The US is failing in two ways:
1. Look at silver... the price, the availability, the contracts for more silver than is available. This is causing great turmoil under the surface, and presidential action against Maduro is attempting to give an appearance of strength;
2. The people are waking up to the fact that a whole section of law has been hidden from them. It's common law, which is different than civil law, and in America, is above civil law. In fact, common law is not really the thing that is described by legal law courts. Court-speak leaves a lot out of what common law really is.
In the United States of America there seems to be only two kind of trials: criminal trials and civil trials. I have not heard about the existence of Common trials, and already there is enough precedent in the USA to understand how their criminal and civil law works and are dominant on the country.
Assuming people paid attention to common law (whatever it is) they it would break too many precedents in the country that it would be necessary to re-shape or overhaul the system in your country. You will never see a successfully defence neither in criminal or civil law which used arguments about common law or independency from the state. Even Amish need to pay taxes.
Common law trials are either criminal or civil.
The difference between common law trials and civil law trials are basically twofold:
1. Civil law trials are what is done most of the time. They usually involve representation by attorney, or representation of the man or the woman by himself/herself. It can include parts of common law.
2. Common law trials are between people. There is no representation. The accused man or woman must not have an attorney as in the form of being the client of an attorney. Neither can they represent themselves as in
pro se or
propria persona (Latin for proper person). They stand as men or women without representation, although they may have counsel to help them. The counsel may be an attorney if the attorney is only a co-counsel, which means that he cannot speak into the record. Only the accused man/woman can speak.
There are other points to all of this, but this is some of the basics. It's all based, first, on the 6th and 7th Amendments, and then on court adjudications of these Amendments. The indictment accused name generally is a person, an artificial entity, created by some prosecutor for the trial. It is not the man/woman except if the man/woman accepts that it is him/her.
The trick for the man/woman is to keep from accidentally saying or doing something that expresses that they are the person on the indictment. The man/woman should speak through paperwork rather than by voice, because they won't slip up as easily that way. The paperwork should have statements in their paperwork that they are speaking as man/woman only... never as a person... except if they formally or expressly accept being the person.
A second thing the accused should place on his paperwork is a statement that if he happens to use any legal words, that he is only doing so under 'Cf.', meaning he is not using the legal word, but is only using its general meaning. Look up the Cf. abbreviation.
Common law makes it so that only the man/woman accuser can accuse, not an artificial entity accuser. How? No representation by the accuser. The accuser needs to appear, himself, and get on the stand and show the injury, and then prove how it was the accused man or woman that did it to him.
For example, in a speeding trial, the accuser is THE STATE OF XXXXXX. In a common law trial, if there has been no damage done, THE STATE OF XXXXXX can't get on the stand and make the accusation and show the damage. And since there is no representation allowed... case dismissed.
For a man or woman who has done wrong, there are ways around this common law protection, but it is too complex for this post.
