The Legal (not LAW) was hijacked by the powers that shouldn't be from the start.
The tyrants never ceded control, just the perception of ceding control.
The same tactics in Britain that established an Upper and Lower House in Parliament were used in establishing the legislatures in the Evil Empire.

The closest thing to "common sense" that ever existed politically, were the First Nation tribes of North America that voted on matters of import, but NEVER made dissenters beholden to decisions of the collective. Dissenters were able to go their own way, even if they were singular in their dissent.

The Founding Fathers drew inspiration from these First Nations, but not enough.

@Heresiarch

"The Legal (not LAW) was hijacked by the powers that shouldn't be from the start."

I've seen these forms of fraud before, and the idea that the fraud works is demonstrated above.

The word Legal in counterfeit form is the opposite meaning of the original meaning.

The only way that a fraud works - by law - is if the deceiver manages to make a victim belief that the deception is real.

If criminals counterfeit law, or if criminals counterfeit government, the fraud only works if someone, anyone, believes the lies told by the criminals.

If the criminals fail to make their victims believe their lies, the fraud does not work, as the saying goes: no harm no foul.

"The Legal (not LAW) was hijacked by the powers that shouldn't be from the start."

Evidence above inculpates criminals as criminals guilty of fraud, because the fraud works on at least one victim.

"The tyrants never ceded control, just the perception of ceding control."

The word tyrant means the same thing as criminal fraud, because the fraud works. If the fraud didn't work, a tyrant would mean someone foolish enough to attempt to fool people into a foolish belief that a criminal is an agent of government, an agent of law, and a legally bound officer hired to protect and serve the public in a republic.

Exposing the fraud as one was the essence of the Revolutionary period in America.

Evidence:

The Statute of Quo Warranto,
made Anno 18 Edw. I Stat. 2 and Anno Dom. 1290.
"These statutes are codifications of existing common law practices, albeit practices that had been used little if at all for a long time."
"This was essentially a move to put all feudal lords on the defense, so that the King could remove any that opposed him or his policies, and confirm the obeisance of the rest."
"Once established as a tool that could be used by a monarch, it also establishes it as a tool for use by the people when they become the sovereign, as happened upon adoption of the U.S. Declaration of Independence."

Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest
"Yet, while the debt-recording interpretation of colonial courts is the dominant explanation of default judgments in current colonial law scholarship, other evidence characterizes the operations of the colonial court system in a dramatically different way. In 1786 and 1787, shortly after the Revolution, Shays' Rebellion constituted a widespread attack on the structure of the colonial court system, culminating in the violent takeover and closing of many county courts in western Massachusetts and throughout New England. The Shaysites (who referred to themselves as "Regulators" ) raised an armed revolt against the colonial court system.
They condemned its injurious costliness, its fee structure which, they claimed, enabled judges, witnesses, and sheriffs to profit at the expense of litigants, and its cooptation by lawyers."
Colonial Courts and Secured Credit:
Early American Commercial
Litigation and Shays' Rebellion
Claire Priest

During the Revolutionary period the forces at war were not British vs American, they were as they are now Criminal Aggressors vs Defenders.

Defenders had to relearn the Ancient Law to help their side see through the fraud perpetrated by the Criminal Aggressors whose Criminal Aggression involved a counterfeit version of the Ancient Law.

Unfortunately the Criminal Aggressors won the Revolutionary struggle and the Revolutionary Period ended in 1789 with the reestablishment of a Counterfeit form of Government as documented in such works as the Constitution of 1789 and the Judiciary Act of the same year.

Stepping back as if viewing these pendulum swings from an unbiased, foreign, disinterested, scientific, perspective, the people as a whole were aware of their Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense (The law, where things are legal by due process of law, by voluntary agreement, an agreement that works the same on everyone) from Ancient Times up until the regaining of Criminal Power, for example, when the British formed into Empire, doing so step by step, counterfeiting the Ancient Law, turning Courts of Law into counterfeit forms, such as Exchequer and Chancery, then later Admiralty Courts, all of which are Summary Justice Courts, and all of which are in place to enforce extortion, or False Debt Collection.

1. Before the British Empire (before Magna Carta) was The Ancient Law.

2. Soon after Magna Carta the POWER to counterfeit The Ancient Law was near absolute, as documented with such documents and The Papal Bull from Pope Innocent III claiming to annul Magna Carta.

3. Many people fled the criminal British Empire to reform either a criminal form of government in America, or reform a legitimate, voluntary, form of government in America. That lead to the Revolutionary period and the re-establishing of The Ancient Law between 1774 and 1789 in America.

4. 1789, the criminals regain control, overpowering The Ancient Law.

Evidence to prove the above beyond reasonable doubt can be piled so high it would take years to cover the entire pile of evidence were there ever to be a trial in a Court of Law before a lawful, legal, independent, jury.

A clear example of which is the following adjudication by Ancient Law due process:

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

Criminals, even those counterfeiting government, will claim, and claim, and claim, that slavery is "legal." Why would anyone believe such a lie? I don't know, ask yourself.

You continue:
"The same tactics in Britain that established an Upper and Lower House in Parliament were used in establishing the legislatures in the Evil Empire."

My guess here is that you are referring to the 1789 National "government" in America with your word chosen as Evil Empire:

National Consolidated Monopoly of Power and Profit in America = Evil Empire

Is that true? Is that what you are saying in your message?

