Starship Earth: The Big Picture

13 thoughts on “Common Law vs Natural Law; Not What You Think [videos]”

1. Hi Molly,
   Here is what I asked John from NLA tonight.
   Can you explain the difference between Common Law and Natural Law. There seems to be a big controversy on the internet that Common Law is corporate law and lumped in with statute/admiralty/maritime law/codes. That Natural Law is the only true liberty law and Common Law originates from Roman/English law developed by the barons and keeps us slaves. Does NLA use Natural Law as well?

   John said that the corrupt courts will defer to their defacto Common Law but it is not the correct Common Law that NLA uses or truthful books on the subject write about. This may be where Common Law has been mistakenly lumped in with statute/admiralty/maritime law/codes. He said that the Vikings brought Common Law to the English and are not the barbarians as depicted in books and movies. John says Common Law and Natural Law are synonymous and when you read NLA’s documents you will have a hard time disagreeing with them. They read like natural law. I say the proof is in results and not semantics. The people calling in tonight said they have been having major successes using NLA’s documents. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/rico . John said his group faxes thousands of documents to all county FBI agents, Sheriffs, judges, courts, Marshals, Senators and Governors twice a week. All of these so called officials know who NLA is and are doing exactly what we want them to do and that is running scared. Some of the Sheriffs and Marshals are happy to learn their true powers.

   In my view soon NLA members can place a sign in their car window that states “I am a Common Law Grand Jurist and a member of National Liberty Alliance,” and the police will leave you be.

   Below is a book John recommended on the subject of Common Law.

   Excellence of the Common Law: Compared and Contrasted with Civil Law: In Light of History, Nature, and Scripture by Brent Winters

   Citing the most ancient sources, Brent Winters traces our country’s common law (now confined to a half dozen countries) from its roots in the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God and the civil law (now covering our globe) from its roots in Babylon, through Egypt, back to Babylon, then to Pergamos, Jerusalem, Rome, and Revolutionary France and thence on into the entire world.

   An absolutely invaluable, eminently readable, and essential reference regarding the Constitutional law of the United States of America.

   Over 1000 Bible references indexed. Contents Include: Introduction (35 pages); Civil Law: Origin & Growth (121 pages); Common Law: Origin & Growth (251 pages); Common Law & Scripture (129 pages); Common-Law & Civil Law Contrasted (169 pages); Conclusion (29 pages); Appendices (139 pages); Bibliography (13 pages); Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek Word & Phrase Index (9 pages); Scripture Index (11 pages); Word Index (37 pages).

   I am a galactic spiritual person and have not been interested in biblical scripture, especially since I was raised in the bible belt, but the best document writers I know and experience use biblical references in their documents and they really work! I am proud to be the notary for them.

   Cheers,
   Laura

2. As I understand, the spirit of ‘Roman Civil Law’ is inherent in all governments, well expressed in Frederic Bastiat’s classic work The Law https://mises.org/books/thelaw.pdf

   What Roman Civil Law and all its diverse clones and variations amounts to is the ‘division’ of human society into two classes: ruler and ruled. [Feudal Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Ecclesiastical Law, Martial Law, ‘Common Law’, Equity, Administrative Law, Bankruptcy.]

   Roman Civil Law equates to separation consciousness, the root cause of harm and loss, whereas Natural Law equates to unity consensus that no one causes harm or loss, and everyone has full right to life, well-being, freedom, and property, so long as we do not transgress similar rights of others, a.k.a. self governance, and profound respect for all creation.

3. Heirs of Creation/Court of Ages with universal jurisdiction http://www.courtofages.com and the International Tribunal for Natural Justice both apply Natural Law. http://www.itnj.org/itnj/itnj-constitution

   i asked Cindy if the Court of Ages and ITNJ are in collaboration.

   If you agree, please encourage way showers of good conscience to ‘pull together’, which empowers [energizes] unity consciousness to liberate best possible solutions, rather than energize separation consciousness, which sustains the diaboligarchy. https://youtu.be/LT3-1eHOW-U

4. BP. Your readers are well informed. Learning “Natural Law” is the SOLE KEY to exiting this vile prison matrix of indentured Slavery. These are the Laws of the Cosmos, the Laws of Creation itself. The “NATURAL LAWS”…
   I will express a portion of a blog I posted yesterday.
   Called “Discernment, Knowledge, and Responsibility” I will give your readers this snippet. I am very grateful for the Contributors from so many sources. I cannot leave out the Hundreds, perhaps thousands of contributors, whether seeking to discredit or simply “Apply” the “New Age Thinking” to all that surrounds them, and Especially to those who are simply dedicated to “heighten one’s awareness” or expressing kindness to “Lift the Spirit”. My Hat is off to you all. It takes all types to round us out.

