29 Jun 2018

'Rule of Law' or to 'Rule through the law', this is the question. Common Law v. Statutes

With the considerable growth of international commerce and powerful corporations, combined with the ever-present need of the few to rule the many, the commercial legal system known as Roman Civil Law, has expanded internationally and led to the existence of bijural (dual jurisdiction) systems of regulation in all the World's Common Law countries.  The British Government's legislation is based in the system of Roman Civil Law.

A David with the head of Goliath statue in the gardens of Schwerin Castle in northern Germany.
These two competing systems of regulation, the ancient and preeminent jurisdiction of Common Law and the subordinate statutory jurisdiction of Roman Civil Law are in constant ideological conflict with each other. 

The primary and compelling reason for the United States’ Declaration of Independence was to eliminate the Roman civil legal system from the domestic law of the colonies due to its potential for conflict with freedom.

Briefly, and stated in general terms, the basic concepts of these two systems are diametrically opposed. In the Roman statutory legal system, the source of all regulations is the State or the personal ruler, it or he is sovereign. In the common law, the source of all law is the People, and they as a whole are sovereign.  The most prominent distinction between common law and the statutory legal system is that common laws are principle based and applied equally to all men, while the statutes of the Roman legal system are more prescriptive, can only hold jurisdiction over legally registered consenting persons and can be made to apply to specified parts of society.

The Roman civil legal system is recognised as lending itself towards an oligarchic state, whereas the true democracy enhancing Saxon Common Law promotes moral self-determination of the People by the People under a Constitution created by the People.  The Roman civil legal system is a top-down authority, whereas the Common Law system is a people-up authority, with the People as the foundation of power.

During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society.  The Roman civil legal system and its fundamental concepts have been the instrument through which men of genius and self-serving ambition have set up and maintained despotisms through trading and money.  Whereas the common law, with its basic moral principles being the instrument through which men of equal genius but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions.

Society has been hierarchical for millennia, revolving around the status of individuals and organisations.  The words state, statute, statutory all have their root in the word status.  By legal definition, a ‘society’ is “a number of persons united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.” 

All Acts of Parliament are statutes known as legislation, they are technically not laws.  They are parliamentary legislated policies, which determine what is ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’ - words which are derived from the word ‘legislated’ and ‘legislation’.  A ‘Statute’ is defined as a rule or policy of a society, an edict of legislation used to govern that society.  Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. 

Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by barristers and solicitors trained by the State to serve the State’s legal system, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning Statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’.  

The word ‘Statute’ is legally defined as: “A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”  By its own definition it is not a law, it is only given the force of law by the consent of those who have entered into an agreement to be governed.  The Latin maxim - Consensus Facit Legem - means ‘Consent makes the law’, and to be lawful the consent must be free and fair and should not be induced by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion or mistake. 

A law differs from a statute in that law applies to all individuals in the land regardless of consent, for example nobody is above the Common Law crime of murder.  Equality before the law is the principle that each independent being must be treated equally by the law - principle of isonomy - and that all are subject to the same laws of justice.  Whereas statutes require consent and apply to defined sectors of society, as per the details of the relevant Act of Parliament.

The 1689 Bill of Rights makes a distinction between laws and statutes – “All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm”.

Acts of Parliament become Statutes – primary legislation which in turn are enacted and enforced by statutory instruments – secondary legislation.  For example, council tax is a statutory instrument enacted under its primary legislation the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference.  Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.  Parliament can only create, amend and repeal Acts of Parliament, and according to its own parliamentary constitution, the Acts created by previous Governments cannot bind successive Governments.  Parliament cannot create, amend or repeal Common Laws as it does not have authority over the higher jurisdiction of Common Law.  Parliament is in fact bound by the preeminent jurisdiction of Common law, which means that all its statutes must not breach Common Law.

Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time.  Statutes can come and go based upon the whims and agendas of Government.  The fabric of a law may be copied into a statute but if later repealed as a statute, the Common Law obviously remains in force.  Only a proper convention of the People or the jury of a properly convened Common Law Court de Jure may change the law though a unanimous decision. 

The 1297 statute version of the Magna Carta is a perfect example. When referring to the Magna Carta, the misinformed will sometimes state that it has been repealed, but they are referring to the statute version without awareness that there is a Common Law version.  The statute version has been mostly repealed by Government, but the 1215 Common Law Magna Carta is out of the reach of Parliament and remains perfectly untouched. 

The land commonly known as Britain is a Common Law jurisdiction, and Parliament and the National Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are legal incorporated entities.  Legal entities of any and all natures and descriptions necessarily require voluntary agreements in order to make claim to or assert authority and control over other parties and their property.  As mentioned earlier, the jurisdiction of the statutory legal system is voluntary, where legitimate members must be fully informed and lawfully consenting volunteers, being fully aware of the system into which they are, or have been, contractually obligated.

Government has the task and duty to pass lawful and just legislation in an equitable administration of the uncontroversial ‘nuts and bolts’ of day-to-day life. This is, of course, provided government operates legitimately; always within the legal and lawful parameters set by its own self-regulating statutes but most importantly in accordance with the common law Constitution, as defined by the 1215 Common Law Magna Carta.

Whilst the Common Laws are of the People for the protection and empowerment of the People, the statutory legislation is created and modified by the State to regulate the privileges, obligations and punishments of its consenting membership.  It is the generally accepted viewpoint that Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’, as they frequently like to claim.  As the electorate, the intention is never to give ‘power’ to those that are elected, but merely to lend it to them for representation, trusting that that sovereignty should be returned to the electorate complete and intact at the end of a term of government.

Government legislation is created to both protect and limit its subjects’ civil rights.  Subjects can only do what the State’s legislation, rules and regulations allow them to do.  For the allowance of some statutory rights a subject must seek permission, through an application for a permit or license to do certain activities or practices which would otherwise be classed as illegal without a permit or license.  Subjects must comply with the State’s regulations or face liabilities, such as warnings, suspended sentences, fines or imprisonment. 

As a voluntary subject of the State’s statutory legal system, an individual is presumed to have knowingly consented to step into the much more limited jurisdiction of the increased regulations of the State’s authority and control, in return for whatever benefits the State provides.  As with joining any society or corporation, an individual may have to accept increased regulations as part of that society or corporation’s contractual obligations, but he shall remain protected by the legal and lawful jurisdictions above, obviously including the preeminent Common Laws of the land.

To be recognised within the statutory jurisdiction of the State an individual must be registered into the system as a ‘legal person’.  By doing so, that individual is entering, or being entered by his parents, into a system of contract, where both parties, the State and the ‘person’, seek to benefit from their interactions as per the terms and conditions of what should be a fully disclosed and lawful agreement.  This may involve some of an individual’s sovereign liberties being conceded in order to meet the terms required to participate in the State society.

As men and women, in Common Law we are all equal and subject to all the laws of British common law jurisdiction.  The State’s statutory jurisdiction should rightfully only have authority over its registered citizenship.  Not all members of society are of the same status, therefore, the legislative Acts of Parliament within that statutory jurisdiction do not apply equally to all members.  Members must have consented and contracted with the statutory jurisdiction of Parliament in order to become subject to its regulations, whereas we are all automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the Common Law of the land. 

To satisfy true and lawful consent of contract into statutory jurisdiction, the process of contract must have included full and proper disclosure, with clarity of meaning, and without deception, fraud or operation based upon assumption or presumption.  Without full disclosure, a ‘meeting of the minds’ and lawful consent, the validity of all contracts in the statutory jurisdiction can be challenged.  But it is my understanding that most people don’t even know that there are two different jurisdictions of regulation in Britain, and most certainly are not aware that lawful compliance with statutes should be properly informed and agreed rather than being based upon the presumption and assumption of consent, as is the reality today.

