Part of the problems we live in this world is that, of all the systems that surround us, we don't question nor how they came to be in existence nor their fairness, we accept that everything is just the way things are.
Many may have noticed, if they have a certain age, that 'The Law is Not Equal for everyone', and even that we seem to accept, it's 'normal' that rich people get away with murder and the ones that are not rich enough to pay for lawyers, that will deftly find the holes in the Laws, have to either pay up or go to jail.
Our Laws are full of holes, clearly holes that show how the Rich always had it sweeter, it must have been always this way since we accept a Legal system based on precedents, meaning on stuff that has already happened, that has been already ruled over where the Rich proved again and again find a way out, they will always be right in front of the Law and when they should by miss-take result wrong, they will Uplift Themselves Above It.
Have we even ever questioned the Law that governs over us and -in theory- over everybody?
Is the Law the instrument we use 'legally' to enforce Rights that were never Right, and is this why we call them Rights, so everyone in their own mind connects what are now 'enforced feudal traditions' to their own sense of righteousness thus forever preventing ourselves from questioning what we are the Subjects of?
And why is The Law written in a language that requires translators to decode it, how is everyone supposed to know what are Their Rights if they cannot even understand the Constitution of those Rights, where a Constitution exists?
The Law is never questioned by those in power, o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y because it protects them and what they now 'legally claim to be their own', the Law is the smokescreen which guarantees the Protection, The Protectorate of the Rich, so that no one can ever question the legitimacy of their 'ownership' in the first place.
1/3 of the world still functions according to the Common Law, we could say it's the 1/3 that counts, the 1/3 with the Money, with the Loot, the 1/3 that wrote the Laws to enforce against Commoners, to protect the Wealthy of the Commonwealth, which were left as Commons without the Wealth, all the other represented organization have their own Laws and Judiciary System, the Military has their own judiciary and Justice system, the OutLaws, they said F**k the Law and settle their disputes with bullets or bombs, Judges - the other privileged ones are only subject to the Judiciary Court, the Rich are wayyy above the Law, so in fact the Law is just a nice way to call a system, a boundary designed to keep the Poor in their place, making sure they never question why they are poor and why they were not born with the same right to a Dignified Life as anyone else who has the Money to secure one for themselves.
English common law emerged as an integral part of the transformation
of England from a loose collection of what were essentially tribal
chiefdoms or proto-states to a centrally governed civilization.
Over a 400-year period, from the eighth to the eleventh centuries,
this cultural system of settling disputes through local custom became
increasingly formalized as the hierarchical organization of Feudalism
began to slowly replace the collective and egalitarian organization of
the early tribal peoples in England, Wars between various tribal groups
brought growing political consolidation and increasing individual
ownership or land by powerful lords.
As the once collectively owned
tribal lands came under the private ownership and control of feudal
lords, the responsibility of an individual to his kinsmen was replaced
by the responsibility of a person to his lord. Where the collective
responsibility of kin-groups had once served as the basis of dispute
settlement, it now became the responsibility and the prerogative or
feudal lords to see that justice was done.
As a means of consolidating power, feudal lords began requiring that dispute-- be submitted to a local "court" for settlement.
By the time of the Norman conquest- in 1066, England was organized
into approximately eight large kingdoms, which were at best loosely knit
collections of relatively independent feudal landholdings. The basic
units of social and political organization were the counties and
"hundred." The hundreds were subdivisions of counties, somewhat obscure
in their origin but often privately owned and independently governed, it
is estimated that at the time of the Conquest approximately half of all
the hundreds were owned either by individual lords or by abbeys.
The
large number of hundreds owned by the church indicates the economic and
political power of the Catholic Church, a situation that would bring it
into direct conflict with a growing secular government in later years.
The hundreds courts were essentially meetings of important hundred
residents at which all manner of local problems were discussed, among
them the resolution of local disputes.
The right to hold court and to profit from it was the essential
hallmark of a feudal ruler.
Early feudal rulers required that
compensatory damages be paid not to the offended party but to the lord
of the hundred. The right of a lord to collect the profits resulting
from the administration or Justice eventually became an essential force
in the development of common law after the conquest.
In addition to the hundreds courts, feudal justice was also
administered in the county courts held by the overlords of counties.
