I feel that it is right to cut and paste yet another Giant Wall of Text:

"... less tedious..."
If the idea was to ask for the majorities opinion as to what they want to read, how the words are written that they want to read, and how difficult it is for them to read what they want to read, then somone could construct a Poll with that goal in mind, and then answers to that question could be found that way.
Whoever asked you to decide how many words I can publish in answer to your questions can confess that desire for your opinion. It was not me. If you don't care to read the answers offered to your comments, then you can do something other than attack with the ad hominem tactic. Of course, instead, you chose to fill the blank space with more political garbage.
"Common Law? That does seem to be a recurring theme of yours.
Please define this term."
I will, and before I do I'm going to predict something. I may write more words. You may find those words tedious. You may not even read the answer offered to your question. You may then respond with more political garbage. Other people may also not read the answer, and they may also respond with more political garbage. There may also be other people reading, and those other people may include one other person who reads the answer to the question you ask.
The common law existed before the Roman Empire collapsed, which is before England was thereby no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule.
Here is a wordy description of an example of common law before England was no longer subjected to Roman Dictatorial Rule:
“Ad questionem juris non respondent Juratores.” (To the question of law the jurors do not answer.) “The Annotist says, that this is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well of the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the (a Saxon word) or judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law.” (Here various Saxon laws are quoted.) “In neither of these fundamental [71] laws is there the least word, hint, or idea, that the earl or alderman (that is to say, the Prepositus (presiding officer) of the court, which is tantamount to the judge on the bench) is to take upon him to judge the delinquent in any sense whatever, the sole purport of his office is to teach the secular or worldly law.”
—Ditto, p. 57, note.
The common law is known to have been in force as the Saxons invaded, or migrated, (depending upon individual and collective actions of individuals for individual or collective purposes unique to those individuals or groups: invaders or migrators) to England after the collapse of the Roman Empire in England.
Fast forward as the common law moved from the Saxons, to England, to America:
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica
v.
Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
"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."
That is the words of Chief Justice Thomas M'Kean, who was also (if I am not mistaken):
Thomas McKean (DE)
2nd President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781
The common law is law that predates written language. The common law is bottom up, not top down.
Example:
[idw.community]
"Further, or, more importantly, please tell me of any time in the history of Mankind that such a thought process actually held sway ... was the way things were “done” ... was the Actual and Full Description of the “Law” being followed ... being applied."
2 Examples may suffice.
The Conspiracy Murder Trial of Martin Luther King Jr.
The United States v. Bundy, District Court, D. Oregon
Justice delayed (not according to common law principles that pre-date written language) is justice denied, in the first case against those found guilty of conspiracy murder, those only named as people in the government. In other words the government so-called allows conspiracy murderers to murder with impunity, a fact found the lawful way: by jury trial.
The second example case is more recent and again the country, through the jury, orders the government to stop persecuting these innocent people, and the government then sets those persecuted victims free: for awhile at least.
As to "the Actual and Full Description of the “Law” being followed ... being applied", as requested, you can read the free transcripts from the first case, they are published for free. In the second case the only source I found was a pay to play government link on the internet, and I'm not going to travel to Oregon to answer your question, when you probably won't even read the answer.
There is an unwritten law, or partially written law, that the country is represented by a randomly selected jury, and when people in the government perpetrated conspiracy murder and other treasonous crimes, those criminals can be found out as such, a fact that matters, in a trial by jury according to the common law case, if someone can afford to pay for such a case.
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787
The law, if it is anything, is inside individual people, and the law only becomes "collective" as a aggregate power, a sum total, of all the law power in each individual. If you are speaking of a gang of criminals, who protect their own, and then make their victims pay for all the costs associated with protecting their racket, then I can site that dogma right here:
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
Martin Luther King Jr., and Ammon Bundy asked too many questions, as did recently Lavoy Finicum. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered (conspiratorially) by the government and other conspirators, as found as a fact in a trial by jury case. Ammon Bundy was set free from persecution for asking too many questions, the bill - the cost - for all that persecution will be extracted the routine way. The case involving the conspiracy murder of Lavoy Finicum is not yet tried in any way, let alone a lawful way, other than the counterfeit law way, which is to conspire to murder those who refuse to obey without question, and then execute that sentence based upon that conviction, judge, jury, and execute, or assassinate, depending upon what works in an individual mind.
"I understand the concept pretty well and the closest I can come to it is some sort of “Soft Anarchy”."
No, it is the common law, you can redefine it all you want, and who cares? I look in the mirror and see a modicum of care left despite all the redefining done by all who work toward that goal.
"I think in a room of 10-100-1000 people you would not get more than perhaps 10% that could agree on what “Common Law” should be ... never mind, is."
Vor dire? 12 people agreed to set those being persecuted by the all powerful National government agents infesting Oregon, free, and at liberty, so your claim, at least in that case, appears to be in opposition to the facts that matter in that case.
"The Magna Carta and The Constitution of the United States (and Amendments thereto) do not bestow any “Rights”. In fact, they simply “guarantee” that those in Authority will not violate the Rights as bestowed by Nature ... by God ... but when has “Nature” ever respected a “Common Law”?”
If you think that my claim is such that a document, or stone tablets, ARE the law, then you have assumed something that is not true. If the common law predates language, then it is therefore not possible for the common law to be put on documents or stone tablets. The common law, as confirmed by at least Jordan Peterson, is bottom up. The common law is, in a word, organic, or in a few more words it is grass roots.
“When have Lions ever lay down with Sheep?”
“Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird.” Proverbs
“The people who wrote the Constitution and Early Amendments were giving us a goal, written as perfectly as possible, to strive for.”
That is an opinion. Here is another:
Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention
June 6, 1788
George Mason:
“Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”
That is an opinion of someone credited with the personal force behind the Bill of Rights, but he was not afforded the authority to actually write the Bill of Rights, that “honor” went to the Nationalist (soon to turn his coat) James Madison, if I’m not mistaken. So the slave consumer gang wrote the oppressive, constructive, mean anything one minute and the next thing the next minute, 1787 Constitution, doing so outside the existing law by their own confession on the public record, and the opponents to the 1787 Constitution, which included George Mason (Bill of Right fame) blew the whistle on the false claim, that you parrot, that the Constitution is “written as perfectly as possible,” that is unless you mean to say that it was written so as to afford liars the ability to construct just about any rationalization possible, including the usurpation of trial by jury according to the common law.
“You can find these thoughts and concerns expressed by all of them in hundreds of places in the Federalist Letters.”
All that you accomplish there is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have also been fooled. Those “Federalist” Letters were written by the Nationalists. That was found out by Thomas Paine too, so he too found that out. That was also found out by Patrick Henry, so there are at least 2 people who found out that they too had been fooled. But you?
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.
"But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.”
June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen. But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.”
“... Corruption and Greed and Hubris waited outside their doors ... and remains so today ...”
At some point some people acknowledge the fact that inside the doors criminals work the same as outside the doors, and it might be a good idea to find out who closes the doors; enemies domestic.
Page 4 Luther Martin at the Con Con 1787
"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining ...