The Battler, Dr Barry, Lord Alex - Chairman Common Law Court Australia

HOW THE MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE COMMON LAW CAME ABOUT

"Common law" simply means "case law" written by judges (as opposed to statutes or constitutions written by others).

THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE "COMMON LAW"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/common_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

https://www.britannica.com/topic/common-law

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/common-law/

https://www.merriam-webster.co....m/dictionary/common-

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/common_law

https://www.collinsdictionary.....com/us/dictionary/en

https://www.ncpedia.org/common-law

https://legaldictionary.net/common-law/


"Common law" ("case law") is still the single most common form of law used in the United States today.

HOW THE "COMMON LAW" IS DEFINED BY THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF

.ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON LAW" ITSELF!
State v. Quested: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS, CASELAW. Black's Law Dictionary 334 (10th ed.2014)." (in the 7th paragraph of Justice Johnson's "Dissent", at about 75% through the text HERE: https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=41452

MORE ACTUAL PROOF FROM THE "COMMON L:AW" ITSELF:
State v. Hyde: THE COMMON LAW IS DEFINED AS "[T]HE BODY OF LAW DERIVED FROM JUDICIAL DECISIONS, RATHER THAN FROM STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS. Black's Law Dictionary 293 (8th ed. 2004)." (in the 7th paragraph, at about 75% through the text HERE. https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=77126

THE REASON FOR ALL THE CONFUSION

But, amateur legal theorists correctly note that the "common law" is sometimes called "unwritten law". SO, THEY ASK, IF THE "COMMON LAW" IS SOMETIMES CALLED "UNWRITTEN LAW", HOW CAN THE "COMMON LAW" POSSIBLY BE CASE LAW "WRITTEN" BY JUDGES? That is a fair question.

THE ANSWER IS "BECAUSE IT [THE COMMON LAW] IS NOT WRITTEN BY ELECTED POLITICIANS, BUT RATHER [IS WRITTEN], BY JUDGES, IT IS ALSO REFERRED TO AS UNWRITTEN LAW [PROVING THAT "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT ACTUALLY MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN ALTOGETHER"] OR LEX NON SCRIPTA [in Latin]." CLICK HERE and scroll down to about 30% through the text HERE FOR PROOF. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/C/CommonLaw

Indeed, that is precisely the way that the Supreme Court Of The United States uses the term, "unwritten law" (referring to laws written by judges as opposed to laws written by elected lawmakers). In over-ruling an earlier decision in Swift v. Thompson, the Supreme Court Of The United States wrote in Erie v. Tompkins, "FEDERAL COURTS exercising jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship NEED NOT... APPLY THE UNWRITTEN LAW OF THE STATE AS DECLARED BY ITS HIGHEST COURT [IN A WRITTEN COURT DECISION].... ." (in the 7th full paragraph at about 15% through the text of the page. https://scholar.google.com/sch....olar_case?case=46716

These words from the Supreme Court Of The United States PROVE THAT THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN LAW" DOES NOT MEAN LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER. IT ONLY REALLY MEANS LAWS WRITTEN BY JUDGES (AS OPPOSED TO STATUTES OR CONSTITUTIONS WRITTEN BY OTHERS.). "Lex non scripta" is Latin for "unwritten law". But, this term also means laws written by judges rather than laws written by others, as this ancient explanation makes clear. CLICK HERE AND SCROLL DOWN SLIGHTLY. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi....ctionary/L/LexNonScr

HOW THE TERM "UNWRITTEN LAW" RESULTED IN A SEPARATE, IMAGINARY BODY OF LAW WHICH WAS REPLACED BY "WRITTEN LAW" '

But, amateur legal theorists thought that the term, "unwritten law", another name for the "common law", meant that "common law" WAS LITERALLY "UNWRITTEN" ALTOGETHER. This resulted in amateur legal theorists simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the common law should be, as long as it was more favorable to them than today's laws are. Then, after simply "MAKING UP" what they thought the "common law" should be, they claimed that today's "written law" law is in direct conflict with the "common law" it "replaced" and thereby created an nonexistent conspiracy to be outraged about.

Amateur legal theorists have even gone as far as blaming attorneys, the American Bar Association and "corrupt judges" for allegedly "TAKING AWAY" all of the "common law" and completely "REPLACING IT" with "corporate statutes". Some have even claimed that if a law is "WRITTEN", it is not law at all. Note that under this absurd definition, amateur legal theorists would actually oppose and reject the very "common law" which they claim to support and embrace.

PROOF: What follows is a written explanation of the "common law" based on the mistake described above and based on the hoax that the "common law" conflicts with today's"written law". This explanation was posted on a website of Karl Lentz, a prominent peddler of this delusional belief system about the common law.

(QUOTE BEGINS)

4 – THE LAW IS UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE] YET KNOWABLE. It stands on its own and unmodified – inherent/obvious to reasonable humans... .

“NO WRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "WRITTEN" HERE, DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE WORD "UNWRITTEN" ABOVE] LAW MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNLESS IT CONFORMS WITH (sic) CERTAIN UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, MORALITY, AND JUSTICE THAT TRANSCEND HUMAN LEGAL SYSTEMS {AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" WAS NOT OF HUMAN ORIGIN]. – http://legal-dictionary.thefre....edictionary.com/rule ."

“…[The common law is] UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN], UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES..." or maxims, established long before any civilizations, governments, or corporations were even thought of [AS IF THE "COMMON LAW" PRE-DATED THE JUDGES WHO WROTE IT]… .

THUS, UNWRITTEN [NOTE THE TERM, "UNWRITTEN" HERE AGAIN] LAW IS ABOVE (PRIOR TO) AND SUPERIOR TO, (sic) ALL OTHER FORMS OF MAN-MADE LAW. … *****!===>…LAWFUL vs. LEGAL…