It seems there might be a bit of confusion here. Most courts in the British Commonwealth do not practice French civil law. They primarily follow the common law system, which originated in England. This system is characterised by case law, where past judicial decisions guide the rulings on similar cases. However, there are exceptions within the Commonwealth where civil law systems are practiced, such as in Quebec, Canada, and Scotland in the UK. These regions have their own distinct legal systems derived from civil law traditions. For instance, Quebec's system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code from France, but this is more of an exception rather than the rule across the Commonwealth. So, while there are some regions within the Commonwealth that utilise a civil law system, the majority adhere to common law principles. It’s also worth noting that some countries that are part of the Commonwealth today were never part of the British Empire in the past. These nations have joined voluntarily, as the Commonwealth is open to all nations that wish to apply for membership.
I love you JP, and I agree with many of the things you say, but this time I have to make an exception. Jordan Maxwell can teach us quite a lot about Common Law and Maritime Law. Read Black's Law Dictionary and you will see, those in Law speak a different language than the rest of us, literally. It's called Legalese. The idea of freedom under these laws is an illusion, a complete smokescreen. We are under word spells.
Mr. Petersen is correct: it's not "top down", think of the common law as a jurisdiction that forms the "bottom" (for lack..) foundation upon which all "made law" or "man's laws" are superimposed upon. Look up Sir William Blackstone's commentary on the subject: "..the laws of man are not valid..". It's an eye opener.🇨🇦
@@heresjohnny602 this sounds like a desperate plea for help to me.. If we could be more sympathetic that would be great.. I'm a suicide survivor, and a very empathetic person. I can see desperation a mile away.
Hang in there. Lift up your head and throw back your shoulders. You came here on purpose for this exact moment in time, to fulfill a purpose. Love to you ❤
Complete bo.l.locks Using fancy words to baffle the common man/woman, when it's simple Cause no Harm injury loss Trial by jury Jury nullification That's it
This is an excerpt from a long interview JP had with this woman. She made comparisons between the African countries under European type law and why it is the cause of so much friction and destruction.
there are two laws running concurrently. common law aka civil law and maritime admiralty law. the first is natural law the law of the land and is the actual law. the other is legal rulings and acts of Parliament. which is not law but it does gain the force of law by those who consent. however we are deceived into unwittingly consenting by simply stating your name. Also legal rulings are written in legalese which uses English but has different definitions. civil servants swear an oath to common law which are: do not breach the pease do not cause anyone any harm do not cause anyone any loss be honourable in your promises and contracts (no deception) not disclosing they are speaking a foreign language (legalese) is deception. therefore any authority they deem themselves to have over you is null and void. they are breaking the law in breach of their oath of office (gross misconduct) conspiring to extort money by deception (through courts or fixed penalty notices) all for monetary gain for a corporation (the bank of england) every penny paid in fines or fixed penalties, and every penny paid by any and all taxes go immediately as profit to the bank of england
I was literally just introduced to English Common Law after watching this video right now and it honestly seems like a very iffy idea to me. JP doesn't spit facts like he used to.
Im not saying he's not got any wisdom BUT a lot of what he said seems like word salad and he often comes off as pretentious. He was only pedestalized because he stood up against radicalism based on what should be common sense
@@sabir1208 That's because it is word salad and pretentious, Jordans only work ever considered credible is his work on alcohol addiction apart from that and a few papers on personality that no one considers credible he swung to pandering to mentally ill working class people who never had a dad.
@@sabir1208 Honestly, 100% agreed, he seems very pretentious and now that I think about it, what he said was indeed just common sense but it looked like he was very intelligent because of the complete BS extremists were spitting out
As an englishman for him To sit back smugly with interlaced fingers and call British common law a gift from God is both entertaining and annoying at the same time, it's words spoken by someone who doesn't live under or suffer the effects of it yet wants to narcissisticly champion it and his own supportive view of it. Especially when it's uniquely tailored to protecting and enriching the upper class.
@@grailknightchesterton232 not more recently we are all suffering constantly together. Upper classes man, they've set us back towards the victorian age here
Common Law fundamentally means if you are living and having sex with someone for 6 months, you are considered Married. Of course I would argue what does sex have anything to do with it? I'd argue If you simply live with someone you fall into common Law, in truth you are married to your roommate. People hum and ha but it prevents people from taking advantage of one another.
