Common Law vs Statutes – Living by the Rule of Law

Here’s a five star article by The British Constitution Groups Roger Hayes that’s well worth a read if you want to learn something … spread it around. 8)

Common Law vs Statutes

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.


– All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

– A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

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

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

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

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


– Law refers to common law.

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

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

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

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

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

– Laws are used to keep the peace.

– Without law we have anarchy.

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

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

– Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

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

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

Courts, Judges And Juries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.

The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it

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

64 thoughts on “Common Law vs Statutes – Living by the Rule of Law

    • Captain, you can copy anything you like from here on to your site, no need to ask. 8)

      … and that goes for anyone. 🙂

      And you’re right about the article, it’s certainly the most well written one I’ve seen!!

  1. Pingback: The Census – The Law – Your Private Rights « The Secret People

  2. Whilst in court to witness a freeman from the tpuc contend his right to his own freedom I was caught by the judge filming. To film in what I deem or thought I deemed to be a public place I was abducted and held overnight in Lincoln Prison for contempt of court. All I did was press a button on my phone for my personal record of justice being seen to be done. I’d been told to turn my phone off. I did that so it wasn’t a phone reciever. I wasn’t told to turn my camera off. I was aware of the statute that doesn’t permit any recording of any kind in court and was prepared to be asked to leave though I’d not caused any disruption to the proceedings. However, I was then handled with, in my view extreme force and imprisoned for contempt. Whilst I accept I’d not sought any consent to film I don’t think I harmed, misrepresented or done any damage to anyone and have concluded that the statute system is ‘out of control’. In custody I was denied any representation, phone calls, water for 6 hours. I was never offered one drink the whole time I was in prison. In the end I offered to trade my name in for a glass of water. That was refused. The list goes on. I’m now of the opinion much needs to be done to illuminate people of the way power in this country has got out of hand. Most people seem to think it’s normal and nothing’s wrong whilst in truth there’s been a slow erosion of human rights that’s inperceptable to most.

    Since being freed I’ve had to find out more about my own rights and freedoms and came across your site. It’s good to know there are people willing to explain all this in detail. I’m committed to filming and witnessing in whatever way I can to bring to light how our rights have been taken from us without due consent. I’ll be filming and interviewing those who might help us to live free men in a land of freedom.

    Phil (aka moonview)

  3. I agree with most of what is said except that the queen represents us. it is said that we are subject of the queen, I reject that assumption I am no one subject . The statutes are supported by the queen, it is us against the state^queen regina in the courts. The queen has broken her oath of office. She is a vassel of the pope or the vatican. They are all corporations. I am not a corporation.

    • Ken, you have to understand that their are 2 different Queens at work here. One is Queen Elizabeth II from the house of Windsor and the other is QUEEN ELIZABETH II INC. From the financial district of London.
      It is by the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II house of Windsor that we are afforded our inherent common law rights. (Magna Carta) without it (under God) we would be lost salvage.
      Hope this makes spence.

    • When upon there ship we must never answer to You or Your this makes us the customer, we should always replay with We Our or Us this keeps us out of contract, you or your is not one its more. if the magistrate refers to you as you, your honour are we trying to contract with us, then turn to prosecutor and ask him if he represents the crown when he says yes order him to pay fines we are the crown. never be You the customer

    • Hey that sounds like the governments saying. Mak them consent or civil war and we will kill the ones that dont agree. Oh just one thing. Of all the wars we have had in this so called democracy nam 5 that were not civil

  4. Excuse my ignorance… but please explain if Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains.

    Then how come we can be taken to court under Acts of Parliament… example Criminal Justice Act, and others Acts,were people will be charged under that Act, to face a court on that charge of breaking a Act of Parliament.

    Mr Confused

    • I’m no expert but I guess the people who ended up in court have unwittingly given their consent to be governed, thus giving the power of law to the statutes being enforced upon them. This is why ‘no comment’ police interviews are important to maintain your rights and not just a good way to wind them up.

    • Your not taken to court under acts and statutes unless it’s a tort or common law offence, consent via contract can be in a written or verbal sense. YOU ARE NOT TAKEN TO COURT. Let those words sink in my friend. It’s the CORPORATE “BODY” “PERSON” that’s taken to court under legislation. The legal fiction. It’s unlawful to use the legal name. Everyone’s birth certificate is CROWN COPY RIGHT. Everyone’s birth certificate has a 6 digit number, this number is a corporate number where everyones individual corporation is being traded on the stock market. Check out and treasurygov there’s your proof. And check out the law societies terminology via blacks law dictionary, for example in legal terms, the word human actually means monster. It is quite laughable how they think they can pull the wool over people’s eyes.

  5. Hi great article it is nice to know that some people refuse to roll over and let the powers that be dictate us my question to you is can common law be used in the family courts as they seem to be in a league of there own and if so what is the best way to go about it this from a struggling father who has not seen his daughter for 15 months due to adjournements etcetc any help would be appreciated

    keep up the good work

  6. Good point, well made. As a punk I have spent most of my life outside of the “legal” world but I have always remained a lawful man. People on the streets, are lawful, not because the are forced ,but because they believe it is correct to do so.

    This bit needs seems wrong to me.

    “- Without law we have anarchy.”

    I think Immanuel Kant put it best when he said:

    “A. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
    B. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
    C. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
    D. Force with freedom and law (republic)”

    Our republic died the moment the banks got control of our government wile our honorable men were repelling Napoleon. Anarchy in England to me; is living your life by common law without giving your consent to be ruled by a system that take our tax’s and pay it to private banks. The private banks are the ones who really run this puppet show; giving the drone bee’s just enough. to keep them from revolt, but never enough to make them unproductive.This prison these drones live in, is the finest ever constructed. Look at the camera’s on the street of London watching the inmates move to and fro from their cozy fully furnished prison cells before the next shift. Ignorance is bliss for most people so they fail to see that we live no longer as a republic but under despotism with the illusion of freedom. I would love to live in a true republic like the one Abraham Lincoln created. The last leader to stand up to the banks was John F. Kennedy.