These overlords could command attendance at their courts by the lords of
the hundreds and other representatives. These early county courts
prefigured the later bicameral (two-house) legislatures of England house
of commons and house of the lords and the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives. It also established the relationship between the lower
and higher courts in the U.S. Because the overlords of the counties were
more powerful than lords of hundreds, it was possible for county courts
to review and even overrule decisions rendered by lords in hundred
courts, much the same way as higher courts now can overrule the
decisions of the lower courts.
By 1066, England was halfway between tribalism and feudalism, between rule by custom and rule by state law.
The Norman Conquest
By virtue of having conquered England, William the First was able
to proclaim that all land and land-based rights, including those of
keeping court, were now vested in the king.
Through this redistribution
of land and the consolidation of all rights and relationships associated
with land tenure under the crown, local courts eventually came under
the administration of Norman rule,
Court keeping rights were still granted concerning land tenure,
However, all courts had to he conducted in accordance with the king's
interests, particularly his monetary interests. Thus, judicial
decision-making was slowly being transformed into the function of an
increasingly bureaucratic system of justice.
The king's interest in assuring a proper flow of justice-profits into
the royal treasury brought about the institution of the eyre. Developed
in the twelfth century as a powerful force for centralizing control
over local courts, the eyre provided the structural basis for the
development of a common law for England. It consisted of four itinerant
judges representing the king who would periodically examine the
activities of the county and hundred courts.
One of the focuses of this king's court was to enforce forfeiture
laws. This concept stemmed from the feudal doctrine that a man's right
to hold property was based upon a relationship of good faith between
that man and his lord. The term felony originally meant an offense "so
fundamental as to break the relationship between them and to cause the
holding to be forfeited to the lord." It was the duty of the judges in
Pyre to insure that the king received his portion of forfeited property
resulting from any such offenses occurring in the various county and
hundred jurisdictions. "Law and order on the national scale were first
expressed in terms of revenue."
It was the decisions made by the judges in eyre concerning the common
pleas brought before them that produced the body of legal precedent
that became known as common law, that is, the rules of dispute
settlement common to all England. As the itinerant judges in eyre,
settled common-plea cases they established precedents to be followed in
similar cases. Because common law was built on a case-by-case basis the
terms "common law" and "case law" are sometimes used synonymously.
The development of English common law was not merely the
institutionalization of traditional English customs. The rules of law
established by the king's courts were often unprecedented. Thus, the
common law of England was "the by-product of an administrative triumph:
the way in which the government of England came to be centralized and
specialized during the centuries after the conquest."
By seeking to eliminate variations in settlements arising from
differences in local custom, '-the establishment of common law gave rise
to a concept of justice the emphasized the uniform application of
standardized laws and procedures. This concept was embodied in the
doctrine of stare decisis that emphasized the importance of legal
precedents established in previously settled cases.
Common law was primarily oriented not toward protecting individuals
from ordinary threats to person and property -but toward maintaining
social peace by regulating the economic arrangements characteristic of
feudal land tenure and consolidating royal power under this system.
So, in summary, The Common Law is a set of customs and traditions who ended up in writing, not the tradition and customs of the People but of Kings, Lords, the Catholic Church, those that had power over the rest of Humanity, it's a set of rules based on precedents that dates all the way back to Feudalism and then was moved into Capitalism, which is Feudalism using Money vs Land, we have been screwed for over 1000 years - and it's all there, within the precedents, telling us how many times we have been screwed out of what belonged to All -in writing. The Common law is the evidence, the precedents will always prove that those with Power were Right, are Right, have Rights, while we forfeited all our rights for a Protectorate, because Fear drives us and is used to drive us and we would rather bend and break than stand up and ask that this World Be Rewritten to Cater to All and Not Just to Some.
Common Law - aka the offspring of Feudalism, you can believe in it or Begin Questioning Everything About This World because Something Is Not Right, starting with 1/3 of the world living below poverty line, with people dieing of famine, lack of sanitation, lack of access to proper medical care, education, a shelter, so what Is Lawful may just turn out to be Awful, yeah right, we have been had.
It's ime to question every single point in existence, because if the Lawful Law is just Awful, what about the rest?
Wake Up, no one has to live this way, consider Giving To All What You Would Like for Yourself, then we won't need to Die to go to Heaven. Heaven for All is Possible through a Change of Mind, we begin by supporting a
Dignified Life for All, how about that?
Related articles
