Where does common law come from?

[legaleagle]

Can someone (preferably someone who only agrees with common law) explain to me where they think it comes from? This is because it is referred to by so many people as a bastion of good and the exact opposite of those naughty statutes. Now when I talk about common law I talk about what I learned in (my government run indoctrinating gulag) law school. This is Law created by the courts through interpreting legislation as well as the laws created before the civil war by kings and lords and put into a common system by again the judges appointed by the monarch.

[Deacus]

Morning legaleagle
I would say the following are what I would consider "common law" laws that protect as apose to inflict fines on people when there is no injured party like a speeding ticket, I would be interested in your opinion if you think statutes of this type are fair & how they are enforced when they contravene some of the text in the following documents & the U.N declaration of human rights

Bill of Rights 1689
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
Magna Carta 1297
Treason Act 1351
Charter of Liberties 1100
Magna Carta 1215
Declaration of Rights 1688/9

[legaleagle]

Deacus thank you for the clarity. I was just asking as there are people who use a blanket statement that legislation is evil and unlawful, when in fact what (i think from what you say) they mean to say is there is legislation that they don't agree with. On that point I whole heartedly agree! There is an awful lot of legislation that I disagree with and feel the issue (in some peoples eyes) is being dealt with in the wrong way.

As to my opinion on if it is fair or not It depends on the legislation you are talking about (a lawyers answer I know.)
You use the example of speeding,this type of offence is created in an attempt to prevent the harm coming to pass. Now I am very lucky that I live out in the country and have a reasonable size garden between me and the road, so people speeding passed my house is not a problem to me. I have however come across people who tell me that speeding passed schools is a huge concern to them and they wish the police would sit outside schools to catch people more often. The problem (in my opinion) with the laws on speeding(and many others for that matter) is not that it is there, it is that it does not see a difference between someone going 40mph in a 20mph zone right outside a school and someone who goes 90mph on a deserted dual carriageway at 2 in the morning.

If you are are referring as many people have to the practice of offering the chance to avoid court and pay a fine, this is because by accepting the fine the person is in effect pleading guilty to the offence. The problem with this (again in my opinion) is that as has been said in another thread many people accept the fine based on their fear of the court system rather then because they are pleading guilty. In my opinion this is something that does need changing and I think that one way this can be helped is by people who have experience of court (and hopefully people like me who work in them) dispelling some of the myths and fear around courts.

Hopefully this answers your question

[Deacus]

Deacus thank you for the clarity. I was just asking as there are people who use a blanket statement that legislation is evil and unlawful, when in fact what (i think from what you say) they mean to say is there is legislation that they don't agree with. On that point I whole heartedly agree! There is an awful lot of legislation that I disagree with and feel the issue (in some peoples eyes) is being dealt with in the wrong way.

As to my opinion on if it is fair or not It depends on the legislation you are talking about (a lawyers answer I know.)
You use the example of speeding,this type of offence is created in an attempt to prevent the harm coming to pass. But that's pre-crime guilty before an offence is just wrong if not criminal? Now I am very lucky that I live out in the country and have a reasonable size garden between me and the road, so people speeding passed my house is not a problem to me. I have however come across people who tell me that speeding passed schools is a huge concern to them and they wish the police would sit outside schools to catch people more often. The problem (in my opinion) with the laws on speeding(and many others for that matter) is not that it is there, it is that it does not see a difference between someone going 40mph in a 20mph zone right outside a school and someone who goes 90mph on a deserted dual carriageway at 2 in the morning.

Agreed & that is understandable but I feel the frustration of many on here is the whole "Nanny state" there are morons in all warps of life including drivers as the example but most people are not, yet we are all treated as moronic children by an over controlling Government & what seems to be rapidly heading towards a Police state

If you are are referring as many people have to the practice of offering the chance to avoid court and pay a fine, this is because by accepting the fine the person is in effect pleading guilty to the offence. The problem with this (again in my opinion) is that as has been said in another thread many people accept the fine based on their fear of the court system rather then because they are pleading guilty. In my opinion this is something that does need changing and I think that one way this can be helped is by people who have experience of court (and hopefully people like me who work in them) dispelling some of the myths and fear around courts.

