Ancient Problems:

In this study, a very significant point needs to be kept in mind, in order to fully comprehend Why this 'Natural-Law' Philosophy is modernly considered to be so un-fashionable. The main point to grasp here is that since ancient times, and clearly from the start of our American nation, there has existed and continues to exist a Powerful and Hostile "Private Interest Group" which has relentlessly and purposefully Conspired to Obscure these very powerful 'Natural-Law' ideas from reaching into the minds and hearts of our American people. This powerful private interest group is both Religious and Evil in its essential nature; and through-out all of its history it has relied on one form or another of the Slave Trade for its economic power-base. This powerful and evil private interest group believes that they need to obscure the historical realities of the ancient system of "Free Government", which has been passed down to our Anglo American People through our ancient Anglo/Saxon and Israelite History. They believe that they need to do this, because, if our American People discover the true realities of how grand the ancient Common-Law Model of "Free Government" can be, then these American People will summarily reject the multitudes of the false-dichotomies which the powerful Evil Conspirators have artificially set-up over us. There are two documents in accompaniment here-to which explain this conspiracy in much more detail, and which are entitled: "The Un-Constitutional Nature of the Written 'U.S. Constitution' Document", and also "The Artificial/Lawless/DeFacto Overlay in the United States Government".

As implied by that first documents title, argument is made there-in that the written "U.S. Constitution" document is Not in Lawful Compliance with these deeper organic principles of Anglo/American Constitutional-Law; and that there-under, it is lawless, null, and void.1 The second document builds to show how from that original lawless foundation, "breeding-ground" has been cultivated for powerful aristocratic parasite classes to pillage and plunder the common American People.

A future document is planned by this author which will explain in much more detail the deeper depths of this conspiracy of evil, how it has always been dependent on some form of slave-trading, and how they have Burned Books and Falsified History in order to Limit our "Legal Memory" of our grand Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, Israelite History of this Natural-Law based "Responsible Self-Governing" process.

Those issues will not be explored in this document, but heavy reference will be made to those documents, and they should be consulted by the reader as needed. This author needs to state this "Conspiracy" proposition out front, so that other elements of this entire article will fit together, piece by piece, in the larger and very important picture which is here-in sought to be communicated.2

Ancient History:

Summary: Exploring at least 3400 years of history; tracing our Anglo/American System of Constitutional-Law back to the Times of Moses, & the Torah-Laws of Ancient Israel; recognizing linkages to their preservation in the works of Christ/Messiah Jesus/Yeshuah; & with heavy emphasis on Evidence that these Same Israelite Torah-Laws were In Practice among the Anglo/Saxons of England, prior to the so-called "Norman Conquest" of 1066-ad.

In ancient England, prior to the so-called "Norman-Conquest of 1066-ad"; there was a governmental system in place which (although admittedly significantly "less than perfect"), was then governing the people of that land in a manner substantially in harmony with Sociological "Natural-
Law".

This Natural-Law based System of Government found its even more ancient roots in ancient Israel. Among other sources numerable; William Blackstone admitted the truth of this proposition, in his classical and powerfully authoritative "Commentaries on the Laws of England"; which reads as follows:

"SS 43: Early Judicial Systems. – The policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man's door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends. These little courts, however, communicated with others of a larger jurisdiction, and those with others of still greater power; ascending gradually from the lowest to the supreme courts, which were respectively constituted to correct the errors of the inferior ones, and to determine such causes as by reason of their weight and difficulty demanded a more solemn discussion. The course of justice flowing in large streams from the king as the fountain, to his superior courts of record, and being then subdivided into smaller channels, till the whole and every part of the kingdom were plentifully watered and refreshed. An institution that seems highly agreeable to natural reason, as well as of more enlightened policy; being equally similar to that which prevailed in Mexico and Peru before they were discovered by the Spaniards; and that which was established in the Jewish republic by Moses. . . .

In like manner we read of Moses, that finding the sole administration of justice too heavy for him, he "chose able men out of Israel, such as feared God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens : and they judged the people at all seasons ; and the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves." These inferior courts, at least the name and form of them, still continue in our legal constitution: but ... these petty tribunals have fallen into decay, and almost into oblivion ..."

Honest historical, legal, and political researchers, will surely recognize that the above very authoritative text has seemingly just shown how two seemingly entirely different bodies of "Law", spanning approximately 3100 years of human history (then), are both still recognizably "Linked-
Together". As Mr Blackstone indicates, the history of our Anglo/American Constitutional System of Government, Reaches Back 3400 years (now) into a Christian/Israelite tradition, as set forth in a passage recorded in the Biblical/Torah book of Exodus 18: 14-26; which reads as follows:

"And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and His Laws.

And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.

So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves."

This verse shows that the Government of the ancient Israelite Nation was directed through its "Torah-Law" to adopt a permanently "De-Centralized" system governing. This "Torah/Law" commanded the Israelite people to "Responsibly Self-Govern" by way of permanently Sup-Dividing their Nation's Government's collective Judicial Power, all down through a Deep-Hierarchy, into basically very small Ten-Household Unit Communities. For those seeking additional evidence; this general Torah/Biblical Commandment, with its deep-hierarchy of de-centralized responsible self-
governing communities, is repeated in Deuteronomy, 1: 13-17.

As the student of history attempts to trace "the slender thread of political and legal thought" from ancient Israel into its more modern manifestations, some very suspicious coincidences appear. About 400 years after the death of Israel's Messiah/Christ Jesus/Yeshuah, and the soon there-after Roman destruction of Jerusalem, suspiciously, the same laws of Israel are being practiced in the northern European area which is modernly known as Germany. These people are practicing a system of de-centralized responsible self-government very similar to that practiced in ancient Israel. From the following citation and quotation, Israel is not specifically mentioned; but the parallels should be obvious to the modern reader of this document.

From the Book: "Essays on Anglo-Saxon Law"3; Little, Brown, & Company; Boston, 1876.

Chapter 1: "The Anglo-Saxon Courts of Law"; by Henry Adams.

"The long and patient labors of the German scholars seem to have now established beyond dispute the fundamental historical principle, that the entire Germanic family, in its earliest known stage of development, placed the administration of law, as it placed the political administration, in the hands of popular assemblies composed of the free, able-bodied members of the commonwealth. This great principle is, perhaps, from a political point of view, the most important which historical investigation has of late years established. It gives to the history of Germanic, and especially English, institutions a roundness and philosophic continuity , which add greatly to their interest, and even to their practical value. The student of history who now attempts to trace, through two thousand years of vicissitudes and dangers, the slender thread of political and legal thought, no longer looses it from sight in the confusion of feudalism, or the wild lawlessness of the Heptarchy, but follows it safely and firmly back until it leads him out on the wide plains of northern Germany, and attaches itself at last to the primitive popular assembly, parliament, law-court, and army in one; which embraced every free man, rich and poor, and in theory at least allowed equal rights to all. Beyond this point it seems unnecessary to go. The State and the Law may well have originated here. ... There is strong internal evidence in the Germanic laws to indicate that, whatever may have been the previous social condition of the race, its earliest political and legal creation was a form of association of small families, with or without actual theoretical relationship, but without a patriarchal chief; an association whose able-bodied male members, uniting, not a families, but as individuals equally entitled to voice, formed one counsel, which decided all questions of war and peace; elected all officers, civil or military, that circumstances required; provided for the security of property; arbitrated all disputes that were regularly brought before them; and left to the families themselves the exclusive control of all their private affairs, as belonging to the domain of family custom. So far as concerned the purposes for this association existed, the state was already supreme. Within its own sphere, the family was uncontrolled.

