Evidence of distinction between Statute and Law

[pleasuredome]

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1, subsection 3b

(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment,

[dondaz]

Why call them statutes and acts in the first place? Because they can't call them laws, because they are not laws. It's just fiction and they try to get us to think they're real.

[boots]

When I think of Statutes I think of Statues.

When I think of Act's I think of Actors.

One is not a living thing and the other is someone that is plays in fiction's.


These thing have nothing to do with "us" as freemen or women TPTB are good at playing with word, and putting it in plain sight.


.

[stinker]

Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 1, subsection 3b


I have to say, I'm slightly confused by this. Statute Law prevails over Common Law. Equitable Law will also often trounce Common Law. Thank goodness too as the consequences of some of the Common Law without the action of Equity would lead to some seriously harsh results for people.

The reference in the PHA 1997 simply refers to all types of law including secondary legislation and the like. I don't think it's in any way evidence that statute law is not law.

[free2beme]

Perhaps to find the origin of Statute Law would reveal the truth about it.

It appears as if only a few things can be true.

1) Statute Law is lawful, perhaps by previous cases, perhaps by the defacto government taking control and deeming it so
2) Statute Law is unlawful. Perhaps there is something missing at the beginning of its introduction, or it is forbidden to act upon man
3) Statute Law is lawful and binding only to corporations, not to man

Question 1) When was the first Statute Law written, for what purpose was it written, and who was it meant to bind?
Question 2) Are there any Common Law cases which cite Statute Law that isn't a representation of the Common Law?
Question 3) If important papers such as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights, and Charter of Liberties are not Statutes, then what are they?

To find the right meaningful answer, one must ask the right meaningful question.

[stinker]

Ok, I'm hooked - I'll give it a go....



Question 1) When was the first Statute Law written, for what purpose was it written, and who was it meant to bind?
Question 2) Are there any Common Law cases which cite Statute Law that isn't a representation of the Common Law?
Question 3) If important papers such as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights, and Charter of Liberties are not Statutes, then what are they?

To find the right meaningful answer, one must ask the right meaningful question.

1.) Statute law came into being as parliament came into being. There are many sources of law, however before this, the Monarch could make arbitrary decisions on matters, although the law of equity had made inroads by this time. Statutes limited the power of the monarch to make law and passed it to the people's representation, Parliament. Now obviously, Parliament nowadays is very unsatisfactory and not a democratic representation, however, this was the basic premise originally.

2.) There are plenty. Other systems of law were developed to fill the gaps that common law didn't cover, to choose between the differing decisions in the common law and to mitigate the worst effects of it. The system of equity I mentioned above, was developed in direct response to the common people rejecting the common law because decisions under it were often unjust and defied reason.

I'll give you an example. Under the common law, all mortgages are repayable within 6 months of the loan. When people used to buy property, if any loan secured on it was not repaid within 6 months, the mortgagee took the whole of the property regardless of value compared to the outstanding amount. Therefore the courts of equity, developed the "equity of redemption" to mitigate this problem. Later statutes and regulation offered greater protections.

It is worth noting also that none of our laws are static, common law changes daily, as does equity. Statute law is the one with the most lengthy process for change as it has to go through parliament. It is interesting also that whilst common law and equity can be changed daily by unelected judiciary, statute is the only one decided by elected individuals. (However see my comments above on the democratic status of Parliament)

3.) Magna Carta was a contract between the King and the Aristocracy, the Bill of Rights is a statute, the Charter of Liberties was a restatement of the Magna Carta.

The reason that the Bill of Rights is a statute, when the other two are not is because the Bill of Rights came about in 1688 - i.e. after the point that Parliament had been set up. Statutes did not exist beforehand.

Another important difference is that the Bill of Rights conferred rights on everyone, whereas Magna Carta conferred rights on the nobility only.

[yozhik]

I'll give you an example. Under the common law, all mortgages are repayable within 6 months of the loan. When people used to buy property, if any loan secured on it was not repaid within 6 months, the mortgagee took the whole of the property regardless of value compared to the outstanding amount.

Sorry. This is inaccurate.

One of the premises of true Common law is that the property of a man could not be taken to settle a debt. The mere fact that you mention "mortgage" also shows that you have mixed Common law with Contract Law (commerce). This concept of property as security was one introdueced by the merchants and governed under merchant rules (law).

This is a false representation of true Common Law (law of the land)

[yozhik]

3.) Magna Carta was a contract between the King and the Aristocracy, the Bill of Rights is a statute, the Charter of Liberties was a restatement of the Magna Carta.

The reason that the Bill of Rights is a statute, when the other two are not is because the Bill of Rights came about in 1688 - i.e. after the point that Parliament had been set up. Statutes did not exist beforehand.

