Once I noticed a young (16 year old) female cousin staring at them, and assuming that she felt admiration, commented on how beautiful they were, did she know anything about the painter. She shook her head, saying that wasn’t what she thought. What, then? I asked. She said, I wondered why you have pictures of naked people on the wall for everyone to see.

Of course, I also had 4-6 other pictures hanging, all ART, but none others that showed…gasp..nudity. Even the tasteful soft focus nudity of Burne-Jones.

I stared for a moment and said something like..umm..so they’re naked.. They’re still beautiful. And, I mean, everyone has a body, right? Not like it’s a super super SEEKRIT….. sigh..

Pre 1066 and the Norman Invasion, there was already a set of formal laws set out by the King, plus a whole mess of local traditions and customs, often unwritten.

Courts were at the Hundred level, and presided over by the King’s Reeve and attended by all the important folk, like a town hall meeting.

Above that was a Shire court, presided over by the Shire Reeve (Sheriff), the Ealdorman and the Bishop.

Innocence and guilt was mostly based on the giving of oaths of innocence by the defendant and a specified number of oath supporters.

If that failed to settle matters, the parties to the case could resort to Trial by Ordeal. The main ordeals were Water – both parties were blessed and thrown into water to see who drowned, or Iron – both parties held a red hot iron bar and walked nine feet.

Penalties for the “guilty” were fines (usual), mutilation (rarer) and death (very rare).

Additionally, the Normans introduced Trial by Combat, a mainly Germanic custom. There are records of even divorce cases being settled by combat. (So much for passive medieval damsels.)

Which is too bad, because I would be fair, and I do know about nullification, but wouldn’t apply it unless I thought that the law was in error.

But of course, THAT just scared off any prosecutor who was still considering me.

In pre 1066 Common Law courts there were NO JUDGES. Judges are the agents of the king/state to make sure that the decisions go the states way most of the time if not ALL the time.

The subversion of Common Law began right after 1066 in England. Common Law has been subverted so long that few people bother to read about how Common Law worked in England, Ireland and almost ALL “primitive” societies.

By the way. In a Common Law court the jury has TOTAL CONTROL over the outcome as there is NO JUDGE. So the jury has the right to question the LAW as well as the guilt of the party. Indeed, in a Common Law court the jury can find the defendant guilty, can find the law fair and just, and STILL issue a Remedy Instruction of NOTHING should they deem that the circumstances require it.

The golden rule of the Common Law is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

That means the jurors are to put themselves in the position of the guilty party and create a remedy instruction that they would agree and accept as fair and just if they were the guilty party.

Obviously this means that if a starving man steals some food you do not jail him, you give him a JOB!

In Common Law there are NO JAILs because the law is REMEDIAL. You make amends or you LEAVE. Its that simple.

It is worth reading up on.

Its called tyranny. This is how it is done. It has worked or millenia.

Their logic is so strange that you really begin to wonder what actually landed near Area 51. Where are the MIB when you need them?