  7. Pingback: Common law v. Acts of Parliament (Statues, legislation) – Roger M. |

  8. Pingback: Common Law vs Statutes – Living by the Rule of Law |

  9. Theres a great book to get called so they say ive broken the law by the lioness use it for any form of fines tickets so on and so on it about a tenner worth it

  10. If English Law is based upon Common Law, Scotland’s is different and based upon the Latin model much more; which is more along the lines of Civil Law I think, although I’m not sure. Therefore how relevant would this article and the information contained be where you to be tried in a Scottish court?
    I can’t seem to find this information anywhere and would greatly appreciate your help

  11. I’d like to see some practical examples of people successfully challenging a statute (in law) ?
    I’m also sat here thinking about which statutes I’m most at odds or dissagree with. Maybe some traffic laws (sorry statutes)but if I’m honest if is sometimes the application of that particular traffic law (ie sometimes the application of a bit of common sense on the behalf of an over efficient police officer) and not the intention of that laws introduction. For example speeding laws are ultimately for the safety and protection of everybody in society.

    Now for the controversial bit……it’s my experience (a lot) that people who describe themselves as ‘freemen of the land’ etc do so in some whacky attempt to allow themselves to commit crime without detection or come back.

    I know a lad who was dealing drugs and he told me he didn’t have to consent when stopped by the police. He ended up in prison and his lack of consent didn’t protect him. So my advice is to be careful in what your motives are when waking up one morning and deciding that you don’t consent to statutes you selectively don’t agree with.

  12. This is important its my SHOOT THE JEW FALLACY which exposes the flawed arguments when people tell you that individuals cannot refuse to consent to government legislation. Remember in Nazi Germany everything Hitler did when he came to power was legal but it was morally reprehensible to right thinking people everywhere:

    Some people especially those serving our nefarious traitorous government will argue that individuals cannot refuse to consent to bad legislation here is my well reasoned argument in response posted elsewhere:

    That is their interpretation what else do you expect from those who want to enslave humanity. Fact is we have the right as individuals not to consent and a simple example will suffice to show the fallacy of their claims:

    Imagine they pass a law that we the people must exterminate all Jews and they put a Jew in front of you and order you to pull the trigger on the gun they have given you. Do you have the moral right to disobey the law. The answer is of course you do, you have a moral duty to paraphrase Jefferson and rightly so. What of those morons who would pull the trigger, well they will rightly be brought to justice and there defence of I was only following orders and doing my duty Sir will not pass the muster. That defence was tried and rejected during the Nuremberg trials and Nazis were hung. A precedent in International Common Law was set and cannot be changed. Now tell me that individuals do not have the right to refuse to consent. We have an absolute MORAL DUTY TO REFUSE TO COMPLY with any legislation that impinges upon our moral code. Don’t make the mistake thinking that legislation is law its not, they are deceiving the people and its time we all woke back up into Christ consciousness and put the vipers to bed:

    Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge the wing whereby we fly to heaven.
    William Shakespeare Henry 6th

    “Woe unto you!”said Christ addressing the lawyers, “for ye have taken away the key to knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves and them that were entering in ye hindered.”

    Policing by consent – Publications – GOV.UK

    • whitenightf3 I agreed with everything you said up to your religious in put. I believe religion is yet
      another oppressive weight around the necks of people who have given their consent away to a body that would control every aspect of their lives.
      I am saying this, not against one religious believe system but all.
      I believe a common sense rule of law prevailed long before religions got their claws into people.

      As for this article by Roger Hayes, I have nothing but admiration for the dedication he is showing to this cause.
      I am of the opinion that spreading the word even to those who want to put their heads in the sand is the way forward. Strike a spark in peoples thoughts, then watch as the fire takes hold and light is shed .When they see for themselves how they have been compressed by the burden of governments who would see them as slaves.
      Knowledge of your rights is the only way forward.

  13. How do you not give your consent to be governed? Sorry if that is poorly worded but i’ve seen that certain things only apply with constent, if i do not want them to have my consent how do i make sure they do not have my consent? Is it by writing to the Queen (i saw this on Youtube).

  14. I agree with you that the acts of parliament are often unjust and unnecessary but I have to disagree with you on most of your reasoning.

    The problem is, just because we think something is unfair, doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.

    Wrong assumption 1: We can opt out of consent

    We the people of this country are bound by the laws of this country, we (by which I mean generations past) agreed to be governed by a democratic process where being we consent to a government to make laws and organise the country. You could try and declare sovereignty but then you would not be a member of this country, and with no permission to be here you would be here illegally. You could of course claim part of this country as your own, i.e. an invasion.

    In short, we could opt out of consent en mass, by overthrowing the government, or by electing a new government who are willing to throw out all the old statutes and acts.

    Wrong assumption 2: An Act is not a law

    An act is not common law, it is made law by being voted in by the house of commons, house of lords and finally by being consented to by the monarch (more of a formality). Below is an excerpt from You may well not agree that this is how it should happen, but unfortunately we the people consented to this system. Opt out by finding a party who want to change it, or by overthrowing the current government and installing your own.

    The excerpt:

    “An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country. ”

    Wrong assumption 3: We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

    Some laws exist to favour rich and powerful people, this has always been the case, laws are always going to be in the benefit those who can influence them. We are not equal in any sense.

    Wrong assumption 4: 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

    People are found not guilty of committing an offence (ideally) because after a lot of thought by the police or a court, they decide that they didn’t do it. This has no bearing at all on the validity or legality of the law.

    To wrap things up

    I like the idea of being a Freeman as opposed to a restricted Person but just because I like it, doesn’t mean I can do it. I like the idea of not paying council tax but I can’t just not pay it.

    Opt out of consent to a particular statute by opting out of consent for the current government. You have two legal ways to do this:

    1: Vote for a party who will change the law the way you want it (and hope that everyone else does too)

    2: We have the legal right to revolt against a tyrannical government, but this is a somewhat extreme and expensive step, so maybe get a plan together before hand.

