December 13, 2010

The Rule Of Law

From the UK Column
By Roger Hayes

Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.

In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days... most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite - some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.



- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. 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.

- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts 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. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people.  Lawful Rebellion is a right 
- and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity.  The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work).  Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation.  A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.

- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.

- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.



- Law refers to common law.

- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.

- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.

- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.

- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.

- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.

- Laws are used to keep the peace.

- Without law we have anarchy.

- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.

- Nobody is above the law.  The law applies equally to us all.

- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.

- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.


Courts, Judges And Juries

- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.

- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury.  The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. 

This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional.  The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge.

- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights.  We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not  as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.

- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges.



- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control.  Watch this space.

- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.



- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.


KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it

This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite... but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.


Bucko said...

Excellent peice and I totally agree, as a paper exercise.

However, it's all very well separating law from statute and saying we can withdraw our consent, but it does not and will not work in practice.
If I get fined for speeding I will get points and I will be forced to hand over the money. If I attempt to claim common law juristiction in court, all I will achieve is to convince the magistrates that I have a mild mental illness.

There are numerous examples out there, where people have entered court and claimed common law. They have caused a bit of dissaray and confused a few people, but in the end they never affect the final outcome. Be it fines or council tax or whatever, the court always orders them to pay in the end.

There are no examples of people being told by a magistrate that statute does not apply to them as they have withdrawn consent, so they can go home.

Statute law has superceded common law. It may not be lagal in the truest sense of the word. It may not be constitutional and we may not have consented to it, nevertheless it's a fact.

If you break statute law and continue to do so, you will eventually find yourself in prison. No cries of "I do not consent" will help you. They have not asked you to consent. They have asked you to do as youre told. If you dont, you will receive the full force of their violence. (Legal or not).

will said...

True Bucko but until there is a wider awareness that the state is built on coercion nothing will ever change for the better.
If the concept of consent was a common part of the public conscious and political debate rather than the assumption that government and law must be based upon force then maybe one day...
We take self determination for granted in what we consider our everyday lives but we unthinkingly accept so many unconsented coercions upon our natural freedoms.
I know I'm probably preaching to the choir with most of the above but the important power of the freeman movement is to highlight how little freedom we have and that consent is the key. I agree it will not practically help you but it is morally beyond challenge.

Woodsy42 said...

"no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless"

I tend to agree with Bucko. The post explains how it should be, but that only works if the above assumption holds.

In practice I see groups of individuals at various levels who believe that they do have the right, through birth, votes, or position, to tell people what to do. They are prepared to use coercion and force to uphold that authority regardless of the legal realities.

Bucko said...

Will - ""until there is a wider awareness that the state is built on coercion nothing will ever change for the better."" True, but also we need a wider awareness that this coersion is wrong.

There are many people (Far more than us) who beleive wholeheartedly in this coersion. They will hand over their own freedom quite willingly and then shout at the government to control others more. Being controlled by others makes them feel safe. If that control is removed they will become very frightened indeed. Therefore, if they see others trying to remove the control, they will kick and scream until they are stopped, by violent force if necessary.

The human race needs to grow up. We will not see much in the way of positive change until that happens.

The Freeman movement may be morally beyond challenge but my research has led me to beleive that all you will accomplish by declaring your independence from the state, is to have your name put on a list of people to be arrested and detained if ever the civil contingencies act is used.

I prefer the method of slipping away unnoticed.

Captain Ranty said...

There will be a tipping point though.

As word spreads, and more people start demanding common law jurisdiction, the courts will have to respond. And they can't stand there and say "This is nonsense", because it isn't.

It will take time, but people have to wake up first, and then learn and assert their rights.

This is not a passing phase. I believe this is the solution to 90% of what is wrong with Britain.


James Higham said...

Blockbuster, Cap'n - blockbuster.

mescalito said...

Ranty mans rights, this is not a passing phase, but there are other energies at work here, as the clock ticks things change, with or without the freeman movement this will happen, but those who are awake and aware will be prepared for those changes.

Anonymous said...

The Philosophy of Liberty

Mr Numba Cruncha said...

Great post. Definitely one than needs to be spread around. I think this needs posting through letterboxes. My local peddler of main stream media filth has given me the green light on dropping a leaflet in his newspapers. What you think guys? This sort of clarity will hit home amongst the victims of PCN's and the like.

It will at least get them thinking, an i could list a few blogs on the leaflet. Point people in the right direction. With blog owners consent obviously!!

IanPJ said...

CR & Mr Numba Cruncha,


MNC, if you can get this into print, the world will be yours...

NewsboyCap said...


a great post,2nd only to the HIERARCHY post. I feel this needs to be read a number of times,the more it's read the more sense it makes.
This is not just Freeman/LR stuff,this is the Fuckin' great CON that effects every one of us and yes I include the sleeping.
Mr.NumbaCruncha is right this needs to be out there.
We all will soon be criminals if the statute count increases as it has the last 13 years.
So you will have no excuse to not claim Common Law jurisdiction,you won't be able to afford not.

Anonymous said...

Excellent find CR.

I found my way to your post via WfW and IanPJ.

All relevant credits on my little take on the issue.