Superior Law, Higher Law, My Law
The eleventh and final booklet, and the corpus’s proposed remedy. Beers argues that when laws conflict, courts must determine which is superior (Ellingham v. Dye); that the hierarchy runs from divine/natural law down through common law, constitutions, and legislation; and that the medieval merchant-court practice of “asserting one’s law” supported by compurgators is the model for a modern personal declaration. “My Law” is built from eleven principles spanning natural rights, constitutional government, common law for free people, and rejection of national-sovereign authority over subjects.
The biblical-foundation claim that anchors the higher-law half of the hierarchy is verdicted at the survey-anchor level in the common-law-founded-on-Bible finding (partially-supported historically; foreclosed as operative modern doctrine). The broader “My Law” remedy concept — how a personal declaration interacts with the operative legal system — was identified at the survey-anchor level (cross-cutting theme C10) but deferred to this per-treatise triage. The remedy concept connects to the existing finding on federal jurisdiction requires individual consent — the consent-as-jurisdictional-gate version of the broader political-philosophy claim.
Per-treatise triage cycle pending — claims pre-extracted in notes/beers-treatise-11-extraction.md.