  15. While I believe that there is a worrying trend towards over legislation in the UK, I fail to see how your premise that Common Law is an improvement holds true. As a student of law, I am depressed and unsettled by the inconsistency of individual interpretations of judicial precedent , which constitutes the body of Common Law judgements in this country, and believe that a democratically elected ruling body is authorised by most of the people who have voted to enact legislation that will eliminate these irregularities. The injustices that you allege to be at the heart of statute- based law are conspicuous by their absence in this article, unless you include the reference to our membership of the EU ( and, one example hardly proves an argument of such broad and complex dimensions ) . As a final point, was the Magna Carta a piece of legislation or something else ? If it is the former, then it would seem to suggest that statutes make up, and always have made up, part of our legal system, creating a blend of jurisprudence that does a reasonable job of maintaining order in society. You declare that law should be given back to the people, but if anyone believes that justice would be better served by compulsory indictment-based trials so that judges have less power, I would ask them to think about what an alternative system would look like. Thanks for the debate – it is important that more of us take an interest in the issues, as you say.

  16. Great post but one question, as we are all under the sovereign of this country and the Queen is our leader, and the police swear on oath to uphold common law (queens law) does this mean that acts (Statutes)are imposed by the Government and by the police enforcing these is treason? as we can opt out of obeying said acts under our right of sovereign?

  17. Capacity and the Estates of man.


    There are many capacities in which a man may wish to act. I will deal with the 4 estates of man, of We the People, as they impact our lives in reference to HMG and the HMCTS. We have forgotten how to present ourselves.

    To make sense of the estates of man we must look to the clues that the Government and the older English jurists have left for
    us to uncover.

    Lord Coke, sir Frederick Pollock, sir William Blackstone, Henry Bracton and historian sir William Maitland and others wrote in a time when the truth was easier to print. Like the Giza Pyramids they exist and their books and essays cannot be denied.

    The people have full control of their actions and body and are able to govern themselves. This is referred to as the sovereignty of the people.

    “Our sovereignty cannot be bartered away by the Solicitor General, or even by the Prime Minister, because it is not theirs to give. I speak not only of the sovereignty of this house, but also of the higher sovereignty of the British people”. Mr Alfred Morris MP. Hansard, 17 Feb 1972 Pg. 727-8.

    From this quote it can be seen that there is a descending order of sovereignty, duty and obligations.

    Part 1

    As a man of the people, our sovereignty comes from our creator which is the God of the King James Bible, upon which the Oaths of Office of QEll to govern and the Judicial Oath of Office are based. The oath of allegiance for Judicial Office holders and the Civil Service means that they are sworn to QEll and she is sworn to god and the people.

    The first capacity is that of man of god. We occupy the office of man. We the People, as men and women [people] are the beneficiaries of the gifts willed to us in Genesis ch1 and we received god’s blessing and spirit and so we are part of god or god is a part of us.

    We have the protection of gods law…love thy neighbour as thy love thyself. Lord Atkins, The Royal Law [L.L. Blake.], page 5.

    When a man swears an oath to the higher authority of god he puts himself under gods law, this is his first duty and obligation and he is obligated at all times to act in accord with this law under the terms of the judicial oath, when acting in a judicial capacity.

    He can do no harm to the people as he swears to the higher authority of the people through the judicial oath and he is also subject to the peoples law which is the law of the land. This is his second duty and obligation.

    The man occupies the office of judge and is sworn to god via the judicial oath but when acting as a judge he is able to rule the people by use of the all caps or estate and again the terms of the judicial oath.

    He swears to the higher authority of the people. We, as people are the beneficiaries of this estate and as beneficiaries we can only receive benefits not harm.

    In the statutory court constructive trust is used to switch the office of beneficiary to the office of trustee without our knowledge and hence a hidden contract which then voids the proceedings.

    All cases laid before the HMCTS are in reality claims against the Estate, identified by ALL CAPS.

    Part 2

    The second capacity is as a man of the people….. and we are the indigenous people of the country of Britain and the British Isles, but we are governed by QEll via the coronation oath.

    The authority to govern the people comes from the people themselves and is the peoples political sovereignty given to QEll in exchange for the protections contained in the Coronation Oath, Judicial Oath and Constitutional documents

    The Coronation Oath and Coronation is the qualification that is needed to govern. Before the coronation she is not able to govern as QEll. On her fathers death she was proclaimed Queen and used several regnal titles.

    But to govern as QEll, requires that the coronation oath must be taken as part of the coronation ceremony.

    We do not exchange our political sovereignty for nothing, why would we ?.
    By looking closely at the terms contained in the oath we are able to see just exactly what is being promised in this conditional contract between QEll and God and QEll and the People.

    The coronation enables the Queen to govern and the oath enables the coronation. Being coroneted in the prescribed way is part of the process. Although she became Queen on the death of her father and although assuming the official style,

    by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith.

    at the time of his death no political power to govern the people is devolved to Her until she receives it from the people via the coronation which embodies the oath with terms and conditions.

    Part 3.

    Her Majesties Government [HMG] govern the people on Her behalf via the third capacity which is as a people subject.

    The government want us all to forget that we are first and foremost a people. As a people, we can subject ourselves to be governed in the interests of living in a society which treats everyone with equality, fairness and respect. The society is formed for mutual protection and advancement of the human condition known as life.

    The peoples law is known as the law of the land and is rooted in the customary way in which people settled their differences without resorting to violence when might was right. Customs are not written and the law of the land is the unwritten law. It is often referred to as the law where the memory of man does not runneth, or from time immemorial.

    This peoples law is directly descended from gods law of love thy neighbour and directly connects to this law by the words harm no one. Ignorance of the law is no plea and it would take a complete ignoramus to not know this law.

    The coronation oath states quite simply that the majesty of the office, or her majesty, will govern the People according to their “laws and customs “.

    The word laws is plural so can embody many different types of law, although there is only gods law and the law of the land that stands without the agreement of the parties.

    The first duty is to gods law, the second duty is to the peoples law and for men and women who identify as a man or woman of the people then the protection of gods law and the peoples law is available.

    The judicial oath of office states quite simply that the oath taker will “ protect the people without fear or favour “ and he swears to god and the people that this is what he will do.

    Part 4

    The fourth capacity is as a citizen subject, which by trickery is the ALL CAPS estate.