This is the problem we have agreed we are guilty before we even enter a Court, by force, if the contract is not signed we are arrested the courts & Judges must know this goes on & that must be indicative of corruption isn't it?
The following from the Bill of rights,
http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;"

So all on the spot fines are not only void but illegal, from memory of Blacks a penalty (charge/notice) is a fine how can this be, how can this have been misinterpreted?
Hopefully this answers your question
Thanks for your reply but unfortunately has raised more

[umbongo82]

Can someone (preferably someone who only agrees with common law) explain to me where they think it comes from? This is because it is referred to by so many people as a bastion of good and the exact opposite of those naughty statutes. Now when I talk about common law I talk about what I learned in (my government run indoctrinating gulag) law school. This is Law created by the courts through interpreting legislation as well as the laws created before the civil war by kings and lords and put into a common system by again the judges appointed by the monarch.

Common law as I see it is the interpretation by judges etc. of legislation and the setting of a precedent or clarification of that law. Which is basically what you just said.

@ Deacus

Oh and yet again I feel that I have to point out, Black's is AMERICAN!! Why can't you get that into your head? You people seem to be fixated on that book yet mostly it contradicts you, is totally irrelevant or proves you wrong. Tap 'Black's law dictionary uk' into google and you'll get is Amazon and sea of utter bullshit conspiracy theory websites, Icke's being top result. It's ridiculous.

[frogmanbrabs]

I agree Deacus there are morons in all walks of life but as you say why should we all be tarred with the same brush by an overpowering government that was after all put into office by the very people they are trying to oppress with overwhelming amounts of legislation. What harm am I doing to anyone else when I drive my car while not wearing a seat belt? What difference will it make to my driving skills if I fail to renew my licence? Common Law is also Common sense law and that is what's lacking in todays people, Common sense. I know that it's wrong to harm someone else and I know that it's wrong to steal or try to con people, surely as long as I don't do any of these things I'm not breaking the common law. The law of the land. The magna carta does state that ALL sheriffs ,constables and bailiffs shall know the law. Do you believe that to be true today?

[Deacus]

Absolutely frogmanbrabs who is the injured party because you are not wearing a seat belt? No doubt the likes of umbongo will create some scenario where you could break too hard whilst trying to avoid a flying fish catapult through the window & land on a Queens corgi but back to reality the Nanny state tells us we will be fined for our own sake until we learn what is good for us (seat belt), its not just revenue generation & pavlovian training is it or like in my prior post fined in case we go too fast & hurt some one (pr-crime) if I kill a kid doing 20mph in a 40 do I get a reward for abiding within these ridiculous rules no I still get thrown to the wall, when all that was needed is the common sense that caution is required there may be kids in this area, morons still kill so the Nanny state is not working, if it was their fault hold that moron accountable in a real court & get off my back Nanny government

@ umbongo82
Thank you for pointing out the most irrelevant point of my post you have put me in my place & I am humbled by your high & mighty word craft, a simple search would define penalty both here & in the U.S and no I do not intend to entertain you in derailing this thread by splitting hairs as to if a fine or forfeiture denotes as a punishment but thanks all the same
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=o ... .osb&cad=b

[wannabefree]

You should check out a book by a fella called Val k Speers called the Pied Pipers of Babylon.

http://commonlawjurisdiction.wordpress. ... ommon-law/

Namaste.

[legaleagle]

Thank you wannabefree I will check it out when I get a sec. My question was more of a personal one for the other people on this site as some of them seem to hold the words "common law" as something that is different from modern law. The definition I work to defines common law as including judge made law which is still being made now, so I was just wondering what other people thought.

[wannabefree]

Common Law is the law of conscience,it is the law of nature,it cannot be written but it can be written about,so to me and this only in my opinion any law that is written down and claimed to be common law is not law.

Namaste.