Seeking Gnosis
-
Peace Gary.
Thank you for your post.I was reading the "servant king" website with interest. Things are not always what they seem to be?
Welcome.
Check http//www.total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/website-pages/word-of-people-v-word-of-god/
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
I have come to learn that LAW is expressed and legal is implied.
welcome Gary,
There were times, when even the LAW is 'kept secret' and not publicized to the masses.
ROMAN STRUGGLE FOR WRITTEN LAWS
http//www.forumromanum.org/history/morey08.html"The plebeians were at a great disadvantage during all this time, because the law was administered solely by the patricians, who kept the knowledge of it to themselves, and who regarded it as a precious legacy from their ancestors, too sacred to be shared with the lowborn plebeians. The laws had never been written down or published. The patricians could therefore administer them as they saw fit."
-
listening to Frank O'Collins http//blog.ucadia.com/ and
Welcome. . .
Maybe there is some confusion in the true meaning of "common law" . . . confused
I believe the true common law is for the people, common justice, justly balanced society, equity. .god's law . . but then it was corrupted and replaced with "civil law", but named or referred as "common law". IMO the author is confused and actually writing about "civil law", not "common law".
-
Thank you to all who have replied to me.
First let me explain that I believe in a Divine Creator, One who gives all Man and Woman the free will to believe or not to varying degrees.
That NO man or woman stands between one?s self and their choice of belief.
That NO one is above the LAW and ALL are equal to the LAW.
That the rule of LAW is open and can be remembered by simple maxims
Do unto others?etc
Do not do anything you would not like done unto yourself?The list is endless and all comes down to, love thy neighbour as a brother.
Thank you Jafar for the link here is a link to the pdf of the book
https//archive.org/details/outlinesromanhi03moregoog
To answer muslims, yes there is great confusion over the words ?common law? and that is the crux of the problem. The Roman cult led ?civil? law is all about ?common? case law where similar cases have been heard before and so the outcome has been decided no matter what defence is offered up by the defendant, that is why ?civil? law depends on ?technical? points to ?win? or ?lose? on appeal.
Frank does talk about civil law as, the way that I comprehend it; he is describing what is ?True? law as opposed to ?civil? law. He also lays out the foundation that ?civil? law rests on fictions (persons) not on flesh and blood Wo/Man.
?Civil? ?Common? law is recorded so that the so-called ?authorities? can keep track of web of lies they weave to deceive the many!
True Law is never written except as a record of the decisions in each case, because each case is unique to the participants.
True Law is based on harm and/or injury or loss to one caused by another.
?Civil? law is based on confession to an imagined sin (summary justice)(The film Minority Report is a good example of ?civil law? in action).
Everyone is guilty of breaking many ?civil laws? (speeding doing 36 mph in a 30mph, J walking etc) but unless you cause harm or loss to a Wo/Man you have not broken The Law.
Which brings us to ?policing by consent?, ?courts?, ?parliament? and what exactly is a ?country? and their respective roles? Which are all part of the deception and need separate explanations.
The World works by language and the exchange of ideas by means of words, but, the words have different meanings in context between science, legal, medical, art and everyday use. The word idiot means two different things when used in court and out on the street, nice is another one.
I have found that the best dictionaries to use are pre 1900?s, Webster?s 1828 http//webstersdictionary1828.com/and etymonline http//www.etymonline.com/ as all others have been corrupted to hide the real definitions.
Gary
-
COMMUNION, noun
- Fellowship; intercourse between two persons or more; interchange of is transactions, or offices; a state of giving and receiving; agreement; concord.
We are naturally led to seek communion and fellowship with other.
What communion hath light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 614.
- Mutual intercourse or union in religious worship, or in doctrine and discipline.
The Protestant churches have no communion with the Romish church.
-
The body of Christians who have one common faith and discipline. The three grand communions into which the Christian church is divided, are those of the Greek, the Romish and the Protestant churches.
-
The act of communicating the sacrament of the Eucharist; the celebration of the Lords supper; the participation of the blessed sacrament. The fourth council of Lateran decrees that every believer shall receive the communion at least at Easter.
-
Union of professing Christians in a particular church; as, members in full communion
COMMUNION-service, in the liturgy of the Episcopal church, is the office for the administration of the holy sacrament.
Peace,
Thanks for the links. I checked "Communion" in the 1828 dictionary and it gives a perfect reflection of what 'salat' means that the contemporary ones do not.
It may be interesting for some people to read.
The examples also shine with division into sects as they in fact lost the communion. It is the conjecture they are divided about. It is the idols that cause rifts in the faith. And in "Islam" even the word itself has become a word of conjecture (salat).
As you can see 'communion' refers to more than only a specific Christian practice but a phenomenon of "keeping together in faith" exactly the same as 'salat'. I have called it unity, but communion is actually an accurate word by the 1828 definition.