The theory of government is that we have surrendered some of our rights to the Government, so that the Government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered.  That’s the idea behind, the Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  Does anyone… know anyone now living, who consented to the Government? The answer is no.  The idea that Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed is a fiction.  The fiction is that we have consented to the surrender of our rights.  The reality is that our rights have been stolen from us because the Government monopolizes force.  It’s a sad and terrible reality but it is a reality.”  – U.S. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Parliament played no part in the creation of the people’s great Common Law Magna Carta of 1215. The Great Charter was made by the People directly, to reiterate and reassert their existing Common Law rights of self-rule and sovereignty, explicitly to preclude tyranny, injustice and misgovernance by binding all Heads of State and the modus operandi of government for all time under judicium parium - equal justice - the Trial by Jury justice system of the Law of the Land.  

The British Parliament has always been bound by the superior jurisdiction of the Common Law Constitution of the 1215 Magna Carta, with the additional but obviously forgotten promise of the Monarch to protect the laws of the land, as detailed in the Coronation Oath. 

28 Jun 2018


The necessity for and strength of Government is inversely proportional to the morality and consciousness of its public.  The more fearful and less secure a populous feel, the more willing they are to sacrifice their liberties for the protections of the State.
 “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” – James Madison
The great French economist and journalist Frédéric Bastiat’s wrote a fantastic classic essay, “The Law”, first published in 1850.  Bastiat believed that all human beings possessed God-given, natural rights of “individuality, liberty, property.” These “three gifts from God precede all human legislation.” But even in his time—writing in the late 1840s—Bastiat was alarmed over how the law had been “perverted” into an instrument of what he called “legal plunder”.  Far from protecting individual rights, the law was increasingly used to deprive one group of citizens of those rights for the benefit of another group, and especially for the benefit of the state itself.

Bastiat’s warnings of the dire effects of legal plunder are as relevant today as they were the day he first issued them. The system of legal plunder, which many now celebrate as the system we foolishly call “democracy”, will erase from everyone’s conscience, he wrote, the distinction between justice and injustice. The plundered classes will eventually figure out how to enter the political game and plunder their fellow man. Legislation will never be guided by any principles of justice, but only by brute political force.

The great French champion of liberty also forecast the corruption of education by the state. Those who held “government-endowed teaching positions,” he wrote, would rarely criticize legal plunder lest their government endowments be ended.

It is remarkable, in reading “The Law,” how perfectly accurate Bastiat was in describing the statists of his day which, it turns out, were not much different from the statists of today or any other day. The French “socialists” of Bastiat’s day espoused doctrines that perverted charity, education, and morals, for one thing. True charity does not begin with the robbery of taxation, he pointed out. Government schooling is inevitably an exercise in statist brainwashing, not genuine education; and it is hardly “moral” for a large gang (government) to (legally) rob one segment of the population, keep most of the loot, and share a little of it with various “needy” individuals.

“Dictatorship” need not involve an actual dictator. All that was needed, said Bastiat, was “the laws,” enacted by a Congress or a Parliament, that would achieve the same effect: forced conformity.  Bastiat was also wise to point out that the world has far too many “great men,” “fathers of their countries,” who in reality are usually nothing but petty tyrants with a sick and compulsive desire to rule over others. The defenders of the free society should have a healthy disrespect for all such men.

