What people think is the Common Law is in error and any concept of real rights owes its history back to the Anglo-Saxon Laws of the Carolingians such as Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne in the 8th and 9th Century.
The real meaning of Common Law:
Blacks 9th published in 2009 on page 313 defines Common Law as “the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions”. This is completely contradictory to the history of law and popular knowledge of the meaning of Common Law and goes to show how out of control the private bar guilds in the last 60 years have become. To prove how dishonest these legal fraternities have become, case law in the United States was restarted in the 1930’s, basically wiping all precedents prior to that decade. This definition basically tells you that as far as those who run the world today, all law is commercial and security law that started from the 1930’s which is absurd, untenable and blatantly, deliberately and obviously false.
Returning to Blacks Law Dictionary, the 2nd edition published in 1910 and page 226 we see a little more honest definition being “common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed and formulated and is administered in England”.
Going back a little more to the Dictionary of English Law of 1882 by Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn and page 172 and his definition of Common Law, which he defines as “that part of the law of England which, before the Judicature Acts, was administered by the common law tribunals”
In a nutshell, the Common Law by the Western-Roman system was all the statutes in force from Westminster prior to 1848 and the first Judicature Acts that created the abomination we have today, where there is no justice or law in modern common courts or magistrates courts because you are considered guilty before being innocent, which by the way is a Common Law Wrong contrary to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 and several other laws.
It turns out that prior to the deliberate disinformation, false gurus of the truth movement, false and contradictory dictionaries of the past 60 years, knowledge of what the Common Law is was relatively common.
In the United States for example, the English statutes did not become the laws of various states of the United States by virtue of their own authority in the mother country, but they became so by adoption. Such as the State of Georgia in 1784 as “the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province (Georgia) on the fourteenth day of May, 1776, and not repugnant to the constitution, laws and form of government now established shall be in force until repealed”.
A 1776 Virginia law automatically made all the common law of England and all acts of Parliament in aid of the common law that were enacted before the fourth year of the reign of King James a part of the law of the state of Virginia. Article 25 of the Delaware State constitution of 1776 stated “The common law of England as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force”.
Similarly in other parts of the world, the recognition of the preservation of statutes in force prior to a certain date was not some magical or mythical legend, but provable in law. The reception of English law was clarified by the Australian Courts Act 1828, which provided that all laws and statutes in force in England at the date of the enactment of the legislation should be applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) so far as they were applicable. In NSW, this was further reinforced by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969.
Now we have some clarity of exactly what we are speaking about. For the United States of America, it is all the laws of Westminster in force and effect as at 1776 not repugnant to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then confirmed as such by the laws of the various states and precedents of the courts. For countries such as Australia, Canada and elsewhere, it is various acts passed prior to 1848 and for the United Kingdom it is all the laws prior to 1848 that were in force and effect and not morally repugnant.
Rights, Wrongs and Remedy:
Three key concepts are at the heart of Common Law, being: Rights, Wrongs and Remedy.
Until the rise of the absurdity known as “Legal Realism” in the 20th Century, the text named “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (in four Books) first published in 1765 (and again in 1769) was considered the foundation stone for anyone wishing to comprehend and establish basic competence in the key notions of law.
In those four books Sir William Blackstone identified three concepts of Law above all others being Rights, Wrongs and Remedies. In fact, the first two books are dedicated to Rights, the third to Wrongs and the fourth to Remedies in describing the law and in particular Common Law.
In relation to the notion of Rights, Blackstone identified three absolute Rights of nature being personal security, personal liberty and private property. In fact, Blackstone made the principle of the protection of these natural Rights against abuse the cornerstone and test of whether one lives in a civilized society, or one merely exists under the savage occupation of tyrants, pretenders and pirates. To quote Blackstone from Book 1 Chapter 1 on the Rights of Person, Page 120:
“The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.”
