Understanding Common Law vs Statute Law: What You Need to Know
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Get our FREE Peace Keepers and Court Auditor courses here at peacekeepers.org.uk/
FREE Council Tax dispute challenge download here noc.peacekeepers.org.uk/
"Peace Keepers have been created to help secure a just and equitable existence., coming together to defend the peoples peace, to restore and preserve our inalienable rights, the highest standing in truth to be sovereign."
Nothing can be done to the prejudice of the people.
(Bill of Rights 1688)
Law is the people’s birth right.
(Act of Settlement 1700)
All are equal under the law.
No one is above the law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
No one can knowingly impose their will upon any other without freewill.
Everybody has lawful excuse to the right of self defence.
---------------------------------
Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976
Allowance is made for "fair use" purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cannot express how much you two honourable men are helping me along remembering the fundamentals! I live in Guernsey, Channel Island ((you know, that group of misfits controlling your English 'laws') and I have a massive can of worms to open which i feel you may be interested in. Keep up the great work, you have done a fantastic job with Peace Keepers! i wish i could help!
It’s actually referred to as A statutory instrument AKA THE FIDDLE
Wow. So enlightening. Can't believe this has been hidden know for so long
MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
References to the musical instruments of court and country, war and peace, home and tavern recur frequently. Amongst the art-music instruments, Shakespeare alludes to the lute
Hi there, I'm Tommaso and I just started to follow you and Brian on facebook. I find your discussions very instructive. I read the italian Constitutional Law and other fundamental italian laws with a group on Telegram and the parallel study of English and Italian Law is enlightening.
That's interesting.
You have or should have a different system to ours I believe. Yours being administrative ours common law, is that right?
@@msmrepo3271 That is correct, unless there's something lost in translation.
@@msmrepo3271 I am, we are, just starting to understand how it should actually work and how to push the right button to make it work on italian Law ground as parallel to English Law ground.
What has gone wrong lawfully over the past 4 years and how can we protect our basic rights in the near future.
@artimarzialistoriaculturae9423 agood on you, it's the only way as no one else will help us even though they represent us.
the common law agreement that statues are law....
law is based on public opinion and fear of force.
Nothing lawful about public opinion admitted in Equality Act 2010... nor force admitted in Offences against the person Act 1861.... nor stealing peoples stuff admitted in theft act 1968... nor messing with peoples minds in Fraud Act 2006... So your claim that statutes are law have no merit using statutes alone...
Maybe time for you to change your beliefs!
@@marchorn466 got and commit a serious statutory offence, then present such arguments in court. I suspect you will be sent down.
Exactly 👏
thank you.
Elizabethan literature and often discussed by modern commentators. The neo-Platonic ‘music of the spheres’ in its Christianised version(s)-Shakespeare refers for example to angels singing in the heavenly music-had become outmoded by the end of the sixteenth century as scientific explanations of the universe evolved and changed, notably influenced by Copernicus and his challenge to earth-centric theory. Implicit in the ordered music of the heavens was the ‘concord of well-tuned sounds’, emblematic of celestial and worldly harmony, the philosophy of musica mundana explicated by Boethius in the sixth century in his De Institutione Musica, printed in 1491-2. The motions of the stars and planets resulted in harmonious music, a sound not audible to mere humans as Pericles speculates towards the end of the play
Also confirmed by Albert Dicey in introduction to the study of the law of the constitution and a great case to demonstrate this is Entick v Carrington 1765: In his famous closing speech, Lord Camden told the court: “We can safely say that there is no law in this country to justify the defendants in what they have done. If there was, it would destroy all the comforts for society, for papers are often the dearest property that a man can have” As a result of this case, this general principle was established: the state cannot do anything that isn’t expressly authorised by the law, while an individual can do anything except things forbidden by the law.
The Entick case redefined the scope of state power, and established that individuals have a basic right to privacy.
Correct but it actually says the state must provide or authority...
"The justification is submitted by the judges, who are to look into the books; and if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of common law. If no excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment"
""If it is law, it will be found in our books."[
The most telling reference occurs in Twelfth Night, usefully dated 1601/2, interestingly to the ‘masculine’ viol de gamboys. Others are found in Pericles (1607) and obliquely in King Lear (1605).
Love the videos please keep them up.
What about when they mix legislation with common law. ?
Much of the common law is legislatively codified... thereby creating much confusion :)
The lute began to be displaced at court and to a certain extent in the stately home after 1600 by the viol. There are surprisingly few references to the viol, even in the later plays. The most telling reference occurs in Twelfth Night, usefully dated 1601/2, interestingly to the ‘masculine’ viol de gamboys. Others are found in Pericles (1607) and obliquely in King Lear (1605). The keyboard virginal/virginals is even scarcer. The virginal was a common household instrument in Elizabethan and Jacobean England and music written for it by, prominently recusant, composers the most prolific and progressive in Europe. Queen Elizabeth herself is thought to have been an accomplished player. The instrument itself is not mentioned directly by Shakespeare but coy puns on the manner of its playing occur in The Two Noble Kinsmen (3.3), The Winter’s Tale (1.2) and Sonnet 128. Among other courtly instruments, the violin does not feature but fiddle-a term frequently but by no means exclusively used to indicate a member of the violin family-is used. It often had a disparaging connotation and this is how Shakespeare employs it,
EMOTIONAL WORDS
Not only does Shakespeare use terms of musical theory skilfully, but a similar aptitude is found in Shakespeare’s involvement of words to express emotion evoked by music in an early modern context. The most incisive application of these words connects with sorrow and grief, loss and despair (in love). Prince Henry alludes to the ‘doleful hymn’ the swan sings once only at its death as he reflects on the impending demise of his father, King John (5.6.20-4). In Romeo and Juliet (4.4.148-50), ‘doleful dumps the mind oppress’ as Peter cites the opening stanza of ‘When griping grief the heart doth wound’ from The Paradise of Dainty Devices (1576) as the tragic ending of lovers’ plight unfolds towards the end of the play.
So, basically three different sectios of government have colluded to create legislation which they call law, but in reality has no power except by force, such as the police, magistrates etc..... Hopefully i can also understand the next : So it is, leglislation is interpreted by the courts dependent on the circumstances and particulars of a case. Other than this leglisation has no power and should be taken as a guide....
Feedback would great... Thanks
The court must interpret the intent of legislation and then test it against the principles of legality...
7. The principle of legality.
Halsbury's Laws of England > Constitutional and Administrative Law (Volume 20 (2023)) > 1.
Constitutional Fundamentals > (1) Principles and Characteristics of the Constitution
An important component of the rule of law is the principle of legality, or of government according to law. This may
be expressed as a number of propositions, including the following:
(1) Any government interference with persons or property must be sanctioned by statutory authority or the
common law, involving the existence of an identifiable power to perform the action in question, and the
power in question being exercised in a lawful manner1. The existence or non-existence of a power or duty
is a matter of law and not of fact, and so must be determined by reference either to some enactment or
reported case or to the nature of the legal personality of the body in question and the capacities that go
with it. The fact of a continued undisputed exercise of a power by a public body is immaterial, unless it
points to a customary power exercised from time immemorial2.
(2) As far as the capacities that go with legal personality are concerned, many public bodies are
incorporated by statute and so statutory provisions will define and limit their legal capacities3. Individuals
who are public office holders have the capacities that go with the legal personality that they have as natural
persons4. The Crown is a corporation sole or aggregate5 and so has general legal capacity, including the
capacity to enter into contracts and to own and dispose of property6.
(3) The argument of state necessity is not sufficient to establish the existence of a power or duty which
would entitle a public body to act in a way that interferes with the rights or liberties of individuals7.
However, the common law does recognise that in case of extreme urgency, when the ordinary machinery
of the state cannot function, there is a justification for the doing of acts needed to restore the regular
functioning of the machinery of government8.
(4) To give effect to the doctrine that the existence or non-existence of a power or duty is a matter of law, the
courts will determine whether or not a particular power or duty exists, to define its ambit9 and provide an
effective remedy for unlawful action10.
(5) The independence of the judiciary is essential to the principle of legality11. The right of access to the
courts can be excluded by statute, but this is not often done in express terms12. A person whose civil or
political rights as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed is entitled
under the Convention to an effective right of access to the courts and an effective national remedy13.
However, powers are often given to bodies other than the ordinary courts to decide questions of law
without appeal to the ordinary courts, and sometimes in such terms that their freedom from appellate
jurisdiction extends to their findings of fact or law on which the existence of their powers depends14.
(6) Since the principal elements of the structure of the machinery of government, and the powers and duties
which belong to its several parts, are defined by law, its form and course can be altered only by a change
of law15. Conversely, since the legislative power of Parliament is unrestricted, its form and course can at
any time be altered by Parliament16. Consequently there are no powers or duties inseparably annexed to
the executive government17.
And therein lies the major problem; the judiciary is not independent. Freemasonry is rife throughout. It is why the police ignore certain crimes, real crimes, but go after those they should be protecting.
What authority does government have in Enforcing speed restrictions? Especially the 20 mph limit? 🙏
None, every act will only stand if we consent.
👍
Apologies in advance 'if' i have this wrong, but it seems What you are apparently failing to grasp is that You are also aggregated with the 'purported' supreme legislators by acting as Represented Persons within a body politic intituled the United Kingdom, if you are represented by a Minister of Parliament then you are no longer standing in the capacity of the People (Great Britain) and are no longer the sovereign source of power. Because it is the registered Persons who are on the Voter Rolls they have already been incapacitated - this is the source of their de-facto/regency style of Administration, which is only an 'ex tempore' form of government, meaning it can be rendered obsolete upon the Sovereigns return ..... they will not tell you that, you have to know it. I am not condoning the abuse of power that we are now witnessing but this along with the fusing of the tripartite legs of power explains how they get away with such an invidious level of maladministration.
You are so correct
@@venusssharman5922 never voted or gave them my standing or sovereignty ever!
They can obtain it through other means, such as presumption of incapacity and conduct that affirms acceptance of that same incapacity and corporate status, note*: they are presumptions until you ratify them into facts, likewise if they are not ratified they remain presumptions that are rebuttable@@ja-ja-eldorado
hi guys , im looking to buy a legal dictionary , blacks ? but which one ? and which Halsbury's should i consider ?
Dont waste your money on Blacks Law... Oxford Legal cheaper and UK case law
@@marchorn466 i want a legal dictionary to give to my friend who is in court and he want to bring a legal and oxford dictionary to wave around and ask which dictionary are they using for the administrative proceeding in crown ? is this a good idea and is your suggestion the same ?
Blacks law is online.
@@leavemyrightsalone BLD only has standing when English case law is referenced. The rest you need to argue as US case law is not binding - only persuasive!
@@marchorn466 I agree.
I’ve got a liability order on 4th 😂😂😂
thats nice , who bought you one 😜😜
Ive got a new order can anyone help
They tell us and believe Law of the Land is legislation.
All Corporate
My comments are dissapearing!
What is parliament anyway? Buildings can't talk or make laws.
Palace of Westminster is it's name.
Anywhere that creates acts is a theatre.😊🎉
Create acts and send you the bill. UK is not even anything, do we live in England or GB or GBR or the United kingdom, UK the British isles, Britain, or Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.?or the all caps versions of each, they all have different names for a reason to add to the confusion. UK government is a corporation they have no rights over man which is why they had to create your strawman legal title
OK, if we are clearing things up 1) You sometimes state that common law is case law which I dont think is quite right. In common law there are no BAR members, no lawyers or judges, you make your case and the other party gets to make theirs and then a jury of your peers makes the decision of who is correct. 2) You fail to tackle the elephant in the room which is statute law only applies to persons. I think that you could do a number of videos on this and how we can become a person whether we want to or not and then you could do more videos on rebuting the presumption of personage.
1) Common law is created on arguments before the court and any individual can argue so nothing to do with BAR members... I am not a fan of Jury trials as they do not need to provide rational reasoning as to how they reached their decision and hence appeal is not possible, plus it will make the law unpredictable as each jury may see things differently and thereby defy the purpose of law being guiding principles to behaviour!
2) you need to spend more time down that rabbit hole until you work out for yourself 'person' has absolutely nothing to do with law!!!
@@marchorn466Thanks for the reply Mark.
1) I am not talking about how I would like the system to be, I am talking about how it is or was. There are law experts in the common law system advising the jury but it is the jury's decision. I think the teachings of the bible are the guidance that the jury are expected to operate under so the outcome should be somewhat predictable. I have no knowledge on appeal but it would seem right that there was the possibility.
2) Give me one good reason that person has no significance as opposed to any other term for a living man or woman please. We all know that words are very precise in legal forums, why have they used person(root persona) when "wo(man)" or similar would have worked?
A pure common law system would probably mean going back to an honour system with the possibility of duelling, I dont want that but thats how it is. Do you have some way that statute law could be made to work for the people and never become oppressive the way it is just now? Do you have a way of forcing maritime law off of the land.
3) I just remembered this! You say that courts make the law but I see a procedural problem, how does it become law if the police can never arrest someone to take to trial to make the law? Yes I am a process engineer so process matters and your thinking on this subject is unclear to me. Parliament must make the statute which authorises the police but then a jury or an appeals court can nullify the statute. If this does not happen then the statute is effectively law? Is this what you mean?
I have often thought that some organisation needs to draw together all the little groups to put together a law for dummies type book that could be taught to everyone but especially school leaver aged teens or college/uni undergrads as they are the ones most likely to force change not us old men. Thoughts?
@@MrHughk1
1) The system is not the problem... Once you understand what a persons job is then you can hold them to account... So BAR members have legal obligations to the rule of law, then the court, then to their client... if they only did it there would be the rule of law!!!
2) For over 50 years people have tested it and to date not one has evidenced success with it... Words must be precise and the more precise they are the less the risk of differing expectations... the rules of court to interpret are based upon the normal / natural meaning of the word at school leaver level, and if it makes no sense the context around the word, then context within the sentence etc...Also rationally think about it - not every country uses English so why would only the definition of English words prevail???
2)a) Honour, good faith and clean hands is Equity which prevails over the common law in the existing system admitted by Parliament as supreme... As I keep saying the system is the problem.... people not doing their jobs properly AND THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE AS THEY DO NOT HOLD THOSE BAD ACTORS TO ACCOUNT :(
3) There should be no need to arrest anyone as people simply need to give their name and address to which another's claim can be served and then it is the court which resolves the dispute. Once you understand legislation is NOT law but merely a claim then you will better understand how the courts make the law... Simply without a court order there is no enforceable law, and if statute was law there would be no reason for the courts!!!
4) I agree and hopefully the free online Peace Keeper courses is going someone to that :) If you have not done them I strongly suggest you do - so much more of this will make sense :)
Once again thanks for the reply Marc
As a now 56 year old male I have been embracing the grumpy old git within and not taking crap from anyone anymore. I am suffering from total overload of information now available on the internet like we do have a largely written constitution, who knew. I found Australian, Canadian and American information before I found anything from the UK so I might have to relearn some things.
I totally get that the people are responsible for not policing our civil servants but that is how we were taught and brought up by our parents back then at least.
I will do the courses and see how it goes. You do appear to have a fairly unique analysis of "law" and it bears further investigation. I think I get the court order is the law rather than the legislation that produced it which is counter intuitive compared to gods/natural law and probably statute in an admiralty jurisdiction.
I think the best learning tool is the hierarchy of creation and you can only own/control that which you created. Takes us back to the question I had as a teenager, where is the social contract that puts me below government? Or where is the obligation is the term you use I think.
Creation/god etc
WoMan
Government (or any corporation)
Government (or any corporation) employees
Cheers
@@MrHughk1 YOU MIGHT FIND THIS RESEARCH OF MINE INTERESTING REGARDING UK CONSTITUTION...
The Norman invasion introduced ‘stare decisis’, or common law precedent, which since is the undisputed legal system of the UK. The Confirmation of the Charters 1297 defines the ‘Law of the Land’ as the ‘Common Law’ expressed in the Great Charter, Magna Carta 1297 . The Act of Settlement 1700 affirms ‘Laws of England’ are the ‘Birthright of the people’, including those governing. The Earl of Oxford Case (1615) established the ‘rules of equity’ (triggered when actions go against the conscience which determines right from wrong) prevail over rules of the common law in the event of a conflict, thereby creating a new precedent to be followed by lower courts. Hence, the rules of dispute resolution (rules of common law) evolve continually by incorporating new knowledge ensuring the law should be fair, just and up to date.
Historically royal/regal prerogative included legislative, executive and judicial supremacy exercised through the Crown (a corporation sole or aggregate ), expressed in James I’s 1609 speech to parliament on the divine rights of Kings . The Case of Proclamations 16107 resolved with the justices, James I, his advisors and councillors that ‘The King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him’ and that ‘...the law of England is divided into three parts, common law, statute law, and custom...’. The undisputed ultimate legal authority of governance is still royal prerogative . Today most prerogative powers are formality by convention without which bills cannot be enacted7, .
It cannot be disputed since 1615 a clear hierarchy of law exists showing the rules of equity is supreme over common law which is supreme over royal prerogative which creates legislation. Parliament being supreme law maker is admitted to be theoretical and is totally without merit.
Despite resolution in 1610, continuing conflict resulted in the turmoil of the 17th century which culminated with a written ‘constitution’ in all but name, setting out the relationship between those governing and the governed, ending the ‘divine rights of kings to rule’.
Common law contract is the authority for creation of legal fictions. By the Act 1 Will & Mar. 1688 some people ‘Declared, enacted and adjudged’ creation of the fictions; the ‘Lords Spiritual and Temporal’ (House of Lords), the ‘Commons’ (House of Commons), and in the Bill of Rights 1688 the ‘Monarch’. None have corporate nor legal status7. Acting in person is admitted in the introductory texts of UK Public General Acts: “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same...”.
The Bill of Rights 168810 (which incorporates the Coronation Oath Act 1688 ) in its first sentence admits Parliament as the people’s agents, freely elected (article 8) and granted legislative supremacy (articles 1 and 2) constrained to providing redress to the people and ‘amending, strengthening and preserving the law’ (article 13).
An Independant judiciary (legislatively reaffirmed in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and a foundational principle of legality ) must be maintained that; cannot be religious (article 3), with unhindered right to petition the monarch (article 5), neither excessive bail nor cruel and unusual punishment can be inflicted (article 10), and fines or forfeitures before conviction (article 12) by trial by jury (article 11) are void.
Other restrictions are Parliament must grant authority for levying money (article 4) and keeping standing armies in time of peace (article 6).
Article 7 ensures equitably all can bear suitable arms for self defence and article 9 equitably all have Freedom of Speech.
The coronation Oath Act 168810 in the first promise creates an independant Executive and the second promise creates an independant Judiciary,
This stops those governing harming the people, a declared and enact obligation forever:
“all and singular the Premises as their undoubted Rights and Liberties and that noe Declarations Judgements Doeings or Proceedings to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into Consequence or Example..
....And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come.”
Morag-Levine (2022 p.386) identifies urbanisation came with industrialisation, and with it humanist populist thought that ’the duty of the ruler to attend to the “common weal”’, which is a well recorded long standing cause of dispute with ‘protection of individual rights and liberties’. The recent Covid response shows this problem is still unresolved, and the UK avoids addressing this problem with most claiming an unwritten constitution, and theories of a ‘political constitution’ justified by democracy.
Scott (2020, p.2) identified that ‘The nobility were able to influence elections to ensure their interests were protected.’ showing the problems of representative governance were well understood, and today merely largely replaced by corporate interests.
As shown a lawful contract sets out the relationship between those governing and the governed which upholds the self evident foundational truths that as no individual or group of individuals can evidence authority to impose their will upon any other individual or group of individuals; all are equal under the law, and, no one is above the law. It affirms the rule of law (equality before law, fundamental rights and freedom, and judicial independence ) is the primary constitutional principle supreme over the separation of powers, and, Parliament is only sovereign legislator, thereby rebutting claims of the UK having a unwritten constitution.
thats assuming that I.E. Lords are Spiritual & Temporal in Nature.. witch really means natural spiritual law.. then judging how the Temporal feels.. when giving to the Commons.. and thus asking that the House Of Commons acts as every being out there in the LAND.. when in facto is they have giving up that right long ago so by their trinity indoctrine does not flow!! and hence we say we are SPIRITUAL WE ARE TEMPORAL IN NATURE IN BEING AND LIVING IN THE FLESH SO SHALL JUDGE BY OUR OWN STANDING NOW!!
I can't pretend to understand everything you talk about, but based on the principle that we the people are above the govt, is anyone building a case to strip the UK govt of its powers? And to set aside the actions of said govt, especially in relation to their treachery in handing over our personal and national sovereignty to the WHO/UN??
Can act& statues come alive lol just aak Hollywood