The popular assembly was the primitive law court of the Germanic race. ... For all ordinary purposes of historical reasoning, the present division of Europe has existed from indefinite ages. The Germans have occupied the center of Europe, so far as any thing is known to the coint5rary, as long as the Greeks and Romans have occupied their peninsulas. The Saxons, from whom the English sprung, have been from all historical time the inhabitants of the territory which their descendants still occupy. Their habitation have been fixed; their dwellings have been permanent; their boundaries have been established. At the time when German law and society were first brought within the view of history, the German popular assembly consisted, and to all appearances had always consisted, of the free inhabitants of a fixed geographical district. The army, indeed, when assembled for war, was a court of law, because it was the people that were assembled; and the people, wherever assembled, were the state. ...

... The German organization is important only because, and only so far as, it is not a tribal but a political organization; not a tribe, but a state. In this difficulty there seems to be no recourse better than that of adopting American usage. The idea to be conveyed is entirely expressed, both in its political and territorial meaning, by the American use of the word state, as in the term United States, signifying, as it does, not merely definite territorial boundaries, but confederated political organizations. ...

If any correct inference can be drawn from the facts known in regard to the earlier and ruder stages of German society, it would seem to be that the entire race was divided into almost innumerable variety of such petty states, varying greatly in size and customs, but each enjoying its own independence of action through its own popular assembly, and each considering itself at liberty to join or abandon a confederation with other states, as suited its ideas of its own interests. Even when conquered in war, and held in political subjection, each state would ordinarily preserve its own powers of self-government to a degree that would render a resumption of its independence easy, and, in time, almost inevitable. Yet it is obvious that if military conquest, under the influence of foreign example, ever took the shape of consolidation, so that two or more states were united in one, and their popular assemblies ceased to exist independently, and became merged into one great assembly of the entire nation, such a change might easily give birth to a military monarchy, a territorial aristocracy, a feudal anarchy, or almost any other form of transition. Such seems, indeed, to have been the case with the most powerful of all the German confederations, the Franks, when they first appear in history. The small states of which the Frankish kingdom was composed had not confederated together, but had been consolidated. Possibly it was this policy of centralization which gave them supremacy in Europe. But in return it hastened the decay of their democratic institutions, which could only be safe in states so small that the popular assembly could actually include the body of free men in healthy and active co-operation. From the moment the the small state became merged in a great nation, the personal activity of the mass of free men in politics became impossible, if for no other reason than for the mere difficulties of distance. Nevertheless, even in this case, the functions of a supreme court of law would remain vested in the great national assembly, until, with all other public rights, they fell ultimately into the hands of the king.

... The object seems merely to have been to group together in one district such hamlets, or village communities, as lay in convenient proximity to each other.

The name by which this district was known also varied greatly among different German states. Sometimes it was called gau, or scir, and was translated into Latin as pagus, or pagellus, or simply rego; sometimes hundrai, hundred, or condita. In later times, the word hundred has come into general use. But, although these and various other terms show that there was no uniformity in the names of Germanic institutions, they prove even more decisively that the thing itself existed almost, if not quite, universally; and that the district, whatever it may have been called, was the foundation of the German administrative system. For the present, it will be convenient to adopt none of these names, and to use merely the word district to indicate the ordinary subdivision of the state, subsequently known as the hundred.

... The Germans who emigrated from the Danish peninsula and settled upon the south-
eastern coast of England during the later half of the fifth century belonged to the purest German stock. Among all German races, none have clung with sturdier independence or more tenacious conservatism to their ancient customs and liberties, than the great Saxon confederation, which stamped its character so often and deeply upon the history of northern Europe."

This citation, from the then popular and reputable "Little, Brown, and Company", of Boston, by Mr "Henry Adams"; shows clearly the de-centralized political-dynamic involved at the very historical roots of our Anglo/American "Common-Law" System of De-Centralized Constitutional Government. It shows in particular how our American concept of "States" is firmly based on this Anglo/Saxon/Germanic system of "Common-Law"; which "Common-Law States" in turn are shown to have passed from those people in Ancient Germany, to the English Ancestors of our American People. Please note, in Mr Adams text, here-in is declared, in Paraphrased Summary, that:

"... The army, ... assembled for war, was a court of law, because it was the people that were assembled; and the people, ... assembled, were the state. ... The State and the Law may well have originated here ... (where) the slender thread of political and legal thought ... leads ... out on the wide plains of northern Germany ... (at or near) the latter half of the fifth century (in the ad-
400's). The idea to be conveyed is entirely expressed ... by the American use of the word state ... signifying, ... confederated political organizations. ... the entire race was divided into almost innumerable variety of such petty states ... each considering itself at liberty to join or abandon a confederation with other states, as suited its ideas of its own interests ... ... consolidation ... might easily give birth to a military monarchy ... it will be convenient ... to use merely the word district to indicate the ordinary subdivision of the state, subsequently known as the hundred."

Please note the Recurring Reference to the American concept of the "State", and to its "Ordinary Sub-Division" called the "Hundreds". Please note also that these Germanic common-law Assemblies were functioning in times surrounding the "later half of the fifth century", or in the later ad-400's. Please note also that the Hierarchy of Moses, as described previously in Exodus & Deuteronomy, included the similar "Ordinary Sub-Division" of the Israelite State, known as the "Hundreds". These "Hundreds" had then existed for about 1700 years. Moses time was in about 1300-bc, and this time was in about 450-ad.

The Exodus/Moses Hierarchy Similarly Describes Smaller Localized Communities of the nation/state "Administering Justice" for them-selves, in their own communities, courts, and popular-
assemblies of the common people; all according to each of their own standards of conscience and fair-
play. If anything, the later Germanic/Anglo/Saxon Communities are documented here-in as being even more De-Centralized, Independent, and "Responsibly Self-Governing", than were the more ancient Israelite People of the Biblical/Torah Text (whom are still believed by many people to be "Gods Chosen People"). Clearly; the Similarities between these two ancient cultures is very significant.

Please note also how this text documents that these Germanic/Anglo/Saxon Communities "clung with ... (sturdy) independence (and) ... tenacious conservatism to their ancient customs and liberties". This text indicates that, back in ad-450 or so, that these customs of these Germanic/Anglo/Saxon Communities were Then "Ancient"; and that the people practicing these "Customs", believed in them so strongly that they "Clung" to them with "Tenacious Conservatism" and "Sturdy Independence". The complete quote, even explains how, when conquered by a foreign power, these people usually continued on in practicing their "Ancient Customs and Liberties". These people clearly must have believed in these "Ancient Customs and Liberties" very Strongly and "Tenaciously".

Please now recall from Mr Adams above quoted text, that these Germanic/Anglo/Saxon Communities of People " settled upon the south-eastern coast of England during the later half of the fifth century". This is all "Well-Documented History". Numerous other sources besides this text document clearly that the Anglo-Saxon Races who eventually became the largest percentage of the Population of England, had Migrated From Germany during these earlier years. No serious scholar on this subject questions these well-established historical facts.

Further, and similarly; in the 1600's & 1700's, these Same People of Anglo-Saxon England Migrated to form the base-population of what has modernly become our "United States of America". Again; this history is such a common-knowledge "Historical Fact", that it's finer points will be presumed here-in to have been clearly established, and further argument in support of these "Historical Facts" will be deemed to be recognized by all parties concerned here-with.

At this point it is good go back and re-consider the previously-quoted and other-wise strange words from Mr Blackstone; which read, in Paraphrased Summary part, as follows:

"The policy of our ancient constitution ... was to bring justice home to every man's door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends. These little courts, however, communicated with others of a larger jurisdiction, and those with others of still greater power; ascending gradually ... . The course of justice flowing in large streams ... then subdivided into smaller channels, till the whole and every part of the kingdom were plentifully watered and refreshed. ... seems highly agreeable to natural reason ... being equally similar to that which ... was established in the Jewish republic by Moses. ...

In like manner we read of Moses ... (who) "chose able men out of Israel, such as feared God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens : and they judged the people ... ." These inferior courts ... still continue in our legal constitution ... ."

