EXPOSING ENSLAVEMENT: THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR CORPORATE GOVERNMENTS WITH ROD CLASS
MARCH 21, 2015 NADINE LEAVE A COMMENT
CORPORATIONSCORRUPTIONENSLAVEMENTEXPOSINGFREEDOMGOVERNMENTSINTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR NATURAL JUSTICEROD CLASSTHE COURTSTHE PEOPLETRUTH
COMMON LAW, EDUCATION, NATURAL LAW, RESEARCH MATERIALS
COMMON LAW VS. NATURAL LAW: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
JANUARY 29, 2015 SUE RHOADES LEAVE A COMMENT
Many thanks to Cindy Currier for the layout on her website, Court of Ages, clearly and simply showing the differences between common law and natural law.
Many people think going back to common law in the courts is the solution to our current problem in the corporate court arena, but when you note the differences between common law and natural law (which the International Tribunal for Natural Justice, coming soon) will be using, you will see that natural law strips the hierarchies out of the system down to the immeasurable power behind it; the people.
English Common Law
A form of private law that governs relationships between individuals inclusive of Law of Contracts, Law of Torts, and Civil Law (labor law, commercial law, corporate law).
Based on precedent (prior decisions of formal courts and judges); past time-space.
Hierarchical (judges are deem authority figures).
Judges are holders of an office as a career and are often viewed as politicians.
Lower courts are subject to higher court decisions. State or federal judges often rule on cases from outside their own community.
A court is a permanent institutions set up and operated by the government.
Governs all life; is determined by nature and thus, universal.
Based on human sensibilities in present-moment time-space.
Non-hierarchical (judges carry no real authority).
Judges are requested to serve on a case-by-case basis and agreed upon by both parties in a dispute; not voted into any permanent position.
Resolution remains local (within the tribe, band, or community where the dispute originated). Judges are respected community members.
A court is a group of community members who come together for the express purpose of assisting in resolving a dispute. Members of the court are selected and agreed upon by both parties in the dispute; members volunteer only for the duration of the particular case for which they are assembled.
Here are some differences between a Common Law Grand Jury and a Natural Law Grand Jury:
Common Law Grand Jury
All grand juries abide by a the same set of prescribed rules.
Jurors must agree to prescribed written laws or decrees such as the Magna Carta or Bill of Rights.
There must be at least 25 jurors.
Jurors are required to swear or promise to uphold the grand jury rules.
All decisions are made by majority vote.
No decision of a grand jury is reviewable in any court of the government.
Jurisdiction includes any government transgression, breaking of articles of peace or security, and anyone abused by the government.
Grand juries investigate potential crimes and come to a decision to indict or not indict by issuing a “true bill” or “no true bill.”
Grand jury decisions stand as law.
Natural Law Grand Jury
Grand jury guidelines may vary according to the requirements of each band, tribe, or community.
Jurors verbally agree to execute their duties honorably.
There should be an odd number of jurors, at least three, to avoid stale mate where majority vote is implemented.
Jurors are not required to swear or promise; their verbal agreement is enough.
Decisions may be made by majority vote or consensus, whichever is agreed upon.
Grand jury decisions are final.
Jurisdiction is whatever the parties in dispute decide upon.
Grand juries investigate potential crimes and come to a decision to charge (indict) or not charge with a crime.
Grand jury decisions stand as law.
COMMON LAWDIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON AND NATURAL LAWINTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR NATURAL JUSTICEITNJNATURAL LAW