   However,

   When Powerful information is brought to light, it often provokes “Knee Jerk” reactions. Often, what we don’t understand creates moments of fear. Instant rejection is usually the Stance taken when one’s Awareness is Shaken a Bit. AND this is the case with CERN. Nobody in their right mind wants to believe that the “Gates of Hell” are about to be Busted WIDE OPEN…

   Information like this will certainly shake even the strongest to their core.

   “IGNORE-ance” ( To WILLFULLY Ingore) does nothing for discernment or Confrontation of any given situation. It simply Allows whatever Evil it is to continue to exist Unabated and is allowed and given “permission” to exist. Frankly speaking I think this is a cowardly Cop out.. the” Ostrich Syndrome”. If I don’t acknowledge it, it doesn’t exist. It will simply go away. If you recognize it, you give it power. Seriously????
   We may experience Fear… But are we truly “AFRAID” ?? Confrontation has been deemed a Criminal Act. Why do you think that is???

   To turn ones back, to look the other way, or to simply “Do Nothing” , proliferates the Madness and allows it to continue Unabated. Its easy to simply call something “Fear Porn”, or to point fingers and laugh, It takes COURAGE to Confront. And to have courage requires that one Faces Fear, while still moving forward with one’s Heartfelt Beliefs. This ALSO Requires an Open Mind.

   This is quite often an extremely difficult task, especially when deeply rooted beliefs systems are Shaken and Rattled.

   These EPIC TIMES we live in are moving so Rapidly, its hard to keep up, even for the Experienced. So, to the Topic at Hand, with CERN, what they are attempting is Highly Possible. Probable to say the least. And without some “type of divine intervention”, or an outright Military Coup, they WILL Succeed. This will OPEN THE ABYSS.

   In order to Understand what the Abyss really IS, one must Refer to the Ancient Texts Concerning the “True History of Babylon”. However, much of this information has been purposely Occulted, ( Occulted means “HIDDEN) by the Vatican, Priests, NASA etc., etc. AND, in order to understand much of Ancient Babylon, in the way it was archived. one must know the “Latin Language”.. BUT, for “Those Who Seek”, it is available for your use and understanding. Latin and Greek languages are the KEY. Why do you think these languages where thoroughly removed from thousands of Teaching institutions?

   Why do you think the “Latin Language” was deemed a “Dead Language”??? That is to Keep us (Slaves) away from their Knowledge Base. To Keep Us In the Dark.
   So, simply speaking, if “Apollonon” is Released from the Pit, we are in Deep Shit. Now is the time to pay attention. True Discernment requires an Investment In Knowledge… This makes us Responsible and we are No Longer “IGNOREant” … With ALL the information that is available, it is very difficult to claim “True Ignorance” or Nescience. meaning the information is impossible to find, so I am not responsible. “You can’t blame me, I didn’t know”… hmmm.. Really? How many “Awareness did you put on the “Back Burner”?? Only to let someone else take care of it?

   Awareness is a responsibility

   The Very Problem with this is that we are on a “Cause and Effect” Plane of existence. At least on the Physical World. AND there is a definite “TIME LAG” issue relating to the actual “Cause” and the eventual “Catch up” of Effect. Now, now… We brought this on ourselves! If you understand Physics and even if you don’t, your Understanding of Manifested Realities that have already been formed are directly DUE from their underlying causes? Simply speaking, The Plane of Effects constitutes that which has already occurred. (” It happened so it can’t be changed”)

   In other words, one cannot go back in time. (Or so we think) As such, NO power to affect Change lies in this observation, because that which has already occurred cannot be “Un-Occurred”.. Therefore it becomes a(“TRUTH”)

   Human Consciousness seems to be trapped in this “EFFECT” scenario. They don’t give heed to the ‘CAUSAL” aspect, negating responsibility in the mind. Humanity as a whole remains completely ignorant as a whole to the underlying causes which they themselves brought forth into motion which lead to self-inflected sufferings in their lives.

   What trips people up in this realm of understanding, is the “Time Lag” of “Causality and Effect”. And it gets really difficult from here. Frankly speaking, its a Very Complicated Sense of Karmic Consequence. An often missed equation is that Karmic Consequence can come from “In-Action” as well as Action. And often does unrealized.

