There is Nothing Lawful about Common Law

There is Nothing Lawful about Common Law

By Frank O’Collins

MP3 Audio Broadcast; Right click, save as…

Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and many thanks to all of you who take the time to listen to this audio and read this blog for Thursday 5th June 2014 entitled “There is Nothing Lawful about Common Law”. By this topic I mean:

1. The Commonwealth Laws “or Common Law” being the Statutes passed by Westminster since Henry 3rd in 1224 right up to the present day have never honored the Golden Rule of Law that “all are equal under true law and none are above it”; and

2. The very fact that there are dozens and dozens of different definitions for Common Law, with none of them matching; The very fact that some claim it is the collected precedents of the courts, while others refer to the body of statutes of their own country; while others again speak of Common Law in terms of only the maxims embedded in both as if it is somehow equivalent to Natural Law means there is no clarity even to what Common Law is meaning it can’t possibly be Law, because any law that is unclear cannot possibly be true law; and

3. As we will be discussing yet again tonight, when you actually get to read the statutes at large of Westminster claimed from the time of Henry 3rd right through to the present day, then it is blatant and obvious that there is no real justice through these statutes, nor fair process, nor any genuine attempt to follow the principles of civilized behaviour as defined by the Carolingians more than a thousand years ago, or by Emperor Constantine more than seventeen hundred years ago. In fact, the laws of Westminster make the most brutal laws of pagan Rome seem noble and we will speak and look at some of these tonight.

The reason I chose to do this final blog on the topic of Common Law and why there is nothing lawful about it at all, is because of some of the confused responses I received from some of you, in reply to the blog and audio from last week entitled “The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed” read this blog entitled “There is Nothing Lawful about Common Law”.

The first reason for this blog is that whenever I do a blog and audio, I try to build upon what we have already discussed. The blog and audio from last week was no different and so I hoped that people would get around to reading or listening to one of the earlier blogs and audios about the nature of law, what is law, so there is no confusion when legal scholars and others start writing up definitions claiming Common Law is equivalent to Natural Law. If you did have the chance to listen to some of the previous audios and read the previous blogs then you would know with some certainty how preposterous that idea of Common Law being equal or similar to Natural Law. But if you are in any doubt, then hopefully tonight will make it abundantly clear.

The blog last week was about flushing out the fact that within the Statutes of Westminster there are acts of parliament starting from the 13th century listing rights, remedies and wrong – often hundreds of years before other acts come into existence, trying to throw us off the land, or out of our homes, or turn us into “things”, or bind us under oppressive contracts. So what I was arguing is that if the Common Law is to mean anything, then at least it must respect the foundation from which it claims its legitimacy.

Secondly, as Common Law or the Commonwealth Laws of England through Westminster deal with statutes, any sensible discussion needs to address the nature of what are Statutes. That is another reason I was hoping that anyone coming to listen to last week and this week, will take the time to read and listen to earlier blogs such as the one on Thursday May 22 entitled “Proof that the Bankers and their Agents have completed destroyed any illusion of Rule of Law in Western Societies”. If I kept going back to write and say the same things covered in these earlier blogs and audios then it would make moving forward very difficult. So again, I hope you can find the time to listen to at least the most recent blogs so the items we discuss tonight make sense.

Thirdly, if something I say is not clear; or if something I write appears in error; or if you feel there is any discrepancy, then I welcome the suggested correction, the request for clarity. We are all learning and so I welcome even criticism. All I ask, is that you take the time to hear what I am saying, read what is written and keep an open mind. That’s all.

If there is no remedy then there is no law

As I wrote and said last week, I am not trying to endorse the Statutes of Westminster- I am only putting out a reminder to all of us that there are many dozens of alleged ancient statutes supposedly providing remedy to any sort of corrupt officials, greedy bankers and malicious court officials. The Magna Carta, The Statute of Merton of 1235, The Statute of Westminster of 1275 and of Glouchester of 1278 and of Westminster again in 1285 and the Statute of the Defense of Rights of 1292 and the Statute of Westminster of 1357 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 are all examples within the body of thousands of Statutes of Commonwealth Law or Common Law which describe certain rights, wrongs against injuring rights and remedies of such rights are injured. As we discussed last week, if there is no remedy against some deprivation of rights then such an instrument cannot be law – as where there is no remedy there is no law.

These statutes I mentioned as well as many more, claim to provide some form of remedy in the face of tyranny and corruption. For example, an act of 1889 (52&53Vict. c.69) under Queen Victoria provides clear remedy against any form of official corruption dealing with public officials and in particular with local government. An act by Henry 8th in 1529 (21Hen.8 c.15) also provides relief against false recoveries for example.

