Common Law fully explained

Chapter Version 1.1 [03APR2013]

Let's go to a Law Dictionary, and look up a definition for The Common Law. It really doesn't matter which one, because they all say pretty much the same thing, such as:

"That part of the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old common law courts based originally on the common customs of the country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to statute law (the law laid down by Acts of Parliament); to special law (the law administered by special courts such as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and the civil law (the law of Rome). It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers'. It is not local law, nor the result of legislation".
So, read that again ... and again ... until it sinks in. The important bits are

(a) What The Common Law is NOT, and
(b) That is it UNWRITTEN (because it's in our Common Sense), and that
(c) It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers', and we are as capable of continuing that tradition as were our forefathers. Because they had Common Sense, and we have Common Sense. Assuming, of course, that we stick to the same ideas as they did!

. Now let's look at what someone else says. From Kenn d'Oudney at Democracy Defined:

People who want to restore the genuine ways of true justice must first learn the straightforward FACTs about what Common Law is, and then they will be able to recognise for themselves the modern mendacious ruse that deliberately mis-educates people into the despicable deceit that "the rulings of judges are 'Common Law'." Not so, indeed!

Jurors must be randomly selected from the adult population local to the alleged crime; and then vetted (by plaintiff, defendant and decided by fellow jurors) to exclude partial individuals. "Volunteer jurors" are generally not disinterested, and are utterly excluded by Common Law. Such "volunteers" are comparable to a lynch-mob. (See full explanations in TRIAL BY JURY ISBN 9781902848723)


The genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern government has corrupted by legislation; a counterfeit which is "common law" in name only.

Common Law does not include any statutes made by government or decisions made by judges.

Common Law is emphatically neither "government-made" nor "judge-made." Quite the contrary: it is exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people. Modern usurpation notwithstanding, Common Law does not consist of case precedents (stare decisis), for juries decide the law, which includes the sentence, in each individual case. Nor is it comprised of judicial rulings, decisions or interpretations of statutes.

Common Law does not ever or in any way come from government judges. Indeed, Common Law is the antithesis (the ‘opposite’) of judge-made law [Veronica's Note: I would say: 'judge-made decisions'. Having declared it as the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'judge-made law'], and it is supposed to free all the people equally from the shackles of arbitrary government and their bidden employees.

Common Law is the law of all the people: it forms the Supreme Law which binds government and legally controls the personnel of government’s modus operandi. In recognition of this latter fact, the Common Law Trial by Jury is inserted into the Constitution as the sole justice system for all crimes (infractions of laws and regulations), civil, criminal and fiscal.


Here are some references confirming the common law is legem terræ and vice versa.

Sir Matthew Hale: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terræ, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terræ; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III, chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliæ, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari,' etc. (We will that the laws of England be not changed.) Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, chap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III, chap. 5 (4) and infinite more records and statutes." (Hale’s History of the Common Law, p. 128)

[Veronica’s Note: Sir Matthew Hale didn’t know what the Common Law ACTUALLY WAS … he only knew what it had been called within Statutes! Quoting from Statutes, as Hale did, is total DOUBLE-THINK. It was after reading Hale’s shit, that John Harris originally threw up his arms in despair (I seem to recall)! Actually, there’s a certain amount of DOUBLE-THINK going on in all of these quotes ... including those below … they are generally making no distinction between the Magna Carta TREATY 1215, and the subsequent Magna Carta STATUTE 1297. The 1215 TREATY explicitly makes the 1297 STATUTE completely irrelevant]

Crabbe: "It is admitted, on all hands, that it (Magna Carta) contains nothing but what was confirmatory of the common law, and the ancient usages of the realm, and is, properly speaking, only an enlargement of the charter of Henry I, and his successors." (Crabbe’s History of the English Law, p. 127)

Blackstone: "It is agreed by all our historians that the Great Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they mean the old common law, which was established under our Saxon princes." (Blackstone’s Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstone’s Law Tracts, p. 289)

Coke (a High Court judge): "The common law is the most general and ancient law of the realm. The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta, and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in the original writs, in judicial records, and in our books of terms and years." (Coke’s Institutes, p. 115)

Coke: "It (Magna Carta) was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England. They (Magna Carta and Carta de Foresta) were, for the most part, but declarations of the ancient common laws of England, to the observation and keeping whereof the king (the government) was bound and sworn." (Preface to Coke’s Institutes, p. 3)

Nota Bene: To judge the law, i.e., its fairness, validity, applicability, and legal meaning (interpretation), the Jurors are the sole legal judges prescribed by constitution and Common Law.

For example, see the following from Gilbert: "This position" (that the matter of law was decided by the justices [judges], but the matter of fact by the pares [peers, i.e., jurors]) "is wholly incompatible with the common law, for the Jurata [jury] were the sole judges both of the law and the fact." (Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, note, p. 70)

And "The Annotist says, that this [i.e., whether jurors reflect upon the question of law] is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well as the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law." (Gilbert’s History of the Common Pleas, p. 57)

Having established what Common Law is, one must note the extent to which the term "Common Law" has been abused. It is an opprobrium to misinform people that "Common Law" is a product of judges, stare decisis, and government courts.

