learn that the 7th grade social studies simplified version of history is not entirely true. Over the years they hear a few perplexing tidbits of unlearning what their foreign-country-owned history textbook told them, and are open to learning more.
The problem is there is no great and accurate place for learning like a college or university, so these patriot truthers are very susceptible to hearing any “off-the-shelf law theory” that puts in better perspective, their better understanding of “how we got into this mess.” That is until Understand Contract Law And You Win came along and provides the next best thing to a physical university education, for a modest practical resource such as donations of just a few hundred dollars, to get started fully unlearning the main law and history that is untrue (get started with UCL’s free
Video Deprogramming Series (free) and then the
Contract Law Basics Beginner’s course (CLBB).
DEMYSTIFYING THE EXACT LEGAL MEANING OF
“COMMON LAW” FOR WHEN FIGHTING BACK
Why DO WE have to obediently obey MILLIONS OF RULES that would take an entire lifetime to even read through? How does one even read the entire tax code, securities law, to make sure they are following “the rules” entirely correct? Add on top of that anyone who makes any decent money in crypto having to watch their back and be concerned about the government up in their business as well…
So ALL OF YOU – are drawn to this idea that “we just want the common law back” – and you are all signing it from the top of your lungs – “Long Live the Republic” as Alex Jones yells from a bullhorn in downtown Austin from an armored vehicle. But does anyone – Alex Jones on his show, or Steven Bannon on his show, or any of these truthers, does anyone actually educate you on what common law actually is? If you go to any self-help law website, be it in the secured party and/or use of UCC or commercial redemption procedures or within anywhere else on the
pro se self-help law spectrum, or any overlap of the two, you’ll be challenged to find a proper meaning of what truly is “the common law”.
When I asked one of my peers he reminded me that there is multiple common laws over the world, depending on the country you live in. OK – stop, we are only talking about AMERICAN COMMON LAW as the proper and full definition. So what does it mean? Let me give you the FACTS that almost no one else is going to give you…
The first step is determining anything is really refining clearly the question (to do this first means you should do cursor research for a while first, which we’ve established that we’ve already done prior). We’ve gotten this down to “
SCOTUS’s meaning of Common Law with the context of The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution“.
Why the 7th Amendment? Because that’s one of the main places where you would be exercising your constitutional right “TO A COMMON LAW..” anything, and in this case it is “IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, where the value…exceed[s] twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court…than according to the rules of the common law.” Since 1791 this has been part of American law but how do you define common law in this context?
Well it’s not that hard to figure out. Just use ChatGPT (or the anonymous version, duck.ai) and Wikipedia to start, and then of course be skeptical that not everything you read is true (discernment) and keep reading somewhere else or any of the links or signals or clues they give you and keep digging further if you must. You are smart enough – you’ll be able to tell what is true and what is a fib. But in case you need some extra help, I’ll condense the key points to remember here to save you even further work.
Even the courts and the judges had a problem determining to which “common law” courts was the seventh amendment referring? Especially since, the individual states had different civil jury practices, and the federal courts were new. The United States Supreme Court in
Parsons v. Bedford (1830) announced a solution. The term “common law” in the Seventh Amendment meant the common law of England. But a century later, the Supreme Court then formally determined, in
Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), that the Seventh Amendment was to be interpreted “according to the common law of England at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in 1791.”
Now, let’s understand also that even with the seventh amendment, Juries still decide just less than one percent of the civil cases that are filed in court, and that civil jury trials are only guaranteed in federal courts as this is the federal constitution we are discussing. The U.S. Supreme Court requires states to protect almost every other right in the Bill of Rights, for example the right to criminal jury trial, but there is no requirement for states to hold civil jury trials. You can see the case
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Bombolis (1916) to learn more about this. It is true however that nearly all of the states have rights to civil jury trial “in certain cases” in their state constitutions. Which ones you ask, is a topic for a different discussion.
The United States is practically the only nation in the world that requires civil jury trials. Civil juries similar to those in the United States are not currently part of any other place on earth! Generally, the types of cases that juries can decide and the exact ways that judges can review their verdicts are supposed to resemble the practice in English common law courts in the year 1791. This is what the Supreme Court said. But also, in 1935, SCOTUS then clarified that the Amendment preserves the “substance” of the right, not “mere matters of form or procedure.” For more on that you can see
Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) which set the precedent/rule. One example, to illustrate, is that the court recognized various departures from the English practice in 1791 – for example using just six jurors instead of twelve. For that case see
Colgrove v. Battin (1973).
In sum, we have a special right in the federal bill of rights to have common law juries also in civil actions. This can even potentially get you a win in the form of a settlement to spare the opposing party, usually the government, the embarrassment of having your grievances aired out in front of a jury and potentially ruling in your favor, even in protest (similar to jury nullification). Therefore it is indeed a powerful gem, so let’s remind our fellow patriots on exactly how to claim that right when filing suit.
As you can tell there is a ton of research that you can do, and a plethora of cases, and it takes several hours to dive in and master any one topic or answer to any question such as “what is the meaning of common law”, therefore you should have a love for reading, perhaps a study buddy, or even better a community and mentors who can pave the way for you and help you speed read your way to success and over-standing FASTER! You’ll be best to stick with our website to learn to become a legal ninja or Jedi master, and to segue out of the matrix and confusion that you are stuck in! Join our email newsletter, read it line by line like the gospel, obtain your free video deprogramming series, and get in touch with us anytime by telephone (not email) at 505-340-3632.