The problem is that these kind of statutes are hidden all over the place and difficult to find. That is why I am not simply giving a list of all statutes to you or to others but linking them up through the Canons of law on One-Heaven.Org so whenever we discuss a concept in law that has some history within Common Law, then when we outline that history I will be making sure there are direct links to specific statutes to show you. So far, I have linked a few hundred different sections within the Canons and there if many hundreds of links to go.

It is also useful to know the origin of certain law and procedures like when one goes to court. Last week, I referred to a particular definition of Common Law that defined the period from 1848 onwards as effectively the end of Common Law with the abolishion of certain procedures and standards within Common Law courts as well as the introduction of a new form of justice called “summary justice” in the name of efficiency which in effect considers you guilty before being proven innocent – or the reverse of what the law should be.

So Acts like c.43 of 1848 (11&12Vict. c.43) on the new proceedings of Summary Justice, or follow up acts of 1857 (20&21Vict. c.43) and 1879 (42&43Vict. c.49), 1881 (44&45Vict. c.24) and 1884 (47&48Vict c.43) are important to comprehend, particularly if someone was contemplating defending yourself. I am not saying you should or should not such action. What I am saying is that knowledge and competence of the origin of their procedures, such as the Common Law Court Procedural Changes in 1854 (17&18Vict. c125) and 1857 (23&24Vict. c.126) and 1860 (23&24Vict. c.126) are critical if you are to be competent in any manner do contemplate a self defense. By reading the statutes, you get to see how the procedures or proceedings within courts evolved over time.

Different forms of “Common Law”

I also explained last week that where certain communities have embraced some of the body of statutes of Westminster as Common Law we have the condition where some of these statutes of potential rights and remedies remain active, because subsequent repeals may not apply. That was the point I was trying to make in explaining for example the situation of some of the 13 colonies of the United States that chose to adopt some of the laws of Great Britain prior to 1776 that were not repugnant to the Declaration of Independence.

Similarly, when Australia was declared a country in 1900 – keeping in mind I have used the word country and not sovereign and independent land or body politic – that the Common Law was recognized firstly as those laws back before 1828 and the Australian Courts Act. It is different again for Canada for example and its recognition of Common Law before its constitution was enacted in 1867.

As far as this being a little confusing when different countries claim to follow Common Law yet have different interpretations of just what the Common law is, the Statute of Westminster of 1931 should have put a rest to all those points of confusion. This Act of 1931 made it crystal clear that no country, dominion, territory or people are bound by any Statute of England, or Great Britain or the United Kingdom from that date forward, unless the legislative body of such a country, or dominion or territory also pass a similar act. In other words, just because it is promulgated by Westminster, unless it is also passed by the House of Representatives also known as the Congress in the United States or the House of Commons of Canada or the House of Representatives in Australia, then the law does not apply.

So I hope this makes the questions concerning different dates and times as to the Common law clearer.

Repugnant and Insane Acts of Common Law

OK, let’s go back to the theme of this blog and the issue that “There is Nothing Lawful about Common Law”. So far, we have been talking about some of the older acts which outline rights, wrongs and remedies. But what about the raft of acts of Westminster that fly in the face of these rights and remedies? What about the raft of acts that declare you are not only dead at law, but to be counted as dead? Or that people without money or title are to be treated literally as useless cattle, to be rounded up as slaves? Surely, if these kinds of laws still find themselves active today, then any argument the Common law is lawful is a complete lie.

So let’s start then with the occult acts obsessed in converting the world from the living to the undead – or the origin of the obsession of the ruling elite in zombies.

If you have come to read some of the material on Ucadia websites then you have come across the term Cestui Que Vie meaning a type of trust created, usually in secret for the alleged benefit of another. There are many other names for such trusts, namely term of life or years, or per autre vie, or fides commissary trust, or foreign citus trust to name a few. There has also been a lot of rubbish spread around about Cestui Que Vie Trusts as well, with some blogs trying to belittle the discussion as some kind of grand conspiracy or delusion. So lets lay this to rest then.

The origin of Cestui Que Vie Trusts is almost certainly around 1535 during the reign of Henry VIII. We know this because these type of trusts are essential to the holding of rights of others and therefore the act of seizing the smaller estates of everyone, hidden as small spiritual estates in 1535 could not have conceptually worked, without the existence of CQV trusts. Unfortunately, we no longer have any record of the original acts creating CQV as they are long since been lost, or destroyed and replaced by new forged statutes. What we have instead, is a range of acts that give us some insight into their operation, namely

Now, some of the arguments in creating a CQV trust are that someone is lost, abandoned, presumed dead, or an infant, or lunatic, an idiot or some other argument of unsound mind. This is why the connection between CQV trusts and the claim that their existence supports the argument that under the wholly corrupt and insane world of Common Law, the politicians of Westminster declared everyone dead.