   The Wrongs that the Human Species conducts on a daily basis, WHICH we don’t EVEN TRY to rectify and Stop!!!, through our OWN In-Action, Karma is being Repeated… and once again, we set these “Causalities” into Motion for the Universe to Respond in Effect..

   This is just a “Smidgen” of the “LAWS OF CREATION”… I REALLY HAVE A LOT TO SAY… I just don’t think your ready.

   Perhaps one might begin to Unravel the Mysteries of Babylon and in doing so, look into Latin and Greek languages. Its a great place to start.. GOD!!! Just Open Your MIND!!

   I specifically Came here to Help.. Guess I’m in for a pound or a penny… I refuse to help those who will not help themselves… NO Time left for mercy… No time to argue left… It is what it is… .

   Just a messenger. We are on the clock.. Pay attention.. I have so much to share and so little time.

   My Humble Love to ALL..
   Wayne Matthew Clarke

5. If you cannot connect to this link I provided above the go to YouTube and type into search: The Law…Santos Bonacci and you will find it there ( I just tried the link from here but couldn’t connect)

6. Molly, sorry for being lazy and tired, not being able to go deeper
   can you summarise the jist?
   whats cindy kay currier saying?
   that commonlaws a con? is natural law better?
   or is natural law a con? or do the two work harmoniously together?
   Cindy kar currier on the few youtube things ive seen, is a very pleasant calming woman with a good energy, I like her
   its just im so busy, your transcripted summaries are extremely valuable
   thanks adam

7. Cindy must have watch this video found on YouTube about the origins of what is called Law today (Originates from Roman, or Vatican Law)
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNkvWvv-DEW/
   Its in 6 parts, and WELL worth a look, because the whole damn world is being run by the vatican…The Mother of ALL Corporations.

   1. HI and thanks. The video link shared is blocked. Do you know the specific video title so I can search on line, or do you have an active link? Thanks again.

      1. @Doreen
         Yes…you can find it at Youtube.com by typing into search: The Law; Santos Bonacci
         Excellent 6 part video detailing in great detail the origins of “Canon Law” (Roman: Vatican)…even defining the laws language and what they REALLY Mean, plus HOW you can send a judge running for an escape from you in court!!! VERY educational our so-called “Legal system”
         You will learn WHY its called the “Criminal Court system”!
         Namaste!

8. Hi BP,
   My take is that NLA and many astute self taught successful document writers first use Common Law to address fraudulent statute codes that everyone thinks are laws and then brings in Natural Law. I have a lot of experience with skilled document writers that get successful results by doing it this way. One of our document writers in Canada has had high public officials quite their job after opening their mail and reading his documents One official was the head equivalent to the head of our IRS. Our document writer has been helping us in Seattle fight our city council and power company on installing smart meters and we have had 3 council members and the CEO of the power company quite so far. We are still consistently mailing them piles of Common Law Lawful documents to shake them from their cognitive dissonance. I have experienced many more successes that are too long to list here. In my view getting the results we are going for with whatever method we use is the bottom-line and the power of intention is key. The document writers I am affiliated with are very powerful people and I feel a strong vibe in their documents. I will get on the call Monday night and ask John his expanded version on this. Below are NLA’s short version and an unaffiliated website’s explanation as well. Sorry for the length but this is important for getting more clarity and I thank you for the opportunity to do it.

   National Liberty Alliance’s Definition of Common Law
   The difference between Common Law and the Law practiced in our courts today, called Statutory Law, is simply as follows: Common Law upholds the Constitution for the United States of America with its capstone Bill of Rights above all Statutory Law; Whereas Statutory Law is held above the Constitution for the United States of America and its capstone Bill of Rights, and therefore your rights are whatever our elected servants may choose it to be for you at the time. This is what NLA is endeavoring to change in our courts and thereby bring all our elected and appointed servants back under the chains of the Constitution because right now you are under the chains of your servants, this is the definition of tyranny.

