Common Law Part 1 – is it still used?

In two of my previous posts I have given short overviews of the different kinds of Laws that exist, namely Admiralty, Roman/Civil and Common Law. Why it’s important that we know about them I pointed out here. I will now proceed with Common Law, the Law of the People, which I think will come into more general use in a free society.

Is Common Law still used today?

In 2013 a shot was heard around the world when Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, resigned. What may not be generally known is the fact that the International CommonLaw Court of Justice (ICLCJ) had prosecuted and convicted him and many other high profile people for crimes against Humanity. Whether the popes resignation was due to that indictment or not is debatable.

Fact is that people in many countries now start to realize that Admiralty and Roman/Civil Law have been used throughout the ages by the elite to keep We the people in submission to them. We have been taught and brainwashed to believe that we are unable to rule ourselves, that taking the law into our own hands is illegal and punishable, that we have to be controlled in everything by those “in the know”.

This movement toward Common Law can also be followed here. Seeing all this then tells us that Common Law is the way to go in the new era dawning on us. Therefore we have to find out exactly what this is all about in order to grab back our freedom and sovereignty, which the money elite have stolen from us.

As long as we stick our heads in the quicksand of their statutory teachings and don’t dare to investigate the avenues available to us to free ourselves from tyranny, we willingly give them the power to crush us, steal from us and exterminate us, which has been their plan all along. 

In 1649 already Gerrard Winstanley summed this up thus: “For what you call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying the conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But over and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and reduce us to poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders judgement on rich and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who will thus turn the world upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies.”

I am for freedom, what about you?

Common Law vs Civil Law

Why do I keep blogging about LAW?
Because most people do not know that there are different kinds of law systems by which we the people are kept in bondage and servitude to the rulers of this world. We cannot be a free people as long as we are kept in bondage by all sorts of laws imposed on us to curb our freedom. 

Does that mean that I promote lawlessness? NO, not at all. I promote justice and freedom for all. But in order to attain this, we need to understand how to address the legal processes that we come up against every day, which make us servants of a prison system. 

The very short but enlightening Audio below highlights this point.

Our Constitution not only guarantees us our freedom, but also subjects all public servants and institutions to it. We as individuals are responsible for holding public servants, officials and corporations accountable. We can only do this if we know the loopholes they use to evade their duty. We can only do that once we realize that we have the power, the right, the duty and the process to do so effectively.

If we really want to be a free people in a free country, it's our DUTY to hold our public servants accountable and not let them undermine our Constitution. They aren't called public servants for nothing. As servants, they have masters. Who are their masters? We the people, the public. Masters are supposed to lead, be leaders. If they don't lead and guide their servants, the servants will take advantage of the situation and take over the household, do as they please. 

This is exactly what is happening in Namibia today. We the people, the masters, do not realize that we indeed are the masters and so our servants are busy taking over the household, the country, selling it for their own profit. That is what servants do when given the chance, they steal.

Since Knowledge is Power, we have to first gain knowledge, then spread this knowledge amongst we the people. This can be done in different ways. The youth can use the internet to gain knowledge and spread what they've gained amongst those who haven't got internet access, so all of we the people can be empowered and assume our role as masters. 

You can start this people empowering action right here by using the promote buttons below. The quicker we can empower all of the people, the sooner we can call our "government" servants to order.  

Centuries ago Thomas Jefferson already said:

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Thomas Jefferson

---

"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens." Thomas Jefferson

Posts related to this one can be found here and here.

Day in Okahandja Court with Belinda //Ga­roës

Belinda's court case was set for today, 8 May 2014. I decided to attend and arrived at the court at 09h15. At 09h45 people went into the court room only to be told that the magistrate was delayed since he had to go for a medical check-up. So everybody left the room to wait outside again.