Here is shown the reputable Mr Blackstone referring to the "Ancient Constitution" of England (which necessarily includes its traditional "Common-Law", all as has been well-documented to be the basis of our American Constitutional System of Law and Government, and which will be illustrated more fully here-in). Here, near 1750-ad or so; Mr Blackstone is making "Clear Linkages" between the Torah-Laws of Israel's Ancient "Jewish Republic", and England's "Ancient Constitution". Mr Blackstone is here again clearly Forging Linkages between England's Constitutional "Little Courts" where-in "Injuries were Redressed ... by ... neighbors and friends", and Israel's sub-divided smaller self-governing "Courts" of the "Hundreds".

The Obvious Similarities between these two systems of de-centralized responsible self-
governing, where Mr Blackstone describes for England's Ancient Constitution, and Mr Adam's text explaining the much earlier system of de-centralized responsible self-governing which was practiced by the Anglo/Saxon peoples of Germany near the ad-450 time mark, is clearly to much to be a mere "Coincidence". Clearly; England's Ancient Constitution, as it existed in the ad-1750's or so, came, at least in very large part, from the Germanic Anglo/Saxon Peoples "Ancient Customs and Liberties", approximately 1300 years earlier, in ad-450 or so. This very important point will be shored-up by frequent references to it in future discussion presented in this document.

The fact that the Anglo/Saxon peoples of Germany migrated in the ad-450's or so to form the general population of later England, is not really any significantly new piece of data in the larger puzzle sought to be explored in this document. It is fairly easy to document these historical facts in common historical text-books. The data which is Significant, is the fact that those ancient Anglo/Saxon peoples were so very significantly Organized, in their De-Centralized and Responsible Self-Governing Smaller Communities of People; and the very Clear Linkages between their de-
centralized system of Governing, and the 1300-year earlier system of Governing in ancient Israel. These ancient Germanic/Anglo/Saxon Peoples of approximately 450-ad, were Not the great-mass of un-washed, constantly-warring "Barbarians" which the modern mind has so very erroneously and suspiciously come to picture them as. Those ancient Germanic Anglo/Saxons practiced a form of de-
centralized "Responsible Self-Governing" which is so profound that it is difficult for the modernly conditioned American mind to fully contemplate. Under such modern concepts as Sociological "Natural Law", and in terms of securing the related Peace and Happiness of the Common People; that Anglo/Saxon/Germanic System of de-centralized responsible self-governing may properly be considered to be head and shoulders "Superior" to its then only competing system of governing, which was that of the power-centralized and constantly land-hungry and warring slave-traders to their south, in the Roman Empire.4

And so, to look a the large picture again; these recently-quoted citations begins to fit well with the more modern American citations presented earlier; which, at first glance, may have seemed impossible to believe. However, and in this new light; these other-wise very controversial citations now may be examined more closely for any true merit contained there-in. For example; the previously quoted "Black's Law Dictionary" Definition of our American Constitutional concept of the "State"; which presented here now again, in part, reads as follows:

"State: A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-
law habits and custom into one body politic, exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe. ... The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power on behalf of the people. ... In its largest sense, "state" is a body politic or a society of men. ..."

When this citation was first presented above; it may have seemed a large jump of logic to presume our American Constitutional Concept of the "State" was firmly "Linked" to our ancient Anglo/Saxon history of "Common-Law". But the immediately preceding text form the "Essays on Anglo/Saxon Law" book, by Mr Adams; clearly indicated that this "Linkage" is quite Justified by the very real History behind this entire study. And actually, if the student will contemplate the entire matter for a moment, there really is no other logical explanation. For example; Mr Blackstone indicated earlier, concerning the Laws and Courts of ancient Israel, that: this general system of Courts and accompanying Body of Law "Still Continues" under our generally recognized Anglo/American "Legal-Constitutional" System of Governing.

This De-Centralized System of People's Courts and Law, of which Mr Blackstone speaks, is modernly more well-defined and traditionally-recognizable as simply "Common-Law". The only way these ancient Laws of Israel and of the Germanic Anglo/Saxons could have survived into Blackstone's 1750's England, would have been through a Community of People who "tenaciously" and continuously practiced them, over these lengthy time-periods.

To summarize: Our entire modern Anglo/American "Common-Law" system of "County" and "Precinct" Government is firmly intertwined with and linked to: the smaller responsible self-governing communities which existed back 3400 years ago, in ancient Israel and in the times of Moses, as the "Hundreds". Many people will surely find this assertion to audacious to embrace into their personal belief system. Yet this is precisely what the very reputable Mr Blackstone has so stated. And in further support there-of; the text of the Biblical/Torah passages, referring to these communities organized by the "Hundreds", are quite clear for everyone to review. Further; even modern law dictionaries show very powerful evidence that this very same 3400 year old system of government is at the very root of our modern American County, Precinct, and Township system of "Common-Law Government". Here-under; it is good here to Search for additional "Linkages" (if they truly exist) between our modern Anglo/American system of Organic "Constitutional Law and Government", and this 3400 year-old text in Exodus and Deuteronomy which references these responsible self-governing communities of the "Hundreds". And so, it is good now to examine such fashionably respected modern authorities as follows:

Blacks Law Dictionary; 5th Edition:

"Comitatus: In old English law, a county or shire, the body of a county. ... The county court, a court of great antiquity and of great dignity in early times. Also, the retinue or train of a prince or high governmental official. ... The personal following of professional warriors.

Constable: An officer ... (usually elected) whose duties are similar to those of the sheriff, though ... his jurisdiction is smaller. He is to preserve the public peace ... He was in general the leader of the royal armies, and had cognizance of all matters pertaining to war and arms, exercising both civil and military jurisdiction. He was also charged with the conservation of the peace of the nation.

Constituency. The inhabitants of an electorial district.

Constituent. He who gives authority to another to act for him. The term is used as correlative to "attorney", to denote one who constitutes another as his agent or invests the other with authority to act for him.

Constiture. Lat(-in). To appoint, constitute, establish, ordain, or undertake. Used primarily in ancient powers of attorney, and now supplanted by the English word "constitute".

County: The largest territorial division for local government in a State. Its powers and importance vary from state to state. In certain New England states, it exists mainly for judicial administration. ...

County courts: The powers and jurisdiction of such courts are governed by state constitutions or statutes ... some with ... criminal jurisdiction ... some with exclusive jurisdictions ... .

County officers: Those ... whose duties apply only to that county, and through whom the county preforms its normal political functions. Public officers ... selected by the county to represent it continuously and as part of the regular and permanent administration of public power in carrying out certain acts with the performance of which it is charged on behalf of the public.

County palatine: A term bestowed upon certain counties in England, the lords of which in former times enjoyed especial privileges. Thy might pardon treasons, murders, and felonies. All writs and indictments ran in their names; as in other counties in the king's; and all offenses were said to be done against their peace ... these privileges have in modern times nearly disappeared. .

Decanatus:	A deaconry. A company of ten persons. Also a town or tithing consisting originally of ten families of freeholders. Ten tithings compose a hundred.

Decanus: In Ecclesiastical and old European law, an officer having supervision over ten, a dean. A term applied not only to ecclesiastical, civil but to civil and military, officers. An officer among the Saxons who presided over a friborg, tithing, decannary, or association of ten inhabitants; otherwise called a "tithing man" or "borsholder", his duties being those of an inferior judicial officer. Decanus militarius; a military officer having command of ten soldiers. In Roman law, an officer having the command of a company ... of ten soldiers.

Hundred: Under the Saxon organization of England, each county or shire was composed of an indefinite number of hundreds, each hundred containing ten tithings, or groups of ten families of freeholders or frank-pledges. The hundred was governed by a high constable, and had it's own court; but its most remarkable feature was the corporate responsibility of the whole for the crimes or defaults of the individual members. The introduction of this plan of organization into England is commonly ascribed to Alfred, but the idea, as well of the collective liability as of the division, was probably known to the ancient German peoples, as we find the same thing established in the Frankish kingdom under Clothshire, and in Denmark.

