The Secrets and Truth about Common Law Revealed

_________________________________________________________________
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here   (48 min 17 Mb)
_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real meaning of Common Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights, Wrongs and Remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mystery of Common Law explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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