It is to this argument that young lawyers and internet trolls have a field day. They cite all kinds of counter arguments why this is simply false. Well, is it? Lets have a look at the prima facie evidence – the undeniable facts and proof.

The general statutes cite the 6th Act of Charles the 2nd in the 18th year of his reign or 1666 as the Cestui Que Vie Act. Some books, deliberately move this act to 1667 to avoid the obvious occult reference (19Car.2 c.6). In fact, the act is all about the concept of Proof of Life and while we do not have the original act, it was almost certainly responsible also for what was known as the Bills of Mortality or the Bills of the Dead that began after and not before (contrary to yet more confusion), this particular act.

The same deliberate confusion exists with the 18th statute issued in the 6th year of the reign of Queen Anne (6Ann. c.18) also concerning proof of life, but listed in official records as a Cestui Que View Act. So, what does Proof of Life have to do with Cestui Que Vie Acts and Bills of Mortality or Bills of the Dead? A great deal actually.

The concept is quite brilliant and very simple and unfortunately virtually everyone, including the those agents working for the system fail to get it – under these two acts that are still part of “Common Law”, if you cannot and do not prove yourself Living, using the prescribed rituals and bullshit procedures of the nihilists inhabiting the sewers of Westminster, then you are not only dead at law, but literally dead. Not physically dead, but within the realm of the undead or Mundi. It is that simple.

Let me say it again so no one can possibly misunderstand what I just said. The Act of 1666 and the act of 1707 on proof of life and claimed as Cestui Que View mean that if you do not follow their insane and unjustified occult rituals and paperwork to prove you are alive and one of them, then you and everyone you know are dead in their system. How utterly corrupt and profane and sacrilegious against any notion of Rule of Law.

Still think Common Law has anything in common with Natural Law?

Let’s move to another example. You may have heard of the Poor Laws of England, then Great Britain which are held up as the first working examples of welfare to stop the poor from starvation. Actually nothing could be further from the truth. The poor were starving because like today, the rich and greedy and stupid with guns were stealing the means of survival of the poor and squeezing them till the died.

In fact, the occult leaders of the private Bar Guilds created two entirely different statutes on the books concerning the Poor Laws beginning with Queen Elizabeth 1st in 1601. One that is for public consumption (43El. c.2) and is all high and mighty in charity and Christian ideals and another private version (43El. c.3) which exposes the system for what it is – organized slavery.

Still not convinced about the evils of the Poor Law System of Common Law?

Fast forward to 1670 and the 22nd year of the reign of Charles 2nd and the formalization of poor workhouses (22Car.2 c.18). These were not refuges but hell holes. A prison would have had better conditions than workhouses. No, these were enterprises in collusion with Christian ministers, the government and private enterprise to exploit the poor for their own ends. Sound familiar to today?

Have a look then at the workhouse test act of 1722 under George 1st (9Geo.1 c.7) or later under his grandson George 3rd in 1775 (15Geo.3 c.21). Suddenly all this rose colored platitudes on the beautiful Common Law is exposed for what it is, as by this time people who had their lands seized and their property taken had the choice to either starve to death, or try and survive in a workhouse for a few years. Mothers were separated from their children. Husbands from their wives. In fact children were a valuable commodity.

Still think Common Law is something positive? Have a look at the Enclosure Act of 1773 (13Geo.3 c.81). Literally hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes, their possessions, their inheritance and were rounded up like cattle to be sold as slaves into private enterprise and the hell holes of workhouses.

Oh and children. Have a look at the act of the same year in 1773 that effectively endorses the sale of children as a commodity (13Geo.3 c.82) and (17Geo.3 c.36) endorsed by the church. Disgusting, deprived, wicked and wholly barbaric, without an inch of true law, or justice.

Which brings me to Common law viewing all those who will not bow down to Illuminati and ruling Elite Commercial Network as “things” and less than human or cattle. When you look at the statutes you can find plenty of acts speaking about Negro slaves

These acts are part of the history of the British Empire exploiting and raping and pillaging Africa until acts abolished the slavery of negroes in the 19th Century. But what about white slavery? It seems there is no obvious mention of white slaves in the statutes even though we know that slavery was rife and that Ireland and Scotland and Wales suffered terribly at the hands of the mad English merchants.

It turns out you won’t find any explicit act describing the poor of England, or Wales or Scotland or Ireland or any other colony as slaves, because they are called something else.

They are described as “Horns Unwrought” when they are docile and compliant, like most people are today – utter cowards, stupid and compliant, or “Distempered Horned Cattle” when they are no longer being cowardly and actually are trying to stop the madness of the souless and mindless ruling elite.

