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.

24 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.

  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.

  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.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s