    The political authority of QE ll to govern the people comes from the exchange, by the people of the peoples political sovereignty, via the coronation oath by the tacit [unspoken] acceptance of the oath by we the people.

    It is an assumption of the Queen, that by not complaining of the arrangement, brought about by the presentation of the Queen to the People assembled in Westminster Abbey and the Recognition by the people assembled there who signify their acceptance of the Queen by loud acclamations, that we agree to this arrangement. [The Royal Law, page 87/88 L.L. Blake.]

    Obviously not all the People can fit into Westminster Abbey and so a representative assembly is invited to acclaim the Recognition. This is all in the nature of a conditional contract by way of exchange of the Peoples political sovereignty for the protections embodied in the oath of office of QEll.

    We exchange our political sovereignty in what is referred to as the social contract which produces the society in which we live as people subjects first and citizen subjects second. Citizen subject is based on Roman civil law by the use of the ALL CAPS Estate and “persona” or personality. This is all based on the conditional contract of the Coronation Oath but not explained in this way.

    Part 5

    The society of people in Britain has developed in what is considered acceptable social norms of behaviour or customs. This has occurred over many years and started with the tribes of Britain before the Romans arrived in AD44 and can be referred to as “ law of the land” before time immemorial and is mentioned in Magna Carta which contrary to what some say is as valid today as it was when signed by King John.

    The Magna Carter is an enduring lawful trust document and is not unsettled by the Treaty of 1213 between the self styled Vicar of Christ as gods representative on earth, which is a unilateral declaratory title claimed by a man and church with no foundation in fact and that treaty is void.

    King John did not sign under duress, as is promulgated by those who would deny the historical significance of the Peoples law as detailed in this first constitutional charter.

    Before the Romans arrived in AD 44 the tribes had their own tribal law which was the precursor of what would later become to be known as the law of the land. Different tribes had different customs and it is these customs that over time and by general agreement and usage became tribal law. The tribes themselves had developed from the numerous extended family groupings which had lived in defined geographical areas.

    Security was the prime motivating factor in the family groupings banding together for mutual support and later becoming tribes in a similar way to the American plains Indians.

    The Romans arrived and proved to be the biggest and most successful tribe and because of the nature of conquest, conflict with the indigenous tribes ensued. They also brought with them their own tribal law and over time subdued many parts of Britain and forced the local tribes people to adopt the Roman way which included their version of tribal law. Being experienced and adept at providing administration in the lands they conquered, the Romans encouraged the people of Britain to absorb the new ways and Roman civil law and many of the ruling tribes sent people to Rome to study and learn.

    The society in Britain at that time was pagan and the tribes worshipped many deities. This was little different to the Romans themselves who worshipped the cult of Saturn and as had happened in other conquered lands the Romans were not against integrating local custom and gods into their own way of life in furtherance of keeping a lid on the fierce tribes.

    QEll is the latest in a long line of consolidation of leaders and tribes into the head of the principle tribe in Britain. Germanic in origin, much like the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others of the middle ages, She presides and governs over the people of Britain through HMG. It is not an absolute monarchy but a constitutional monarchy built upon the oath, coronation event and the constitutional documents put in place in exchange for the political sovereignty of the people.

    The authority of QE ll comes from the exchange of the Peoples sovereignty or authority via the coronation oath by the tacit acceptance of the oath by we the people. It is an assumption of the Queen that by not complaining we agree to this arrangement .

    Coronation Oath

    The coronation oath was taken by Elizabeth Windsor as the styled Queen in 1953. It was administered by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ritual took place before a worldwide audience.

    The Queen was not at all happy with the cameras being there and the BBC had a hard time getting the programme approved. John Anthony Hill has proved that the coronation was not carried out in accordance with historical precedent in that the Stone of Destiny upon which the monarch sits, had been stolen and a replacement left in its place.

    This was carried out by Scottish students who repatriated the Stone to Scotland from which it had been taken as spoils of war along with William Wallace. The replica weighs 112 pounds lighter than the original and is made from sandstone which is not as dense as the original stone. The Stone of Destiny came to Ireland along with the last princess of the line of the Pharaohs to marry an Irish King.

    The stone was taken to Scotland to be used for the coronation of a Scottish King who ruled both Scotland and Ireland.

    John Anthony Hill has pleaded in a court case that the Queen had broken her Coronation Oath to God and that she no longer qualified to be Queen. He argued that if she wasn’t Queen then the adjudicator in his trial wasn’t a judge and could not judge his own cause. It resulted in John Anthony Hill being able to talk to the jury without the judge interfering too much and he won the case.

    Contained in the oath are the following expressions

    1 “ I solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom … etc.“

    2 “ According to their respective laws and customs. “

    3 “ I will to my power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all my judgements “

    It is a fact that there are three systems in operation here and they are not compatible with each other.

    The first is the Laws of God
    The second the peoples law of the land
    The third is statute

    In 1 the first thing to consider is that QEll is a title, and therefore a fictitious entity. When Elizabeth Windsor was born she was born a female first and foremost, a female entity. She was alive and not a fictitious entity which being fictional cannot be alive. A cartoon character is fictional in nature and cannot mix with a live man or woman.

    She was given the title of princess but still retained the capacity to travel and live in her private capacity of Elizabeth Windsor.

    We will consider private and public capacities.

    Private capacity.

    Discounting the implications of “ private “ in a martial law context this is a capacity of a man or a woman. What we do in our private capacity is as a man or a woman. The problem arises when trying to mix together a man or a woman with a fictional entity or set of rules laid down by fictional entities.
    How can QEll govern the People? The people are live entities and QEll is a fictional title.

    The answer lies in the use of a fictional title granted to the people, for use by the people, to enter the world of commerce and establish contractual arrangements in the fictional world of commerce.

    This is in fact a trust and the people are the beneficiaries of this trust.

    This is recognised as Mr, Mrs, Sir, Lord, Baron, etc. so Mr John Brown is a fictional version of John Brown and with this device attached to his name John Brown can now enter the fictional world of titles. This is how the titled Elizabeth Windsor acting in the capacity of QEll can govern the people of the UK who do not have a title of their own. She governs the People under consenting contract by the use of a title. It is all contract law-by consent, for a valid enforceable contract there must be agreement of the parties after full disclosure.