Thus, the law cannot function in the absence of Rights, or in the unfettered abuses and wrongs of official corruption and corporate special interests. We can see the truth of these statements by Blackstone in looking at those texts considered the bedrock of defining Rights of men, women and persons.
Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta 1224 is said to state “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him or condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
The Bill of Rights of 1688 (1W&M S2 c2) expanded on the defence of Rights into several items such as 10, 11, 12 and 13 for example
No 10 That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
No 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void; and
No 13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently.
The United States Bill of Rights of 1789 similarly defines ten articles, also described as the first ten amendments that support the nature and type of Rights enjoyed by people and by citizens of the United States of America. Similarly, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 also defines the key Rights to be enjoyed and protected concerning persons and people.
Blacks 9th Law Dictionary on page 1436 defines Rights as several meanings. A Right is considered “something that is due to a person by just claim, a legal guarantee, a moral principle; and a legally enforceable claim that another will do or not do a given act; or a recognized and protected interest, the violation of which is a wrong; or the interest, claim or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property”.
Given this summary definition, it is no wonder that when we first think of Common Law, we think of Common Law rights. What then are Wrongs? And how do the definitions of wrongs play a party in Common Law?
When paraphrasing the definitions of Rights, we actually mentioned the word in the context of a violation of a right. That is in essence the first true definition of a Wrong as also defined on page 1751 of Blacks 9th as the 2nd definition of a wrong being “violation of another’s legal right”. The word wrong is also equivalent to the word and concept of injury. There is then a whole list of different sub definitions of wrongs from civil, intentional, legal, moral, personal, positive, public and so on. The point being, that Common Law not only defines those rights granted to us, but those acts that are prohibited in violating such rights.
For example, the Statute of Merton in 1235 (20 Hen.3) states under Cap. 5. that it is a wrong for debts of the ancestor to be passed to the heir and that upon death both the principal and the usury or interest does not remain. In other words, under Common Law, all contracts with banks that seek to recover debts and interest from the grieving heirs are null and void, remembering that under the same Common Laws, a will and testament that names a beneficiary for a certain benefit, deprives an heir of that part of their inheritance and renders such effect of this statute mute.
Another example of a defined wrong is in the Statute of Westminster of 1275 under Edward 1st (3Ed.1.) and Cap 23 which states that no one shall have their property seized for a debt in which they are neither the debtor or there is no pledge. In other words, no one can seize your property unless there is proof of a debt or contract. In the same statute under Cap 26 we also have the definition of another wrong where no Officer of the Crown is permitted to take a reward for their office, which renders anyone occupying an office under any form of admiralty law or marshal law an outlaw and a criminal if they are sharing in the value of prizes or trophies.
Yet another example of a defined wrong is in 1436 by Henry 6th (15 Hen.6. c.6) against unlawful bylaws and orders whereby the articles of bylaws of any guild, or fraternity or company that are unreasonable or contradictory to Common Law are void and unenforceable. This is even expanded under Henry 7th in 1503 (19 Hen. 7. c.7). Another example that is reinforced many times throughout Common Law is the wrong of frivolous and vexatious suits such as in 1601 and Elizabeth 1st (43 El.1. c.6) and 1697 (8&9W.3. c.11).
So what about fixing a wrong. You discover that the bank has taken property it should not have or a government agency has drained your bank account when it is not allowed to do so, or someone has seized your property for a false debt. Well, that is exactly what statutes of Common Law that define remedy are supposed to do (in theory).
Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn defines remedy in his late 19th Century Dictionary of English Law of 1882 as “Remedy is the means by which violation of a right is prevented, redressed or compensated.