Well, we have an act of 1464 (4Ed.4 c.8) by Edwards 1st describing that the trade of a certain group of people of a certain exclusive religion known horners were banned from plying their tradewithin a certain distance of London in the taking of Horns Unwrought.

King James 1st in 1609 (7J. c.14) banned the business of the Mystery Company and the Horners of the House of Convertors and their perculiar and false religion from the business of white slavery of Horns Unwrought.

However Charles the 2nd in 1672 (25Car.2 c.4) opened the white slave trade partially back up on the selling of white poor people as “horned cattle”, providing there are suffering distemper, or rebellion against the absolute control of the mad and corrupt ruling elite.

By the way, George IVth in 1825 through act c.105 repealed the ban on the exclusive business of white slaves or “Horns Unwrought” and the certain mysterious group also known as the Mystery Company and the House of the Convertors originally of Venice and Pisa and of a perculiar religion that claimed exclusive right of ownership of slaves for hundreds of years. This act put this particular group of a particular false and totally made up religion back into the slave trade of white slaves in 1825. The period right when we have the end to black slavery.

It wasn’t just slavery of the poor people but the fact that if they ever did rise up like the Scots during the 18th Century, then none of these wonderful laws on the rights of men applied and under an act of 1737 (10Geo.2 c.35) and (27Geo.2 c.15) they could be summarily executed without trial or jury.

Dozens of acts in the 18th century refer to rebellious Horned Cattle with Distemper. I assure you, we are not speaking about mad cow disease but people fighting against injustice and trying to survive. Such as 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758 and 1774.

And even the suppression of people held in prisons and workhouses trying to survive (23Geo.3 c.23).

In my research of my family, I found that one of my great great grandmothers actually died in a work house in Ireland after her husband died and their was no means to support her children. From the time she was admitted, she lasted only five years in that hell hole, which is around the average life expectancy as a war of the Crown of the United Kingdom and its workhouses in Ireland in the 1860’s.

The Invisible Constitution

There is nothing grand about the Common Law. There is nothing noble about the laws of England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom. There is nothing enlightened or just or lawful about it. So the sooner people get over the delusion and actually read the statutes as I have, then the quicker we can have people working on how we get out of the mess of a corporate pirate world out of control.

As far as the United Kingdom being a democracy and having a Constitution: Public Law must be public, published and viewable. Otherwise it cannot be Public Law! Similarly, a Private Law or Special Law by its nature can be private. Again this is an obvious statement. Yet the point being whether a law be Public or Private, what it can never be is unclear, or missing, or unreasonable or impossible. If a Law is unclear, or missing pieces, or unreasonable or impossible then as Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law in the 18th Century described, it ceases to be law.

The Common Law is not a constitution. The United Kingdom does not have a constitution. Nor does any of it resemble law of a true democracy of any sort in history.

So to all of you who continue to stand up, to read, to learn and become competent- Thank you! To those of you who care to help and support – Thank you! Until we speak next week, please be safe, be well. Thank you and good night. Cheers Frank

One comment

  • theunhivedmind

    The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed

    By: Frank O’Collins
    May 29 2014
    http://blog.ucadia.com/search?updated-max=2014-06-05T21:48:00-04:00&max-results=7

    MP3 Audio BroadcastRight click, save as..

    Hello, this is Frank O’Collins and thank you for taking the time to read and listen to the Ucadia blog for this week on Thursday 29th May 2014 entitled “The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed”.

    I am excited about this weeks article and audio because it gives me the chance to start sharing with those of you who are listening to the fruits of several months of background research into the many hundreds of claimed statutes and laws principally of Westminster beginning with Henry the 3rd of England in 1224 right up to the 20th Century. Tonight, I will be referring only to certain statutes created between 1224 and the 16th year of the reign of King George 3rd and the year 1776.

    Just so you know, the results of this research is to make sure over the coming weeks that wherever and whenever a statute of Westminster is mentioned within the canons on the website One-Heaven.org, then to the best of my ability there should be a link to be able to download primary source material being the statute itself. I have not really started the linking process yet, so it will take a bit longer, but I hope that this will over time become a valuable resource for those looking for answers.

    In any event, the reason I chose 1776 as the cut off period for this blog is that 1796 represents the year of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and for many Americans, then and now, it represents the end of formal ties as a colony to Great Britain. Of course, this is not strictly accurate as the Wills Act of 1837 which is the basis of modern American law on Wills and Testaments or the succession of Judicature Acts beginning in 1848 (then 1857, 1881, 1884 etc.) which are the basis of the same summary justice system in America as much of the rest of the world. But as we will discuss in a little while, 1776 is nonetheless both symbolic and a real legal reference within the framework of the laws of the United States of America distinguishing more formally what is considered Common Law and what is not the Common Law.

