The Seventh Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution- Breakdown

The Seventh Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution- Breakdown

This amendment is supposed to provide the basis for the entire civil justice system throughout the U.S nation. The fraudulent and tyrannical Bar Associations with their imposter agents, the "attorney profession", have totally contaminated the meaning of this 7th Amendment.

Please read the two myths these "Officers Of The Court" perpetuate about the civil justice system.

Myth No. 1- This amendment applies only to federal courts and not to state courts.

Myth No. 2- This amendment defines and equates case law as common law.

Its first phrase is "In Suits At Common Law". Unfortunately, most people do not understand what Common Law is. It is not case law because the judiciary is not supposed to make law. The Common Law is applicable to all the people in the United States. Anything in the Bill Of Rights of the U.S. Constitution will always apply to all the People(citizens and permanent non-citizen residents).

Common Law basically deals with disputes and conflicts over a specific duty and/or obligation. Those disputes and conflicts can be over a contractual matter or it can be over a specific duty and obligation either improperly or insufficiently performed.

Common Law, in all civil matters, decides the following.

1. What parties(usually two people) agreed to or would have reasonably agreed to according to the core principles of a certain activity.

2. Damages based on failure of performance according to the core principles of a certain activity.

All liability and damages awarded must be solidly based on proof.


This amendment states that in civil cases that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. Yet that is largely ignored.

However, both parties can waive that right if they so choose. In many occasions, both parties opt to do so if both parties have confidence in the judge's ability to impartially dispense cases.

When the US Constitution was written, it cited that the right of trial by jury shall be preserved if the value of controversy exceeded twenty dollars. Twenty dollars at that time is probably two thousand dollars now if not more in terms of purchasing power parity. This is the reason why both parties do not opt for trial by jury because it would be too time-consuming for each of them.

Its last phrase is as follows: "no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law".

It means what it means. All facts in a case must be unique to a specific case. Once a jury decides a fact for a case, it cannot be brought up and cited in an appeal unless common law rules warrant it. In other words, no jury-found fact can be questioned for its validity due to either local, state, and federal statutory law. Of course, judicial discretion and case law are never to be tolerated.

If a litigant in a current case feels a specific fact in a previous case is a relevant evidence in a current case in which they are a party, then that fact has to be retried by a separate jury for its unique relevancy for that case. Also, in the appeal process, if an appellate court finds a jury-found fact in a trial to be prejudicial, then that appellate court can re-examine that specific fact.

The Seventh Amendment Of The US Constitution, largely ignored by attorneys, is supposed to prevent any individual(s) from being labelled and prejudiced in a court of law. Too often individual(s) are examined for past deeds and/or are personally attacked. The Seventh Amendment prohibits this by establishing that all facts have to be unique to a specific case.