You're welcome to ignore this and continue to forfeit it and carry on your life as a slave to your fictional person which uses your natural living human energy to extract wealth out of your efforts and keep you in a satanic bondage until you die and return to the dust.
@@TheGohthecrow I'm not a yank. Fix what vote? Showed who last night? My country isn't as corrupt as yours and doesn't elect dementia patients, sorry, corporations don't elect dementia patients as the new leader.
No, Jordan is 100% right. No wonder people are slaves. You have no idea what you're talking about. Rights come from GOD. No man or woman or any other thing can remove it because they are not the creator, nor the law giver. Privileges on the other hand, come from man, and a privilege is something that a man can revoke because you are slave to mankind's fictional personhood which is owned and has a serial number so you can be taxed and stand under mankind's fictional legislation meaning you own nothing and you are a slave of that system. Atheism had utterly destroyed peoples minds when it comes to what is and what is not the law. Its easy to see why it has been pushed so hard the last 60 years. If you think about this properly and for long enough, I have faith that your human faculties will eventually acknowledge and understand what is being said here. You are born with inalienable rights, not privileges. That is why when you are born, the system haw been set up to quickly move you out of freedom into bondage by issuing you a serial number for your taxation, which immediately transfers you over from free human being, to the fictional personhood that the serial number belongs to - i.e. the corporation of 'you' (your name) and then you are owned as a slave. The issue is that this is a contract which is issued to you without the full terms and conditions and that means technically it is void and has no power. Bur because people are not educated well enough about Common Law, they stay residing within the Legislative system of Corporation and never escape it by declaring their natural living standing as a sovereign human being. There is loads of stuff about this on the internet and it applies to not just us here in England but the entire world.
@@discipleaj thank for the Ted talk. I think you took the "gift from god" - part a little too seriously. Telling me rights come from God is like telling me rain comes from the Sahara. My "human faculties" understand well enough that the english common law has some major flaws. Go be a shepherd and preach to the sheep, but leave the wolves out of it.
Why can't he let her finish her thought before interjecting. He does this often, it'd be refreshing if he acting like his ideas weren't superior to everyone else's.
@@SummervilleSCDan She was confident, engaging and delivered her point well, instead Jordan felt the need to interject to say what he already knows using the exact same word choice as he always does all to be able to smile smugly and say "big up god".
@@geezer7818 She wasn't able to in this instance because he interrupted her. No good saying the rest of the video excuses rudeness. And what's with all the ffs for. ? What is no one allowed to question or criticise your all mighty high father Jordan peterson. ?
U S law is better hence the amendments. In Australia we use the British system and it didn’t help us during lockdowns or protests. Although to be fair most people don’t know common law here and I think we lost some rights after Queen Victoria died and the States gained more power here.
@@MrZZsharkaamazing. I am wondering just how little you know about English common law (which the US system is based on) and the US system of which you seem to think they only have 27 laws? Those are 27 amendments to the US constitution, not their legal system (and they didn't help the yanks much during lockdown) and Australia has a constitution as well, not the game as your legal system. Try and compare apples to apples.
Ppl keep deifying this man and all I see is his ego growing and him becoming more pretentious. He sounds ridiculous here and most of the time he speaks, he speaks in word salad
Just guve a proof of what you're pinpointing... cause as a mater fo fact seems you didn't watch the whole video.. as he is saying the very same thing what the woman was telling lol..
@@jaysenselvenchellen3886 The proof is in his behaviour, the old string the same words all to big up a legal process he doesn't understand to arrive at his usual destination of bigging up god while he sits back smugly in his chair with Interlaced fingers which is literally a body language symbol that says "I'm smarter than you, I've made the superior point and now I'm sitting back to withdraw from you". Jordan digs his own grave often, people like you just treat him like his shine doesn't dull.
@@Paulstrickland01 if your judging him from theoretical deduction rather than from observation and experience it's for sure you'll come to that kind of bullshit.. keep it up.. am done.. wow how could someone just viewing a video that is a montage ? Pfff
@@jaysenselvenchellen3886 I've viewed his behaviour, observed, experienced his displays from this video and others. Sam Harris debated him recently and Jordan had a complete ego breakdown and started exhibiting the things I mentioned and matt dillahunty just gently dismantled peterson completely. I know his fans think he's their dad and he can do no wrong but he's too far outside his realm of expertise now, his D grade contributions to psychology are terrible let alone displays like this.
