What is Common Law?
The Commonwealth Laws “or Common Law” being the Statutes passed by Westminster since Henry 3rd in 1224 right up to the present day have never honored the Golden Rule of Law that “all are equal under true law and none are above it”, and the very fact that there are dozens and dozens of different definitions for Common Law, with none of them matching. The very fact that some claim it is the collected precedents of the courts, while others refer to the body of statutes of their own country, while others again speak of Common Law in terms of only the maxims embedded in both as if it is somehow equivalent to Natural Law means there is no clarity even to what Common Law is meaning it can’t possibly be Law, because any law that is unclear cannot possibly be true law.
If you read the statutes at large of Westminster claimed from the time of Henry 3rd right through to the present day, it is blatant and obvious that there is no real justice through these statutes, nor fair process, nor any genuine attempt to follow the principles of civilized behaviour as defined by the Carolingians more than a thousand years ago, or by Emperor Constantine more than seventeen hundred years ago. In fact, the laws of Westminster make the most brutal laws of pagan Rome seem noble.
Within the Statutes of Westminster there are acts of parliament starting from the 13th century listing rights, remedies and wrong, often hundreds of years before other acts come into existence, trying to throw us off the land, or out of our homes, or turn us into “things”, or bind us under oppressive contracts. If the Common Law is to mean anything, then at least it must respect the foundation from which it claims its legitimacy.
As Common Law or the Commonwealth Laws of England through Westminster deal with statutes, any sensible discussion needs to address the nature of what are Statutes.
If there is no remedy then there is no law:
There are many dozens of alleged ancient statutes supposedly providing remedy to any sort of corrupt officials, greedy bankers and malicious court officials. The Magna Carta, The Statute of Merton of 1235, The Statute of Westminster of 1275 and of Gloucester of 1278 and of Westminster again in 1285 and the Statute of the Defense of Rights of 1292 and the Statute of Westminster of 1357 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 are all examples within the body of thousands of Statutes of Commonwealth Law or Common Law which describe certain rights, wrongs against injuring rights and remedies of such rights are injured. If there is no remedy against some deprivation of rights then such an instrument cannot be law, as where there is no remedy there is no law.
Such statutes claim to provide some form of remedy in the face of tyranny and corruption. For example, an act of 1889 (52&53Vict. c.69) under Queen Victoria provides clear remedy against any form of official corruption dealing with public officials and in particular with local government. An act by Henry 8th in 1529 (21Hen.8 c.15) also provides relief against false recoveries for example. The problem is, these kinds of statutes are hidden all over the place and difficult to find.
It is also useful to know the origin of certain law and procedures, like when one goes to court. A particular definition of Common Law that defined the period from 1848 onwards, as effectively the end of Common Law, with the abolition of certain procedures and standards within Common Law courts, as well as the introduction of a new form of justice called “summary justice” in the name of efficiency, which in effect considers you guilty before being proven innocent, are the reverse of what the law should be.
Acts like c.43 of 1848 (11&12Vict. c.43) on the new proceedings of Summary Justice, or follow up acts of 1857 (20&21Vict. c.43) and 1879 (42&43Vict. c.49), 1881 (44&45Vict. c.24) and 1884 (47&48Vict c.43) are important to comprehend, particularly if someone was contemplating defending themselves. Knowledge and competence of the origin of their procedures, such as the Common Law Court Procedural Changes in 1854 (17&18Vict. c125) and 1857 (23&24Vict. c.126) and 1860 (23&24Vict. c.126) are critical if you are to be competent in any manner to contemplate a self-defense. By reading the statutes, you get to see how the procedures or proceedings within courts evolved over time.
Different forms of “Common Law”:
Certain communities have embraced some of the body of statutes of Westminster as Common Law, thus we have the condition where some of these statutes of potential rights and remedies remain active, because subsequent repeals may not apply, as in the situation of some of the 13 colonies of the United States that chose to adopt some of the laws of Great Britain prior to 1776 that were not repugnant to the Declaration of Independence.
Similarly, when Australia was declared a country in 1900, keeping in mind the use of the word country and not sovereign and independent land or body politic, that the Common Law was recognized firstly as those laws back before 1828 and the Australian Courts Act. It is different again for Canada for example and its recognition of Common Law before its constitution was enacted in 1867.