Hundred Court: In English law, a larger court-baron, being held for all the inhabitants of a particular hundred, instead of a manor. The free suitors were the judges, and the steward the registrar, as in the case of a court-baron. It was not a court of record, and resembles a court-
baron in all respects except that in point of territory it was of greater jurisdiction. ... 3 Bl.Comm. 34, 35.

Precinct: A constable's or police district. A small geographical unit of government. An election district, created for convenient localization of polling places. A county or municipal subdivision for casting and counting votes in elections.

Sheriff: The chief executive and administrative officer of a county, being chosen by popular election. His principle duties are in aid of the criminal courts ... such as serving process, summoning juries, executing judgements, ... . He is also the chief conservator of the peace within his territorial jurisdiction.

Shire: A Saxon word which signified a division, it was made up of an indefinite number of hundreds, later called a county (Comitatus). In England, a County. So called because every county or shire is divided or parted by certain meets and bounds from another.

Shire-gemot: scire-gemote, scir-gemot . (From the Saxon Scir or Scyre , county, shire, and gemote, a court or assembly.) Variants of Scyregemote . See also Shire-mote, infra.

Shire-manor scyre-man. Before the Conquest, the Judge of the county, by whom trials for land, etc, were determined.

Shire-mote: The assize of the shire, or the assembly of the people, was so-called by the Saxons. It was nearly if not exactly , the same as scyregemote, and in most respects corresponded with what were after-words called county courts.

Shire-reeve: (spelled also Shire rieve, or Shire reve). In Saxon law, the reve or bailiff of the shire. The viscount of the Anglo-Normans, and the sheriff of later times.

Tithing Man: A constable. ... In New England, a parish officer annually elected to preserve order in the church ... and to make complaint of any dis-orderly conduct. ... In Saxon law, the head or chief of a tithing or decennary of ten families; he was to decide all lesser causes between neighbors. In modern English Law, he is the same as an under-constable or peace-
officer.

Tithing: One of the civil divisions of England, being a portion of the greater division called a "hundred". It was so called because ten freeholders with their families composed one. It is said that they were all knit together in one society, and bound ... for the peaceable behavior of each other. In each of these societies there was one chief or principle person, who, from his office, was called "teothing-man" now "tithing-man".

"Witenagemote: "The assembly of wise men." This was the great national council or parliament of the Saxons in England, comprising noblemen, high ecclesiastics, and other great thanes of the kingdom, advising and aiding the king in the general administration of government.

It was the grand council of the kingdom, and was held generally in the open air, by public notice or particular summons, in or near some city or populace town. These notices or summonses were issued by the king's select council, or the body met without notice, when the throne was vacant, to elect a new king. Subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called "commune concilium regni, cura regis", and finally "parliament"; but it's character had become considerably changed. It was a court of last resort, more especially for determining disputes between the king and his thanes, and, ultimately, from all inferior tribunals. Great offenders, particularly those who were members of or might be summoned to the kings court, were tried. The casual loss of title-deeds was supplied and a very extensive equity jurisdiction exercised. 1 Bl.Comm. 147. It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot."

Among other and broader purposes, these citations have been chosen in efforts to examine them for any possible "Linkages" between this Anglo/Saxon system of laws and governing, and the ancient Israelite system of governing under the Biblical Torah-Law. These citations have also been chosen to illustrate how, in older times, the entire Body of Law and the Organization of Anglo/Saxon Society in England was profoundly focused on the smaller responsibly self-governing communities known as the "Hundreds".

Here-under; it is good to note from these citations, that, the immediately smaller jurisdiction which collectively composed each such "Hundred" is also immediately jurisdictionally above the individual Households. This Smaller Anglo/Saxon common-law unit of localized Self-Government is and was known as the "Township". These "Townships" originally consisted of approximately "Ten Families" or Households. The above citations, from this reputable source, clearly illustrate these historical facts. In large part, just from these sources (other sources not presented here-in because of space & time constraints); the words "Town", "Ten", "Tenant", "Tenure", and "Tithing"; can all be seen to be "Related". The Economic Support for the entire ancient nation of England was Voluntarily Collected by the "Tithing-Man", or "Deacon"5; who was also the directly-elected Police-Officer; Peace-Officer, and/or "Constable" of that Township. In other words, their Tax-Collector and their Cop/Policeman, and he was a Directly "Elected" Member of Their Own Community of approximately 10-household-members.

This "Peace Officer" was also each Township's local-jurisdictional "Spiritual Leader". This "Spiritual Leader" was not a "pansy", like are most modern spiritual leaders. Rather; he was entirely capable of confronting death, as he lead the able-bodied men of his community into battle, even against opposing odds. This is how True "Spiritual-Leaders" function. They are ready to confront death on behalf of the people whom they heroically volunteer to defend. His Election by the Community Members gives him this "Natural Right" to claim "Royalty", and to demand "Tithing Donations", until it hurts. He has the Right and Duty to command the full position of the "Spiritual Leader" of their community. He is a "Mentor", or "Role -Model" for the Young Men, and he is the Repository of Safety and responsible Trust for the Old Men. He Organized the Able Bodied Men of the Community to Defend the entire Community with "what-ever force is necessary". The communities who elected these men, from their own ranks, to defend their communities, were obligated to give these men this recognition, because those communities Constantly Depended on these men to Defend their Community from the out-side/out-law aggressors. That is why they are called by the related term "Constable", because they are "Constantly" there, Defending Their Community.

As the above citations also show; the common-law self-governing unit known as the "Precinct" consisted of approximately a "Hundred" Families or Households, which are composed of approximately Ten Townships each. Each such "Precinct" had and has the right to Elect their Own Judges, who have traditionally been called the "Justice of the Peace", or the "Precinct Capitan" ; and who exercised Judicial as well as Executive functions. Although documentation is thin, these chief officers of each of these jurisdictions were probably subjected to "Immediate Recall", from the Town Constables who lead each of the smaller Townships which composed the Precinct. Here-under; problems with conspiracy by Precinct Captains to abuse the governmental power with which they were entrusted must have been very rare. In fact this "Hundred Court" or "Precinct Court" was merely an Assembly of the Town Constables, who gathered there-in to collectively assist each other in "Administering Justice", maintaining the Peace; and discussing smaller collective township business as road maintenance. "Service to God", as they conceived him, was probably also a very significant activity there-in.

Calls for "Votes of Confidence" in the previously-elected Leader of their Hundred/Precinct Court/Assembly probably could be submitted before the Assembly at any time. Such calls could be resolved, and new leadership elected (if so collectively decided to be best), all in a very quick and efficient manners. Each leader of each immediately larger jurisdiction in this entire Common-Law Hierarchy was probably subject to such a "Vote of Confidence", at any time in which the leaders of the smaller jurisdictions which composed it decided that a hearting on that matter was justified. This is a part of the genius of this deep-hierarchy torah-law/common-law arrangement. Here-by, each of these governmental jurisdictions only has enough sub-divisions of it's own general body, so that each of the elected leaders of the smaller sub-divisions involved in any specific jurisdiction has full opportunity to exercise what amounts to a "Veto Power" over any specific leader, or his policies.

The "Hundreds" of "Hundred Courts" of this ancient torah-law/common-law system of governing, are specifically mentioned in early American colonial writings. By way of the "Social Compact" which the approximately ten-townships of each precinct had entered into; whenever the well-armed people of any individual township faced any kind of organized attack from any group of hostile criminals which they could not safely handle by themselves, the Terms of their Social-Compact obligated them to send "Hue and Cry" to their "Precinct Captain" or "Justice of the Peace"; and through him to the remaining "Town Constables"; so that all members of their Precinct could quickly and efficiently be mobilized to come to the armed defense of the Township which was being attacked.