@@Paulstrickland01 even Sam Harris praised him for his way to speak the truth.. if you can't afford it.. not my fault.. and when you're right it will always make you feel as if you're arrogant lol. Common man.. stop that kind of childishness .. great day ahead.. cause you're argument is based on nothing but your hate for this man lol
![Eminem - Somebody Save Me (feat. Jelly Roll) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vwa0HenQMi4/mqdefault.jpg)
For the shift of the paradigm is with the horizon…
*" WHY ARE ALL THE COURTS IN THE BRITISH COMMON WEALTH PRACTICING FRENCH " CIVIL" CODE "* !!??
It seems there might be a bit of confusion here. Most courts in the British Commonwealth do not practice French civil law. They primarily follow the common law system, which originated in England. This system is characterised by case law, where past judicial decisions guide the rulings on similar cases.
However, there are exceptions within the Commonwealth where civil law systems are practiced, such as in Quebec, Canada, and Scotland in the UK. These regions have their own distinct legal systems derived from civil law traditions. For instance, Quebec's system is influenced by the Napoleonic Code from France, but this is more of an exception rather than the rule across the Commonwealth.
So, while there are some regions within the Commonwealth that utilise a civil law system, the majority adhere to common law principles.
It’s also worth noting that some countries that are part of the Commonwealth today were never part of the British Empire in the past. These nations have joined voluntarily, as the Commonwealth is open to all nations that wish to apply for membership.
Paid for over centuries with the blood of maryters who clung to the highest morals.
Yes sir 👍
I love you JP, and I agree with many of the things you say, but this time I have to make an exception.
Jordan Maxwell can teach us quite a lot about Common Law and Maritime Law. Read Black's Law Dictionary and you will see, those in Law speak a different language than the rest of us, literally. It's called Legalese. The idea of freedom under these laws is an illusion, a complete smokescreen. We are under word spells.
And they gave it up because their Indian leaders got offended 😂😂
Precedents, not presidents or presence.
Britain itself is a gift from god.
Love her so much.
What’s her name?
@@Tay2Cheap Magatte Wade
It's English Common Law, also the basis of law in many former British colonies. Scots Law is different. New Zealand Law resembles Scots Law.
It isn’t British common law. It’s English common law. The Welsh, Scots and Irish had nothing to do with it.
Simonline🏴🤔😀👍
Came from the French m8 😅
Us Welsh had the laws of Hywel dda, far advanced for its time.
Mr. Petersen is correct: it's not "top down", think of the common law as a jurisdiction that forms the "bottom" (for lack..) foundation upon which all "made law" or "man's laws" are superimposed upon. Look up Sir William Blackstone's commentary on the subject: "..the laws of man are not valid..". It's an eye opener.🇨🇦
This is why Henry II of England, the father of Common Law, is inarguably one of the greatest monarchs to ever wear a crown.
J.P. YOUR MY HERO PLEASE HELP ME.
Sorry there's no hope for you. You should give in and give up on it all.
@@heresjohnny602 this sounds like a desperate plea for help to me.. If we could be more sympathetic that would be great..
I'm a suicide survivor, and a very empathetic person. I can see desperation a mile away.
Hang in there. Lift up your head and throw back your shoulders. You came here on purpose for this exact moment in time, to fulfill a purpose.
Love to you ❤
We are not the enemy.
And people wonder why we want to be part of the EU. British Common Law is the biz!!! We are indeed very
Lucky
I dont know who said it but i remember it in my law book that
“Law is gift from God and decisions of sages”
I don't get why this is so edited...
I guess because YT Shorts caps out at 60 seconds, so they don't have much spare to work with here.
The woman looked like she had meat wrapped around her neck 😂
Stop the sexist BS- so what? She might have a goitre. Listen to what she says.
I can't unsee that now, thanks lmao
What a gorgeous woman
My brain committed suicide
*precedent
Not middle temple lawyers who went to church?
Complete bo.l.locks
Using fancy words to baffle the common man/woman, when it's simple
Cause no Harm injury loss
Trial by jury
Jury nullification
That's it
This is an excerpt from a long interview JP had with this woman. She made comparisons between the African countries under European type law and why it is the cause of so much friction and destruction.
