Civil v Common

The Roman Civil Law is a law of statutes in a democracy. The Common Law is one that honors man in a Republic. They have this in common in that contracts are the substance. When there is but one man he is not a law unto himself. Law is the agreement of fairness in a covenant relationship. It is a social development. The foundation of the Common Law is the covenant law of God that developed and perfected the ideas of fairness when dealing with our neighbor. It is not necessarily written but understood as an internal agreement. It is not statutory but more parental. Our fist understandings of right and wrong come from parents. Society like a parent nursing its next generation has an agreed general set of rights and wrongs we hold in common. The Roman Civil Law has an elite class who dictates ethical standards based on their subjective point of view. God is not the source of inspiration, man is. Total agreement or even majority agreement is not possible because there is a selfishness designed into it that harms others. Force and penalties are coercive tools to secure agreement. Both have trust contracts but one is a privilege and one is at right. The court system is Civil Law using a dramatic portrayal of statute and force to coerce you to agree. The Common Law is what regulates men most specifically in this country but there is no elite when men are held in common. By the help of banker elitist these lawyers were fostered upon us to make themselves relevant. They make you an offer of civil law to which they are the trained ruling class and hope they can get you to consent to this change of venue by acquiescence. This is a non-disclosed contract that isn’t truly enforceable but in civil law which is a standard of fairness flawed in its foundation this is acceptable. In common law this would be fraud because the self-interested advantage is not considered fair. Both still function or exist by agreement of the people. Put simply that means you are still the power. By controlling your agreement you make the law. We have refused the civil law and will have common law which will not tolerate this case. Our case is all about an elitist class that saw us enforcing our common law remedies of fairness and tried to make themselves relevant. They are very persuasive, but one trained by the source of the common law who is a God of covenant agreements is not easily moved. 30 years now having to deal with the father of lies who dresses himself as an angel of light is much more difficult to decipher than these neophyte lawyers. We the people need to start trusting the law we hold in common and stop being bluffed into an inferior arbitration called American jurisprudence.