|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|Law of aggreement|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Thu May 12th, 2016 01:34 am||
|If you can reason this out, or follow along with the reasoning as I lay it out, then I'll have at least one other independent minded individual capable of reasoning this out this way.
It starts with Matthew 7:12 and the Biblical - Jesus Christ - word of God type explanation of the law that applies to mankind. Do onto others, this law goes, this law reasons out, as you will have others do unto you. Plain, simple, English words, translated as a reasoning message that is useful whenever someone, somewhere, contemplates what is, or is not, lawfully done by someone upon someone, and visa versa.
Call it the law of agreement, or call it the law of equitable reciprocity, but keep in mind that the message is not negotiable, it is what it is, even if people screw it up, counterfeit it, demoralize it, pervert it, alter it, change it, confuse it, demonize it, misunderstand it, mistake it, abuse it, misapply it, ruin it, or otherwise turn good into evil through willful deception targeting the innocent by the guilty, threat of aggressive violence upon the innocent by the guilty, or aggressive violence upon the innocent by the guilty while calling, with false labels, crimes by any other name, such as law, statute, edict, act, command, order, license, proclamation, ordinance, contract, title, compact, alliance, trust, annuity, nation, state, government, or whatever. The law is the law because it reasons out the same way each time, each place, each case, every case, for as long as mankind is mankind.
Next after that basic understanding is the application of that basic understanding during events that are called crimes by the whole country of people who live, agreeably, under this rule of law (Matthew 7:12) concept, in an area where these people exist in time and place. The place can grow larger (expanding borders) or grow smaller as the people fail to maintain this rule of law by this agreeable process whereby the whole country of people maintain their due process. That due process is called trial by the country, or trial by jury, or the common law, or legem terrae if that due process is traced back to the time in England when the people were documenting their due process in documents written in Latin; which is before English was a language. Trial by the country is trial by the moral conscience of the country of people wherever they live.
So there are 2 steps offered in reasoning this out and the case law, or what is often called stare decisis, is first anyone, anywhere, anytime, who acknowledges, recognizes, and then abides by the natural law of human beings expressed in their own genetic construction - for those not familiar with any religious concepts - and for Christians specifically the case law is the Bible itself for this first step.
So step 1, the natural law, requires individuals to look into their own case law - stare decisis - to find the authority to know what is, or is not, law: did they do unto others as they would not have others do unto them, what happened in that case, and so on, and so fort.
Ask anyone what the law is, or is not, and if they look specifically into their own moral conscience, they will understand that it is wrong for them to do things to other people when in demonstrable fact they would consider it wrong for other people to do the same things to them.
Ask anyone familiar with Christ what the law is, and ask them to be specific, and if they have any other claims of lawful authority, other than Matthew 7:12, contradictory to Matthew 7:12, then in that contradiction is, in my considered opinion, a possible trial by jury case, or two, or three, or however many cases manage to prove, or disprove, the actual law for what it actually is in demonstrable fact. In other words: don't ask the criminals hiding behind false claims of religious, or lawful, authority to dictate what is, or is not, the law, because they lie, cheat, and they steal, as their chosen law, a law shared by all criminals, demonstrated by them in each case where they perpetrate crimes under, or not under, the color of law. They, in a phrase, do unto others as they would never allow others to do unto them. That is their, criminal, common bond, their common law that is common to all criminals.
So step 1, to reason out, to establish, to recognize, the principle of law, is laid out with a very close, willful, moral conscience, look in the mirror for the evidence proving the case of what is, or is not, law in demonstrable fact, or, if you are Christian, then consider at least Matthew 7:12.
So step 2, in America, for Americans, has to do with the law of the land, the same common law trial by the country - courts of record, and courts of conscience, and not summary justice courts where a single individual, or a single group of professionals determine what is, or is not law - recognized, acknowledge, and published for the record, as the law of the land here in America. For step 2 there will now be laid out some very useful records to help anyone see this step by step reasoning that reasons out the facts where the facts matter whenever anyone claims authority of law anywhere, anytime in America.