God bless you
-
I believe that's the above issue is between Substantive (True Law) and Procedural Law, and the Principle of Jurisprudence (objective of punishment etc.) and issue of Precedents, for consistency of decisions in all courts and judicial systems. The Quran is stressing on the same issue about procedural law, for example. . four witnesses, one male and two female witnesses in contract by guardian etc. All this is relevant before any prosecution, however. . it is about Procedural Law, not Substantive Law.
. . .
as to the issue, my understanding is that the real common law is for the protection of the people, common justice. . . but civil law is the instrument for the protection and oppression by the government. . it is intended to be against the people, ie. it is slavery, for example grant title, identification card, taxation etc. . . and it is no more about "common" justice, but transfers of right, power, property and it is now interest of the state vs. interest of the people. . . however, it is nothing related to procedural or substantive law. Procedural and substantive law can exist both in a true common law system, or a civil law system.
-
Sorry for the delay in responding,
All Wo/Man are flesh and blood creations of the Divine Creator, therefore each is free to live the way they wish and make use of the land and anything from the land without causing any harm, injury or loss to any other Wo/Man as decreed by the Divine Creator.
All are answerable to the Law, so any Wo/Man can accuse another, with proof, of any injury or harm, and the one defending is always innocent until proved guilty.
According to the ?civil law? system covering most of the world today, all Wo/Men are ?persons? and according to Blackstone?s commentaries ? a person is born from the belly of a statute?. The problem is that not all ?persons? are Wo/men, so in ?civil? society we have, flesh and blood can be accused and found guilty by a ?person? who is a fiction and can not be fined or jailed for wrongful prosecution.
The only thing ?common? about the law is it applies to all Wo/Men, and ALL cases are unique and can NEVER be compared to a previous case decision.
Only the participants, accusations and judgement are recorded as a record of that particular case and NOT to predetermine the outcome of any future case.
Government today is controlled by the banking system set up in 1694 by the members of the English Parliament declaring them ?legal? by creating eternal corporations for profit.
Therefore today the ?legal?, ?parliament? and ?executive? of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND is all controlled by the BANK OF ENGLAND and so is every ?private? business, which has to register by act of parliament!
So we have NO law here only a ?legal? system designed for corporate use and to reward those who obey blindly by ?following orders?
LAW is EXPRESSED, legal is implied and self confession!
Gary
-
ALL cases are unique and can NEVER be compared to a previous case decision.
Do you mind explaining what is your understanding about the methodology of precedents, and how does it cause injustice to each case ?
Sorry. . I don't understand your point and don't see the relevancy. The comparison of facts is not for deciding or predetermine the outcome, but for authorizing the rational or rule to be considered in trial. It is not about facts (as what you have said above), but whether the same rule should be applied in the present case. The facts must be the same before any rules can be considered by the Court. If it is not, the Court will need to arrive his own or new rule, and based on facts of each case and the applicable law in the statute. This decision can be overrule through an appeal to higher court. This is the methodology for consistency of decision and how the law were build and becoming statutory laws, and it is nothing about "to predetermine the outcome of any future case."
Only the participants, accusations and judgement are recorded as a record of that particular case and NOT to predetermine the outcome of any future case.
What is your suggestion for consistency of decision in all courts?
subordinate and higher court etc, million of legal institutions and statutory laws, and billions of subjects or issues. . .
-
The only ?rational(e)? or facts are the evidence provided by both parties involved in the controversy, to prove the truth or falsity of any claim. The ?legal? system uses ?case precedent? in similar cases without regard to the true issues at hand. I personally know of several cases with evidence to prove the innocence of the accused is denied as inadmissible because it has not been used in similar cases, and the ?legal? system relies on ?self confession? or to give it the ?legal? name, plea bargaining. And the defendants OWN lawyers never stand up for the defendant!
What is your suggestion for consistency of decision in all courts?
How about following the TRUE rule of LAW
?subordinate and higher court etc, million of legal institutions and statutory laws, and billions of subjects or issues. .
The more statutes there are, the less RULE of LAW there is.
As long as the Bank of England pays the wages of all civil servants, there can never be any impartialality in any court!
Gary
-
Okay, it is your opinion, but I still don't see the relevancy of precedents to predetermine the outcome of any future case.
And the defendants OWN lawyers never stand up for the defendant!
and your story proves that it is about "lawyers", not about not about the issue of "admissibility".
-
Peace Gary,
most minds do not function, you cannot explain anything to a mind that firmly believe they already know, the mind is a funny thing, investment is an integral part of its nature, and people are born into slavery yet both deny it and defend it as valuable, they seek a master, they seek subservience, they believe the lies as truth and the "systems" of slavery are their pillars of anchor, to challenge the law exposing it for the ass it is dressed in pomp and designed to deceive and extort, so anything that pulls the curtain on the wizard is to them nonsense.
Law is a constructive model, so all law is worthless, sharia is a substantive model so one almost unconsidered sadly, here is an explanation of the two
http//servantofthelight.com/content/view/264/317/