Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land

**Celtic Druid** · 19th-August-2010

http://www.yourstrawman.com/VeronicaChapman.pdf
Chapter 9: Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land

Now we are cooking on gas! This is where it all starts and it all ends. What is Common Law? Well it really doesn't matter what any dictionary says. However let's have a quick look at what Osborn's Concise Law Dictionary (10th Edition) says:

"That part of the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old common law courts based originally on the common customs of the country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to statute law (the law laid down in Acts of Parliament); to special law (the law administered in special courts such as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and to the civil law (the law of Rome). It is "the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers". It is not local law, nor the result of legislation".

That's as good a definition as any. Because, in short, Common Law 'is'.

It just 'is'.

It is there.

No ducking. No diving. No weaving. No way out. Applicable to all. From the highest to the most lowly. That's what the definition says.

But then, who wants a way out? Common Law (commonsense) says the way to live peacefully is to:

1) Not breach the peace;

2) Cause no-one else any harm;

3) Cause no-one else any loss;

4) Not use mischief in your promises and agreements.

Personally speaking, I have no problem whatsoever with that. In point of fact I fully welcome it as, I submit, so would any sane, reasonable, and responsible Human Being.

Common Law is the Law-of-the-Land. It is the Law that has come about by means of the customs & traditions of Land-Dwellers.

And, the point is, Parliament has absolutely no say in Common Law. It is there, and they cannot touch it. In point of fact, Parliament (and Congress) is actually bound by it. Just like everyone else. (Not that they realise that, of course. One of the biggest ‘upsets’ on the horizon will come when enough people realise this, and bring them to book for their gross negligence).

The only 'law' that Parliament can create (since the Law-of-the-Land has already been created) is the Law-of-Waters. Hence Statutes are the Law-of-Waters. And Statutes need your consent, before they can be applied to you, if you are located on dry land.

In this case you need to become a Member of the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, and for Legalese Fictional purposes actually be prepared to be considered as 'a ship on the ocean'. There is more detail about this in the Chapter on the Law-of-Waters, which has its own Chapter in this book.

Common Law = Common Sense. It has been developed over centuries, within Case Law, to have - by now - squeezed just about every drop of justice out of just about every conceivable, fundamental, situation - where Human Beings are involved and interact.

Advances in technology are irrelevant. Common Law rests entirely on 'the Human Condition'. Has one individual behaved honourably, or not? That sort of thing.

It is based fair and square on the 'customs & traditions' from the ancient past. Customs & traditions that were evolved, in a codified manner, so as to create peaceful co-existence all round.

Just look at the principles, above. What else is necessary? Answer: Nothing. Stick to those principles, and nothing else is necessary.

It has been said: "Look into your heart. Use your Common Sense to know what is right and what is wrong. If what you want to do is fair, and just, then you can do it".

No amount of Common Law deviates from these principles.

Only legislated Statutes aka Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION (etc.), deviate from these principles.

Any deviation is null and void.

But you have to say so. You have to understand what is happening, and to firmly, and politely, stand your ground. The Examples, in the Appendices of this book, indicate ways of doing that.

I wrote about Notices (there is a Chapter on them). And how you can 'put someone on Notice about your intentions'. And how you can create an estoppel. What you are actually doing is making Common Law.

If you take a Solemn Oath, you are making Common Law. If you create an Affidavit, you are making Common Law. Because, in either case, you are stating Your Truth - as you see it. And you have the right to state Your Truth, as you see it.

That's why Common Law is so ephemeral. It's everywhere. Provided you do not deviate from the principles - provided that you act with honour - you are making Your Own Common Law!

You are saying: "This is My Custom. This is My Tradition. And I will stick to these peaceful principles".

Common Sense … yet again!

After all, what is the Law, anyway? How does it come about?

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the Law.

The consent of the overwhelming majority, whose one primary desire is to live their lives in peace. In peaceful co-existence with everyone else.

Free to do whatever it is they choose to do, provided they do not adversely affect anyone else. Free to travel at will. Free to express opinions. Free to exchange. And so on. Freedom from imposed fictions & illusions. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom from the domination of the many by the few.

