Before reading this, please dash over to The Talking Clock and read a stunning little paragraph that validates what I have been saying and qualifies what Roger says below.
Living by the Rule of Law
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.
Statutes- 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- 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 personnel, 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- 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.
Government- 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 itThis 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.
Please note: this is NOT my work. Although I do wish it was.
*Article spotted here. Tip of the beret to Slimline66.
Brilliant and worthy and right and I've saved the shit out of it.
Absolutely clear and concise.
To do other than to obey the law is unlawful, everything else is open to consent.
The law is the base, legislation is the servant of the law. Legislation cannot over over rule the Law.
This is a great read. I've tried pulling together a couple of themes from it.
How does this sound?
If governments are not above the law, but they can make themselves exempt from statutes, and statutes are as law with the consent of the governed, then we are all exempt from statutes as we are all equal before the law.
Does this make sense to anyone else?
An excellent summation.
You are 100% correct.
Statutes either apply to all or none.
A most interesting read whihch I shall certainly pass on to my Attorney General to digest.
Thank you for posting this. I do enjoy popping over to see what I can learn next.
I have to say, I only started looking into this about 4 months ago and since then stopped paying my TV License, dealing with a Summons for Council Tax, thrown back all PCNs with no recourse (yet) and have a running battle with HMRC.
I will not lie... I am stressed out and it's really hard word dealing with these 'people' and researching it all. I've made mistakes along the way but thanks to sites like these and many others, I have taken the first few baby steps towards freeing myself. So thank you!
Very important distinction which IPJ and others have stressed. This is why we don't have to obey the statutes, isn't it?
Did you catch the last part of Cash's statement.
"Mr Cash: Has it occurred to the right hon. Lady or, indeed, to those on the Government Front Bench that we have habeas corpus, and that in such conditions it is the first duty of any judge to give effect to that provision? It does not matter what statute says; habeas corpus comes first,"
Fair enough; we'll all agree on that part. However, the final part he says,
"Unless it has been expressly excluded by statute."
How can a statute exclude the (real) law?
I just read the final part of his statement and I think he was being sarcastic.
Habeas corpus has most definitely NOT been excluded by statute.
dangermouse may I offer you my congratulations?
I agree with Ranty Mr Cash was throwing a bit of sarcasm at Yvette Cooper. She got off rather lightly I think.
Thank you for publishing this and pulling the wool from our eyes.
Lots to digest!
Law refers to common law
Our constitution is the foundation of our law.
These two seem to be ill at ease with each other. What is 'our constitution' ? Isn't common law the foundation upon which a constitution is built?
Without law we have anarchy
This depends on the definition of 'anarchy'. One definition is lawlessness however another is the absence of governmental authority. The latter could be taken as the basis of libertarianism. If you use the first definition, the statement becomes Without Law we have no law and says little. If it refers to the second then Law can still be present in anarchy. (Egypt?)
Common law has been incorporated into statute and statute has affected the procedures and practices within common law. Are the references to common law as it stood prior to any statutary interventions?
If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
I am unsure how this occurs. If the a court is set up, for example, under Forest Law, then does it not remain under that law regardless of declaration? Does it not rule the issues are outside its juristiction and therefore refer the matter to another court?
Is this discussion about how the common law applies in a situation where acts of parliament are passed without regard to principle? e.g sovereignty. Therefore is it the disntiction between the two that is important or just the application of one (common law)? For example did the passing of the 1972 ECA breach common law?
Does the debate boil down to 'Quo Warranto' (by what warrant? / by whose authority?) hence a question of sovereignty and the role of the monarch, together with the core primciples of common law, trespass and deceit?
Excellent piece here Captain and that 'short paragraph' is a gem well done you on getting this, I think I may just have to 'steal' it for my site will linky you for it though promise!
If I've got this right, the question over legislation influencing common law is only valid if the person accepts the statute, otherwise only the laws of the land apply? Not the Acts of the land xD
Am I over simplifying, or just a simpleton? lol
If a council tax defendant requested trial by jury, would the judge be forced to agree.
also if the found the defendant not guilty would that statute be forced to be stricken from the parlimentary acts?
It seems that judges are only very rarely "forced to agree". The whole premise is that a judge-more accurately, the jury-interpret the statute and rule accordingly. With fewer and fewer trials by jury, the judge is given (or takes) much more leeway.
With regard to your second point: a statute would be stricken from the Rolls if more and more cases were won using the same precedent.
I am no lawyer, but this is my opinion, for what it is worth.
Post a Comment