 The American common law seems uncertain, and in need of some high-level government support that it never really received. Not only has government tried its best to replace the common law with more certain legislation, but has attempted to actually replace it in its entirety with legal codes. In short, the government support of the common law has been much like the support it gives to the sovereignty of citizens. That speaks most eloquently to the potency and effectiveness of this systematic legal approach, where the government and its leaders have professionally assumed sovereignty that belongs to the people, so professions of creating and administering law stepped into authority over the American legal system. There is little to be learned about our common law authority from today's process-based legal training. They accept the fact that of the authority of legislators, of police, of judges, and lawyers, these are the oligarchs of the legal system. Professional leaders who decide what is legal and who may do it. These are the in-group who act as owners of our American legal system because it seems right that they do so. And why not? Nobody else understands what they have accomplished in their part of Beneficent Rule over the Nation and overweave the people. For any deeper understanding, we have to go back to the beginning. The common law of America began with the principles of the English common law, but stripped away any ability of the sovereign government to rule over the people's common law. The common law no longer answered to sovereign authority. There was no king's law to overrule it, nor legislation given authority to modify or remove it. The two existing principles behind all provision of the common law were personal justice and fairness in how people peacefully dealt with one another. The success of the colonial revolution achieved a startling new principle, that the citizens in the American colonies were the in-fact sovereigns. They, not government, had ultimate sovereignty. The new legal environment had to include the sovereignty of we the people. American law would have to include the new concept of the people's sovereign rights. Instead of privileges granted by government to citizens, it was government that had granted privileges instead from the sovereign people. With multiple sovereigns, there was also a need for a new legal principle, and it could be stated as a recognition that the rights of a citizen were limited only by the rights of other citizens. The rights of one citizen only ended where the rights of another citizen began. You will note this fits well into the original English common law structure. Our constitution documents this new relationship, one of sovereignty of the common citizen being the source of government. Our constitution reversed the system we had from England, where the government had recognized right to rule over the legal system. The American common law was not subservient to the new government of the United States. It was the government that was created for the stated purposes of providing justice and assuring domestic tranquility. That new government was bound within a written agreement by and among the sovereign citizens and delegated working potencies to this new government, and that set duties upon it. The power of the new government and the duty of it to legislate did not provide authority to override the common law. It was to run the government for the benefit of the people who owned and empowered it. For the sovereign people, their government had a new legal foundation. It was a required legal respect for citizens as the source of authority. The people were the source of all public authority for all those who were employed and running this new government. Rights were no longer subject to governmental limitation because such authority was not delegated in the constituting agreement. Indeed, no sovereign citizen had authority to override the sovereignty of their fellow citizens, and they could not legally empower a government to do what they had no power to do. Where did this leave the courts? What was the basis for laws that they were to apply? This is no mystery. The common law is no mystery. The sovereignty of the people is no mystery. Justice is not a mystery and neither is fairness. The challenge is not one of law, but one of privilege. How the judge can be truly an authority for applying this common law? That authority had been granted in the English courts by reference to the sovereign right of government to apply the law. In the American colonies, this was gone. It was wiped away through revolution. The authority of the judge was to be assured by continuing to deliver justice and support for domestic tranquility. When it came to the courts, the American experiment hit a solid wall. The judiciary accepted its duty to be based on legislation, and it still had legislation subject only to the supreme law of the land. It seemed no immediate impediment to continue what the courts had been doing. When the Constitution seemed to redirect it, it was still right to continue as the rest of government leadership was also ignoring and or misreading the Constitution. They misread it as necessary to assume themselves as replacements of the English aristocracy. In short, the courts continued applying legislation as the higher law, assuming that those who legislated were actually representing we the people. They honored the process of legislation instead of the purpose for having legislation. They rejected limitations on legislation that might have caused significant changes in the operation of the courts. And where the process of legislation failed, judges would step in, as if in the king's name, to do what they could to support the legislators in doing what the legislators had attempted to do. The common law base was treated as an honored part of history, worthy of respect, but no more the center of