How would you have described theological principles ?
there are two laws running concurrently. common law aka civil law and maritime admiralty law. the first is natural law the law of the land and is the actual law. the other is legal rulings and acts of Parliament. which is not law but it does gain the force of law by those who consent. however we are deceived into unwittingly consenting by simply stating your name. Also legal rulings are written in legalese which uses English but has different definitions. civil servants swear an oath to common law which are:
do not breach the pease
do not cause anyone any harm
do not cause anyone any loss
be honourable in your promises and contracts (no deception)
not disclosing they are speaking a foreign language (legalese) is deception.
therefore any authority they deem themselves to have over you is null and void.
they are breaking the law
in breach of their oath of office (gross misconduct)
conspiring to extort money by deception (through courts or fixed penalty notices)
all for monetary gain for a corporation (the bank of england)
every penny paid in fines or fixed penalties, and every penny paid by any and all taxes go immediately as profit to the bank of england
I was literally just introduced to English Common Law after watching this video right now and it honestly seems like a very iffy idea to me. JP doesn't spit facts like he used to.
Im not saying he's not got any wisdom BUT a lot of what he said seems like word salad and he often comes off as pretentious. He was only pedestalized because he stood up against radicalism based on what should be common sense
When did he?
@@sabir1208 That's because it is word salad and pretentious, Jordans only work ever considered credible is his work on alcohol addiction apart from that and a few papers on personality that no one considers credible he swung to pandering to mentally ill working class people who never had a dad.
@@sabir1208 Honestly, 100% agreed, he seems very pretentious and now that I think about it, what he said was indeed just common sense but it looked like he was very intelligent because of the complete BS extremists were spitting out
I see you have read little but believe alot. Explain your issue with it?
She wasnt finished talking
There's no such thing as British law
As an englishman for him To sit back smugly with interlaced fingers and call British common law a gift from God is both entertaining and annoying at the same time, it's words spoken by someone who doesn't live under or suffer the effects of it yet wants to narcissisticly champion it and his own supportive view of it. Especially when it's uniquely tailored to protecting and enriching the upper class.
I can assure you Canadians have lived, and more recently suffered, under English Common Law (sans Quebec) for over a hundred years
@@grailknightchesterton232 not more recently we are all suffering constantly together. Upper classes man, they've set us back towards the victorian age here
Ikr
Not the cuts in the other person's first statement 😭😭💀
@@grailknightchesterton232 If you haven’t noticed every single form of law and government ends with rich people gaining and poor people losing
Common Law fundamentally means if you are living and having sex with someone for 6 months, you are considered Married. Of course I would argue what does sex have anything to do with it? I'd argue If you simply live with someone you fall into common Law, in truth you are married to your roommate. People hum and ha but it prevents people from taking advantage of one another.
In no way does common law mean that at all.
And sex doesn't even factor into what you said.
What are you on about?
Who is she
Maggate Wade
Not a gift from god
Why Jordan your out of subject one more time
Darn, who bileves in that bullshh???
You're welcome to ignore this and continue to forfeit it and carry on your life as a slave to your fictional person which uses your natural living human energy to extract wealth out of your efforts and keep you in a satanic bondage until you die and return to the dust.
Why doesn't he fix his teeth
Why don't you fix your personality?
@@Gambit771 why don't you fix your vote this time around? He showed him last night. Trump 2024🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
@@TheGohthecrow I'm not a yank.
Fix what vote?
Showed who last night?
My country isn't as corrupt as yours and doesn't elect dementia patients, sorry, corporations don't elect dementia patients as the new leader.
Because he has better things to do with his time?
lmao no it's not :d
Well articulated 🙄
@@TommyTombstone thanks tommy
No, Jordan is 100% right. No wonder people are slaves. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Rights come from GOD. No man or woman or any other thing can remove it because they are not the creator, nor the law giver.
Privileges on the other hand, come from man, and a privilege is something that a man can revoke because you are slave to mankind's fictional personhood which is owned and has a serial number so you can be taxed and stand under mankind's fictional legislation meaning you own nothing and you are a slave of that system.
Atheism had utterly destroyed peoples minds when it comes to what is and what is not the law. Its easy to see why it has been pushed so hard the last 60 years.