As far as this being a little confusing when different countries claim to follow Common Law, yet have different interpretations of just what the Common law is, the Statute of Westminster of 1931 should have put a rest to all those points of confusion. This Act of 1931 made it crystal clear that no country, dominion, territory or people are bound by any Statute of England, or Great Britain or the United Kingdom from that date forward, unless the legislative body of such a country, or dominion or territory also pass a similar act. In other words, just because it is promulgated by Westminster, unless it is also passed by the House of Representatives also known as the Congress in the United States or the House of Commons of Canada or the House of Representatives in Australia, then the law does not apply.
Repugnant and Insane Acts of Common Law:
This article talks about some of the older acts which outline rights, wrongs and remedies. But what about the raft of acts of Westminster that fly in the face of these rights and remedies? What about the raft of acts that declare you are not only dead at law, but to be counted as dead? Or that people without money or title are to be treated literally as useless cattle, to be rounded up as slaves? Surely, if these kinds of laws still find themselves active today, then any argument the Common law is lawful is a complete lie. There are many occult acts obsessed in converting the world from the living to the undead, or the origin of the obsession of the ruling elite in zombies, as in the Cestui Que Vie Acts.
The term Cestui Que Vie, meaning a type of trust for the alleged benefit of another, usually created in secret. There are many other names for such trusts, namely term of life or years, or per autre vie, or fides commissary trust, or foreign citus trust to name a few.
The origin of Cestui Que Vie Trusts is almost certainly around 1535 during the reign of Henry VIII. We know this because, these types of trusts are essential to the holding of rights of others, and therefore the act of seizing the smaller estates of everyone, hidden as small spiritual estates in 1535, could not have conceptually worked, without the existence of CQV trusts. Unfortunately, we no longer have any record of the original acts creating CQV as they are long since been lost, or destroyed and replaced by new forged statutes. What we have instead, is a range of acts that give us some insight into their operation.
Some of the arguments in creating a CQV trust are that someone is lost, abandoned, presumed dead, or an infant, or lunatic, an idiot or some other argument of unsound mind. This is why the connection between CQV trusts and the claim that their existence supports the argument that under the wholly corrupt and insane world of Common Law, the politicians of Westminster declared everyone dead.
The general statutes cite the 6th Act of Charles the 2nd in the 18th year of his reign or 1666 as the Cestui Que Vie Act. Some books, deliberately move this act to 1667 to avoid the obvious occult reference (19Car.2 c.6). In fact, the act is all about the concept of Proof of Life and while we do not have the original act, it was almost certainly responsible also for what was known as the Bills of Mortality or the Bills of the Dead that began after and not before (contrary to yet more confusion), this particular act. The same deliberate confusion exists with the 18th statute issued in the 6th year of the reign of Queen Anne (6Ann. c.18) also concerning proof of life, but listed in official records as a Cestui Que Vie Act. What does Proof of Life have to do with Cestui Que Vie Acts and Bills of Mortality or Bills of the Dead? A great deal actually.
The concept is quite brilliant and very simple and unfortunately virtually everyone, including those agents working for the system fail to get it. Under these two acts that are still part of “Common Law”, if you cannot and do not prove yourself Living, using the prescribed rituals and bullshit procedures of the nihilists inhabiting the sewers of Westminster, then you are not only dead at law, but literally dead. Not physically dead, but within the realm of the undead or Mundi. It is that simple.
The Act of 1666 and the act of 1707 on proof of life and claimed as Cestui Que Vie mean that if you do not follow their insane and unjustified occult rituals and paperwork to prove you are alive and one of them, then you and everyone you know are dead in their system. How utterly corrupt and profane and sacrilegious against any notion of Rule of Law. Still think Common Law has anything in common with Natural Law?
Moving to another example, the Poor Laws of England, then Great Britain, which are held up as the first working examples of welfare to stop the poor from starvation. The poor were starving because like today, the rich and greedy and stupid with guns were stealing the means of survival of the poor and squeezing them till they died.