-Tyler (note, if you are a good blog writer on topics such as these, contact us as we’d be down to potentially trade quality legal blog articles for informational products)
In recent decades, American Patriots demand common law – a return to a law form at times from much earlier in America’s history. Since the time of the “Reagan revolution” in the 80’s, to the Ruby Ridge and Waco era folks, to the Bible-belt religious Christians, the pro-second amendment/gun-rights community, to the Info-warriors, 9/11 truthers, Alex Jones fans, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party movement that supported Trumps 2016 campaign, to the Texas or Hawaii or other State Secessionist movements, the supporters of Cliven Bundy and the land rights movement, and also to the full-blown dare I say “conspiracy theory” (or “conspiracy fact”) truther movement, as well as “Q drop” and “Q Anon” followers/believers.
We are indeed at the era of a Great Awakening movement encompassing all these groups beliefs into one big colossal mistrust and detest against the big bad government.
Probably the biggest win on the health freedom from is the appointment of RFK Jr. as the HHS secretary, and the COVID crimes being exposed openly in congressional testimony….
All in the Great Awakening at some point learn that the 7th grade social studies simplified version of history is not entirely true. Over the years they hear a few perplexing tidbits of unlearning what their foreign-country-owned history textbook told them, and are open to learning more.
The problem is there is no great and accurate place for learning like a college or university, so these patriot truthers are very susceptible to hearing any “off-the-shelf law theory” that puts in better perspective, their better understanding of “how we got into this mess.” That is until Understand Contract Law And You Win came along and provides the next best thing to a physical university education, for a modest practical resource such as donations of just a few hundred dollars, to get started fully unlearning the main law and history that is untrue (get started with UCL’s free Video Deprogramming Series (free) and then the Contract Law Basics Beginner’s course (CLBB).
The first step is determining anything is really refining clearly the question (to do this first means you should do cursor research for a while first, which we’ve established that we’ve already done prior). We’ve gotten this down to “SCOTUS’s meaning of Common Law with the context of The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution“.
Why the 7th Amendment? Because that’s one of the main places where you would be exercising your constitutional right “TO A COMMON LAW..” anything, and in this case it is “IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, where the value…exceed[s] twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court…than according to the rules of the common law.” Since 1791 this has been part of American law but how do you define common law in this context?
Well it’s not that hard to figure out. Just use ChatGPT (or the anonymous version, duck.ai) and Wikipedia to start, and then of course be skeptical that not everything you read is true (discernment) and keep reading somewhere else or any of the links or signals or clues they give you and keep digging further if you must. You are smart enough – you’ll be able to tell what is true and what is a fib. But in case you need some extra help, I’ll condense the key points to remember here to save you even further work.
Even the courts and the judges had a problem determining to which “common law” courts was the seventh amendment referring? Especially since, the individual states had different civil jury practices, and the federal courts were new. The United States Supreme Court in Parsons v. Bedford (1830) announced a solution. The term “common law” in the Seventh Amendment meant the common law of England. But a century later, the Supreme Court then formally determined, in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), that the Seventh Amendment was to be interpreted “according to the common law of England at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in 1791.”
Now, let’s understand also that even with the seventh amendment, Juries still decide just less than one percent of the civil cases that are filed in court, and that civil jury trials are only guaranteed in federal courts as this is the federal constitution we are discussing. The U.S. Supreme Court requires states to protect almost every other right in the Bill of Rights, for example the right to criminal jury trial, but there is no requirement for states to hold civil jury trials. You can see the case Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Bombolis (1916) to learn more about this. It is true however that nearly all of the states have rights to civil jury trial “in certain cases” in their state constitutions. Which ones you ask, is a topic for a different discussion.
The United States is practically the only nation in the world that requires civil jury trials. Civil juries similar to those in the United States are not currently part of any other place on earth! Generally, the types of cases that juries can decide and the exact ways that judges can review their verdicts are supposed to resemble the practice in English common law courts in the year 1791. This is what the Supreme Court said. But also, in 1935, SCOTUS then clarified that the Amendment preserves the “substance” of the right, not “mere matters of form or procedure.” For more on that you can see Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) which set the precedent/rule. One example, to illustrate, is that the court recognized various departures from the English practice in 1791 – for example using just six jurors instead of twelve. For that case see Colgrove v. Battin (1973).
In sum, we have a special right in the federal bill of rights to have common law juries also in civil actions. This can even potentially get you a win in the form of a settlement to spare the opposing party, usually the government, the embarrassment of having your grievances aired out in front of a jury and potentially ruling in your favor, even in protest (similar to jury nullification). Therefore it is indeed a powerful gem, so let’s remind our fellow patriots on exactly how to claim that right when filing suit.
As you can tell there is a ton of research that you can do, and a plethora of cases, and it takes several hours to dive in and master any one topic or answer to any question such as “what is the meaning of common law”, therefore you should have a love for reading, perhaps a study buddy, or even better a community and mentors who can pave the way for you and help you speed read your way to success and over-standing FASTER! You’ll be best to stick with our website to learn to become a legal ninja or Jedi master, and to segue out of the matrix and confusion that you are stuck in! Join our email newsletter, read it line by line like the gospel, obtain your free video deprogramming series, and get in touch with us anytime by telephone (not email) at 505-340-3632.
-Tyler (note, if you are a good blog writer on topics such as these, contact us as we’d be down to potentially trade quality legal blog articles for informational products)