If you think about this properly and for long enough, I have faith that your human faculties will eventually acknowledge and understand what is being said here.
You are born with inalienable rights, not privileges. That is why when you are born, the system haw been set up to quickly move you out of freedom into bondage by issuing you a serial number for your taxation, which immediately transfers you over from free human being, to the fictional personhood that the serial number belongs to - i.e. the corporation of 'you' (your name) and then you are owned as a slave.
The issue is that this is a contract which is issued to you without the full terms and conditions and that means technically it is void and has no power. Bur because people are not educated well enough about Common Law, they stay residing within the Legislative system of Corporation and never escape it by declaring their natural living standing as a sovereign human being.
There is loads of stuff about this on the internet and it applies to not just us here in England but the entire world.
@@discipleaj thank for the Ted talk. I think you took the "gift from god" - part a little too seriously.
Telling me rights come from God is like telling me rain comes from the Sahara. My "human faculties" understand well enough that the english common law has some major flaws. Go be a shepherd and preach to the sheep, but leave the wolves out of it.
lame!!!@
Why can't he let her finish her thought before interjecting. He does this often, it'd be refreshing if he acting like his ideas weren't superior to everyone else's.
Probably because she was just going to babble mindlessly for 5 minutes.
@@SummervilleSCDan She was confident, engaging and delivered her point well, instead Jordan felt the need to interject to say what he already knows using the exact same word choice as he always does all to be able to smile smugly and say "big up god".
Did you watch the whole video? May be no when reading your opinion lol.. pfff
@@Paulstrickland01 watch the entire video ffs… she was able to get her points across perfectly.
@@geezer7818 She wasn't able to in this instance because he interrupted her. No good saying the rest of the video excuses rudeness. And what's with all the ffs for. ? What is no one allowed to question or criticise your all mighty high father Jordan peterson. ?
U S law is better hence the amendments. In Australia we use the British system and it didn’t help us during lockdowns or protests. Although to be fair most people don’t know common law here and I think we lost some rights after Queen Victoria died and the States gained more power here.
Us law based on English common law 😂😂
@@hyperbole6529 The U S have 27 amendments.
@MrZZsharka Wow, my mind is blown
@@MrZZsharkaamazing. I am wondering just how little you know about English common law (which the US system is based on) and the US system of which you seem to think they only have 27 laws?
Those are 27 amendments to the US constitution, not their legal system (and they didn't help the yanks much during lockdown) and Australia has a constitution as well, not the game as your legal system.
Try and compare apples to apples.
@@Gambit771 finally someone who actually knows how politics work in the west 👏
Okay, Boomer.
Ppl keep deifying this man and all I see is his ego growing and him becoming more pretentious. He sounds ridiculous here and most of the time he speaks, he speaks in word salad
Just guve a proof of what you're pinpointing... cause as a mater fo fact seems you didn't watch the whole video.. as he is saying the very same thing what the woman was telling lol..
@@jaysenselvenchellen3886 The proof is in his behaviour, the old string the same words all to big up a legal process he doesn't understand to arrive at his usual destination of bigging up god while he sits back smugly in his chair with Interlaced fingers which is literally a body language symbol that says "I'm smarter than you, I've made the superior point and now I'm sitting back to withdraw from you". Jordan digs his own grave often, people like you just treat him like his shine doesn't dull.
@@Paulstrickland01 if your judging him from theoretical deduction rather than from observation and experience it's for sure you'll come to that kind of bullshit.. keep it up.. am done.. wow how could someone just viewing a video that is a montage ? Pfff
@@jaysenselvenchellen3886 I've viewed his behaviour, observed, experienced his displays from this video and others. Sam Harris debated him recently and Jordan had a complete ego breakdown and started exhibiting the things I mentioned and matt dillahunty just gently dismantled peterson completely. I know his fans think he's their dad and he can do no wrong but he's too far outside his realm of expertise now, his D grade contributions to psychology are terrible let alone displays like this.
@@Paulstrickland01 even Sam Harris praised him for his way to speak the truth.. if you can't afford it.. not my fault.. and when you're right it will always make you feel as if you're arrogant lol. Common man.. stop that kind of childishness .. great day ahead.. cause you're argument is based on nothing but your hate for this man lol