   COMMON LAW AND THE LAW OF REASON

   James R. Stoner, Jr., Louisiana State University
   http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/common-law
   Like cousins who resemble one another, common law and natural law are sometimes confused. Both are unwritten law; both claim to be anchored in reason and to discern principles of right and wrong; both have been invoked by judges to confine (if not simply void) acts of positive legislation, and derided by others who oppose such action. There is in fact a deep affinity between common law and natural law, but it is better at the outset to describe their differences, and best to do this historically. Indeed, starting from the past rather than from nature is already a characteristic means of distinguishing common law from natural law.
   Common law is first and foremost the customary law of England, as applied in the courts of law. In its classic era (the seventeenth century) and in its classic text at the time of the American Founding (Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England), the common law was said to exist “from time immemorial,” that is, so long that “the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.”[1] Historical research eventually showed that most of its rules and rights had an origin in time; for a while it was settled that a custom would be accepted as valid if it were in place in 1189, at the end of the reign of Henry II, whose reform of the royal courts established the framework for administering justice in England that was to remain in place until the late 19th century. As written records came to be made of the decisions of the royal courts, judicial precedents, seen as the most authoritative evidence of a custom, were held to have the force of law: not because judges willfully made law, but because of the principle of natural justice that similar cases ought to be similarly decided.
   Common law judges decide cases on the basis of the specific facts in light of all applicable law. Actually, the determination of the facts is characteristically by a jury, traditionally “twelve good men and true,” who issue a verdict upon a unanimous vote, following instructions of the judge as to the law that governs the case. Due process, in a criminal trial, requires a formal accusation, the right of the defendant to call witnesses and not to be forced to be a witness against himself, the right to a jury trial and even the right to play a role in the choice of his jurors, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and more. Before a trial, the accused is ordinarily entitled to be released on bail and in general to have the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteeing that there be no imprisonment without a trial. After a trial, he cannot be tried again for the same offense nor punished in any way except as specified by law, and he has, besides, a right to appeal his verdict. In civil trials at common law, many of these rules are altered, because both parties are equal before the law and either might have initiated proceedings in a dispute. The standard of judgment in civil trials is preponderance of the evidence, and the judgment typically awards monetary damages. Juries were traditionally involved in civil cases as well as criminal ones, though they are increasingly less common in the former. Still, the right to appeal remains intact, and even more than in criminal cases, where crimes are now defined by code rather than by precedent, similar civil cases typically establish the parameters for decision in subsequent cases, unless there is in the circumstances something genuinely new.
   There is much about common-law due process that is not strictly speaking a requirement of natural law: no one today would say that justice is impossible anywhere a jury is not composed of twelve, or if its verdicts are not unanimous, or even if some facts are found by a judge or a panel of judges rather than by a lay jury, and so on. Nevertheless, in at least three ways natural law seems particularly evident in common-law thinking. First, while from the point of view of natural-law theory, common-law due process is one among many “determinations” a society might choose in establishing a system of justice, by settling on a particular and stable legal process, the common law forms a felicitous package that minimizes the role of political power and maximizes the role of both individual liberty and community assent in the administration of justice, thus serving the demands of the natural law. For instance, though due process does not ensure that courts exert, in Alexander Hamilton’s phrase, “neither force nor will, but merely judgment,”[2] the various checks and balances built into common-law formalities—from the distinction between judge and jury, to the adversarial nature of proceedings, to the right of appeal—have seemed to its proponents to make it more likely. Moreover, the centrality of the jury at common law suggests deference to common sense at the center of the system and thus constitutes a restraint on elite theorizing and on partisan will.
   A second natural-law moment in common law appears in the process of reasoning by appellate courts. In most legal disputes that are appealed, both sides can argue precedents in their favor; the issue is which set of precedents forms the better analogy to the pattern of facts in the case at hand. For example, is an exchange of instant messages more like a phone conversation, which sometimes cannot alter a written contract, or is it like an exchange of written documents, which can? Is a motor home more like a house, and thus entitled to constitutional protection from warrantless searches, or more like a motor vehicle, searchable upon reasonable suspicion? It is no accident that these examples involve technological change, for that seems to be a common source of genuinely new cases. Where, by contrast, the issue suggests a reinterpretation of established precedent, the common law presumes in favor of the tried and true over innovation. Natural law, though in principle anchored in immutable human nature, does not forbid all change in positive law and may even command it: for a law to remain just when the circumstances in which it arose are altered, the law itself might have to change. The ability of common law to develop in the light of reason as a series of precedents unfolds has led scholars to allude to the “open texture of law” in such a system.[3] Its unwrittenness allows judges to adjust the law without exerting raw power, while the formal process of judging—hearing arguments from both sides, focusing on a precise issue in dispute, settling only the case at hand and thus effectively changing the law only as the new rule becomes widely respected and adopted—ought to dampen the arbitrariness of such adjustments.