    Another way of recognising when there is a fictional version of your name in operation is the use of an ALL CAPITALSED version of your name.

    Public capacity.

    Previously we have seen how attaching a title to a live man or womans name gives them the facility to enter the fictional world. It is known as being in the public or operating or acting in a public capacity. Whether we, as men or women want to enter the public world or not is not the point. The government want us to because the government is Her Majesties Government and since QEll is a title then it naturally follows that Her government will be fictional in nature. In addition all acts and statutes passed by the government are also fictional in nature and only apply to a man or a woman when operating in a fictional capacity which as we have seen is also a public capacity.

    Now turning to 2

    According to laws and customs…… We have seen how, without our knowledge the government does not inform us about the use of the fictional title. The reasons for this will become apparent later.


    Let us first examine the word laws. It is a word that signifies plurality so just how many laws are we talking about? How many systems of law are there?

    There can be as many as both parties to an action or proceedings can agree on. The law is fixed by the agreement of the parties.

    The fictional government passes acts and statutes and so it naturally follows that these are fictional in nature also. We have seen how by attaching a title to a mans name, this changes the capacity of the man into a fictional entitiy. The man is now compatable with the fictional government and so the rules that the government lay down via the acts and statutes can now be applied to the man by the use of contracts.

    The acts and statutes are referred to by the government and police as law, but this is not true. The acts and statutes are from a fictional government and can only be regarded as rules of society which are fictional in nature.

    It is a maxim that the law is fixed by the agreement of the parties.

    Consider the game of football, it has its own rules very often spoken about as the laws of the game. These rules only affect the players who play the game and by their consent they refer to the rules as law. It is by the agreement or consent of the players that the rules are referred to as law.

    How does the government obtain our consent to agree that the fictional acts and statutes passed by the government can be regarded as law by the people? By the use of the legal trick previously referred too, the fictional title or more commonly known as the legal fiction or legal personality which is an estate.


    Here again the word is in the plural and as we have seen from earlier references to the customs of the people living on the land, the customs became the law of the land by long usage and agreement of the men and women who lived in the tribes before the Romans came to Britain.

    The Romans brought with them the concept of personality. Originally in the Roman system actors were sometimes employed by the citizens to speak on their behalf in actions brought before the magistrates of the time. A speaking voice, that could state the case in a way that those, not used to Public speaking before a crowd could not.

    The actors assumed the personality of the accused so as to be able to speak on their behalf but everyone knew that it was an actor behind a mask speaking or re-presenting someone else.

    Although they assumed the personality of the accused everyone knew that the actor was not the accused and was only speaking on the accused behalf. So the actor acts in a fictional capacity on behalf of the accused.

    Just like a solicitor acts for a defendant today, he speaks or acts for the defendant and the similarities between the Roman system and our modern day legal system do not end there, in fact the modern day legal system of courts and the actors who work in them can be traced back to the Roman system.

    So is the reference to customs in a legal sense or in a lawful sense. As we have seen before, legal can mean lawful if the people give their consent, without consent there can be no law founded on legal concepts.

    Without the use of the legal fiction a man or woman is not compatable with the court system and needs to give consent to act in the capacity of the legal fiction so the acts and statutes apply to them by the use of contracts.


    This consent can be given in a number of ways

    1 verbally, either knowingly or by trickery
    2 in a writing , either knowingly or by trickery
    3 tacitly, without expressing verbally either knowingly
    or un-knowingly or by trickery
    4 by actions, either knowingly or by trickery

    The whole system of government is set up in a fictional way. There are many reasons for this and we will explore some of them.

    We have already seen that the government passes acts and statutes which are a fictional set of rules which can only be given the force of law by those that agree somehow that the rules are law.

    If a man or woman breaks the rules then they are summoned to court by letter. But we have already seen that a man or a woman is incompatible with the court system and acts and statutes. Look at any court summons and you will see it is addressed to a title or the ALL CAPITALISED version of your name.

    Most people are not aware of the significance of this device and it changes your capacity and enables the full weight of the court system and rules of government to be applied to you by contract.

    The legal system is also fictional and incomprehensible to most people. In the legal fictional world a special language is used called legalese and only trained solicitors are in a position to understand the meaning of statements made by the use of this legalese language. In everyday language most people know what words mean but in legalese everyday words can take on new meanings. Blacks Law dictionaries will give the legalese meanings of the words used by solicitors and the courts.

    In a lawful system, logic and reason determine the outcome but this is not the case in the legal system. The amount of statute based rules that are passed by the legislative acts of parliament are not proportionate to the supposed good they do. The legal profession do not want anyone figuring out what they do, so they cloak simple tasks in process and legalese and so retaining a solicitor seems the best course of action for most.

    When you do this the court look upon you as an imbecile and you are unable to speak for yourself. You become a ward of the court. The solicitor belongs to a very powerful tribe as do the barristers, QCs and Judges but you are not included, you only pay, it is what you are in court to do.

    There are a number of ways that the man or woman is tricked into consenting to act in the capacity of the legal fiction.

    Firstly the HMCTS is an arbitration service which will provide the venue and various actors to ensure the smooth running of the case and provide an adjudicator to oversee the fairness of the case in an unbiased way.

    By not explaining the significance of the title device to the claimant and defendant it puts both in a position of complete misunderstanding and no contracts can correctly be established because this material fact has not been disclosed. The courts process and legalese work against both parties, defendant and claimant, but with a solicitor on board you do not need to know.

    If you present yourself in the case then they work on the basis that you know how it all hangs together so buyer beware or caveat emptor is the order of the day.

    Being asked if you are Mr John Brown and answering yes puts you under the control of the judge. Merely turning up at the court building entitles them to believe that you are the legal fiction because the paperwork has been addressed to that capacity. The judges and Clerk to the Justices are very good at word games and will try to get you to admit that you are the legal fiction and so put you under their control.

    Asking you do you understand what is being said really means in legalese do you stand under me and its usually the judge doing the asking. By not replying to a question this means they can answer for you and they will, in a way that suits them.