Another important difference is that the Bill of Rights conferred rights on everyone, whereas Magna Carta conferred rights on the nobility only.

con⋅fer
   /kənˈfɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-fur] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -ferred, -fer⋅ring.

–verb (used with object)
2. to bestow upon as a gift, favor, honor, etc.: to confer a degree on a graduate.

To propose that a man made statute "gifts" us our Rights, is ludicrous. :mad:

[1694]

If you want real laws you will need a physics text book not a legal dictionary.

[yozhik]

If you want real laws you will need a physics text book not a legal dictionary.

Sure. I'm more than happy to read it.

Could you please point me towards a reputable physics text book which includes basic Human Rights? :rolleyes:

[1694]

Sure. I'm more than happy to read it.

Could you please point me towards a reputable physics text book which includes basic Human Rights? :rolleyes:

Im afraid not, so we can conlcude that human rights are not laws....but they are given the force of law by those that agree to be governed by them. Of course those that don't agree aren't governed by them. Laws of physics on the other hand don't give a fuck if you agree to them, they will still rule you.

[yozhik]

Im afraid not, so we can conlcude that human rights are not laws....but they are given the force of law by those that agree to be governed by them. Of course those that don't agree aren't governed by them. Laws of physics on the other hand don't give a fuck if you agree to them, they will still rule you.

Careful 1694 ... your true colours are showing again.
:D

[1694]

Careful 1694 ... your true colours are showing again.
:D

Nothing to be careful about.

[stinker]

Sorry. This is inaccurate.

One of the premises of true Common law is that the property of a man could not be taken to settle a debt. The mere fact that you mention "mortgage" also shows that you have mixed Common law with Contract Law (commerce). This concept of property as security was one introdueced by the merchants and governed under merchant rules (law).

This is a false representation of true Common Law (law of the land)

I'm afraid it is not inaccurate. Originally, when land was mortgaged, title was conveyed to the mortgagee (unlike nowadays where the individual remains the owner). If the loan was not repaid, the property was already the mortgagees to do with what he liked. It was a very harsh system under the common law - which is why commoners rejected common law and petitioned the king to resolve disputes. This petitioning became the law of equity, which modified the common law.

Contract law is barely governed by statute at all at it's basic level. Contract law is mostly made up of common law. To intimate that they are not entirely interlinked is to misconstrue the basic tenets of common law.

The concept of property as security was not introduced by merchants, unless you are talking about chattel mortgages under the Bills of Sale Act, rather than mortgages of land.

I'm interested in this distinction between common law and "true common law." When Freemen talk of "true common law" it seems to intimate that you are talking about something different to common law.

[stinker]

To propose that a man made statute "gifts" us our Rights, is ludicrous. :mad:

Indeed - many people nowadays think the same of the Human Rights Act.

The Bill of Rights is oft quoted by people interested in freemen. However, some seem to be for, others, against. Is there a common position?

[yozhik]

I'm afraid it is not inaccurate. Originally, when land was mortgaged, title was conveyed to the mortgagee (unlike nowadays where the individual remains the owner). If the loan was not repaid, the property was already the mortgagees to do with what he liked. It was a very harsh system under the common law - which is why commoners rejected common law and petitioned the king to resolve disputes. This petitioning became the law of equity, which modified the common law.

Contract law is barely governed by statute at all at it's basic level. Contract law is mostly made up of common law. To intimate that they are not entirely interlinked is to misconstrue the basic tenets of common law.

The concept of property as security was not introduced by merchants, unless you are talking about chattel mortgages under the Bills of Sale Act, rather than mortgages of land.

I'm interested in this distinction between common law and "true common law." When Freemen talk of "true common law" it seems to intimate that you are talking about something different to common law.

Whilst this post and its disinformation appears impressive, it is not accurate.
A search through historical evidence will reveal this to you.

Original Common Law (Law-of-the land) was that a man's property could not be seized to satisfy a debt. If you do your research, this will not be difficult to verify.
Under Common Law, a debt was between the two men. If one lent money to another man, then it was the man's responsibility to ensure the money he was lending would be paid back.
If he lent to a man who did not repay it, then he was judged as being the fool, for lending money to another man who was not "good" for the debt.
Yes - there had been a Common Law crime, because there had been a loss.
However, nothing in the scope of Common Law entitled him to satisfy this debt, by taking property.
Common Law did not provide the remedy via property seizure.

This was changed when the merchants, who were predominantly Jews, gradually - by request of the sovereigns in this feudal system - applied their merchant laws to the money lending practices of the day, to allow property to be used as security in commercial/contract agreements. This then became a contract and governed by merchant law; it was no longer under the jurisdiction of Common Law. This reference to Jews in not anti-semitic; it is historical fact. The Torah had its own commercial system which meant that the merchant legal system of the Jews was far advanced of any other system available at the time; hence the "invitation" for the Jews to introduce their advanced system of regulating commerce.