And those Common Sense desires were codified in Common Law, as a protection of it.

And this was done many centuries ago. It formed the basis of the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the French Constitution, and so on. It actually forms the basis of every Constitution ever written. (Any Constitution worth its salt, that is). There is an Appendix dedicated to the Magna Carta 1215, and it is well worth reading.

So the ideas are not new. In point of fact the ideas are so old, we seem to have forgotten them. It is my sincere hope that this book serves as an appropriate reminder.

Do you consent to live in peace? I hope you do, otherwise this book is not for you.

Do you consent to pay for the use of your own property, once purchased? Your dwelling (Council Tax), your conveyance (Road Tax), your entertainment (TV Licence)? Bearing in mind, of course, that none of these impositions on your freedom actually fund whatever it is they purport. That, in point of fact, they fund just about everything else besides. Do you consent to aiding & abetting War Crimes?

You don’t? Well, in that case there is no Law by Consent.

Is there?

**Celtic Druid** · 21st-August-2010

http://whatastate.org.uk/wp-content/...ca-chapman.pdf
Chapter 14: The Principles of the Application of Common Law

It is imperative that you understand them. They are really not hard, because they are based entirely on the Common Sense of peaceful and equitable co-existence.

Under Common Law crimes are, of course, possible. These will have the following components:

1. A description of the Crime, being the act that was criminal (e.g. murder, fraud, etc)

2. A party who was injured - suffered harm, or loss, or was deceived by mischief. This must be a Human Being.

3. Someone who makes this claim. This must be a Human Being. Because only a Human being has a Mind with which to devise a claim. It cannot be 'THE COURT', or 'THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE', etc., because these are not Human Beings, and have no Mind with which to devise the claim.

In summary, therefore, a crime comprises the ACT COMMITTED, the INJURED PARTY, and the CLAIMANT.

In any circumstance, therefore, someone who is being accused of anything at all, can reasonably ask: "What is the CRIME, who makes the CLAIM, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"

And these questions will be unanswerable if no Common Law transgression had occurred.

Perhaps it is also essential to point out that a CRIME itself has two components, being the act itself, and that the action was deliberate. This takes into account genuinely accidental damage, which could not have been reasonably foreseen. In other words, for a crime to be proven, it has to be proved that the transgressor was Guilty of Mind ('mens rea', in Law)

Contracts stem from Common Law. Contracts between two Human Beings. And this is the crux of the 'Freeman business'. And this is why Legalese attempts the subterfuge of defining Partnerships as being equivalent to Human Beings via the Legal Fiction Person construct.

Because, for a Contract to be lawfully-binding (enforceable), it must comprise the four components described in the Chapter on Promises & Contracts.

The only positive way to avoid entering into a lawfully-binding Contract is to use the Intent component, by stating, up front: "I do not consent" (in front of witnesses). Although a better way, which requires no witnesses, is to state it in a letter.

**Celtic Druid** · 10th-November-2010

Lord Chief Justice says courts should use more English common law in their decisions | www.RaymondStClair.com

Lord Chief Justice says courts should use more English common law in their decisions

Courts are basing too many of their decisions on European human rights legislation, rather than centuries-old English common law, the country’s most senior judge has said.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, complained that judges were allowing the European Convention on Human Rights to take precedence over English common law ? which dates back to the 12th century – in their decision-making. Photo: PA

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, complained that judges were allowing the European Convention on Human Rights in Strasbourg to take precedence in their decision-making.

He said it was up to judges to “save” English common law – which dates back to the 12th century – by relying on it for precedents in their cases, rather than always looking to Strasbourg for guidance.

English common law, which has built up over the past 900 years, comprises legal decisions made by judges who have applied their common sense and knowledge of legal precedents to the facts placed before them.

However, since the Human Rights Act came into force in 2000, judges have been required to take into account human rights laws made in Strasbourg.

This has meant that increasingly they have ignored English common law.