    You may be wondering what all the fuss is about and does it matter but consider this, the woman who occupies the office of Queen takes an oath to god and the people and the man who occupies the office of Judge also takes an oath to god and the people.

    The Queen swears to govern according to the laws and customs of the people but as we now know this could only be by gods law and the law of the land and this would give us all the advantages and the court system none.

    The judicial oath of office is taken by the man or woman who wishes to occupy the office. I swear to god that I will protect the people without fear or favour. Here again he is swearing to the people and this means the peoples law of the land, again giving us all the advantages and the court system none.

    But give them half a chance then the Estate device will be deployed along with some legalese and that will put you under the control of the judge who can use all of the court process and his discretion to gain a result against you.

    No one swears to look after the legal fiction, that entity has no rights, no protections embodied in the oaths and constitutional documents which were not written for legal fictions or ALL CAPS

    Turning now to 3

    Law and Justice in Mercy to be executed in all my judgements.

    Firstly Law is with a capital letter and means the Common Law, if it was the law of the land it would be with a small letter l. The older Royal Courts of Justice were set up to only determine statute based cases just as the HMCTS is today. Even the Common Law courts are statute based and were known as the Court of Common Pleas.

    Mercy comes from god and is available to a man or woman who observes gods law.

    These are meanings behind the oaths and it is up to you to decide what you would wish to do. By going to the court building, entering the room and accepting the oath of office of the man who took the oath you, as a man of the people, gain the protection of the oaths and can proceed under the law of the land or gods law.

    No duty, penalty or obligation can rest with the people unless and until the oaths of office are adhered to and the unalienable rights and freedoms under god and the inalienable rights and liberties protected by the constitutional documents, the ECHR and the UDHR are acknowledged.

    What this means in practice is that at all times the adjudicators hands are tied and are governed by

    Gods law, the law of the land, the ECHR, the UDHR, the Constitutional Documents, oaths of office and to at all times act in accord with these documents and at all times to act in a reasonable fashion.

    Peace through Love. Laurence James Howell

  18. These are the ravings of a complete lunatic. If you believe it and follow it you will look like an idiot and possibly go to gaol. You just have to read up a bit on the freeman on the land arguments to see what complete idiots these people are. They claim to have a victory when the get sent to gaol. Doesn’t seem like a victory to me. For God’s sake use your common sense.

    • Ad- Hominine attacks are quite easily shown to be the symptoms of the bankrupt argument of those who think they know better, but in reality are working to undermine truthful information that explains the way in which the courts work.

      I will enter reasoned debate with anyone who disagrees with the posting and can demonstrate an ability that allows for an intelligent discussion as opposed to the infantile playground tactics employed by those who wish to suppress this information but have no logical argument in opposition.

      It is a feature that truthful postings attract the shills. They cannot resist denigrating the truth, because leaving the truth unchallenged means it stands as truth.

      Peace through Love

      • Statutes have the royal accent then its contents are put into Law this is where the problem starts, as I can refer to the content of the act ie 1981 act but i cant refer to the Statute that formed the law?

      • 1. courts work by applying Statute to the facts, modified by any common-law precedents on that statute.

        2. where is your reasoned debate to the posting above that challenges your assumptions?

  19. roger hayes should be running this country and all those that have been stealing and lying to us for years should lose everything this means all of them when can we start the sooner the better.

  20. Basically a lot of rubbish, In the UK, primary legislation is the most authoritative source of law. For example Sexual Offences. Rape used to be a common law office in both Scotland and England, both countries now have their own Sexual Offences legislation.

  21. Just a very quick 2 questions

    If I’m asked by authorities ie police or judge if I am a freeman how do I respond ?
    I have only just started to understand the unlawful way we are treated I’m a god loving peaceful man by applaud so stand right behind or shoulder to shoulder with you all

  22. Hello my name is Theresa i have been made liable for rent arrears that were imposed on me from the local councils. I had not incurred the arrears the housing and council tax benefit s were stopped by the council as they said I was was not living at the property. This was not the case i was away from the property sometimes due to medical or family reasons that were not taken into consideration. I was not well mentally at the time and could not attend court but was found liable i was also evicted for the arrears. Have i got any rights to oppose there findings that I feel were injust and unfair. I was shown no evidence of a crime i haven’t hurt anyone I’ve just got a lot of dept and the bailiffs are coming soon. This all happened over a year ago and could not cope at the time. But I am well mentally now and want to address this injustice I have been given. I don’t know what way to go for help and advice but I’m trying to get heard. Please help. Theresa waddilove my email is thank you for the great article on the common law fascinating.

  23. A big Thank you like yourself i am not inclined to bow down to co orperation britain and its oppressive satutes that are unfair and unjust. Like yourself i do not envoke anarchy or violence but just want to stand up for our rights as free men and women and give power back to the people please can u email any information if i can join ur lobby im in the uk needs to change

  24. Brilliant article… I had to write it down to have. It’s upsetting to know and see that the people around us haven’t got a clue of what our law actually means. I’m no expert but I know the way things are going are getting out of control and will continue to. I believe schools should teach the people their common law, help them understand the importance of it and then maybe it will continue and the people will realise what’s actually going on around them.

  25. Hi there I’m in a family court tomorrow can I claim common law rights if so how and what do I say I fell £600 is to much for one day a solicitor to stand up for me …it’s all about the children at the end of all this but I’m not being made out to be some kind of bad parent I clearly arnt I love my children regardless to our previous relation ship break up does this common law work in a family court
    Regards b

  26. What a load of bollocks and wishful thinking.

    Statutes are laws.
    Acts of parliament introduce new laws.

    Common Law is the interpretation of Statute by the Judiciary, not something that belongs to ‘the people’.

    Can anyone identify any case where the argument in this article has been used successfully?

    Oh, and ‘legal’ refers to criminal law whilst ‘lawful’ refers to civil law.

  27. At last, a piece of writing that I am able to absorb (not necessarily in one reading), make some sense of and, hopefully in time, understand.

