Common-Law - It's not law unless the common person can understand it
|Law under Common-Law is not law unless a
common/ordinary person can under stand it, that's the essence of
Common-Law. The due-process clause of the Constitution
mandates that regular people must be able to understand the law,
if they can't then it is not law!
In other word's you do not need a lawyer or a judge to understand the law. The construct of Trial By Jury relies entirely on this principle that We The People are completely able to understand the law. Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the Right to judge both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that he also said that "either we all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".
The CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Article 1 section 9 puts it in writing:
What is astonishing is that you can sit in almost any court room throughout the U.S. and hear judges, lawyers and DA's vehemently warning they jury that they are not allowed to consider the law! What should we do with these judges, lawyers and DA's who are literally trampling on one of the most fundamental principles of law within our nation?
Of course the judges, lawyers and DA's do not want you to realize that we the people determine the matters at law, that way they can dupe you into believing that the law says something that it does not say and they can charge you exorbitant fees to 'understand the law'.
In England people were only allowed to speak in court through their Barrister. A Barrister is a lawyer who the Court decides they can allow to speak in court. Under that system they could falsely charge you and get your Barrister to simply not allow you to speak and off you go to jail. Our Founding Fathers were careful enough to give us protections against such abuse in the Constitution. However, these protections are not worth anything if we don't use them.
|Quotations from cases emphasizing the fact and
law that law is not law unless ordinary people can understand
"Under due process clause, government regulation must be sufficiently clear so that ordinary people can understand what conduct is being prohibited and so that regulation does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753.
"All due process requires of a statute is a definition of the infraction and terms with which ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply." U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Franklet v. U.S., 578 F.Supp. 1552, affirmed 761 F.2d 529..
"Statute which either forbids or requires doing of act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates first essential of due process of law." People v. Grubb, 408 P.2d 100, 47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 63 C.2d 614. - Cal. 1966.
"A statute which either forbids or requires doing of an act in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence, must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates due process of law; U.S.A.C. Const.Amend. 14. Franklin v Leland Stanford Jr. University, 218 Cal.Rptr. 288, 172 C.A.3d 322
"Notion of due process requires the prohibition be clearly defined in order to provide adequate notice or warning of the conduct which is prohibited and to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory application of the standard; furthermore, where First Amendment rights are at issue, an even greater degree of specificity is demanded because the vague standard may chill the exercise of those rights." U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. Franklin v Leland Stanford Jr. University, 218 Cal.Rptr. 288, 172 C.A.3d 322, review denied.
"Statute or ordinance violates fundamental due process if it requires or prohibits the doing of an act with such vagueness that a person of common intelligence must guess at its meaning; it must be sufficiently definite to provide a standard of conduct or notice and a standard of asserting guilt." U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1; West's Ann.Const.Art.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is in violation of fist essential of due process of law." U.S.C.A.Const.Ammends. 5, 14. Manning v. Municipal Court, Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmong Judicial Dist., 183 Cal.Rptr. 458, 132 C.A.3d 825.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law." U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. People v Weaver, 197 Cal.Rptr. 521, 147 C.A.3d Supp. 23.
Liberty For Life