And our better known common-law jurisdiction of the "Counties" consisted of approximately a Thousand Families or Households; and it was sub-divided into approximately Ten "Precincts", or "Hundred Courts". The chief officer of those Counties has gone by different names in the past, but American Constitutional-Law generally recognizes him as the "County Judge", or the "Count"; and the "County Sheriff" was little more than his courts "Sergent at Arms". When all of the armed men of the approximately Ten Precincts got together, they formed a small army, which is still known modernly as "Posse Comitatus", and which was quite capable of defending against very formidable foes.

The "Counties", "Precincts", and "Townships", in England and early America were originally Constitutionally Organized with Full Lawful Authority, Right, and Duty, to Form Their Own "Courts of Justice", and "Try" All Crimes which have been committed in Their Geographical Jurisdiction. Their only requirement is that they follow basic American Constitutional "Due Process of Law", which is also known as "the Rules of the Common-Law", as the "Seventh Amendment" so clearly and profoundly declares.

These historical insights all merge well with the last Black's Law Dictionary citation given above, defining the "Witenagemote". This word was used to describe the general "Congressional Assembly" of these times. This "Witenagemote" was organized as a very efficient "Unicameral" Congressional Assembly, so that it could quickly and efficiently come to make the decisions necessary for responsibly filling their Duty to address the real organic/constitutional needs of the people of their nation.6 This Anglo/Saxon "Witenagemote" Congressional-Assembly was able to operate in this more quick and efficient manner, because the people it governed possessed functional tools for holding there delegates to some form of effective accountability. From the above description, and other testimony; this ancient Unicameral Assembly also exercised the "Judicial Power", and it probably also exercised effective control over the "Executive Power" of the Monarch, as well. This is all very similar to how affairs were conducted in the "General Congress Assembled", as mentioned in the first United States Supreme Governing Document, entitled simply and properly as the "Articles of Confederation". That fine governing document ran for approximately thirteen years, prior to the 1789 alleged adoption of the written so-called "US Constitution" document.

When the two systems are compared, side-by-side, in non pre-judged manners; the non-
prejudicial student of the subject will clearly recognize the vast Superiority of the earlier Anglo/Saxon and Israelite Models for organizing National Congressional Assemblies, for achieving true Peace among the individual members of the community, and Harmony with broader Sociological "Natural-
Law". As will be explored further here-in; the Modern Anglo/American Congressional Assemblies at such significant Divergence from the our mutually-shared "Fundamental Principles of Constitutional-
Law and Government" that they may properly be labeled as being "Constitutionally-Lawless". When viewed in contrast with the more Sociological "Natural-Law" way of Anglo/Saxon/Israelite Governing, the current mode of organizing our various Congressional Assemblies, is so very dysfunctional, that it seems to embrace criminality.

***

This precise "Jury Trail" Process has been in use, off and on, for probably more than 2,000 years. Related common-law process can be traced back 3,400 years; as shown earlier here-in. This ancient "Jury-Trial" Process has resulted in a History of Natural-Law based Decisions which are still modernly known as "Maxims of Law", and as the "Rules of the Common-Law". Harmony with this Sociological "Natural-Law" is consistently the logical result of these Jury Trails, because: it is very difficult to get twelve people to agree on anything; and once that impressive task has been achieved, presumption can then be justifiably made by everyone concerned with the issue, that harmony has there-by been achieved with Higher Sociological "Natural-Law". Here-after; the case-law precedents based on these Unanimous community-based Jury decisions, can properly be defined as "Law".

This is the true ancient source of "Common-Law"; and, at the larger jurisdictional levels, these twelve-person Juries can be assembled from the delegates sent to meet in the General "Congressional Assembly" to follow "Due Process of Law", as any current situation facing that assembly might require. This is probably how the Twelve Tribes of Ancient Israel were governed, as indicated in the Biblical Book of "Numbers", chapter 1. And because Jesus/Yeshuah respected that pre-existing "Torah-Law", it is probably how the Twelve Disciples s of Jesus governed the early Christian Church. It is probably how, prior to he evil "Norman Conquest" of 1066 ad, the rulers of England governed their national affairs. King Arthur's legendary "Round Table" was probably configured precisely to achieve this "Unanimous Verdict", from twelve separate self-governing jurisdictions. Please see the references to the Anglo/Saxon's "Witenagemote", as quoted here-in from "Black's Law Dictionary", and other sources.

Open-minded research into all of these historical government-related areas, shows much evidence for presuming that it was through the use of these Twelve-Member Consensus-Based Juries that these ancient communities were governed. Probably the single best evidence of this fact, which has survived the hostile history falsification from the book-burning jurisdiction of the Romanist slave-
traders, is the well-known fact hat Jesus/Yeshuah of the Bible set-up the early Christian Church in efforts to Govern the Nation of Israel through a Twelve Member Governing Body. Further; in the Torah-Law of the Old-Testament, in the Book of "Numbers", in the first chapter, is clear indication that "Twelve Princes" from the Twelve Tribes of Israel" had significant say in the governmental policies of that Israelite Nation. It is this authors opinion that it is clear that Christ/Messiah Jesus/Yeshuah was clearly attempting to remain Faithful to the older "Torah-Law" when he set up his Kingdom for the Governing of Israel. This author further believes , that, this is the precise Reason Why the Roman Slave-Traders and their Judas-goat quislings, the Pharisees, conspired to murder him. This is true, because, if the People learn how to "Responsibly Self-Govern", then the People will Organize Their Own Armed Defense, and they will Throw-Off the Chains of Tyranny. That, in turn, will cause the Slave-Traders to have to go out and find honest work, because they will soon run out of people to en-slave.

These Biblical texts seem to have miraculously survived the ages-old purposeful destruction agenda of the Romanist slave-traders conspiracy. But it seems that the true records of how the Anglo/Saxon's "Witenagemote" was governed, possibly by a Twelve Member Jury, have been effectively purged from the historical record by the invading slave-trading Romanistic armies of "William the Conqueror" in the "Norman Conquest" of 1066-ad. This author likes to theorize that "King Author's Round Table" may have been configured around a similar Twelve Member Governing Body as that which also seems to have been used at different times in ancient Israel. I believe this is why the legends of "Camelot" invoke such visions of grandeur. However; because of the massive book-burnings at the Point of the Romanist/Normanist Swords, the true reality on that point History may never be known.

"Common-Law" History and Definitions;

Historically True "Common-Law" is merely well-settled Modes of Procedure for defining how to conscionably apply Fundamental Principles of Natural-Law in individual communities. There-in; individual "Common-Law Jurors" are Obligated to Seek Consensus with other Jurors of their community, concerning how best to apply the Conscience and Reasoning Capabilities of Their Community, in response to Complaints concerning people with-
in their community.

Frequently; after people finally acknowledge the Superiority of Localized Community-Based "Natural Law" and Responsible Self-Governing Process, as being superior over the various Romanistic "Malum-Prohibitum" based forms of Provisional Governmental Social-Engineering Schemes; there still remains the objection that these Communities will still Need Some Person or Group of People to "Declare" What Is "Natural-Law" for that community.

Since ancient times, the singular mode of procedure which makes any sort of reasonable claim to be able to accomplish this task has been through the smaller and more local communities choosing their own "Common-Law Juries". These twelve "Common-Law Jurors" were lawfully required to be Selected Form the People who were generally recognized in their local communities to be of "Good Reputation", and they also had to pledge up-on their honor to Deliberate in Good-Faith, until they achieved a "Unanimous Verdict", with regard to the controversy before them.

Harmony with Sociological "Natural-Law" can Only be Achieved, consistently, through such a Consensus-based and "Unanimous" Decision-Making Process as this. "Majority Rule" decision-
making, as is modernly so fashionable practiced, is the tool of oppressors and tyrants. There is No Justifiable Reason to not seek these Consensus-based Decisions, as are readily available, if one has come to a full comprehension of the profound sociological advantages to be had from following basic traditional "Common-Law Jury-Trial" Process.