  28. I would like to know when the police and courts trespass and cause one a loss of rights and property who do you actually claim from to be compensated and return of losses due to there unlawfull trespass and force of statutory against ones consent to decline or except there use of statutory acts also detained against my wish.
    I would appreciate help as they destroyed our lives and refused to compensate us they claimed they have the right to do what they did and we have to suffer the consequences for the mistakes
    Thank You

  29. Very interesting – invaluable! Lots of things about this country have not sat right with me for some time and doing some reading up here and there is building up a very tangible reality of the control that most of us are forced to endure.
    Thank god for the internet and power of knowledge that this is giving back to the people.
    And thank you both, Roger Hayes and Laurence James Howell, Laurence would you mind if I was to share your words (I noted Roger allows this,cheers) – with anyone that they may help – everyone needs to be informed of facts/information so they can verify, research and make their own conclusions.
    We need to…simply stand up with our rights when we need to – no big deal is it? Knowing how to it is the issue because of all the controlled corruption we’ve been brainwashed into.

    What do we do if another has wronged us? My concern and research has bought me here.

    i was a co-founder of a company (with 3 others) we spent 3 years developing the company. During this time i invested some £ks into the company. One party, the “self” appointed “boss” decided 2016 that he didn’t want me “in” so dismissed me – an unsuccessful tribunal case saw no compensation come my way as it was seen by the judge as “an entrepreneurial exercise”.
    At the time of my “dismissal”, he the “boss” stated I would get my money (that i had loaned) within 3 months (i have this recorded). i sent him a Statutory Demand Dec 2017, his reply basically denied the loan (i do have emails where he states a repayment of my loan).
    I am wondering if myself in private capacity/i the man, xxxx xxxx, who has been wronged by the “person/boss” can force “boss” to repay my loan and even gain further compensation in a common law court?
    And if so how would i go about it? All i have seen are common law court (the .gov is enough for me to shiver!) and making a Court Claim.

    Any suggestions and help is most welcome

    Live well and prosper


    The purpose of this hoax was to make Americans think that ONLY AN “INDIVIDUAL” IS “SOVEREIGN” and that “WE the PEOPLE”, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE ARE NOT “SOVEREIGN” (exactly backwards to the truth). According to this hoax, the INDIVIDUAL (the pretend “sovereign”) is not bound by laws made by representatives that “We the People” (the REAL “sovereign”) ELECT to make them. But, none of this is so.

    In nations ruled by a King or Queen, the word “SOVEREIGN” means the King or Queen. But, in nations ruled by THE PEOPLE, the word “SOVEREIGN” means ALL OF THE PEOPLE, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, not the single “INDIVIDUAL” AS A TINY PART OF THE WHOLE.

    This means that here in the United States, “We the People”, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE legally stand in the shoes of the Kings and Queens of yesteryear and we COLLECTIVELY rule ourselves, But here in the United States, no single INDIVIDUAL among us is “SOVEREIGN” and no single INDIVIDUAL among us stands in the shoes of the Kings or Queens of yesteryear and no single INDIVIDUAL can rule anything.


    The mistaken belief that the “INDIVIDUAL” is “SOVEREIGN” is the result of amateur legal theorists being unable to read. They are unable to distinguish between SINGULAR and PLURAL terms. When they read the phrase, “We the People” (both of which are PLURAL terms), they mistakenly interpret it as the phrase, “I the Person” (both of which are SINGULAR terms). But, this is not so. The phrase, “We the People” refers to ALL OF US, COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, SPEAKING WITH A SINGLE VOICE THROUGH OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not the single INDIVIDUAL speaking individually as a tiny part of the whole.

    Likewise, when amateur legal theorists read the phrase, “consent of the governed”, they mistakenly think that it refers to a single INDIVIDUAL person (AS IF ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL IN THE ENTIRE NATION IS “GOVERNED” BY THE GOVERNMENT OF “WE THE PEOPLE”). This is why they mistakenly think that every single INDIVIDUAL in the nation must INDIVIDUALLY “CONSENT” to the law, to the jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies and to the jurisdiction of the courts in order for them to govern that INDIVIDUAL. But, this is not so.

    “We the People” (both of which are PLURAL terms) “CONSENT” to our government COMBINED, COLLECTIVELY, AS A WHOLE, THROUGH THE ELECTION PROCESS, not INDIVIDUALLY outside the election process.

    Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself said, “THE PEOPLE (a plural term) exercise THEIR (also a plural term) SOVEREIGNTY THROUGH THEIR (also a plural term) VOTES..”

    DEFINITION OF “SOVEREIGN”:…%20a%20determinate%20person,obedience%20to%20any%20human%20superior.%22

    DEFINITION OF “SOVEREIGNTY”,the%20reach%20of%20international%20law.

    Note that the term “the governed’ (below) IS ALSO A PLURAL TERM (not an INDIVIDUAL term).,consent%20of%20the%20governed,democracy%2C%20and%20John%20Locke.)


    1. Medvedieff v. Cities Service Oil Co., CLICK HERE:…. This case reads, “The term`citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law [when MONARCHS ruled supreme], and the change of phrase [from “subject” to “citizen”] has entirely resulted from the change [in the form] of government [from a “MONARCHY” to a “REPUBLICAN” form of government]. THE SOVEREIGNTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM ONE MAN [a “MONARCH”] TO THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE PEOPLE [CALLED THE “STATE”] —and HE WHO BEFORE WAS A ‘SUBJECT’ OF A KING ‘IS NOW A CITIZEN OF THE STATE.'” [CLICK HERE]…].

    2. Republic Of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, Inc.…. In this case, the court wrote, “The rules of personal jurisdiction protect an INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHTS, NOT A SOVEREIGN’S RIGHTS [drawing a contrast between the rights of an INDIVIDUAL and a SOVEREIGN].” (in the 24th paragraph). Translation: An INDIVIDUAL has entirely DIFFERENT RIGHTS when compared to the rights of a SOVEREIGN. So, a SOVEREIGN cannot logically be an INDIVIDUAL.