    Now if you have read or listened to any of the previous Ucadia blogs, or the Talkshoe calls you probably know, that I have not been the greatest fan of the common mythology surrounding the notion of “Common Law”. In fact, I have received a lot of flack over the years by calling out that what people think is the Common Law is in error and that any concept of real rights owes its history back to the Anglo-Saxon Laws of the Carolingians such as Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne in the 8th and 9th Century. So it might surprise a few people in this article and audio that I am not going to put down or denigrate the Common Law as such tonight. Instead, I hope over the course of this conversation to actually provide those who are listening and reading with specific prima facie evidence and actual proof of remedy and relief existing even today in Common Law.

    Again, this might seem strange given my previous apparent negative comments about Common Law, then this audio and article might also seem strange given my blog last week entitled “Proof that the Bankers and their Agents have completely destroyed any illusion of Rule of Law in Western Societies”. Last week, we went back to the most important and fundamental of concepts in speaking of the Golden Rule of Law, that “No one is above the law, and all are equal before it”. We then went through and explained the nature of Statutes versus Proclamations as well as the differences between the types and forms of Statutes such as Ordinances, to Regulations and Policies and why Policies are the lowest form of Statutes with the least power and why all the Statutes issued for the past 200 years have been merely Policies.

    However, there are actually four key reasons for raising the several examples of Remedy in Statute comprising the backbone of Common Law:

    1. Firstly, through the blog and the audio tonight, the very fact that these Statutes exist is proof that the Judges and Lawyers and Jesuits and Elite and Illuminati know that no law concerning rights can be a law without remedy. We are going to show that they know this absolute maxim of law and have always known this maxim of law So, for any Judge or Magistrate or Politician to say now that “the law is whatever we say it is” is pure stupidity and an admission of complete incompetence; and

    2. The Second goal of this blog and audio is to prove that this is not the first time the bankers, the lawyers and the political elite have got us into such a mess. They’ve done it before and no doubt would do it again if given the chance. In fact the circumstances more than 200 years ago were far worse than they are today and by explaining the apparent mystery and paradox surrounding Common Law that it seems to be tucked away in obscure Statutes in the 13th, 14th, 15th Centuries, hundreds of years before any Statute trying to abrogate such Rights. Or to put it another way, to try to explain why something equivalent to a jet airplane was invented hundreds of years before someone invented and airport runway. It doesn’t make sense. So we will be addressing this anomaly tonight; and

    3. The third goal of tonight is that people need help and so long as Judges and Lawyers and Politicians and Bankers and the Media continue to maintain the illusion that they honor the Rule of Law and you live in a democracy, then those who find themselves in trouble and against rampant bank corruption and lawyer corruption deserve a chance to find some remedy and relief; and

    4. Finally, if certain Judges and Lawyers and Politicians refuse to acknowledge the prima facie and irrefutable proof of Common Law in writing, then it proves my points from last week and will actually help everyone see it for themselves – that you are dealing with idiots and lunatics, criminals and pirates, who don’t even care about appearances and so truly there is no Rule of Law.

    By the way, Prima Facie is defined by Black 9th (pg 1310) as “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted”. Thus, as Blacks 9th states a prima facie case is 1. “The establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption”; and 2. “A party’s production of enough evidence to allow the fact trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the partys favor”.

    Now there are actually two Acts that specifically relate to Prima Facie Evidence, being (31 & 32 Vict. c.37) in 1868 and (45 & 46 Vict. c.9) in 1882. You might like to download these acts for your own research and future reference. In any event, what the 1868 Act states as to Prima Facie evidence is extremely important, namely if you can (1) produce a copy of the Gazette in which the Proclamation, or Order or Regulation was cited; or (2) produce an genuine copy of such Proclamation, or Order or Regulation by a Government Printer; (3) a Certified Copy or Extract of a particular Proclamation, or Order or Regulation by a Clerk possessing the powers of a Privy Council, then this is to be taken as Prima Facie evidence.

    Now you know the importance of having actual proof of key statutes that relate to Common Law and not simply hearsay, or presumptions or wild claims that so many publish through the internet. But be careful. It must be legitimate extracts and not forgeries. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the business creating fake stories and fake documents all the time. So beware in considering Prima Facie evidence.

    So before we start by looking at the three key concepts that make knowledge of the Common Law so important, let me give one more key warning to everyone listening to this audio and reading this blog. The courts use a safety mechanism when facing people come at them with everything including the kitchen sink- it is called the argument of reductio ad absurdum – in other words – find but one error and then render the whole claim in error and throw it out. Unfortunately, it happens over and over and it has even happened to me in the past when writing to tricky lawyers.