Bastiat’s opening paragraph:
The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation—the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.”
The British Government claims to be a moral institution.  It describes Members of Parliament as right honourable ladies and gentlemen, it acknowledges that it has no authority to impose legislation upon the People without their consent, operating through what it rightly calls the lawful consent of the governed.  Operating from the fundamental position of law, people agree to respect the life, liberty and property of others; they do not have the right to impose their will, limit freedoms, or make demands for monies or actions, unless a completely lawful and binding contract has agreed to any of those terms.  The Government gets its authority and rights from the People, but the People can only give what lawful rights they possess, Government therefore can have no more than the lawful rights and authority lent to it by the People.  It is bound by Common Law and the People’s Constitution.
 “The theory of government is that we have surrendered some of our rights to the Government, so that the Government will protect the rights that we have not surrendered.  That’s the idea behind, the Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  Does anyone… know anyone now living, who consented to the Government? The answer is no.  The idea that Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed is a fiction.  The fiction is that we have consented to the surrender of our rights.  The reality is that our rights have been stolen from us because the Government monopolizes force.  It’s a sad and terrible reality but it is a reality.”  – U.S. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
 Government is not some magic entity wielding its own power, it is merely a corporate body which was created to protect peoples’ rights, property and natural resources; and, to provide the people with services.  It was never given, nor should it ever gain, the power to reign over them. 

A corporation cannot legitimately rule over a People in a free country, unless the People agree to give it that authority.  To be moral, a government must operate honourable and honestly, with all contractual agreements with the People being lawful.  As previously detailed, probably the best means of achieving this aim is through the checks and balances of the original Common Law Constitution system of Trial and Annulment by Jury, with the People’s Common Law in a position of enforcement above the Government, where all unjust government legislation is subject to the Common Law and can be annulled by a jury of the People, without State interference.

All just and moral societies are governed through their Judicial System. In a Common Law country, the judicial system is empowered by the will and judgement of the People, who check and balance their own laws through the Common Law Trial and Annulment by Jury system of justice.  Because the People control the laws which they themselves are subject to, they will not allow or agree to tyrannical or unjust laws, elitism, discrimination or inequality. The administrative governing system of the country should be entirely separate, independent and accountable to the judicial system.  The justice system’s funding, administration and auditing must also be entirely independent and representative solely of the People.  A judicial system which is not independent of and financed through the administrating Government is in a position of conflict where judicial officials may be corruptible.

The Government does not make, nor can it change Common Laws. It can only make and change statutory legislation.  The Government is not above the Common Law, although those within it clearly think they are, but they can and do make themselves exempt from the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because officials within government know they are above statutes, that they have come to assume they are also above the Common Law of the Land. This demonstrates how important it is for the People to know the difference between the Common Law and statutes.

The British Government can create its own statutory regulatory framework, its own operational constitution, but it most certainly cannot amend or usurp the very thing which was designed to keep its powers in check - the People’s Great Common Law Constitutional Charter of 1215.

26 Jun 2018

Democracy Defined

There is in society, a breathtaking level of confusion over the word Democracy and what it really means.  The origin and etymology of the word 'democracy' is from both 'demos', which means 'the people', 'kratos' which means 'power', and 'kratein' which means 'to rule'.  So, in simple terms, in a true democracy the People rule - The People are sovereign.

"We owe to the ancient Greeks much, if not most of our own current political vocabulary. All the way from anarchy and democracy to politics itself. But their politics and ours are very different beasts. To an ancient Greek democrat (of any stripe), all our modern democratic systems would count as “oligarchy”. By that I mean the rule of and by – if not necessarily or expressly for – the few, as opposed to the power or control of the people, or the many." - Paul Cartledge, Senior Research Fellow, Clare College, University of Cambridge.

Even with a restricted viewpoint, it is clear that this charade which we call 'Representative Democracy' is only really about very-limited and controlled choice within the jurisdiction of statutory legislation. Then, on top of that, when one considers the actual number of elected seats versus appointed and inherited seats, the way in which parties control their members' decisions, the whip system, the scope for powerful lobbying by corporations, 'The Remembrancer' who protects the City of London's interests, and the potential for influence of representatives at an individual level, it really does beggar belief that we have the audacity to call ourselves a democratic nation.

