Free Law Consulting

The fatal flaw underlying this gibberish is a basic ignorance of necessary distinctions:

This is the basic heirarchy of law:

1. Constitutions; which are implemented by means of

2. Statutes; which are often further elaborated as

3. Regulations.

When there is conflict over interpretation of any of those, and there is no existing court ruling on the conflict, then the conflict is transformed into a question and brought to court for resolution.

The court decision resolving the conflict is called –

Case law.

Or –

Judge-made law.

Or –

Common law.

In short:

Constitutions, and constitutional law, are NOT “common law”. Yet we have this standard gibberish:

“the Constitution and the Common Law — the supreme law of the land.”

The Constitution is the (to quote the Constitution verbatim) “supreme Law of the Land”. Art. VI., C. 2. But, as shown by the standard hierarchy, common law is not the “supreme Law of the Land”.

And this:

“the government has moved us out of common law jurisdiction”

I’ve not noticed that the judiciary — one of the three branches of gov’t — has ceased issuing decisions. Common law.

“and into statutory law (merchant law) jurisdiction.”

“Statutory law” consists of “statutes”. “Statutes” are the laws enacted by legislative bodies, such as Congress. That’s only a mystery to those who reject that simple fact.

And here we have a “subtle” “code” which is a kind of “secret handshake” among those who reject Constitution/rule of law/gov’t:

“the Constitution of the united States of America.”

See the clever “united States,” in place of that which actually appears in the Constitution? –

“United States”.

The gibberish is that the lowercase “u” is how the Framers originally wrote it — because they “intended” that the States be superior to the federal gov’t (you have to pretend the supremacy clause doesn’t actually exist, even though it was asserted a moment ago) — and the “sovereign” “individual” to be above the law. Or beneath its reach. Or outside it. Whatever the particular dodge they are asserting at a given moment.

But let’s not forget that THESE are the REAL honest-to-God PATRIOTS! Here’s proof of that “fact” –

“It was not until I visited Russia in 1995 that I met and talked to some educators who could not believe my ignorance of history.”

Mmm. Either this “patriot” speaks Russian, or he coincidentally stumbled upon Russians who speak AmerEnglish. Anmd know US history and Constitutional law better than this “patriot”.

“Remember, this was 5 years after the fall of communism.”

How can I “remember” something I didn’t “know” before I read it? Ah — I see: the intended point must be that it was AFTER the “fall of communism,” so the Russian “educators” with whom he spoke couldn’t be “Commies,” therefore must obviously completely trustworthy. After all, ex-”Commies” never lie. Even if they are undercover KGB.

“They politely suggested I do some reading and gave me some ideas where to look.”

Mmm, yes: one knows one can trust that a bunch of “Commies” aren’t “Commies” because they are polite. Everyone knows that ACTUAL “Commies” are RUDE.

Are we having fun yet? Here’s some more:

The fantasy that the law-illiterates push with such books as this is that there are “rights” “outside” law. Which means in terms of logic that they claim a “right” to be an “outlaw”. Expert at running in circles, they will insist that the Constitution establishes a “right” to destroy the Constitution.

The Founders/Framer’s term for such a person was “common criminal”; and they tried them in ordinary courts; and the verdict and sentence were issued as case law/judge-made law/common law.

The Founders/Framers were for “ordered liberty”: liberty WITHIN the law, NOT outside and against it.

The law-illiterates endeavor to get around those problems by various means, one being to jabber about “natural” “law” and “natural” “rights”. “Natural” “rights” are whatever one wants them to be — because wholly invisible and subjective.

And or they claim their “natural” “rights” are “God-given” — and stockpile weapons with which to “defend” those “God-given” “rights”. The problem with which approach should be obvious to these “Christians” –

God said: “Thou shalt not kill.”

Last but not least, these law-illiterates insist, with neither foundation nor evidence, that they know more about law than those who have an actual education in law. They never explain how that works.

Meanwhile, back at reality, they haven’t the least bit of the basics straight — such as that I provide — and don’t want to get them straight, because then their imaginary “natural” “rights” and “brilliant” explanations as disseminated by means of screeds such as this book disappear in a puff of — usually — pot smoke.

One has a basic choice: rely on the reliable: the basic standards, of which I give one above, and actual education in law; or rely on those liable to be lying; or dumber than dead rocks.

Or one can rely on the publisher’s blurb for what it actually means:

_____

“This book has the potential to be on the desk of every business and perhaps every lawyer in the country.” – James Abel, Abel Publishing

_____

ANY book has that “potential”.

_____

Beyond the fact that “Magna Carta” is not the law in the US, therse are the “foundational” facts of which these illiterates are totally ignorant, from “Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts 1630 – 1686″ –

“According to the accepted legal theory, the American colonists claimed the English common law as their birthright, brought with them its general principles and adopted so much of it as was applicable to their condition. Although this theory is universally adopted by the courts, a close study of the subject reveals among the early colonists a far different attitude toward the common law from that which is usually attributed to them. In none of the colonies, perhaps, was this more marked than in early Massachusetts. Here the binding force of English law was denied, and a legal system largely different came into use. It is the purpose of this work to trace the development of that system during the period of the first charter.”

See also “English Common Law in the Early American Colonies,” Paul Samuel Reinsch, where the identical point is made. Or read the legal history of Massachusetts-Bay and learn those facts first-hand.

Rating: 1 / 5

this book is one of the most significant books available. it should be required reading for everyone of all ages. so much information which is not commonly known but should be is in this short, easy to read book. this book provides the real meaning of being an American as intended by the Founding Fathers.
Rating: 5 / 5

Until I had been out in the work force for 20 years I thought I had a fair education. It was not until I visited Russia in 1995 that I met and talked to some educators who could not believe my ignorance of history. Remember, this was 5 years after the fall of communism. They politely suggested I do some reading and gave me some ideas where to look. The result of 4 years of part-time study led me to question everything I had been taught about US history but especially the last 100 years.

If I had found Dale Pond’s book 4 years ago I could have saved myself a lot of work. He has provided references and case studies for his work. In my expert opinion, having also done it the hard way, he has created an excellent primary reader for anyone who wants to learn the truth about our current “Administrative” legal system and why we are now “subjects,” where once we were “Sovereigns.”

When you finish reading this book you won’t look at the US government the same way, ever again. Then you will want to know what is the secondary reader.
Rating: 5 / 5