Please excuse me for interjecting this. People may get into legal trouble if they go to court riding this common Patriot Movement mythology. Somebody (Tuesday Zoom) inquired if there is a book to support that, "Common law is love." That is this track of thought - to look for authority. That is exactly what it is called - Case Law - stare decisis is Authority. Appeals judges rule on Authority. No choice. Appeals judges cannot practice law. Only municipal and county judges can practice law from the bench. But even so, they do not like to be overturned and it smears their career when that happens. So they too resort to the common law when judging cases. That is to say, they respect standing and respected decisions.
You can run your case up the appeals court system all the way to the US Supreme Court (of final appeal). Albeit they all have original jurisdiction that is seldom used. [In theory: the Sons of Cain on the side of YHVH have deviant oaths of office at the federal judge level and literally all have deviant oaths - SO HELP ME GOD. - Instead of English grammar, So help me God. But that is another volume. - The sons of man and the sons of God.]
First look at it like it is true, common law is love. That leaves appeals judges to be quite subjective. It is saying that people who believe like me, or love the same things I love will prevail at law and in court. People believe and love different things and the law should be objective, always founded in the Constitution. If not, there is a means to Amend the Constitution.
I know this from the personal experience of arguing in court. I was repeatedly told that the court is practicing common law. The true definition is difficult to discern from law dictionaries however, because it is private intellectual property of the Bar. Attorneys would be dispensable if the common people understood what I am about to tell you.
This case provides a classic example.
Now compare that to this wishful thinking by Rita GOODSTORY:
Look at this clause from Article VI of the Colorado Constitution:
Miscellaneous Section 18. No supreme court justice, judge of any intermediate appellate court, district court judge, probate judge, or juvenile judge shall engage in the practice of law.
All the judges except municipal and county court judges must base their utterances upon Authority - case law. Authority is easily found for attorneys online by shepherdizing. Lexis Nexus is the favored source and by topic will collect you hits of the most popular cases reflecting your opinion. If your opinion is not favored to be Constitutional, then the cases you are after don't show because they have been overturned.
It is just a slower mechanism for the western Judeo-Christian (pro-YHVH) law system to put the religious commercial priestcraft in place. That is where the Sons of Cain operating on the policy that the Apple would surely kill Eve maintain delusions on the masses. Here is some more intellectual property of the Bar. For many years I have declared the entire federal judiciary bank tellers for the US central bank, the Fed.
Look how craven Timothy behaves. He redacted his signature off his deviant oath of office before allowing the clerk to publish his character (Son of Cain, on the losing side of history) on PACER. One honorable justice stands out:
However, Brett Michael KAVANAUGH tried spoofed REHNQUIST, and could not find any competent witnesses:
Therefore we find irregularities. Why two identical oaths in one day? He went to ROBERTS, the chief justice (allegedly) whose oath is SO HELP ME GOD. Then he signs it himself as his own witness pretending he can distort the scribble enough to look like his predecessor Anthony Mcleod KENNEDY! Lying gets to be a very sophisticated game indeed. Compare his altered scribble to Anthony's signature:
[I admit KENNEDY may have suffered a stroke, mini-strokes may have been the reason he stepped down; but I can read Brett's name in the signature.] What it really comes down to though - is why two oaths of office on the same day? Nothing else explains it that I can think of. All the other federal officers available from this constitutional private attorney general are NOT.
Also, that all happened because of pressure to produce a Constitutional Justice replacement for REHNQUIST. Remember that I am a geopolitical social engineer.
In other words, in an appeal you will express your opinion of how things were supposed to go at trial. But you must base it on standing case law, your opinion if you want the appeals judge to listen.
See how the attorneys writing will not explain it? My explanation is about the only way to make sense of it. Attorneys have misled me that these judges, while sitting at bench for the state are not allowed to be running a private law firm but I think they were lying to me, attorneys do that.
This reporter does home rule justice:
But as you read it you need to know that municipal and county judges can practice law from the bench and we have an appeals system of common law (case law) you might resort to if you do not like the way your case ruled.
So to put it bluntly, if you attend a public outing in Denver with a visible sidearm you can expect to be arrested. If you challenge it in court you will lose because the "judges" all know about "The Stanley Case". They will shoot you down with it as their Authority.
That is common law when you go outside into the real world.