At 10h10 we were allowed back into court room. The Magistrate, the prosecutor, a translator and police officer sat in front. Nothing happened until 10h30, when proceedings started with a pensioner being accused of not wearing a safety belt while driving. The magistrate informed him that the fine for this was N$1000,00. Pensioner objected on account of not being able to pay the fine. Magistrate reduced the fine to N$500.00 on condition it was paid within a week. Case closed. More cases were put before the Magistrate. 

It was impossible for the public to hear anything as both the prosecutor as well as the Magistrate were speaking in hushed voices. Prosecutor sits with her back to accused bench and public and addresses only the magistrate. The only person that could be understood was the translator. From what he said the public could gather that they were asked if they would represent themselves or needed legal advisers supplied by the state. All the cases were then postponed to a later date. 

Belinda's case was to be heard last. Everybody had left the court room when she and co-accused, her son aged 16, had to take their stand. I slipped past the police officer to be present as a witness to the proceedings. Except for me the only other person present was the mother of the young boy.

Belinda had a copy of the Namibian Constitution plus a print-out of the "Steps in Court" in her hands. When asked if she understood the case against her, she used Step 1. asking the magistrate if this was a civil or a criminal case. First of all the magistrate snottily(sarcastically) told her that he would decide which question to answer and which not. Then he said that this was a criminal court, so hers was a criminal case. Then Belinda unfortunately departed from the official language and went on in her own language with Step 2.1.2., referring to Article 12 of the Constitution. Immediately the magistrate took advantage of her uncertainty, telling her that he does not have the authority to dismiss the case as that rests with the state. He went on asking her if she had legal adviser or any untrained person from the public who told her this or if it came from herself, indirectly referring to me sitting in there.  She said it came from herself and the Constitution in front of her. Since she went on in her own language and the translator admitted that he was not conversant enough in that language to properly translate what she said, I am unable to precisely report what was said afterwards. She did not answer the question if she wanted a legal adviser and the magistrate went on to co-accused, asking him the question. He was confused and could not answer, so his guardian applied for legal help instead. 
Then the case was postponed until July, I could not hear the date.  

Analysis
Daring to ask a question in court caught the magistrate off guard, made him apprehensive so his voice got louder.
Mentioning the Constitution clearly put the Magistrate on the defensive so he used sarcasm to defend himself. 
Reverting to a language other than English put defendant at a disadvantage, at the mercy of the translator and placed the ball back in courts field. 
Deviating from the Steps then showed uncertainty which was immediately exploited by the magistrate. 

What is to be learned from all this? 
If you want to use the Steps in court, DO NOT deviate. Use them exactly as they are, in English. They are a transcript from the audio here, which is authoritative, meaning it comes from those in the know, legal advisers.


My Conclusion:
1. The accused as well as the people are left in the dark as to what type of        hearing it is. 
    The first appearance before court seems to solely be a bail hearing.
    The second appears to be a hearing to induce the accused to use a legal         adviser. What could be next - the trial or another puppet hearing?

2. There obviously seems to something secretive about these proceedings,
    seeing that the public is not supposed to hear what is being said, nor the       accused to know what awaits them. 

3. The Constitution no longer is the superior law of the land, it's worthless.       It apparently is superseded by civil law only known to legal practitioners.
4. The magistrates clearly seem to fall in a special, category of human beings,     addressed as "your worship" instead of "your honor".
5. If the magistrate does not have the authority to dismiss a case, who has?
6. The system as applied now does not guarantee a fair trial to the Namibian     people.


 

Admiralty, Common + Civil Law - a short overview

The Namibian Constitution mentions common law as well as the law of the land. In the audio about enforcing your right in court Admiralty Law is mentioned. Most of us haven't got the faintest clue what this is all about, but if we start claiming our rights in court and defend ourselves, we need to know the differences. 

So I went searching until I found some easy explanations. I hope these will help you too. 
From this site I got:

" Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time through the records of the courts as well as historically documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role in shaping American and British law. Common law functions as an adversarial system, a contest between two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A jury of ordinary people without legal training decides on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict.

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes."   Read more

On Admiralty Law I found the video below: