Let’s go to a Law Dictionary, and look up a definition for ‘The Common Law’. It really doesn’t matter which one, because they all say pretty much the same thing;

“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 that were unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to statute law (the law laid down by Acts of Parliament); to special law (the law administered by special courts such as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and 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”.

The word lawful specifically applies to actions or omissions which are just and fair, where as the word legal refers specifically to actions or omissions which are in accord with the legislation, be they just and fair or otherwise.

While there is overlap between the two, to the extent that the legislation has been codified correctly in accordance with what is just, the dichotomy arises because this is not always the case. Logically and reasonably, where the two concur, the legal is unnecessary and utterly irrelevant – because the situation is covered by lawful anyway.

A good example might be given in the enforcement of legislation forcing a human being to pay for a service which the human being does not use. This example is most frequently incarnate in the enforcement of taxation, where the Taxees have neither contracted for the services so provided by, nor use the services, yet are unjustly, but legally forced to labour in order to pay for services they neither want nor use.

There are, in point of fact, three distinct categories for the usage of the word “law”. And each of these categories has three major components.

1. Laws of Nature (including Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc), i.e. “lawful”:

a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them & their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton’s Laws), Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Laws, Charles’ Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.

b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No ‘Courts’ are required.

c) There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.

2. The Common Law.

a) Mankind does make them, based entirely on Common Sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (What you know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de jure (Courts of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by means of a Jury of 12.

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

3. The Legislated Rules of Societies (Statutes), i.e. “legal”:

a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitration or Tribunals, etc ). They are not applied equally because they always depend on ‘judgment’. It is often said “There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor”.

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b. We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a & 2b. Thus to use the same word, “law” to describe both 1 and 2 is not unrealistic. 

However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are the exact inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word is used to describe them in common parlance! This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both “fire” and “water”.

As a result of this, “Legals”, i.e. “Statutes”, become imbued with the same characteristics as Law. In other words a Statute becomes mentally considered to be as true, solid, and ‘untouchable’ as (say) the Law of Gravity. Which, of course, is totally undeserved.

                                                                                                                                         Constitution derives from the Magna Carta 1215 – and also the Bill of Rights (1689); the Act of Settlement (1700); the Septennial Act 1715.- as well as Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949; the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; the Representation of the People Acts 1949 to 1983; the House of Commons Disqualification Acts 1957 and 1975; the Crown Estate Act 1961; and the Supreme Court Act 1981   

                                                                                                                                          Since the Magna Carta 1215 TREATY is the best-known start to a written Constitution that we have, where do ‘Bill of Rights (1689) … etc … the Supreme Court Act 1981’ obtain their Constitutional legitimacy? The Magna Carta 1215 says NOTHING about any legitimacy for any Parliament – nor (obviously) for any Acts of Parliament. In point of fact the Magna Carta 1215 specifically states that any attempt to supersede it is null & void.

Common Law

Common Law was established by Alfred the Great, who reigned from 871-899AD. He compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the “Liber Judicialis,” based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Alfred’s son, Edward, declared

 To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously.          

                                                     

Declaration Of Right

The Petition of Right at the beginning of the 17th century, and the Declaration of Right and Bill of Rights at the end, embody a century long fight to constrain the power of Government. At that time it was the Monarch who desired a divine right. Today it is our Parlimentarians. The Petition of Right and Declaration of Right are Common Law contracts between the People and the Crown. The Bill of Rights is a statue law enactment of the Declaration of Right.

The Declaration of Right was imposed upon William and Mary as a condition of their assuming the Crown – in other words, they would only be elected by the People if they accepted its terms.

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that –

no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. Here is the evidence that our present Monarch has indeed broken her Coronation Oath, by giving Royal Assent to these treaties.

Other constitutional rights given by these contracts –

•The right to bear arms

• The right to petition the Sovereign

• Free men cannot be imprisoned without cause

• The Government cannot arrest any man because he disagrees with the Government’s policies

• Habeas corpus is not to be denied

• No person will be compelled to make loans to the King, and there will be no tax without the approval of Parliament

• Soldiers and sailors will not be billeted on civilians

• Government will not impose martial law during peacetime      

     

Magna Carta

Magna Carta – a Common Law document – was originally signed in 1215, a contract between the knights, barons, clergy, townspeople and the King. Magna Carta affirmed the right of the People to such things as trial by jury, and protection from excessive fines.

In 1297 the Model Parliament confirmed Magna Carta in statute law. Much of this statute has since been repealed. It should be noted that while Parliament can repeal or amend any Act of Parliament (statute), Parliament was not a party to the original Common Law contract, and cannot, therefore, amend or repeal it lawfully, and thus its original provisions remain intact.

Primary Source:

https://www.facebook.com/Wake-up-freemen-1393374260905440/