The occult leaders of the private Bar Guilds created two entirely different statutes on the books concerning the Poor Laws beginning with Queen Elizabeth 1st in 1601. One that is for public consumption (43El. c.2) and is all high and mighty in charity and Christian ideals and another private version (43El. c.3) which exposes the system for what it is, organized slavery. In 1670 and the 22nd year of the reign of Charles 2nd, there was an act formalizing poor workhouses (22Car.2 c.18). These were not refuges but hell holes. A prison would have had better conditions than workhouses. These were enterprises in collusion with Christian ministers, the government and private enterprise to exploit the poor for their own ends, followed by the workhouse test act of 1722 under George 1st (9Geo.1 c.7) or later under his grandson George 3rd in 1775 (15Geo.3 c.21). Suddenly all these rose-colored platitudes on the beautiful Common Law, is exposed for what it is, as by this time people who had their lands seized and their property taken had the choice to either starve to death, or try and survive in a workhouse for a few years. Mothers were separated from their children. Husbands from their wives. In fact, children were a valuable commodity.
In the Enclosure Act of 1773 (13Geo.3 c.81) literally hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes, their possessions, their inheritance and were rounded up like cattle to be sold as slaves into private enterprise and the hell holes of workhouses. In the same year in 1773 an act effectively endorses the sale of children as a commodity (13Geo.3 c.82) and (17Geo.3 c.36) endorsed by the church. Disgusting, deprived, wicked and wholly barbaric, without an inch of true law, or justice.
In Common Law, all those who will not bow down to Illuminati and ruling Elite Commercial Network as “things” and less than human or cattle, you can find plenty of acts speaking about Negro slaves
These acts are part of the history of the British Empire exploiting and raping and pillaging Africa until acts abolished the slavery of negroes in the 19th Century.
But what about white slavery? It seems there is no obvious mention of white slaves in the statutes even though we know that slavery was rife and that Ireland and Scotland and Wales suffered terribly at the hands of the mad English merchants.
It turns out you won’t find any explicit act describing the poor of England, or Wales or Scotland or Ireland or any other colony as slaves, because they are called something else.
They are described as “Horns Unwrought” when they are docile and compliant, like most people are today, utter cowards, stupid and compliant, or “Distempered Horned Cattle” when they are no longer being cowardly and actually are trying to stop the madness of the soulless and mindless ruling elite.
An act of 1464 (4Ed.4 c.8) by Edward 1st describing that the trade of a certain group of people of a certain exclusive religion known as “horners” were banned from plying their trade within a certain distance of London in the taking of Horns Unwrought.
King James 1st in 1609 (7J. c.14) banned the business of the Mystery Company and the Horners of the House of Convertors and their peculiar and false religion from the business of white slavery of Horns Unwrought. However, Charles the 2nd in 1672 (25Car.2 c.4) opened the white slave trade partially back up on the selling of white poor people as “horned cattle”, providing they are suffering distemper, or rebellion against the absolute control of the mad and corrupt ruling elite.
George IVth in 1825, through act c.105, repealed the ban on the exclusive business of white slaves or “Horns Unwrought” and the certain mysterious group, also known as the Mystery Company and the House of the Convertors, originally of Venice and Pisa and of a peculiar religion that claimed exclusive right of ownership of slaves for hundreds of years. This act put this particular group of a particular false and totally made-up religion back into the slave trade of white slaves in 1825. The period right when we have the end to black slavery.
It wasn’t just slavery of the poor people but the fact that if they ever did rise up like the Scots during the 18th Century, then none of these wonderful laws on the rights of men applied and under an act of 1737 (10Geo.2 c.35) and (27Geo.2 c.15) they could be summarily executed without trial or jury.
Dozens of acts in the 18th century refer to rebellious Horned Cattle with Distemper. We are not speaking about mad cow disease but people fighting against injustice and trying to survive. Such as 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749,1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758 and 1774, and even the suppression of people held in prisons and workhouses trying to survive (23Geo.3 c.23).
The Invisible Constitution:
There is nothing grand about the Common Law. There is nothing noble about the laws of England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom. There is nothing enlightened or just or lawful about it. The sooner people get over the delusion and actually read the statutes as, then the quicker we can have people working on how we get out of the mess of a corporate pirate world out of control.
As far as the United Kingdom being a democracy and having a Constitution, Public Law must be public, published and viewable, otherwise it cannot be Public Law! Similarly, a Private Law or Special Law by its nature can be private. This is an obvious statement. The point being whether a law be Public or Private, what it can never be is unclear, or missing, or unreasonable or impossible. If a Law is unclear, or missing pieces, or unreasonable or impossible, then as Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law in the 18th Century described, it ceases to be law.
The Common Law is not a constitution. The United Kingdom does not have a constitution, nor does any of it resemble law of a true democracy of any sort in history.