When it is fully comprehended how this Consensus-based "Jury Trail" process was actually functioning in these ancient grass-roots, de-centralized, and communities; it will become obvious that the Leaders; who were to serve in the Larger Jurisdictions Over these Smaller Communities, were also chosen through a "Consensus" -based process. In pre-1066-ad Norman-Conquest England, and Under the "Articles of Confederation" in early America, very large portions of this "Consensus" -based Decision-Making and Leadership Selection Process, was in place; especially at the smaller and more localized levels of governing.

Here-under; when "Unanimous Verdicts" were rendered concerning what Social Policies should be Enforced as "Law" in their communities; the Roots of these Twelve Jurors, as People of "Good Reputation" in their communities, furnished significant tangible "Evidence" that the local people in those communities considered the "Unanimous Verdict" which was rendered through those Juror's Judgement to be based firmly on a form of Conscionable, Reasonable, and Socially-Organic "Natural Law". Even today, the Jurors Role is to Function as the "Conscience of the Community". "Conscience" and "Consensus" are clearly "Related Terms".

This all left very little social-engineering for the officers of central government to be burdened with. These local Common-Law Communities were basically very self-sufficient and happy with-out any such micro-managing; and because the people back then were sufficiently in touch with their true natural-organic needs, that this was universally recognized by every-one to be in the best interests of the entire nation. These ideas are discussed more later in this document.

But the main point here is that it is Only through Obtaining such effective Evidence of the "Consent" of the Local "Constituents", as has traditionally been done through following this ancient Anglo/American Common-Law "Trial by Jury" process; can the truly "Organic Needs" of any natural living-breathing Organic "Body-Politic" of People be meaningfully and functionally addressed. In more Organic terms; in order for any body of social behavior guidelines to be "Constitutional", these guidelines must enable the Collective Spirit of the Common "Constituent" People to "Come Together" in a "General Congressional Assembly", so that they may Collectively Address their own larger collective organic "Body-Politic's" Natural/Organic Needs.

Here-under; People from Out-Side of any particular Community, benevolent or other-wise, are Not capable of "Providing" this truly defined "Constitutional Law" for the People whom they might claim authority to govern. True "Constitutional Law" is established Only through the solemn and un-rushed deliberations of "The People" them-selves, in their own smaller and responsibly self-
governing communities; or through similar general-assemblages of their honorably elected and faithfully accountable "Representatives". This True Organic and Fundamental form of "Constitutional-Law" is Universally Applicable to every nation on earth, including our own USA.

The Norman Conquest of 1066-ad:

Please note from the above definition of "Witenagemot", that this governing body was simply a "Grand Council of the Kingdom", that sometimes "the body Met Without Notice", and that it was with-in their power to "Elect a New King". Note that "subsequently to the Norman Conquest it was called ... finally 'parliament'; but it's character had become considerably changed, (and) that a Very Extensive Equity Jurisdiction (was) exercised. ... It passed out of existence with the Norman Conquest, and the subsequent Parliament was a separate growth, and not a continuation of the Witenagemot".

These words show clearly how the largely De-Centralized "Common-Law Government" which was originally working in England, in its more ancient and optimal Anglo/Saxon/Israelite modes, was Significantly Altered during this 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event. Some further citations which provide much-needed breadth to the larger picture of this Critically-Important Turning-
Point in our Anglo/American Organic-Constitutional History, read as follows:

"Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of Justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered, was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these popular, non-professional courts, the Norman King, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were the agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers * * * and the courts over which they presided * * * gradually all but displaced the popular, non-professional courts."

"The Anglo-Saxon tribunals had been open to all; every freeman could appeal to them for justice. But there was no corresponding right to sue in the king's courts. That was a privilege which had to be purchased by any suitor who wished to avail himself of * * * royal justice. These privileges were issued to suitors by the king's secretary or chancellor, and the document which evidenced the privilege was called an original writ.

"Common Law Pleading"; by George L. Clark; Lawyers Co-Op, 1947.

"Anglo-Saxon Law: The texts of the Anglo-Saxons were much copied and used even after the Norman Conquest, and as late as the 12th century, the law generally in force was still essentially Anglo-Saxon, ... The pre-Conquest kings, like all Christian Rulers, admitted a general responsibility for law and order, but did not claim more than a vague supervision. They avoided the direct administration of the law in all but the most exceptional cases, leaving local institutions to apply traditional rules and procedures which evidently varied from place to place."

Norman Law. The Norman Kings took a much more active view of their duties and interfered freely in the administration of Justice. First they had to tame the sheriff, who dominated the county (shire) court, so as to prevent him becoming an over-powerful magnate - and this without at the same time crippling an essential local institution. By Issuing writs authorizing the sheriff to do justice in the county court in the kings name, the king finally subjected the country to strict control. To subdue the local courts, strongholds as they were of the old Anglo-Saxon law, was only half the battle, for a central court was essential if that control was to be effective. Here the Normans broke with the old traditions, and invited the public to litigate in the kings court. ... By these means Henery II erected the most centralized judicial system of all of Europe.

... Through this closely knit system of central and local courts, the crown thus became the fountain of justice, dispensing a law which was "common"to all the land. The common law is therefore (became perverted, as) the expression of royal centralization at the expense of local institutions, and its origin in the principles and practices developed by the kings courts, particularly the court of Common Pleas. ... Already in the 12th century it was becoming an acknowledged principle that none need answer claims against him ... unless made by a royal writ. Thus the crown secured a monopoly of the most important sort of civil litigation."

Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, 1963; Common Law/ Historical Survey/

All of these citations, taken together, collectively Prove the existence of a widely practices and "Natural-Law" based System of Social Government which originated at least as far back in time as 3400 years ago, in the times of Moses, under the Biblical and Torah based Laws of the true Nation of Israel. This 3400 year old body of Natural-Law and Torah-Law based Governing was basically a true and honestly workable system of De-Centralized and Localized "Responsible Self-Governing"; and some-how, it had Survived the hostile influence of the powerful Roman Empire, and Survived as a workable system of Governing in-to ancient England, at least up until the so-called "Norman Conquest" of 1066-ad. Further, the Survival of the practice of these Torah-Laws of Israel in ancient England seems to be owed to "Christian Rulers".

It is of critical importance to note that, in terms of "the History of Human Freedom", this entire 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event was an immensely Tragic Event; because, that 1066-ad event Marked the End of the comparatively Pure Practice of these Torah-based Natural-Law in human society on this planet. Yet curiously; the existence of this Natural-Law based Governing Model, its Israelite Torah-Law History, and its Purposeful Destruction at the time of this 1066-ad event, all seems to be Purposefully Obscured from our modern knowledge of History.7 Those scholars who are aware of this history, and who are honest about it, will not contest the accuracy of the general proposition set forth here-in, that Profound Fundamental Change Against De-Centralized, Popularly-Supported, and "Participatory" Government, was Instituted in England during this so-called "Norman Conquest" of 1066-ad.

To be clear, the pre-existing Anglo-Saxon methods of responsibly "Self-Governing" were less than perfect, as they themselves were invaders from the Germanic nations, hundreds of years earlier, around 450-ad or so. But they shared the same basic and general methodology of de-centralized self-
governing as were used by the Celts, Brits, and other cultures then in the area. As a direct result, when their localized invasions were completed; the communities of people who were over-taken, were not nearly so disastrously oppressed, as what occurred under the totally different, foreign and sociologically un-organic, top-down, authoritarian, control-oriented Romanistic system, which was imposed over all of those communities at the time of that 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event.

Here-under, the Anglo-Saxon culture of Britain had effectively preserved the basic older and truer forms of sociologically-organic "Natural-Law" and "Torah-Law", as it had survived under the kindred cultures of the Brits, Celts, and other clan/tribe nation/state communities. The vast majority of the history of this ancient de-centralized Natural-Law mode of Governing are a true delight to read.