That has led to a series of controversial legal rulings, which have some alleged have put the rights of criminals, before those of victims.

Critics also claim that in recent years judges in England have been using the right to privacy, which is enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention, to build up a law of privacy in the UK.

In a speech, Lord Judge asked: “Are we becoming so focused on Strasbourg and the Convention that instead of incorporating Convention principles within and developing the common law according to a single coherent unit, we are allowing the Convention to assume an unspoken priority over the common law.

“Or is it that we just still on honeymoon with the Convention? We must beware. It would be a sad day if the home of the common law lost its standing as a common law authority.”

“We are allowing the Convention to assume an unspoken priority over the common law. We must beware. It would be a sad day if the home of the common law lost its standing as a common Law authority.

“Am I alone in thinking that we are being presented with far too many authorities, both our own and from Europe, which do not bind us at all domestically.”

In the speech to the Judicial Studies Board on March 17 – but only published in full yesterday – Lord Judge said that he was concerned judges in Commonwealth countries – rather than those in England and Wales – were able to act at the “custodians of common law”.

“Perhaps we should reflect on the way in which I detect that our Australian colleagues (and those from other common law countries) seem to be claiming bragging rights as the custodians of the common law”.

Lord Judge said he had “no problem” with the fact that decisions made in Strasbourg had a bearing on English courts.

But he suggested that in some cases “the final word” should rest with the UK Supreme Court, not Strasbourg.

He continued: “Am I alone in thinking that we are being presented with far too many so called authorities, both our own and from Europe, which do not bind us at all domestically?”

He added that it was up to judges to do their bit to “save” English common law. He said: “The primary responsibility for saving the common law system of precedents is primarily a matter for us as judges.”

Legal experts applauded Lord Judge’s decision to stand up for English common law.

Dan Hyde, from Cubism Law “It is significant that none other than the Lord Chief Justice is attempting to shift the focus of primacy on to our home grown common law; it is a view many will applaud.

“That New World (Australian) Judges are becoming the sentinels of common law is somewhat ironic given our ancient history and traditional claim to it’s development”.

In the wide-ranging speech, Lord Judge also renewed his calls for the jury system to be amended gradually because today’s young people are not used to sitting and listening.

He said that today’s generation of young people were different from his generation. “We sat in class and listened, or tried to listen. In the listening process we absorbed information.

“It was, being utterly facile, something of a preparation for jury service. Jurors sit and listen. They may make notes but the process involves sitting and listening.

“The learning process for my granddaughters invovles very little listening. Largely it is visual, screen-based, but also book-based. But listening is a much diminished aspect of the process.

“Now one day they are going to be jurors. I suggest that it is inevitable that the process by which we provide them with the tools to enable them to form their decisions will have to change.

“If they are to perform their public function, they must be provided with the tools most suitable for them to do so, not those which were regarded as appriopriate for earlier generations. This will have an inevitable impact on the trial process.”

**PWCM** · 4th-September-2011

Hi CD, Glad I found this post. Sorry to those of you who think it's old hat, but of late I've been re-hashing my understanding of common law.

I have now taken the stand [after finally getting a Statuary Law Divorce] and have become a Sovereign Human Being.

**Celtic Druid** · 4th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

Hi CD, Glad I found this post. Sorry to those of you who think it's old hat, but of late I've been re-hashing my understanding of common law.

I have now taken the stand [after finally getting a Statuary Law Divorce] and have become a Sovereign Human Being.

I can't tell you how much this means to me.

It's one thing to state you are so. It's another to realize you are such. A big difference.

Understanding your rights must never be 'old hat' - but a beginning upon a path to inoculate yourself from a reality that seeks to strip your soul away one dollar at a time.

You sir have awakened that was always capable within you. And given this you must help others as a natural consequence.

Use your 'understanding' positively.

**PWCM** · 4th-September-2011

Quote from Celtic Druid

I can't tell you how much this means to me.

It's one thing to state you are so. It's another to realize you are such. A big difference.