    The way in part to overcome it, is by ensuring any memorandum of facts includes a severance clause to counter the attempt to use reductio ad absurdum. The severance clause merely states that if any part of an argument is rendered deficient, or in error then the remainder still stands. However, you can’t put a severance clause effectively in an affidavit and this does not excuse willful stupidity. More paper does not equal more chance of success.

    So whatever is considered relevant to your cause, be specific as to one matter, one issue, one thing in question and only that matter, that issue and that thing and exclude everything else for the moment as extraneous. Please, I beg you not to misuse such knowledge and act in an incompetent and stupid manner, because if you do, then you only have yourself to blame as you have been fairly and duly warned.

    The real meaning of Common Law

    Before we go too much further, what do we mean by Common Law? Well, Blacks 9th published in 2009 on page 313 defines Common Law as “the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions”. This is of course, completely contradictory to the history of law and popular knowledge of the meaning of Common Law and just goes to show how out of control the private bar guilds in the last 60 years have become. Just to prove how dishonest these legal fraternities have become, case law in the United States was restarted in the 1930’s – basically wiping all precedents prior to that decade. So this definition basically tells you that as far as those who run the world today, all law is commercial and security law that started from the 1930’s which is absurd, untenable and blatantly, deliberately and obviously false.

    Lets return to Blacks Law Dictionary again and this time to the 2nd edition published in 1910 and page 226 where we see a little more honest definition being “common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed and formulated and is administered in England”.

    OK, so lets go back a little more and have a look at the Dictionary of English Law of 1882 by Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn and page 172 and his definition of Common Law, which he defines as “that part of the law of England which, before the Judicature Acts, was administered by the common law tribunals”. Thank you Charles Sweet. I guess at least someone in the system, being judges who were not under the mental illness of legal realism needed to know the truth. So in a nutshell, the Common Law by the Western-Roman system was all the statutes in force from Westminster prior to 1848 and the first Judicature Acts that created the abomination we have today, where there is no justice or law in modern common courts or magistrates courts because you are considered guilty before being innocent – which by the way is a Common Law Wrong contrary to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 and several other laws.

    It turns out that prior to the deliberate disinfo, false gurus of the truth movement, false and contradictory dictionaries of the past 60 years, knowledge of what the Common Law is was relatively, well, common.

    In the United States for example, the English statutes did not become the laws of various states of the United States by virtue of their own authority in the mother country, but they became so by adoption. Such as the State of Georgia in 1784 as “the common laws of England, and such of the statute laws as were usually in force in the said province (Georgia) on the fourteenth day of May, 1776, and not repugnant to the constitution, laws and form of government now established shall be in force until repealed”.

    A 1776 Virginia law automatically made all the common law of England and all acts of Parliament in aid of the common law that were enacted before the fourth year of the reign of King James a part of the law of the state of Virginia. Article 25 of the Delaware State constitution of 1776 stated “The common law of England as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force”.

    Similarly in other parts of the world, the recognition of the preservation of statutes in force prior to a certain date was not some magical or mythical legend, but provable in law. The reception of English law was clarified by the Australian Courts Act 1828, which provided that all laws and statutes in force in England at the date of the enactment of the legislation should be applied in the courts of New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) so far as they were applicable. In NSW, this was further reinforced by the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969.

    So now, we have some clarity of exactly what we are speaking about. For the United States of America, it is all the laws of Westminster in force and effect as at 1776 not repugnant to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and then confirmed as such by the laws of the various states and precedents of the courts. For countries such as Australia, Canada and elsewhere, it is various acts passed prior to 1848 and for the United Kingdom it is all the laws prior to 1848 that were in force and effect and not morally repugnant.

    Rights, Wrongs and Remedy

    OK, now back to discussing three key concepts that are at the heart of Common Law, that we need to consider before we go any further, being: Rights, Wrongs and Remedy.

    Until the rise of the absurdity known as “Legal Realism” in the 20th Century, the text named “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (in four Books) first published in 1765 (and again in 1769) was considered the foundation stone for anyone wishing to comprehend and establish basic competence in the key notions of law.

    In those four books Sir William Blackstone identified three concepts of Law above all others being Rights, Wrongs and Remedies. In fact, the first two books are dedicated to Rights, the third to Wrongs and the fourth to Remedies in describing the law and in particular Common Law.

    In relation to the notion of Rights, Blackstone identified three absolute Rights of nature being personal security, personal liberty and private property. In fact Blackstone made the principle of the protection of these natural Rights against abuse the cornerstone and test of whether one lives in a civilized society, or one merely exists under the savage occupation of tyrants, pretenders and pirates. To quote Blackstone from Book 1 Chapter 1 on the Rights of Person, Page 120:

    The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which are vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.