law in America than it had been in England. Our common law has not gone away. Our common law has not been replaced by legislation. Our common law is effectively the sovereign property of the people and is superior to all legislation. Our common law recognizes a sovereign citizen's right to practice the religion of his or her choice, so long as no other citizens are denied their right to practice. No law can be passed to change this. No regulation of the exercise of religious rights can be valid. No religion can have its tenants forced on any opposed, sovereign citizen, except to protect others from criminal behaviors. Offending others is not a common law crime. Neither is there any right where any religion gets to protect its adherence from the results of their actions, nor to relieve religious leaders from accountability for the results of their teachings that lead to criminal assault or torts against other citizens. The common law recognizes the sovereign citizen's right to speak in public and to write and publish freely. This right is supported only so long as their speech and writing do not defeat the rights of other sovereign citizens to speak and write. The common law recognizes the sovereign citizen's right to exercise authority over the property that they own, so long as it is not either to limit or interfere with the property ownership of others. The common law demands fairness in and through application of law that no law be applied to one citizen different than to another, nor applied to one and withheld from others. The common law demands justice in our courts, fairness to every citizen who comes within the jurisdiction of a court. The common law demands support for the peaceful pursuit of profession and livelihood, free from the authoritative regulation of rulers, except as necessary to protect the rights of other citizens. The common law demands support for the contracts and agreements that are the basis for much of our interaction between citizens. Justice and fairness are mandates, not the result of legislation. The common law demands police support for the peaceful and cooperative public use of public resources. It demands protection from aberrant behaviors that would threaten the health, lives or property of other citizens, and from our potential for aberrant actions against one another. There is no common law right to vote. The owner's right is to representative government. It is not limited to taking part in hiring actions to determine who will exercise authorities of some sovereign government as it rules over us. The right of the people is inherent in preventing the violations through misrepresentation, embezzlement, and bribery. The right of representation is denial of the corporate body actions that are not representative of we the people, laws that allow corporate bodies to influence legislation, or that support non-citizens are all laws at the expense of those who are entitled to representation. Giving charity in the name of the people is within the definition of embezzlement. It is taking the people's money and redirecting it to meet needs that are not the needs of the people. Taking money for projects that do not support the people who are taxed is embezzlement. It is misrepresenting the people through act of governance. There is no legal way to establish a fair share tax. The operation of government is at public expense and government services are not to be given to the wealthy above those who are not. Unequal government is offensive to the common law. Our common law is not mysterious, nor is fairness and justice in our courts to be dependent upon what legislators do in Congress. If they would codify law, it is to be honored subject to the purposes for which there are courts of law. That is a service to we the people who seek justice and fairness in our public and private activities. And finally, the common law is a law for the people, not a law for lawyers and legislators. If a law is such that the people cannot be expected to know and understand it, that it is not a law that arises from representing we the people. Judges are public officers, and judges should hold their offices of honor so long as they seek justice and fairness for sovereign citizens. But this is not descriptive of the courts that we have today. While those employed in our government seek to provide fairness and justice, they are bound by written codes and too often ordered to applications of laws that do not represent either justice or the sovereign citizen. In our modern legal environment, a citizen is all but required to have a legal process expert, a lawyer for support. For the citizen without a good lawyer, the courts are unable to assure justice. The common law is not gone, nor are the principles of justice and fairness. But those who rule have written their own law, even as the English government had done. For perspective, the very purpose for our American Revolution was to put an end to government legislation that interfered with justice and domestic tranquility. And yes, there will always be questions of justice and fairness that have to be submitted to the courts for answers. There will always be a need for determination of how justice and fairness are best to be served. The need for courts to provide protection of citizens and to peacefully settle disputes is both known and accepted by all. The courts are to be there to serve we the people and to have the aid and support of systems of juries of sovereign citizens at their call to represent the people whenever this is required to support their performance of public duties. Our unique common law is still there, but will not be given effect until we the people are agreed that this is to be accomplished. And when the leaders ask how they are to do this, the answer is that is their responsibility as public officers. Wherever we are agreed, we will also support what they must do to serve us.