The growth of confusion surrounding the reality of true democracy has come about through the deliberate efforts of the Deep-State, the part of Government which always remains in power, the huge structure of Government which lies beneath the changing ‘party political tip’ at the surface of the iceberg.  The misconception of ‘Democracy’ is so deep-rooted that even those in society who should know better have fallen for it. Those in the political class and academia also appear to be confused - unless, of course, that is also part of the effort.

We are told by the State that our system is a true ‘Democracy’, that voting is the only mechanism we have to hold the Government to account.  It is a system of local or more centralised elections which occur at regular intervals in which the people have the opportunity to vote for a representative.  Supposedly, that representative will then, according to their assurances, work to effect change in society through altering 'laws' to bring society more in alignment with the desires of those that voted for them. This system of voting is fundamentally what most in society believes is the mechanism through which the people influence the functioning of government and the nation's laws, although there is a growing awareness of the serious limitations that this type of ‘Democracy’ appears to offer.

Those who are aware of how a true Democracy operates understand that voting representatives into 'power' at elections is not the way that the freedoms of the people are supposed to be preserved and the constraints placed upon the systems of the state. They are aware that the sovereignty of the people is gained not through voting but through some other constitutional mechanism.  Some believe that the true limitations of government can be found in a Republic - that which was chosen by the founding fathers of the United States. This is also a misconception because they are striving for something other than true Democracy.

A true Democracy cannot be compared with a Republic because they define different things about a state. In the same way, a true Democracy cannot be compared with a Monarchy. But a Monarchy and a Republic can, indeed, be compared. Both a Republic and a Monarchy describe the 'style' of the head-of-state. The head-of-state in a republic is a president: the head-of-state in a monarchy is a king or queen. Either of these systems can, in addition, be a true democracy or something having the appearance of a democracy.

Democracy is something that is defined by a hidden essential function that has absolutely nothing to do with either a Republic or a Monarchy. This essential function can be added to either of these systems making a truly Democratic Republic or a truly Democratic Monarchy (more often referred to as a Constitutionally-limited Monarchy). Without this essential hidden function that defines a true democracy, the system is despotism whether a Republic or a Monarchy. There is nothing inherently more prone to supporting individual freedoms in a Republic than there is in a Monarchy. Both are equally able to be truly democratic or despotic in nature.

In a dictatorship the People are obviously subject to the laws imposed upon them by their dictator.  Whereas, in a genuine democracy the People are the law, and through the beautiful design and process of a true democratic system the laws and regulations are chosen by the People for the People.

A true democracy has rules but not rulers.  It’s a system which is about the People ruling themselves through law. The most accurate, well evidenced and obvious definition of the true meaning of democracy that I've encountered is provided by the Democracy Defined Educational Campaign, led by Kenn D'Oudney et al:

True democracy was born in Greece "from the Hellenic Athenian Constitution of government.  It's a state of society realised neither by referenda (mass voting for new laws), nor by suffrage (electoral voting for representatives), nor by the representatives’ majorities’ legislatorial voting. Electoral voting, majority rule and ‘consensus politics’ neither create nor define democracy."
"To prevent the tyranny of government and establish liberty and equal justice for all, the Hellenes created a society in which the People have the power in Trial by Jury to judge and overrule unjust laws enacted by the State. The word the Hellenes gave to describe this state of society in which the People have control through the Trial by Jury to judge, make and enforce the laws and overrule the government, the wealthy and powerful, the aristocrats and all those who sought to rule them, was demokratia, which translates into English as Democracy."

The defining hidden essential function of a true Democracy, a mechanism which should be built into all true democratic societies, is the complete unabridged Common Law system of Trial and Annulment by Jury, which gives the ordinary people of the country the direct power over the laws of the state.  Not the diluted and subverted version we have today. The full Common Law Constitutional system of trial by jury, without State conflicts of interest, which has much sharper teeth and a far greater scope.