    Thus, the law cannot function in the absence of Rights, or in the unfettered abuses and wrongs of official corruption and corporate special interests. We can see the truth of these statements by Blackstone in looking at those texts considered the bedrock of defining Rights of men, women and persons.

    Chapter 29 of the Magna Carta 1224 is said to state “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor we will not pass upon him or condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”

    The Bill of Rights of 1688 (1W&M S2 c2) expanded on the defence of Rights into several items such as 10, 11, 12 and 13 for example

    No 10 That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
    No 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void; and
    No 13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently.

    The United States Bill of Rights of 1789 similarly defines ten articles, also described as the first ten amendments that support the nature and type of Rights enjoyed by people and by citizens of the United States of America. Similarly, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 also defines the key Rights to be enjoyed and protected concerning persons and people.

    Blacks 9th Law Dictionary on page 1436 defines Rights as several meanings and if I paraphrase them, a Right is considered “something that is due to a person by just claim, a legal guarantee, a moral principle; and a legally enforceable claim that another will do or not do a given act; or a recognized and protected interest, the violation of which is a wrong; or the interest, claim or ownership that one has in tangible or intangible property”.

    Given this summary definition, it is no wonder that when we first think of Common Law, we think of Common Law rights. What then are Wrongs? And how do the definitions of wrongs play a party in Common Law?

    Well, when we paraphrased the definitions of Rights, we actually mentioned the word in the context of a violation of a right. That is in essence the first true definition of a Wrong as also defined on page 1751 of Blacks 9th as the 2nd definition of a wrong being “violation of another’s legal right”. The word wrong is also equivalent to the word and concept of injury. There is then a whole list of different sub definitions of wrongs from civil, intentional, legal, moral, personal, positive, public and so on. The point being, that Common Law not only defines those rights granted to us, but those acts that are prohibited in violating such rights.

    For example, the Statute of Merton in 1235 (20 Hen.3) states under Cap. 5. that it is a wrong for debts of the ancestor to be passed to the heir and that upon death both the principal and the usury or interest does not remain. In other words, under Common Law, all contracts with banks that seek to recover debts and interest from the grieving heirs are null and void, remembering that under the same Common Laws, a will and testament that names a beneficiary for a certain benefit, deprives an heir of that part of their inheritance and renders such effect of this statute mute.

    Another example of a defined wrong is in the Statute of Westminster of 1275 under Edward 1st (3Ed.1.) and Cap 23 which states that no one shall have their property seized for a debt in which they are neither the debtor or there is no pledge. In other words, no one can seize your property unless there is proof of a debt or contract. In the same statute under Cap 26 we also have the definition of another wrong where no Officer of the Crown is permitted to take a reward for their office, which renders anyone occupying an office under any form of admiralty law or marshal law an outlaw and a criminal if they are sharing in the value of prizes or trophies.

    Yet another example of a defined wrong is in 1436 by Henry 6th (15 Hen.6. c.6) against unlawful bylaws and orders whereby the articles of bylaws of any guild, or fraternity or company that are unreasonable or contradictory to Common Law are void and unenforceable. This is even expanded under Henry 7th in 1503 (19 Hen. 7. c.7). Another example that is reinforced many times throughout Common Law is the wrong of frivolous and vexatious suits such as in 1601 and Elizabeth 1st (43 El.1. c.6) and 1697 (8&9W.3. c.11).

    There are of course, many more examples of defined wrongs under Statutes within the collection known as Common Law and I do not have time to go through them all here. However as I said at the start, I will be making sure that not only statutes and instruments of rights but statutes of wrongs are clearly downloadable where appropriate within the canons of law on One-Heaven.org over the coming weeks as a helpful resource .

    So what about fixing a wrong. You discover that the bank has taken property it should not have or a government agency has drained your bank account when it is not allowed to do so, or someone has seized your property for a false debt. Well, that is exactly what statutes of Common Law that define remedy are supposed to do (in theory).

    Charles Sweet of Lincolns Inn defines remedy in his late 19th Century Dictionary of English Law of 1882 as “Remedy is the means by which violation of a right is prevented, redressed or compensated. Remedies are four kinds:
    (1) by act of the party injured, the principal of which are defence, reception, distress, entry, abatement and seizure;
    (2) by operation of law as in the case of retainer and remitter
    (3) by agreement between the parties by accord, satisfaction or arbitration
    (4) by judicial remedy, eg action or suit for relief

    Well in terms of remedy for tenants in mortgage when the landlord being a title company or attorney as trustee has done absolutely nothing to contribute to the upkeep of the property such as charges of connection of power, water or council rates is able under an act of 1433 (11Hen.6. c.5) to have the landlord convicted of waste against a claim for all the costs incurred by the tenant as treble damages. Now, lets say an attorney and bank are in collusion and make a false recovery through foreclosure, then under Common Law in 1529 (21 Hen. 8. C15), the remedy upon proof of a false recovery is that the property, rights, titles and tenancies shall be restored as if the false recovery had never occurred. Remembering, you have to proof in their courts a false action first.