    3). Lozano v. Bank of America Loans,…. In this case, the plaintiff (an amateur legal theorist) sued a lender and claimed to be “SOVEREIGN”. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, “First, SHE [the plaintiff] IS NOT A “SOVEREIGN”. A SOVEREIGN IS THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE LEADER OF A GOVERNMENT [a Monarch]. SHE [the plaintiff] IS NEITHER [a government or a leader of a government].” TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY “A GOVERNMENT” CAN BE “SOVEREIGN”. UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE “SOVEREIGN” (“A GOVERNMENT”).

    4). U.S. v. Crawford,…. In this case, the court wrote, “Defendant [an amateur legal theorist] asserts in his motion that HE IS A… SOVEREIGN, and as such is ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY from prosecution.” But, the court ruled otherwise and held, “Defendant… IS NOT A SOVEREIGN [meaning a GOVERNMENT], BUT [IS] AN INDIVIDUAL. As with ANY INDIVIDUAL criminal defendant, Crawford [the INDIVIDUAL defendant] is NOT ENTITLED TO SOVEREIGN [GOVERNMENTAL] IMMUNITY despite his claims to the contrary [because he is NOT a GOVERNMENT]… .”TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY “A GOVERNMENT” CAN BE “SOVEREIGN”. UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE “SOVEREIGN” (“A GOVERNMENT”).




    8). Feldman v. Gardner,…. (HOLDING THAT THE STATES ARE SOVEREIGN). The court wrote, “Inherent in our system of government is the concept of DUAL [meaning FEDERAL and STATE] SOVEREIGNTY; EACH STATE IS SOVEREIGN, except to the extent that ITS SOVEREIGNTY is curtailed by the [United States] Constitution or validly restricted by Congress [as set forth in Article 1, Section 8].” (at the 1st paragraph in “Section B” at about 25% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY “A GOVERNMENT” CAN BE “SOVEREIGN”. UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE “SOVEREIGN” (“A GOVERNMENT”).

    9). Dred Scott v. Sandford (rev’d other grounds)…. In this case, the Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court held that the terms “SOVEREIGN” and “SOVEREIGNTY” refer ONLY to “We the People” COLLECTIVELY in the form of the GOVERNMENT and NOT TO INDIVIDUALS. He wrote, “The words ‘people [a PLURAL term] of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ [a PLURAL term] are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe THE POLITICAL BODY [a SINGULAR term] who, according to our republican institutions, FORM THE SOVEREIGN [MEANING FORM THE GOVERNMENT], and who [COLLECTIVELY] hold the power and conduct the Government THROUGH THEIR [A PLURAL TERM] [ELECTED] REPRESENTATIVES [meaning the SOVEREIGNTY of “We the People” is exercised COLLECTIVELY through our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, not INDIVIDUALLY], They [a PLURAL term] are what we familiarly call the “SOVEREIGN PEOPLE [a PLURAL term],” and every [INDIVIDUAL] citizen is ONE of this [SOVEREIGN GROUP OF] PEOPLE [a PLURAL term], and a constituent member of this SOVEREIGNTY [the GOVERNMENT of “We the People” COLLECTIVELY].” (at the 24th paragraph at about 5% through the text). TRANSLATION: UNDER U.S. LAW, ONLY “A GOVERNMENT” CAN BE “SOVEREIGN”. UNDER U.S. LAW, NO INDIVIDUAL CAN EVER BE “SOVEREIGN” (“A GOVERNMENT”).

    ABOUT OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS WHO PRETEND TO KNOW THE LAW (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when attempting to represent others) .

    For the hoaxes of ROD CLASS (who has LOST 77+ consecutive cases in a row) , click here.

    For the hoaxes of EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here.

    For the hoaxes of ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row) , click here.

    For the hoaxes of CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here.

    For the hoaxes of DEBRA JONES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here.;

    For the hoaxes of DEBORAH TAVARES(who has never won or lost a single case), click here.

    Best Regards,


    Sadly, amateur legal theorists do not even know what the “common law” actually is. They mistakenly believe in an imaginary body of law WHICH DOES NOT EXIST! The “common law” is merely “case law written by judges”. It was once also called “unwritten law” because it was “not written by elected parliamentarians” and was “not published in statute or code books”. BUT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMON LAW WAS UNWRITTEN AND UNPUBLISHED ALTOGETHER. IT WAS (AND IT STILL IS). Common law was and still is written by appellate judges and published in “Court Reporters” (not statute or code books). Common law is still the single most used form of law in the United States and many other countries that were once part of the English Empire. ALL OF THE COURTS IN ALL OF THESE COUNTRIES STILL USE THE COMMON LAW and common law is still being made (written and published) every single day all over the globe. FOR PROOF, CLICK ON POST #2 HERE..

  32. Since posting my theory in the above thread the world has moved on.

    Both my posting, in response to the well written article by Roger Hayes and my relevant court experience, has proven that my approach, by using the acceptance of the oaths of office, as the starting point, in any action brought against your legal fictional estate has proven to be correct.

    I have helped people gain redress. I have been involved in a case that is now entering its 9th year. My posting seeks to offer an explanation of the inner workings of the legal court system and to unravel the font of authority that originates with “we the people” and it is this authority which is usurped by trickery, which makes all decisions handed down in the HMCTS ultra vries.

    I still challenge any reasoned debate to my approach, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I can prove by transcript, that a result has been gained this way in the HMCTS and in a public debate will disclose this information.

    Any takers…..thought not, just the shills beating their gums. The Monarchy in Britain is on its last legs and when this is swept away the courts HMCTS, go with it.

    If we do not know and understand how the present system has been developed then replacing it with a like for like system will still enslave us. Please read all of the Magna Carta 1215. There is no mention of the common law or the Common Law, Common Law is judge made law, it is a fictional construct. Other types of law is detailed but if you do not read this “inferior treaty” Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone’s Commentaries, then you will never get the foundation that you need.

    Magna Carta can be regarded as a Trust document, with grantor, trustees and beneficiaries. It does not unsettle the inferior treaty aspect of Blackstone, as all treaties are in effect contracts.

    The Coronation Oath of Office, the judicial Oath of Office and the Oath of Allegiance to QEll are also trust contracts which are conditional on performance of the terms and conditions embodied in the Oaths to protect “we the people” from absolute monarchies more commonly known as despots.

    Who will take up the challenge?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s