This has nothing to do with the Bills of Sale Act ... another corporate created statute.

[stinker]

Whilst this post and its disinformation appears impressive, it is not accurate.
A search through historical evidence will reveal this to you.

Original Common Law (Law-of-the land) was that a man's property could not be seized to satisfy a debt. If you do your research, this will not be difficult to verify.
Under Common Law, a debt was between the two men. If one lent money to another man, then it was the man's responsibility to ensure the money he was lending would be paid back.
If he lent to a man who did not repay it, then he was judged as being the fool, for lending money to another man who was not "good" for the debt.
Yes - there had been a Common Law crime, because there had been a loss.
However, nothing in the scope of Common Law entitled him to satisfy this debt, by taking property.
Common Law did not provide the remedy via property seizure.

This was changed when the merchants, who were predominantly Jews, gradually - by request of the sovereigns in this feudal system - applied their merchant laws to the money lending practices of the day, to allow property to be used as security in commercial/contract agreements. This then became a contract and governed by merchant law; it was no longer under the jurisdiction of Common Law. This reference to Jews in not anti-semitic; it is historical fact. The Torah had its own commercial system which meant that the merchant legal system of the Jews was far advanced of any other system available at the time; hence the "invitation" for the Jews to introduce their advanced system of regulating commerce.

This has nothing to do with the Bills of Sale Act ... another corporate created statute.

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. Add to this the idea of debt bondage propagated under the common law, you get a very sticky situation indeed, with individuals having to give their very lives over in serfdom to repay a debt, as well as all their heirs. This was the very essence of serfdom.

If you read my post above it explains how mortgages originally worked. Now, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true. There was no need to seize mortgaged property, because it was already the property of the lender. Hence the need for the courts of equity to intervene, as people were losing their property where debt was not satisfied in very short order.

Now, what sources would you believe if I referenced them?

[yozhik]

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. Add to this the idea of debt bondage propagated under the common law, you get a very sticky situation indeed, with individuals having to give their very lives over in serfdom to repay a debt, as well as all their heirs. This was the very essence of serfdom.

If you read my post above it explains how mortgages originally worked. Now, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true. There was no need to seize mortgaged property, because it was already the property of the lender. Hence the need for the courts of equity to intervene, as people were losing their property where debt was not satisfied in very short order.

Now, what sources would you believe if I referenced them?

All of your references relate to statutes that existed AFTER the introduction of merchant law.

There were no mortgages in Common Law; that being the law of the land.
With respect, I actually don't believe that we contradict each other. I believe our point of disagreement is simply a matter of "what time/where in history" we are referring to.

In 17th-century England, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, and identified them as being "life, liberty, and estate (or property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell, defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law.

I refer to the Common Law which is built on the foundation of our unalienable rights; personal security, of personal liberty, and private property.

Property, which was not part of a Commercial Law contract, could not be seized. The origins of Common Law, was natural law. The unalienable rights. For a crime to be a crime, it required; a victim, harm, injury. Absolutely, the "punishments" under Common Law were extremely harsh - not debate there! However, as stated, if a man lent another man money, then it was HIS RESPONSIBILITY to ensure he lent it to someone that he could trust to pay it back. A man's word was his bond (security). Not his property.

Mortgages were introduced at a later date by the money lenders. It was a part of commerce and practised/governed by the merchants. Now, there may be some debate as to whether merchant law or commercial law became part of common law ... or at what point equity law overtook common law as the predominant law. That is a different debate.

However, original common law, which was built on the foundation of man's unalienable rights, as gifted by the Creator, did not include "mortgage" or any other commercial transaction.

[dreamweaver]

Sure. I'm more than happy to read it.

Could you please point me towards a reputable physics text book which includes basic Human Rights? :rolleyes:

I think that is his point, there are no "rights" occurring in nature.

Magna Carta arose from the barons rebelling against a king who could rule as he pleased under the "divine right of kings". The barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta to proclaim certain rights (mainly for the barons), respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

Common law is made and interpreted by judges - and this is where I have a problem understanding the Freeman on the Land position. While you have a point in that you say statute law relies on a legal fiction (the "person"), I can't see what's stopping a judge simply ruling that henceforth statute laws apply to freemen on the land, case closed. Then what?

[yozhik]

I think that is his point, there are no "rights" occurring in nature.

Magna Carta arose from the barons rebelling against a king who could rule as he pleased under the "divine right of kings". The barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta to proclaim certain rights (mainly for the barons), respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

Common law is made and interpreted by judges - and this is where I have a problem understanding the Freeman on the Land position. While you have a point in that you say statute law relies on a legal fiction (the "person"), I can't see what's stopping a judge simply ruling that henceforth statute laws apply to freemen on the land, case closed. Then what?