As the above citations show, the Disastrous 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event instituted a system of slavery over the American Founders Anglo/Saxon Ancestors. Literally, the very Fabric of Anglo/Saxon Society was Ripped Apart during that event. These realities are shown by the following citation:

"The Shetar's Effect on English Law ... The Georgetown Law Journal; Judith A. Shapiro.8

English Law, like the English language, is an amalgam of diverse cultural influences. The legal system may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete elements from disparate sources. After the conquest of 1066, the Normans imposed on the English an efficiently organized social system that crowded out many Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England, in their turn contributed to the changing English society. The Jews brought a refined system of commercial law: their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern it. These rules made their way into the developing structure of English Law.

Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written credit agreement – shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The basis of the shetar, or "Jewish Gage," was a lien on all property (including realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods and land of the defaulting debtor. Both "movable and immovable" property were subject to distraint.

In contrast, the obligation of knight service under Anglo-Saxon law barred a land transfer that would have imposed a new tenant (and therefore a different knight owing service) upon the lord. The dominance of personal feudal loyalties equally forbade the attachment of land in satisfaction of debt; only the debtor's chattels could be seized. These rules kept feudal obligations intact, assuring that the lord would continue to be served by his own knights. When incorporated into English practice, the notion from Jewish law that debts could be recovered against a loan secured by "all property, movable and immovable" was a weapon of socio-
economic change that tore the fabric of feudal society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land holding.

Creditors had the statutory right to execute against the debtor's land. No longer were personal obligations and rights in land rigidly separate. Even while Edward was divesting himself of his Jewish moneylenders, he made their legacy permanent. A small but significant principle of Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real property had become the law of the land.

Footnotes:

9 ... "The feudal system originated in the relations of a military chieftain and his followers, or king and nobles, or lord and vassals, and especially their relations as determined by the bond established by a grant of land from the former to the latter. From this it grew into a complete and intricate complex of rules for the tenure and transmission of real estate, and of correlated duties and services ..."

11: ... Jews liquidation of land obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer of land to new capitalist class.

15: ... alien to English law for creditor not in possession of land to have rights in it."

Please note that the "Shetar" referred to here is is related to the old "Star Chamber" Courts, which existed in England; and which were eventually abolished because they were so oppressive of the common people. This is all shown through the following "Black's Law Dictionary" definitions:

"Starr or starra. The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews, being a corruption from the Hebrew word "shetar", a covenant, by an ordinance of Richard I, no starr was allowed to be valid, unless deposited in one of certain repositories established by law, the most considerable of which was in the king's exchequer at Westminster; and Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was thence called the "Star-Chamber"."

"Star Chamber: A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed ... that no inferior court would find its process obeyed. ... In the reign of Henry the 8th, & his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended to such a degree (especially in punishing the kings arbitrary proclamations) that it became odious to the nation, and was abolished."

So, to summarize: Ms Shapiro's main article, from the reputable "Georgetown Law Journal", clearly declares that this Norman Conquest "Tore the Fabric" of the previously existing Anglo/Saxon and related cultures then residing in England; and that this all resulted in "English Law" becoming "an amalgam of diverse cultural influences" which "may fairly be seen as a composite of discrete (distinct) elements from disparate sources". Here-under; a "New Capitalist Class" was established as the ruling elite aristocracy in England; and this "New Capitalist Class" used the infamous "Star Chamber" Courts to enforce its authoritarian rule over the common people of England.

Because in her article here, Ms Shapiro finds it Necessary to focus (in very large part) on the influence of the group of people whom she identifies simply as "The Jews"; here-under, this author would like to point out that I do believe that these people who are commonly identified as "Jews", were and are really Not True Semitic/Israelite "Jews". First; when the issue of proper definition of this important word is pressed, it will usually be admitted that, in its modernly usage at least; the word "Jew" has come to refer Not to a Race or genetic-lineage of people, but to a "Religion". This "Jewish Religion", is most modernly construed as "Rabbinical-Judaism".9 Scholarly texts by modern authors who are supportive of this Religion, admit that modern "Rabbinical Judaism" finds its true roots, 2000 years ago, in the Religion of the "Pharisees". That ancient "Pharisee Religion" opposed teachings of Jesus/Yeshuah, who was dividing the Israelite People away from that Rabbinical-
Jew/Pharisee Religion. The religious/legacy ancestors of this modern Religion of "Rabbinical Judaism" is certainly what Ms Shapiro was was referring to in her article above. Ms Shapiro was talking about a "community of people" who practiced certain so-called "Jewish Laws". Observance of those so-called "Jewish Laws" is Not a Racial Indicator, but a Belief-System Indicator, probably entirely (and at least similarly) "Religious" in its essential nature.

Here-under; this author would like to point out that the Torah-Laws of the True "Jews" of Israel are concerned with sharing the benevolence and fairness of a loving, nurturing, and true God; and that participating in any manner with efforts which "Tore the Fabric" of a conquered nation, is Not what the True Followers of the God of Israel, YHWH, would do. In fact the Anglo/Saxons were practicing the true Torah-Law of Israel (as already shown here-in), and these people who came in with the Norman Conqueror were Actively Destroying this popular practice and observance of the True Torah-Laws of Israel, as those Torah-Laws were already being practiced in England's Anglo/Saxon society.

This entire very convoluted dynamic is well illustrated by the Christian Bible, which seeks to Separate "True Jews" (whom it supports), from the "False Jews", whom it condemns. This admonition is expressed in the Biblical book of "Revelation" at chapters 2: 9 and 3; 9. These verses similarly read to warn against those people who "say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie".

And although these extremely explosive "Religious Views" will be largely avoided in this document, as declared by this author in my opening paragraphs; I will point out that: There have already been shown in this document, very solid "Linkages" between the what our modern Anglo/American Constitutional Jurisprudence considers to be Sociological "Natural-Law", and the Liberty-Preserving "Torah-Laws" of Ancient Israel. Further, and as also shown here-in; the Anglo/Saxon system of "Common-Law Government" Preserved those very Same Natural-Law based Israelite "Torah-Laws". Once that Historical "Linkage" is Firmly Established in the students mind; then clarity may be gained in mentally picturing an obscured historical reality in which: "these people 'Who Say they are Jews', are Actively Participating in the Destruction of an Entire Culture of People who are Obedient to the Torah-Laws of the True Jews of the Nation of Israel". At that point, it becomes more proper, to consider the Anglo/Saxons, who are actually Practicing the Torah-Laws of ancient Israel, to be the True Israelite "Jews"; and to consider that portion of the Conquering Invaders "Who Say they are Jews" to actually be "Not" True Jews, "but who Lie" about the entire matter, just as Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 so identify them.

In attempts to be completely balanced; it was not only the Religious Community of the people who "Say they are Jews", who are involved in supporting that evils of the "Norman Conquest" of England, in 1066-ad. This author has at least two reputable citations which clearly declare that the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church was Actively Engaged in the Support of that 1066-ad "Norman Conquest" event. One brief citation in support of this point, reads as follows:

Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p.609; William 1: ... Conquest of England ... :

"William had some difficulty in securing the help of his barons for his proposed invasion of England; it was necessary to convince them individually by threats and persuasions. Otherwise conditions were favorable. William secured the benevolent neutrality of the emperor Henry IV., and the expedition had the solemn approval of Pope Alexander II.

There are other citations available, but they are inconvenient to reproduce here and now. Those other citations have proven to this author that this Pope not only sent money and soldiers to support that "Norman Conquest" event, he also gave the invasion his Public Blessing. The Roman Church previously had little or no influence in England, prior to that "Norman Conquest" event. Not unexpectedly; immediately after that ""Conquest", the footings of the Roman Catholic Church became firmly Established and wide-spread in England.

The main point to note here is that, this historical data shows clearly that: The people who "Say they are Jews" and the Leadership of the Roman Catholic Church were 'Actively Working Together' to Destroy (Tear the Fabric) of the Final Remnants of a Nation/State/Culture which was Actively Practicing Obedience to Godly Israelite Torah-Laws.