"The closest thing to "common sense" that ever existed politically, were the First Nation tribes of North America that voted on matters of import, but NEVER made dissenters beholden to decisions of the collective. Dissenters were able to go their own way, even if they were singular in their dissent."

Because you don't look for something, something does not exist, according to your statement above, which I have to ask, because I do not want to assume as much, so here is the question mark?

Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"Hallam says, “The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king’s authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom.” - 3 Middle Ages, 240-2."

How close to "common sense' is that above? Can you offer specific examples of so-called First Nation" tribes of North America, to support your findings?

I found this:

Conceived in Liberty, Murray Rothbard, 1999
Pennsylvania: Quakers and Indians
Page 557
"Even when modified, Quaker principles were radical enough to be unique in the colonies. Nowhere was this uniqueness more outstanding than in military affairs and in their treatment of the Indians. William Penn had from the beginning set the pattern of peace and justice to the Indians, and scrupulously purchased Indian land claims even when the claims themselves were dubious. Pursuing a policy of peace, incomprehensible to most of the other colonists, who were generally conscienceless in slaughtering the Indians, the Quakers of Pennsylvania built no forts, established no militia, and hired no scouts and Indian fighters. And by pursuing a policy of peace and no armaments, they found mirabile dictu, that they had nothing to fear. They had earned and gained the lasting respect of the Indians, and fair play met with fair play in its turn. As in New Jersey, where Quakers were influential in shaping Indian policy, there was no Indian war in the history of the colony so long as the Quakers ruled."
Page 389
"The West New Jersey Assembly was to be elected by all freeholders, by the unusual institution of secret ballot, and was to be empowered to create courts and levy taxes. All legislation required a two-thirds vote of the Assembly, thus assuring a greater consensus for legislation than under mere majority rule. Furthermore, the colony was to be fully self-governing, with all executive power in the hands of commissioners appointed by the Assembly. Judges and constables were to be elected by popular vote rather than appointed. There were other unusually libertarian features of this constitution. Except for treason, felony, and murder, the plaintiff had full power to forgive, pardon, or remit punishment, this placing the decision to prosecute and punish for a crime in the hands of the original victim rather than the remotely concerned government. Punishment for theft did not consist in paying a supposed debt to a mythical “society” by languishing unproductively in prison at taxpayers’ expense; instead, it consisted in making restitution to the victim for the crime, and in working off this “debt” to the specific injured party. Furthermore, the beginnings of excellent long-standing white-Indian relations in the colony were assured by the provision that any Indian claim of injury would go to a jury of six whites and six Indians."
Page 392
"One of William Penn’s most notable achievements was to set a remarkable pattern of peace and justice with the Indians. In November 1682 Penn concluded the first of several treaties of peace and friendship with the Delaware Indians at Shackamaxon, near Philadelphia. The Quaker achievement of maintaining peace with the Indians for well over half a century has been disparaged; some have held that it applied to only the mild Delaware Indians, who were perpetually cowed by the fierce but pro-English Iroquois. But this surely accounts for only part of the story. For the Quakers not only insisted on voluntary purchase of land from the Indians; they also treated the Indians as human beings, as deserving of respect and dignity as anyone else. Hence they deserved to be treated with honestly, friendliness, and evenhanded justice. As a consequence, the Quakers were treated precisely the same way in return. No drop of Quaker blood was ever shed by the Indians. So strong was the mutual trust between the races that Quaker farmers unhesitatingly left their children in the care of the Indians. Originally, too, the law provided that whenever an Indian was involved in a trial, six whites and six Indians would constitute the jury."

Since the Ancient Law (see Spooner) was voluntary it was therefore adaptive, meaning that voluntary associations allow competition, a product of competition is a steady force applied to improve whatever is freely traded, to improve both quality and improve by reduction in cost, and this is not news.

You wrote:
"Dissenters were able to go their own way, even if they were singular in their dissent."

In ancient times in places other than America (some Indians found the same thing?) there were examples such as a "defiance" as explained by Hallam in the quote above from Spooner:

"... if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance,..."

"Dissenters were able to go their own way, even if they were singular in their dissent."

I have shown two examples, you can provide one, perhaps.

A free woman in America, during the revolutionary period, took her tormentor through due process of law, according to the Ancient Law, and she showed a jury of 12 white men that she was, in fact, not a slave, and the jury agreed, as would any unbiased juror given the obvious facts in the case, in Massachusetts (of all places) in 1781, during the Revolutionary Period in America.

1. Ancient Law (Voluntary Association) in Europe shown by the work of Spooner
2. Ancient Law (Voluntary Association) in America shown by the work of a woman taking a criminal slave master to court in 1781, and shown in the work of Murrary Rothbard.
3. Your claim about Indian versions of something vaguely similar, or similar in principle at least.

You wrote:
"The Founding Fathers drew inspiration from these First Nations, but not enough."

So the criminals who counterfeit the law had to convince (confidence scheme) their victims that the criminals are the government, and it works, the fraud works, on some people, like you.

Those criminals, and they have names, "founded" ONE NATION STATE in 1789, not as you claim, First Nations. There were 13, and then 14 Nations founded in the Revolutionary period between 1774 and 1789, each was fighting internal battles between free people and criminals as free people defended and criminals offended, right down party lines demarcated precisely this way, even if the criminals used deception to blur the demarcation line.

So you bought into the Monopoly of Founding Fathers lie, and it shows.

That might explain why you confuse the meaning of legal and law as opposites.

How would one know?