The first record for this common law acknowledgement, which is a court of conscience recognition, which is a trial by the country, or trial by jury, or common law, or legem terrae, or the law of the land declaration, established on the original, organic, federal, American, record, found at least in the internet copies of Elliot's Debates which are now linked and the relevant part is quoted:
The first Congress of delegates,
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
That predates any claims of authority by officers claiming to be ascending above anyone (not possible in true rule of law) into positions of absolute power in a so called federal (actually national) government office. It is clearly a false claim to ascend to a position of absolute power in an office where the original claim of authority is reserved for the people themselves sharing their common, moral conscience, as their law, also known as the common law, which includes trial by jury, which is trial by the country, which is a court of conscience. As a federal officer holder where they get their authority from, and if they say the American Revolutionary Victory, leading to an American federal government, then right there in that exact spot during that Revolutionary Victory, against the criminal British invaders perpetrating war of aggression, is the answer to those false claims of absolute (false) "federal" authority. You sir, whoever you are, have no authority that the whole country of moral people do not give to you, and anytime the whole country of moral people want to remove your authority, because your authority is false, we the people reserve, recognize, acknowledge, and employ our mutual, defensive, voluntary, common law due process.
Those words quoted in the Frist Congress during the American Revolution predates the Articles of Confederation, and that official record predates the so called Constitution for The United States - a fraud still in progress - of 1787/89.
That is the voice of reason, where people who must defend against aggressors find their true law power themselves. That is people standing on moral principle in the face of clear and present dangers arriving in the land of the free, where the invaders are rioting in the blood of the innocent: for criminal profits. The criminals were called The British.
Next on the record to help establish what is, or is not, the law of the land in America, derived from organic, genetic, natural law, expressed in English words attributed to Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:12, are two cases where trial by jury was employed in America before the false federal government became, by fraud, and by extortion, the false law of the land in America.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE
1 U.S. 35 (1778)
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER
1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Those are very important cases which establish, recognize, declare, and employ the common law in America the American version, not The British version. The authority in those cases is not the common law of Britain. The British are demonstrating their criminality, so it makes absolutely no sense to claim that the British are authority over law, the British are authorities over rule by criminal means. From the 1788 case is the following:
"M'Kean, Chief Justice.
Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no bias from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury."
It is patently absurd to claim that there is a need for an Article III court, in America, to establish the facts in any case, anywhere, anytime, whereby someone is accused of anything wrong. Already established is the law of the land, in fact, as the common law of America. It existed in fact.
Evidence 3 for establishing the common law in America:
"The administration of justice and description of the laws?
Laws The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave..."
Here at this juncture in laying this reasoning out it must be admitted that humans often fail to live up to the ideas, the founding principles, of true law. It is too early in the step by step layout to address the criminality of human trafficking, or enslavement, or the slave trade, which is, in Jefferson's own words in the first draft of a Declaration of Independence: "crimes against nature itself," so this - for now - is a report on how the common law was working in America, even well before the Revolution.
Evidence 4, still establishing the common law, trial by the country, courts of conscience, as the law of the land in America, well before any Revolution.
"A Report of a Comittee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key. It appeareth to us that shee is the daughter of Thomas Key by severall Evidences and by a fine imposed upon the said Thomas for getting her mother with Child of the said Thomas. That she hath bin by verdict of a Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of Northumberland found to be free by severall oathes which the Jury desired might be Recorded. That by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman ought to bee free.”
Had Americans at the time truly understood the law of the land they would have been better at setting each other free then, and the same facts apply to us now.
Step 3 moves from principles - natural law - to application of principles - courts of conscience, and trial by the country, known as the common law - to specific applications of the principle in time and place.
Evidence 1 is very important because this evidence reasons out in concert with first principles (Matthew 7:12) while establishing the true meaning of federation.
Going back to Elliot's Debates, the First Congress, and the discussion concerning a Declaration of Independence, which is an indictment of crimes perpetrated by the former authorities known as The British.
Evidence 5, still establishing first principles, the common law, and applications of due process in time and place.
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
"That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"
If we the free people in Liberty in America agree to share our moral principle then we defend each other against those who harm us in time and place. Those who harm us in time and place claim to be our masters, and we the people recognize, establish, and employ our first principles and our version of law our way, which is reciprocal, which mutually beneficial for all, which is make that way if we understand, and apply, our common law. If those claiming to be the authorities don't understand our common law, then that is one thing, if those claiming to be the authorities harm us instead of protect us, then they confess their broken bond to us.
Moving now, to acknowledge, establish, recognize, and employ the process known as indictment, there is on the record an available copy of a Declaration of Independence, in rough draft version, before a particular section was censored.
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.
"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries."