Our current system of Trial-by-Jury, which has strayed a long way from the pure Common Law system, only allows the jury to decide on the verdict for the accused.  Superficially, this has no real appearance of offering a powerful and appropriate platform from which to apply constraints to the state mechanisms and uphold the freedoms of the individuals of society; important though it is.  But when one really understands what Trial-by-Jury is in its fullest form, the penny really does drop.  Knowing what the complete and proper Common Law Trial-by-Jury system is capable of, immediately shines a light on why it was one of the key aims of the establishment to remove its most potent parts as quickly as possible from the sight of the general public.

The proper Common Law Trial-by-Jury allowed:

  • The jury have access to all the evidence of a case, without the conflicts of interest of the State who today decide what is or isn’t admissible evidence. Today, the evidence is pre-selected for the jury by people in 'the system', including judges, which, in many cases, has resulted in the distortion of juries' decisions.

  • The final verdict was based solely on the conscience of the individual juror when deciding on whether there was malicious intent on the part of the accused - malice aforethought. For a guilty verdict, there has to have been deliberate intent, mens rea. Guilt can only exist in motive and cannot be ascribed by State legislation. 

  • In the event of a guilty verdict, the jury decide upon the sentence. Today ‘the system’ and the ‘Judge’ make this decision. For true justice to be given, the jury should make all the decisions without interference - "Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take or accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case." - Lord Justice Denman: Regina v. C.J. O'Connel, 1884.

  • All the above decisions of the jury are reached on the basis of unanimity. The accused is always considered not-guilty unless a 'guilty' decision is reached by every single one of the jury. This means that a single juror has immense power. King Alfred the Great reaffirmed the sovereignty of the juror. His principle of ‘Unanimity’ demanded that for a guilty verdict to be passed, the jury must pass a unanimous verdict where all twelve jurors found the defendant guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt. He established that when there is a doubt, it is in the interests of all people that justice should save rather than condemn. In today’s State controlled Crown Courts the judge may decide that an 11:1 or 10:2 majority is sufficient. King Alfred the Great hanged forty judges who conducted unfair trials.

  • This final aspect of the Common Law Trial-by-Jury system is the one that the members of the Judiciary, legislature and parliament really do not want you to know - the Common Law jury has the power to annul or invalidate Government legislation if it is deemed unjust. This is called Annulment-by-Jury, sometimes rather ambiguously named 'Jury Nullification'. This process has the power to have unjust Acts of Parliament extracted from the statute books. 

This underscores the principle of equality before the law: that nobody is above the law. The people are judged by their equals, their fellow man, not by people in special positions of 'power'. This form of law that is made up of the decisions of juries is called Common Law and was inscribed by the Great Charter of 1215: Magna Carta.
"Trial by Jury is so-named, for in democratic societies the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the jury. Trial is not 'Trial-by-government' which could never be fair where government is also one of the contesting parties. Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and, they are in the pay of government. Police, prison service and, above all, prosecutors and judges are employed to enforce governments' laws. Such personnel should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer." - D'Oudney, Democracy Defined: The Manifesto.
Common Law is a higher jurisdiction of law than government-created legislation - because the people's judgement out-ranks that of our public servants.  A Democracy is only a Democracy when it contains a full Common Law Trial-and-Annulment-by-Jury system, enabling the ordinary people of the country who make up juries to judge the law and statutes that they themselves agree to abide by. Thereby, the mechanisms of the state are firmly kept firmly within the control of the People.
"It is uniquely in the nature of Trial by Jury that juries fulfil the purpose of law in a democratic society. This is to maintain justice by protecting the citizen from injustice and crime of all kinds, whether perpetrated by the state or by other citizens; and to uphold the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of all. Trial by Jury defines democracy, for the juror is sovereign in Trial by Jury: the people rule."  - D'Oudney: Democracy Defined: The Manifesto.
"The Trial by Jury ever has been, and, I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. It is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals." - Book 3, Blackstone's Analysis of the Laws of England.