Restoring Common Law Integrity Amidst Erosion of Constitutional Rights in Today's Courts

In the American legal landscape, there exists a growing gap between what citizens believe are their constitutional rights and what courts actually uphold.

Many assume that their right to a jury trial and access to true judicial remedy is secured by the Constitution.

Yet, in practice, a vast administrative framework has quietly displaced these protections.

Administrative law now dominates where common law once prevailed, leaving many litigants disillusioned and disenfranchised.

This article explores this shift, its implications, and the ongoing movement to restore authentic common law procedures and protections in the United States.

Common Law refers to a legal system grounded in precedent, individual rights, and trials by jury. It operates under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which outlines the judiciary's role and guarantees the right to a jury trial in suits at common law.

Civil Law, in contrast, refers here not to private disputes but to a growing administrative system. It is controlled by government agencies and judges who act with significant discretion—often absent a jury or the checks and balances common law provides.

The U.S. Constitution’s Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. However, courts increasingly reject such suits, redirecting them into administrative proceedings or dismissing them altogether.

One common tactic is to manipulate legal filings—denying cases based on how titles or terms are presented—regardless of the validity of the grievances.

Judges frequently ignore or outright refuse to honor the Seventh Amendment, opting instead to handle cases through administrative law frameworks.

This undermines core constitutional protections and effectively shields government agencies from accountability. In many cases, judges appear to serve not as neutral arbiters but as de facto defense attorneys for the government.

Efforts to pursue justice through common law are often redirected or dismissed using various procedural tactics. Filing fees and complex forms—such as 'pauper forms'—can serve to reroute claims into administrative venues. Plaintiffs who seek to hold public officials accountable through common law avenues report feeling systematically silenced or suppressed.

A legitimate common law process typically follows this structure:

1. A suit is filed and assigned to an Article III judge.

2. The adverse party is served notice.

3. A 21-day window is given to respond.

4. If there is no response, a default judgment may be entered; otherwise, the case proceeds to a jury trial.

In common law, the jury has the exclusive authority to determine facts and render a verdict. Once a verdict is reached, it is final and not subject to review—even by the Supreme Court. This principle reinforces the jury’s central role in ensuring justice and preserving democratic accountability.

Bar associations—private entities—exert significant control over who may access and practice within the legal system. Critics argue that these groups operate more like exclusive guilds than public institutions, effectively closing the system off from the general public and shielding it from meaningful reform.

Many courts and administrative agencies receive public funding under the assumption that they are upholding constitutional rights. In reality, these funds often support systems that bypass constitutional protections, sustaining a bureaucratic machine that operates with little transparency or accountability.

Activists and litigants have begun filing suits against judges perceived as acting outside constitutional bounds. Some cases are being elevated to the Department of Justice, while others are gaining attention through political channels, as concerned citizens raise awareness among national leaders.

There is a growing belief that political figures—most notably Donald Trump—may be working to address these systemic issues. However, many advocates argue that real change will not come from within the system but from emerging outside of it, through grassroots efforts and public awakening.

As more individuals pursue common law remedies, courts have become increasingly aggressive in response. Post-election periods have seen spikes in dismissals and procedural rejections, suggesting a tightening grip by the administrative system in the face of rising resistance.

A key battleground has been the financial sector, where advocates attempt to discharge or resolve mortgage debts through common law mechanisms. These efforts are often thwarted by institutions that invoke statutes to obscure or deny remedies, raising questions about the legality of many modern lending practices.

Despite setbacks, proponents of common law urge individuals not to abandon these strategies. Instead, they encourage persistence in asserting private rights and documenting every step as evidence. These cumulative efforts, they argue, will build the foundation for eventual systemic change.

This is not a one-size-fits-all process. Participants are advised to proceed at their own pace, prioritizing education, self-responsibility, and informed action. By understanding the system and taking deliberate steps, individuals can reclaim agency in their legal affairs.

The conflict between administrative law and constitutional common law represents a long-term, national legal crisis.

While the challenges are complex and deeply entrenched, efforts are actively underway to expose and dismantle the current system.

The ultimate goal is a return to a judicial model grounded in constitutional principles, individual rights, and the power of the people—embodied through trial by jury and true Article III courts.

The path forward is steep, but the movement to restore justice through common law continues to grow stronger.

Follow us to freedom!

Gianna & Scott