Evidence 6 (most important to our understanding of the so called Civil War, and current efforts to cause race war today, and our way to avoid all that carnage)
Elliot's Debates again, and now the words of Thomas Jefferson confessing who the infiltrators were among the original federal founding time period.
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."
How horrible was the injuries done to innocent people by the infiltrators - criminals - infiltrating our founding American federation from the start?
The good people, the moral people, without our original founding federal association can be easily compared to the evil people in the same time period, and the same is true right now. How does accusation turn from accusation into trial by the country in America when the principle of the law is actually employed? There are no slaves, for one thing, because the law, the principle, applies to all, which means the law is afforded to all by all, or it is counterfeit law.
The step needed is the step from accusation (by anyone against anyone in time and place) to authorized cause of action, or cause to act in defense of the innocent victim injured, or being threated with injury, by the accused.
The form of law is already laid out above. Step 1 is to know, understand, share, bonding individual people into a common agreement, or common bond, of common understanding of the principle of law, reciprocity, or agreement. If the bond of agreement is broken, if there is no mutual protection, there is no law binding the aggressor to the victim, that is counter to law, that is repugnant to law, that is crime defined by the guilty criminal perpetrating the crime upon the innocent victim in time and in place red handed: blood soaked hands.
Step 2 is accusation in the form of indictment, published, recorded (court of conscience, court of record, court of public opinion, court of Oyer and Terminer?) whereby the accused is named, the crimes are spelled out, and if there is any doubt by anyone, trial by the country would be the next step, but if the criminals are currently rioting in the blood of the innocent, in time, and in place, then there is no doubt about that fact happing clearly, presently, endangering innocent people, as innocent people are robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered, or enslaved.
Step 3 is defense in time and place. If there is doubt as to who, by name, and by place on Earth where the named aggressor exists, then accusation (if it is law) clearly moves to a cause of action, which is clearly an effort to validate the accusation in some way, but if there is no doubt, where the clear and present danger is someone, with blood soaked hands, currently raping, robbing, enslaving, torturing, and murdering innocent people in time and place, then clearly the nest step is indictment by anyone, anywhere, anytime, such as was done with a Declaration of Independence.
That leads to the next two links and the information offered in these next two links.
1. Bonding Code
9.2 - Escalation
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.
"I found this insight on the UBC to be very perspicuous and most useful to the Patriot movement, but like all laws, it is useful only to the one(s) who use it and enforce it."
Remember the etymon at the tine of law's creation and The Federalist Papers. (Read and discern until it's perspicuous.)
"Prior law governs always." "Prior etymons govern always."
"To act in pro se fashion in a court of law or equity is to profess in law, thus, casting yourself to drift away from logic and into the arms of a fool."
"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right."
In other words the Step needed is to look in the mirror, to realize, recognize, and declare independence, and do so publicly, on the record, any record, just so that it counts, or is visible, accurately accountable, to other people who share the same common bond of voluntary mutual - reciprocal - defense against the clear and present dangers that are currently robbing, raping, torturing, murdering, and mass murdering innocent people in this country.
Then, at last as far as I can tell, the next step is to begin electing county Justices of the Peace, or Magistrates, whereby these volunteers are "the most discreet and honest inhabitants" and they are authorized by the people to command "jurisdiction both criminal and civil" which is then the step required to validate specific accusations made by anyone in the county concerning any specific crime perpetrated by anyone in the county, such as those crimes specified in those recognitions of mixed war that are already in the public record somewhere.
How does that actually work out?
Take a recent example such as the Hamond case in Oregon.
I'll continue in another e-mail, but I have this work on my forum. I hope all this isn't too much bother.
|Posted: Thu May 12th, 2016 02:53 am||
|Common law American version applied to the Oregon Hammond Family Case.
Starting from the moment when a Committee of Safety is formed from grass-roots, or organically, or as a response of concerned, moral, people, concerning threats of life, liberty, and property known to be threats which causes the action - cause of action - to form an agreeable, voluntary, reciprocal, mutual defense association, following the American common law form known as forming a Committee of Safety.
Taken from the Elizabeth Keys case are the following useful words: "A Report of a Comittee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key."
The Committee of Safety records a document as a record of the proceedings (actions caused by the clear and present dangers endangering the public safety) which could have started as:
Harney County Oregon Hammond Case Committee of Safety
A Report of a Committee of Safety Concerning the arson perpetrated upon the Hammond Family by members of a criminal organization claiming to be the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.
