Actually it would not surprise me at all to see these – it’s basically a formal, written-down list of either fundamental principles that courts should use when interpreting the law and making decisions, or reasonable presumptions that the persons bringing up a case should dispute. And even if the US runs mostly (save for Louisiana and my home Commonwealth) a Common Law system, hey once in a while it helps if some principle you would normally hold out of “common sense” is an actual part of the written Law.
And it’s up to the State, if in a criminal trial, or the plaintiff, if in a civil suit, to present to the Court evidence that these private transactions are NOT fair and regular.
However, yes, THIS does come across as a wee bit much, not even “real” Civil Law jurisdictions include a recitative of every last of the Fundamental Principles of the Law in the books, but we do incorporate stuff such as would come out of major jurisprudence, and clauses attending to more applied-law sorts of things, that we want to make sure will be followed uniformly such as “Words are to be understood as used in their usual and common meaning, save when specifically used as a technical term”; “When referring to persons in general, using the masculine gender in the language of the Law also includes the feminine”; etc. Heck, Article 2 of the PR Civil Code is the “ignorance of the law does not excuse from it” clause.
OK, that one DOES sound a bit metaphysical. I’ll take it the California framers meant that “the law has been obeyed”" is (a) the presumption that the prosecutor or the plaintiff has to dispute and (b) the goal at which you are to arrive.
Ocassionally a plaintiff or defendant will try to argue something that came out of the Infinite Improbability Generator...
You consented to removal of the diseased lung by a competent practitioner. You (or your estate) will present evidence that what was done was not what you consented to.