   The third natural law moment in common-law judging appears in the adage that “nothing that is against reason can be lawful,” even while the presumption in the common law is for the tried and true. The basic idea is that the law will brook no contradiction within itself, not that judges need be set up as philosopher-kings to ensure the rule of abstract reason; common law judges try first to reconcile apparent contradictions and accommodate all the various sources of law that apply to a particular case. Nevertheless, since at least Sir Edward Coke’s opinion in Doctor Bonham’s Case (1610), it has been argued that “when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void.”[4] English practice eventually held that parliamentary sovereignty overrode the claim of reasonableness, but in America this idea helped to birth the practice of judicial review: the power of courts to strike down statutes or executive actions that contradict written constitutions. American courts invoke a written constitutional text rather than abstract “reasonableness,” but the rule that unconstitutional acts can be voided by courts is itself not written in any constitution. In Alexander Hamilton’s words, the principle relies upon “the nature and reason of the thing,” or in the words of John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, on the “theory…essentially attached to a written constitution.” Like natural law itself, the common law maxim that “nothing that is against reason can be lawful” is hardly adequate to generate a whole jurisprudence on its own, but it serves case by case to weed contradictions out of the law and thus to make the law a reasonable whole.
   Part of the reasonableness of common law is that its judges traditionally did not see their jurisdiction as unlimited; on the contrary, judges can rule only in cases properly presented before them, and the remedies they can impose for the injustices they find are likewise defined and limited by law. In England and in some of the states, separate courts of equity were established for special circumstances where the operation of strict law was thought to work an injustice; in federal law, the same judges were made responsible for law and equity, but until the 1930s the process for filing a case at law and that for moving a bill of equity were entirely distinct. Moreover, although common law courts are courts of general jurisdiction, they have usually co-existed with other specialty courts responsible for distinct areas of law (such as admiralty or martial law). In England, where there is an established church, ecclesiastical courts were likewise separate, while the American tradition of religious liberty allows ecclesiastical law to operate within denominations without state interference, provided civil law itself is not breached. Constitutional law was always more closely entangled with common law. The unwrittenness of the British constitution might be attributed to England’s common law tradition, and the American choice for written constitutions might be construed as a rejection of common-law constitutionalism. But the Americans also inherited from the British the tradition of declaring constitutional principles in writing—a tradition that extended back at least to Magna Carta and forward to the English Bill of Rights—and not a few provisions of the latter appear in almost unaltered form in the early American constitutions and in the Bill of Rights that figures so prominently in American constitutional law today.
   In discussing common law in relation to natural law, more has been said about common-law process than about substantive rules of law, many of which—for example, the law of coverture in marriage, or various tenures for the holding of real property—have been radically changed, often by legislation. American judges never held the common law to have been imported intact, but rather only insofar as applicable to American circumstances and as unaltered by local legislation. The English themselves, as long ago as the 17th century, used the analogy of the Argo—the ship of the ancient hero Jason whose planks were replaced one by one while at sea—to explain how the common law can remain constant even as its particular rules are altered to adapt to changing circumstances.[5] More impressed by the change than the continuity, legal theorists in the 20th century began to refer to common law as “judge-made law,” and they were led in this reinterpretation by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who also belittled natural law as the drunken dream of the self-deluded.[6] To refute Holmes’s interpretation would go beyond the bounds of this article, but it is perhaps enough to note the link between his redefinition of common law as purely positive and his rejection of natural law per se. In seeking to discover law in the context of settling rights in particular cases, looking to established rules and precedents while keeping in mind the basic maxims of justice, common law judges did not make natural law their only point of reference, but they also did not treat it as something they were free to ignore. This is not the only way a legal order can respect natural law, but it is a legitimate way, and one that has contributed to keeping natural law a living force in the English and American constitutional traditions.

   1. Laura, thanks for that. I haven’t had time to sort through this in my mind. Common law, I believe, is at least one step better than Law of the Sea, or Admiralty Law, which is downright illegal in the Republic, if I understand the situation correctly.

      1. Common Law is many steps better than statute/admiralty/maritime law. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. In Everett, WA a humanitarian lawyer in superior court only mentioned the Common Law Grand Jury and the courthouse shut down for the entire rest of the day. The fraudsters know we are coming and they don’t know what to do. I expect some are happy about it, but the majority are not. When the Supreme Court came into being, no one paid any attention to it for quite a while. NLA is flooding the courts, sheriffs, public officials, etc with documents showing them they have gone way beyond their capacity and We the People are the only authority. I believe NLA has faxed over a million documents in the last week. Lots of groups are doing great work and you are too!

         Hugs 🙂

      2. That’s awesome news, Laura. Thank you for your continued updates.

Comments are closed.