Resolved, members of the committee each publish their own solemn recognition of mixed war, each will be published on public access bulletin boards, and each will be notarized by local county Notary Public license holders (corporate agents), as an offer to the local county government (corporate) court offices for recording in the corporate county court system, if possible, and if not possible then documentation of refusal to record Committee of Safety members Solemn Notice of Mixed War, concerning the Harney County Oregon BLM Conspiracy Arson Case against the Hammond Family will constitute further inculpatory evidence which inculpates those who refuse to follow the course of the common law in Harney County.
Resolved, elect by popular vote candidates for the common law offices of Justice of the Peace from among the Committee of Safety members, and demand, by reasonable, voluntary, effort to communicate the facts of the matter, county wide elections run for the purpose of electing county common law Justices of the peace, for the purpose of validating accusation concerning the case of BLM Conspiracy Arson against the Hammond Family.
[The assumption here is such that the Committee of Safety was formed as a result of discovery of the facts concerning witness testimony under oath where BLM agents (so called) were witnessed first hand by the witness perpetrating the crime of Conspiracy Arson upon the Hammond Family, blaming the fire that the agents set on lighting, and clearly this fire set by the agents (presumably under orders to do so without question) threatened the Hammond Families life, liberty, and property, causing the Hammond Family to then respond with back fires, or fire breaks, which is a common remedy for wild fires, or Arson perpetrated under the color of law.]
Back to the record produced (action caused by threats by the false government against the people) with common law through a Committee of Safety resulting in resolutions passed (actions part of cause of action) in defense (caused) by crimes perpetrated by agents under the color of law.
Resolved, contact anyone in the county, including the Hammond Family, informing them of their common law right to declare their independence with a common law form such as the declaration of independence, or the concept of recognition of mixed war, which is also, clearly, acknowledged by the corporate government as a lawful remedy: in their own codes, which agrees with, or is reciprocal to, and not repugnant to, the law of the land, which is the common law, and natural law, and the words concerning the law government mankind attributed to Jesus Christ in Matthew 7:12.
Resolved, inform local peace officers, corporate officers, or otherwise (Oath Keepers, Constitutional Sheriffs, Militia group members, etc.) of a demand for them to also publish their own Solemn Recognition of Mixed War in this specific case of Conspiracy Arson by BLM agents against the Hammond Family.
So...in the above scenario the stage is set to avoid the Conspiracy Murder of LevVoy Finicum, and to rescue those victims of these crimes perpetrated upon the Hammonds, each and every one, with lawful defensive actions caused by those conspiracy crimes perpetrated under the color of law, whereby the perpetrators refuse to act in the capacity of protectors of life, liberty, and property when they are accused of crimes themselves.
It would be necessary to win the hearts and minds of more people in the county in order to validate the elections of common law county Justices of the Peace, who then serve as Grand Jurors, who command Jurisdiction both Civil and Criminal, and whose authority begins and ends in validating lawful accusations which are then causes to act in the offer of trail by jury offered to the presumed to be innocent accused, who are accused, in this case, of perpetrating Conspiracy Arson.
It would be the job of the elected Justices of the Peace in the county to write a presentment, which then names the perpetrators by name, once those Justices of the Peace have conducted a lawful investigation with their authority, which would include all authority within the Civil and Criminal County Jurisdiction. That means, if I am not mistaken, that the common law writs, common law demands such as sopena, are given to those elected Justices of the Peace. They would not be "constitutional" judges, as it is common to call a Sheriff that is not on the take a Constitutional Sheriff, because the Constitution of 1787/89 usurped the common law, and it was by the efforts of those against that usurpation, like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and other so called "anti" federalists, that the common law amended that Constitution of 1787/89.
That Amending process, by the way, occurred after the Judiciary Act of 1789, so there are possible claims of "greater" authority by Article III courts, equity courts, exchequer, Admiralty, whatever, based upon that type of unreasonable argument. As the people at Assembly of States prove, beyond any doubt, the Constitution (not the Bill of Rights) of 1787/89 is a fraud, and therefore there is no need to restate that the law of the land is the common law, since it is not possible to lawfully amend a crime in progress. The crime in progress has to be accurately accounted as such, and the process by which that can happen is laid out before you.
|Current time is 09:32 pm|
|Power Independence > Power Independence > Discovery > Law of aggreement||Top|