This author presently considers that this is as far as is necessary and prudent to explore these obviously very significant "Religious Issues", as they relate to the main subject of this document.10

Regardless of the approximately 711-year-history, since that "Norman Conquest", of Hostile Forces Attempting to Obliterate every remnant of this Freedom-Oriented, De-Centralized, Grass-
Roots, Mode of Responsible Self-Governing; it has still all some-how survived in-to our modern American Constitutional System of Government. This very "Common-Law" Mode of Governing is solidly brought with-in the spheres of modern American "Constitutional-Law", by way of numerous citations such as one from: The Oregon Blue Book, 1997; as published by Oregon's Secretary of State; and under its section on "County Government", wherein is stated the following:

"... the American county, defined by Webster as "the largest territorial division for local government within a state ...," is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest. Counties were brought to America by the colonists and were later established in the central and western parts of this country by the pioneers as they moved westward."

The main point from this citation, that, under our American Constitutional System of Government "the American county ... is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest" can be supported through numerous other reputable sources (not presented here-in, because of time constraints). When considered together with the other citations already presented here-in, especially from "Black's Law Dictionary"; these citations also show that this very ancient De-Centralized Anglo/Saxon System of Localized and Popularly-Based "Common-
Law" Self-Governing, still Survives today under our modern Anglo/American Constitutional concepts of "Counties", "Precincts", and "Townships"11. Here-under; this "Common-Law" System of Governing has been incorporated (in large part) into the larger body of our Modern American "Constitutional-Law". To argue otherwise, is to argue that "Counties" are not a part of our modern nation's over-all system of general "Constitutional-Law and Government". It is unlikely that any modern reputable American constitutional-law scholar will attempt to argue against that proposition.

It is particularly worthy to note here-under, that; the American-Revolution effectively Removed All Remnants of the Oppression of that "Norman Conquest" which had been implemented over our American Nations English Ancestors. The 1776 American-Revolution had been emphatically sought by freedom- loving Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen, and the like; ever since that fateful date in 1066-ad, or for approximately 710 years. The American-Revolution was at least a 710 year-old dream come true for our Nations Founders. Some people, including this author, consider it to be almost a 2000 year-old "Dream Come True", since the Roman slave-traders Leveled the Temple and Destroyed Jerusalem and its Torah-Law/Common-Law system of governing, in ad-70. This is why the Pilgrims called America "New Jerusalem", and it is why Andrew Jackson and numerous other prominent Americans believed in our nations "Manifest Destiny".

But no matter how the student calculates the time in which this "Dream" of "Free Government" has been desperately held by America's Ancestors; the clear historical fact is that, in 1776, with the "American Revolution", this ancient "Dream" Finally "Came True". This is a Critically Important Point which Needs to be Inscribed in "Living-Light" in prominent places through-out our once grand American nation.

Justification for the American Revolution:

Reviewing the Natural-Law based Grounds for the American Revolution.

During the months and years immediately prior to our American Revolution, prior to July 1776; the Government of Britain was "DeFacto", ie: it was not ruling in accord with the Fundamental, Organic , "Constitutional Law" of the Common-People of England. As previously here-in shown Anglo/American Organic "Constitutional-Law" so clearly recognizes; tendencies to usurp and lawlessly exercise Power is a very common affliction, which can only be Kept in Check by the Frequent use of "Accountability-Checks" from the Common People. In order for abusive Usurpations of Power to Survive, they must be kept in place through symbiotic relationships with other groups of people who have assembled un-naturally massive amounts of Wealth. These massive consolidations of wealth can only be completed through Debt-Collection Practices which Administer the "Force of the State" in Coercive and Non-Voluntary Violation of the Fundamental, Organic, and Constitutional "Common-Law" of England.

Although the previously-existing "Stuart Monarchy" had previously also acted in lawless and usurping manners, and lawful grounds did exist to oust and replace them with better national leadership; the Stuarts had "Held The Line" against the Money-Changer/Banker Power; which, after the ouster of the Stuarts, immediately began exercising free reign to lawlessly and coercively Enforce Debt-Collections in England. As the direct result of the ousting of the Stuart monarchy, and shortly there-after, in the late 1600's; the "Bank of England" was established. There-after, and on to this day; almost every policy of England's Parliament, their Courts, and of the Monarchy of England, have been Subservient to that "Money Power".

During the months and years prior to our American Revolution; the money people behind the Corporate-Veil of the "Bank of England" were effectively "In Control" of the Parliament, Courts, and the Monarchy of England. There-under; these governmental office-holders had become extremely Disconnected from any grass-roots, bottom-up, democratic, public/republic, Accountability-
Mechanisms, as possibly emanating from England's Common People.12 This is precisely "Why" that English Government Responded in such Abusive and Lawless Fashion, to our forefathers petitions that they respect our people's natural rights and liberties.

The Representatives in the English Parliament were mostly puppet/drones, who mindlessly rubber-stamped what they believed to be the wishes of the Monarch. Just like their Monarch; those Parliament Members were Not "Representative" of the collective consciousness of the Common People of England. The Parliament Members had been selected by artificial means, in top-
down/authoritarian fashion, directly or in-directly, by the behind-the-scenes "Money-Power", to give the Colored Appearance of a truly constitutional and representative bottom-up, grass-roots, democratic, republican selection process. And they had similar or worse problems afflicting their higher Courts.

As already shown here-in; with-in the parameters of the un-written, organic, common-law based English "Constitution", the People who Hold the Offices of the True Organic/Constitutional Parliament and Monarchy of England, were and are "Lawfully Required" to be a Bottom-Up, Grass-
Roots Assembly of the Representatives of the True Will of their Constitutional "Constituents", the Common People of England. This is the Only Lawful Mandate for any office-holders, any-where, to exercise Any Governmental Power. Un-Written Organic Constitutional-Law Requires Precisely This from All English Constitutional Public-Office Holders, and that Includes the Members of the Parliament, the Courts, and the Monarch. This is "The Law"; in its pre-existing, un-adulterated, Anglo/American, natural/organic and true "Constitutional" form.

The history is clear that our American Founding Fathers had written numerous Reasonable Letters and Petitions respectfully voicing Grievances over concerns for our Natural Rights and Liberties to the Parliament and to the Monarch of England. Each time these letters, petitions, and grievances were Rudely and Arrogantly Rebuked. The true Constitutionally-Lawful Representatives of the Common-People of England, who organically compose that nation, would not have Responded so Rudely and Arrogantly. Those Common People would have Recognized the "Justification" for our American Fore-Fathers Petitions, if given the informed opportunity. Responding with such Rude Arrogance was Not in the Best Interests of the Common English People, as later history has clearly proven.

The English People's True Organic/Constitutional Representatives, in the Parliament, the Monarchy, and the Courts; were "Lawfully Required" to Responded in the Same Manner as reflected that "Best Reasonable Response" of the Common People of England. Again; the Un-Written Organic Constitutional-Law Requires Precisely This. Yet the British Legislators then in power were exercising the authority of their offices in an arrogant disregard of that "Law".13 This fact that the Monarch and the members of Parliament Failed to Honorably Respond to our Fore-Fathers Grievances, by reflecting the True Informed Will of the Common English People; means clearly that, Those Officer Holders were "Lawless", aka; "DeFacto" Holders of those High-Offices.

Because the people then holding the offices of the government of England were Exercising the Power of those Offices Un-Lawfully, with-out any Responsible Concern for the Will of their Constituents; they were immediately lawfully recognizable as being "Un-Lawful Occupants" of those Offices, ie, they were members of an "Out-Law" and/or "DeFacto" Government of England.

Because there is No Lawful Obligation for "Obedience" to any Lawless/DeFacto Government, especially when that governmental entity has "Defaulted" by "Failing to Respond" to "Complaints" of "Criminal Abuses of its Powers"; here-under; our "United States of America" Founding-Forefathers were entirely "Justified" in our Taking Up Arms and Throwing-Off the Tyranny of that Oppressive DeFacto-Government, then existing in England.14