I offer this post not to the OP, but to those who point out their opinions and understanding of what seems to something we could call "The 'Common
Law' relevancy myth."
I have heard of the Freeman movement, and frequently seen both assertions of the for and against variety.
Be they what they may, it is an irrelevancy to me.
There is a growing tendency of the government of the people, to codify and regulate all manner of living. These 'statutes,' 'laws,' or 'policies.'
are my concern; not the ideological leanings of organizations and communities based on old documents with a sprinkling of ancient wisdom mixed-in.
I am certain there is much peril within the notion of bucking the establishment and challenging it's legitimacy to rule various aspects of our
lives... but that peril is legal... and establishment, even if held in abeyance, never loses.
We have infractions and lapses that are kin to human nature, and those of the community who fall into that category are made to pay restitution to the
sate for the transgression. But is restitution not to be 'in like kind'? In what way is the balance achieved? Certainly fining someone for toxic
dumping does not remove the toxins. Certainly, fining someone for missing a court date is an inconvenience for the court, but when they inconvenience
you, do they pay restitution? Do they not proceed to the next case? Do they not honor an attorneys request for latitude to suffer their workload?
But you, a layperson, cannot. You are expected to address the court, in person, and be ready to effect "justice." When you are found 'not guilty'
does the court somehow restore your time and grief?
Our problems with the legal system is the loss of identity for the participants. While the BAR members have a role from which to disconnect, the
accused or aggrieved do not. The law is being particularized into matrix of protocols that do not hold to the value of human dignity.
The particulars of the varying 'categories' of court and the manner in which the BAR monopoly has structured the process are all machinations of
people who are neither accused nor accuser. The adversarial process was perverted to become less than it was meant to be... for the sake of
expedience.
That may be a bit over the top for some of you, but there you have it.
edit on 8-3-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)