    So similar to the detailing of wrong, there are many examples of remedies documented within Common Law and again because the language is deliberately obscure, the listing of all of them are being updated through the Canons of law so there is as little confusion as possible.

    The mystery of Common Law explained

    Now we get to the key question and mystery – how come the Remedy of Common Law exists sometimes hundreds of years before the Wrong? It does not make sense.

    It rests in a major shift and alignment of world power at the end of the 18th Century which we have discussed several times before, being the creation of the Illuminati and the coming together of a Trinity of interests being the elite of the Vatican, the elite of London and the new elite and Dutch royalty as elite of America and New York.

    The creation of a global Matrix, a Frankenstein of spirit, mind and body where Rome represented the spirit, London the mind and regulations and Washington eventually under the control of the New York families as the muscle and enforcement as the body.

    When the apparatus was being put together by the Jesuits, there was a glaring fact that could not be avoided- that the laws of Westminster and the English pirates was nothing like the history books.

    I am going to read some of Canon 7396 of Article 79 of Fiduciary Law in the hope this makes more sense.

    Canon 7396
    In regards to Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) and Public and Private General Statutes of Westminster, claimed to have been created and in force and effect as “Law” from 1224 under the reign of Henry III to the present reigning monarch:

    (i) Contrary to the norms of Civilized Society and history (including Rome and Athens), there is no credible evidence that Public Statutes proclaimed by Westminster were ever made public and available for permanent review in various cities, towns and public squares outside of Westminster or in any public form until the publication of “The Statutes at Large” from 1763 by Danby Pickering of Gray’s Inn and then Owen Ruffhead of the Middle Temple in 1769. Therefore, by the ancient tradition of all civilizations public law that is not made public cannot be law, nor can it be validly claimed to be enforceable or just or in accord with the true Rule of Law; and

    (ii) It is on the public record and admitted by multiple sources that a substantial number of former claimed Public Statutes of Westminster were “destroyed” in the 1666 fire. There is scant credible evidence how most of these laws were then “recovered” in suitable form to be included in the publication of Danby Pickering from 1763 and the folio edition of Owen Ruffhead; and

    (iii) Within the 1763 publication of Danby Pickering (“The Statutes at Large”) and the separate work of Owen Ruffhead, there are references to words and phrases in statutes prior to the 18th Century that were neither in common use, nor yet invented within the English language, indicating either deliberate and wholesale fraud in creating acts that didn’t exist, or amending laws and their meaning that did not previously exist; and

    (iv) In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published the work “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in four books in which in Book I Part I Section III he explained the norms of statutes concerning repeals, revivals, perpetuity and repugnant laws. Yet the work of Danby Pickering and subsequent works of Public General Statutes (i.e. Butterworth, Spottiswoode, etc.) show Westminster contradicting its own norms by repealing acts which are perpetual; and claiming acts are repealed when they remain in word in force; and claiming acts which are wholly and morally repugnant have full force and effect; and

    (v) For the entire span of civilized society until 1540, only approximately 500,000 laws had been passed by legislative bodies of which 90% were variations on similar laws. Yet from the dawn of Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) from 1540 to 1798 approximately 500,000 laws claiming to be “public” had been created and from 1799 to 1920 some 10,000,000 “public” laws were created of which less than 10% resembled any form of true historic law. Then from 1920 to the present day, more than 100,000,000 laws under Scientiam Mysteria (Occult Knowledge) have been issued overwhelmingly for seizure of property, enslavement of people as insolvent debtors, immunity, franchise, commercial advantage, privatization, corruption, blatant theft of public assets and the destruction of rights with less than 1% resembling any form of ancient Rule of Law, or Justice or Due Process.

    So now you know. Now you know the truth and secrets of Common Law. Now you know the importance of reading and reviewing the Canons of Law on One Heaven and why this resource is only going to strengthen – not to usurp the law, but to help restore it.

    Maybe it is impossible as we have discuss, for the those in power to wake up yet. But maybe, one case at a time, there might be judges and clerks and even attorneys that will have their minds and hearts re-awakened to the true nature of law, or justice and fair process.

    To all of you who continue to help and support Ucadia, especially those of you who directly help support by your donations this continued work, I want to thank you for caring. For those of you who just come to these blogs yet have not yet decided or chosen to help, then hopefully one day you might also make a choice to help and support something that has been researched and build now for more than 20 years.

    Thank you. Till we speak next week, be well. Cheers Frank

Leave a Reply