Anything can be done when the end of the barrel is pointing at someone's head.

The basis of any law built on a foundation of common sense, is consent.
If you do not have my consent, then any ruling you make which impacts on me is non-consensual and therefore is an act of aggression by you.

Again, the disinformation appearing all over this forum is that a Freeman on the land has a desire to be reckless and unlawful. This is as far from the truth as can be.

A Freeman on the land is committed to being lawful and being responsible for his/her own actions. I do not need a nanny state to tell me I require a piece of plastic to drive. Common sense and personal responsibility, as an adult, dictates that I want the skills necessary to travel in an automobile, I would of course want to travel at a speed appropriate to my level of skill and the prevailing conditions. I do not require governing by corporate made statutes to make these responsible decisions.

Most of the statutes and acts, masquerading as laws, defy logic or do not come close to passing the "common sense" litmus test. What happened in recent times to warrant Labour, under Tony Blair, creating over 3000 new statutes? Did man suddenly become so irresponsible? Or was it a grand revenue generation scheme?

I think we know the answer to that one!!

So, sure ...

what's stopping a judge simply ruling that henceforth statute laws apply to freemen on the land, case closed. Then what?

... this could happen. However, it would not make it right. It does not make it a law. It would be the application of a non-consensual corporate statute, applied with force and under duress, upon a responsible adult.

Is this the world you want to live in? Is this the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren?

[rob menard]

I think that is his point, there are no "rights" occurring in nature.

Magna Carta arose from the barons rebelling against a king who could rule as he pleased under the "divine right of kings". The barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta to proclaim certain rights (mainly for the barons), respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

Common law is made and interpreted by judges - and this is where I have a problem understanding the Freeman on the Land position. While you have a point in that you say statute law relies on a legal fiction (the "person"), I can't see what's stopping a judge simply ruling that henceforth statute laws apply to freemen on the land, case closed. Then what?

What is stopping any judge from making such a ruling is a thing called 'equality'. Who is this so called hypothetical 'judge' to make a ruling and thus govern you without your consent? If we are equal and he says "This is so" then what is to stop me from claiming the opposite? You cannot give their 'ruling' more force then mine without abandoning equality. They are just people and were not born into the role of judge. Their position and role as 'judge' requires your consent.

Rob

[yozhik]

Whilst this post and its disinformation appears impressive, it is not accurate.
A search through historical evidence will reveal this to you.

Original Common Law (Law-of-the land) was that a man's property could not be seized to satisfy a debt. If you do your research, this will not be difficult to verify.
Under Common Law, a debt was between the two men. If one lent money to another man, then it was the man's responsibility to ensure the money he was lending would be paid back.
If he lent to a man who did not repay it, then he was judged as being the fool, for lending money to another man who was not "good" for the debt.
Yes - there had been a Common Law crime, because there had been a loss.
However, nothing in the scope of Common Law entitled him to satisfy this debt, by taking property.
Common Law did not provide the remedy via property seizure.

This was changed when the merchants, who were predominantly Jews, gradually - by request of the sovereigns in this feudal system - applied their merchant laws to the money lending practices of the day, to allow property to be used as security in commercial/contract agreements. This then became a contract and governed by merchant law; it was no longer under the jurisdiction of Common Law. This reference to Jews in not anti-semitic; it is historical fact. The Torah had its own commercial system which meant that the merchant legal system of the Jews was far advanced of any other system available at the time; hence the "invitation" for the Jews to introduce their advanced system of regulating commerce.

This has nothing to do with the Bills of Sale Act ... another corporate created statute.
I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. Add to this the idea of debt bondage propagated under the common law, you get a very sticky situation indeed, with individuals having to give their very lives over in serfdom to repay a debt, as well as all their heirs. This was the very essence of serfdom.

If you read my post above it explains how mortgages originally worked. Now, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it any less true. There was no need to seize mortgaged property, because it was already the property of the lender. Hence the need for the courts of equity to intervene, as people were losing their property where debt was not satisfied in very short order.

Now, what sources would you believe if I referenced them?

After the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066, who first brought the
Jewish bankers to London from France, the Jews developed written credit
agreements for the king, (in French called "mort-gages" ­ mort 'death'
gage 'bond') and it was the marshal's and sheriff's jobs to ensure that
all the interest payments of these "death-bonds" were paid to the Jews on
behalf of the king.

During the reign of Richard I (the Lionheart) after the serious downturn in
the economy as the result of the cost and tax impositions of the Crusades,
many farmers, business people and peasants had defaulted on their
"mort-gages" throughout England.