Remedies are four kinds:
(1) By act of the party injured, the principal of which are defence, reception, distress, entry, abatement and seizure;
(2) By operation of law as in the case of retainer and remitter
(3) By agreement between the parties by accord, satisfaction or arbitration
(4) By judicial remedy, e.g. action or suit for relief
In terms of remedy for tenants in mortgage when the landlord, being a title company or attorney as trustee, has done absolutely nothing to contribute to the upkeep of the property such as charges of connection of power, water or council rates is able under an act of 1433 (11Hen.6. c.5) to have the landlord convicted of waste against a claim for all the costs incurred by the tenant as treble damages. Now, let’s say an attorney and bank are in collusion and make a false recovery through foreclosure, then under Common Law in 1529 (21 Hen. 8. C15), the remedy upon proof of a false recovery is that the property, rights, titles and tenancies shall be restored as if the false recovery had never occurred. Remembering, you have to prove in their courts a false action first.
The mystery of Common Law explained:
The key question and mystery, how come the Remedy of Common Law exists sometimes hundreds of years before the Wrong? It does not make sense.
It rests in a major shift and alignment of world power at the end of the 18th Century, being the creation of the Illuminati and the coming together of a Trinity of interests being the elite of the Vatican, the elite of London and the new elite and Dutch royalty as elite of America and New York.
The creation of a global Matrix, a Frankenstein of spirit, mind and body where Rome represented the spirit, London the mind and regulations and Washington eventually under the control of the New York families, as the muscle and enforcement as the body.
When the apparatus was being put together by the Jesuits, there was a glaring fact that could not be avoided, that the laws of Westminster and the English pirates was nothing like the history books.
For example:
In regards to Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) and Public and Private General Statutes of Westminster, claimed to have been created and in force and effect as “Law” from 1224 under the reign of Henry III to the present reigning monarch:
(i) Contrary to the norms of Civilized Society and history (including Rome and Athens), there is no credible evidence that Public Statutes proclaimed by Westminster were ever made public and available for permanent review in various cities, towns and public squares outside of Westminster or in any public form until the publication of “The Statutes at Large” from 1763 by Danby Pickering of Gray’s Inn and then Owen Ruffhead of the Middle Temple in 1769. Therefore, by the ancient tradition of all civilizations public law that is not made public cannot be law, nor can it be validly claimed to be enforceable or just or in accord with the true Rule of Law; and
(ii) It is on the public record and admitted by multiple sources that a substantial number of former claimed Public Statutes of Westminster were “destroyed” in the 1666 fire. There is scant credible evidence how most of these laws were then “recovered” in suitable form to be included in the publication of Danby Pickering from 1763 and the folio edition of Owen Ruffhead.
(iii) Within the 1763 publication of Danby Pickering (“The Statutes at Large”) and the separate work of Owen Ruffhead, there are references to words and phrases in statutes prior to the 18th Century that were neither in common use, nor yet invented within the English language, indicating either deliberate and wholesale fraud in creating acts that didn’t exist, or amending laws and their meaning that did not previously exist.
(iv) In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published the work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in four books in which in Book I Part I Section III he explained the norms of statutes concerning repeals, revivals, perpetuity and repugnant laws. Yet the work of Danby Pickering and subsequent works of Public General Statutes (i.e. Butterworth, Spottiswoode, etc.) show Westminster contradicting its own norms by repealing acts which are perpetual, claiming acts are repealed when they remain in word in force, and claiming acts which are wholly and morally repugnant have full force and effect.
(v) For the entire span of civilized society until 1540, only approximately 500,000 laws had been passed by legislative bodies of which 90% were variations on similar laws. Yet from the dawn of Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) from 1540 to 1798 approximately 500,000 laws claiming to be “public” had been created and from 1799 to 1920 some 10,000,000 “public” laws were created of which less than 10% resembled any form of true historic law. Then from 1920 to the present day, more than 100,000,000 laws under Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) have been issued overwhelmingly for seizure of property, enslavement of people as insolvent debtors, immunity, franchise, commercial advantage, privatization, corruption, blatant theft of public assets and the destruction of rights with less than 1% resembling any form of ancient Rule of Law, or Justice or Due Process.