I hear ya CD, I have never doubted the fact that I am sovereign whether from a common law perspective or a Biblical one. The stance however has only come of late, there are many reasons for this as you well know. One that is paramount is dissolving the states ownership of myself, and of course my properties. It is a new road to travel, and an enlightening one when you realise that this is the freedom God gave us.

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

**Celtic Druid** · 4th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

You are welcome sir.

**Celtic Druid** · 5th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

I hear ya CD, I have never doubted the fact that I am sovereign whether from a common law perspective or a Biblical one.

The realization that you are sovereign is one of the most powerful things that any human being can experience. From that point onwards you never look at life the same. The state seeks to strip man of what is his righteous inheritance unless we protest sufficiently.

Sovereignty isn't something you acquire through repetitiveness, It's a state of mind that is infectious to freedom loving folk.

**PWCM** · 5th-September-2011

I am in the processes of having my Claim of Right drafted, I know there are a few available on the net, but decided to have one done by someone in the know.

**Celtic Druid** · 10th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

I am in the processes of having my Claim of Right drafted, I know there are a few available on the net, but decided to have one done by someone in the know.

There is no perfect template of a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, because each must be customized to a sovereigns personal requirements. Every one is unique, but equally 'lawfully' binding if drafted correctly. And you sir, are amongst a few pioneering souls who dare to break free from the human herd as dictated to by the state.

Looking at your previous posts I realize you're an intelligent fellow and have undoubtedly undertaken the required research before proceeding. So, I'd ask you, if you are willing, to impart whatever trials and tribulations (to whatever degree you're comfortable with) you will inevitably incur which may ensure an easier path for those who wish to follow.

It's creating a beachhead to assail an enemy who have no compunction in availing it's citizens into a meaningless cycle of burdensome productivity, excessive taxation and mindless consumerism from birth to death. We have greater intrinsic worth than that, which cannot be measured purely in shallow monetary terms!

**PWCM** · 11th-September-2011

Quote from Celtic Druid

So, I'd ask you, if you are willing, to impart whatever trials and tribulations (to whatever degree you're comfortable with) you will inevitably incur which may ensure an easier path for those who wish to follow.

Indeed I will, currently I'm doing some research with people in regards to Men & MRA claims etc etc., we are focusing in the areas of fathers fighting for child custody. It is our intent to have learned men in the areas of common law to enter the courts for and on behalf of men in such cases.

**Celtic Druid** · 11th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

Indeed I will, currently I'm doing some research with people in regards to Men & MRA claims etc etc., we are focusing in the areas of fathers fighting for child custody. It is our intent to have learned men in the areas of common law to enter the courts for and on behalf of men in such cases.

And so things progress.

**Celtic Druid** · 11th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

Indeed I will, currently I'm doing some research with people in regards to Men & MRA claims etc etc., we are focusing in the areas of fathers fighting for child custody. It is our intent to have learned men in the areas of common law to enter the courts for and on behalf of men in such cases.

This could become a powerful component if crafted and harnessed correctly. A possible template for other men to work upon? I wish you well sir.

I've always promoted embracing differing ideas positively into the cause of men's rights, and freeman-on-the-land philosophy is an untapped repository of beneficial ideas and possibilities. The men's movement must be ever evolving, embracing, ever inquisitive, never stagnant. We grow stronger by adaptability as well as tenacity in the fight.

**RobYork** · 11th-September-2011

Quote from PWCM

Indeed I will, currently I'm doing some research with people in regards to Men & MRA claims etc etc., we are focusing in the areas of fathers fighting for child custody. It is our intent to have learned men in the areas of common law to enter the courts for and on behalf of men in such cases.

I wish you every success !!!

**PWCM** · 12th-September-2011

To follow on from this we have looked into the Birth Certificates, as you well know BC's [we are just a commodity] hold no value to a Freeman and Common Law. From what we can gather if a father registered the said child, he [maybe] like wise can de-register ie. 'Notice of Right' for and on behalf of the said child. In turn this would free up any legal claim on the child by the Courts. Also Social Services would be re-strained from taking the said child away. At the moment this is just a theory, but we are looking at all the angles.