Worse though: it is utterly wrong to allow government to rob the people of their true Common Law and its power of emancipation.

It is unconstitutional to amend in effect The Constitution’s installation of the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System by co-opting the Common Law by legislation into a body of law legislated [Veronica's Note: I would say 'the body of Legislation' Having declared it as the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'body of law legislated'] by Congress or Parliament, or made by judges. For this has been the illegal means of burying Common Law and the authentic Trial by Jury, to enable government to obliterate the People’s ability (peacefully) to protect their liberties for themselves. It moreover supplants the model justice system of Trial by Jury with the flawed, one-sided, inherently illegal despotic system of trial-by-judge.

Whereas statutes may express some of the Common Law, this latter itself contains no statutes of governments, nor rulings of judges. Legem terræ Common Law became the pan-European, and subsequently pan-Occidental phenomenon which prescribes and defines Trial by Jury as its central tenet and sole justice system.

See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance, by d’Oudney & Spooner, ISBN 9781902848723.

And the constitutional, historical and law texts of Blackstone, Crabbe, Palgrave, Kelham, Mackintosh, Millar, Coke, Gilbert, Hume, Turner, Hallam, Stewart, Hale, et al.


The authentic Common Law recognises and provides for the fact that the people have a perpetual obligation to enforce Common Law and protect themselves from lawlessness and injustices inflicted by criminals who acquire positions of power or government.

Hence, Common Law (expressed as Articles 24, 39, 40 and 61 of Magna Carta [Veronica’s Note: That’s the 1215 Treaty], etc.), installs the People as the legal force to police, indict, punish and otherwise obtain redress. [Veronica’s Note: That’s exactly what it did, and it is gobsmacking that so few people actually "get it". The Magna Carta 1215 blocked, once and for all, the tyranny of any idea of "Divine Right to Rule", by any single individual (Monarch or Judge, etc) and said that - from then onwards - The People ruled themselves via Grand Juries and Petty Juries]

It has been the perjurious ploy of dishonest statist politicians, lawyers and judiciaries to try to miseducate the Western people en masse into the wrong idea that ‘law’ derived from judicial precedents is ‘Common Law’; and that their so-called ‘Common Law’ is ‘made’ by government judges.

As explained, Common Law does not come from judges. To say it does, is a lie which the enemies of equal justice, rights and liberty repeat and want the people to believe, in order to give politicians arbitrary power to rule over the population; and to deprive the people of genuine Common Law Rights and Protections.

Only feloniously-inclined (or in some cases ignorant) people ‘deny’ that legem terræ is the genuine constitutional  Common Law which reigns supreme over written laws, governments, all men and women, including those who legislate.

Such a denial by state personnel is itself a criminal contravention of the Common Law and the Constitutional Supreme Law, and must always be suspected of being a premeditated judicable act of mens rea [Veronica's Note  'Intent'].

Definition: judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law.

Because the legislature can pass legislation which reverses or overrules those (non-Common Law) judge-made precedents and decisions which the governments perjuriously misname "Common Law", in a further act of criminal mendacity, by employing their premeditated abuse of the term ‘Common Law’ the statists come up with the warped speciosity that as government statutes can overrule their judges' counterfeit ‘Common Law’, that therefore, ‘Parliament/Congress is sovereign!’ [Veronica's Note:  It's The People who are sovereign, not Parliament or Congress]

This criminal ruse and intended mind-manipulation (‘brain-washing’) serves the purpose of those malicious villains in government who want to make people feel helpless and completely inundated by the tide of government regulation, insidious misinformation and arbitrary control. It is only effective amongst those people who, for career, pay and self-interested motives, judicably collude and participate in the Illegality of the Status Quo, and with those who are duped into ignorance of what Common Law actually is.

Government does not ‘grant’ or ‘bestow’ the right and power to do justice: upholding justice is the inherent duty of every citizen.

Government does not even have a right ‘to do justice’ for that is exclusively the Trial by Jury power, right, duty and procedure of the randomly selected Jurors.

The rôle of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) in the justice system is executive, not judicial: that is, government carries out the judgements, sentences and decisions of the Jury. [Veronica’s Note: The role of the Government is also to PROTECT the true Common Law, the ensure that it stays pure to the fundamental principles. The fact that Politicians have done THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this … for centuries … is why we are in SO MUCH SHIT]

Only that government is legitimate which upholds the authentic Common Law and its Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System.
Well, that's what Kenn d'Oudney says, and I fully agree.

Now. We get all this: "Judges said this ... Judges do that ... Oh ... they're bringing out thousands of new laws a year ... Oh ... Oh ...Oh ...Supreme Court ... County Court ... Oh ... Oh ...!!!!!???" … rubbish.

But it's all very simple.
If Politicians can "make Law", then why do we employ Juries?

If Judges can "make Law", then why do we employ Juries?
All you have to do is to answer those two questions.

Now. I'll tell you what answers you'll get

You'll get: "Judges make Law for CIVIL matters, and Juries make Law for CRIMINAL matters".

What you WON'T get is any answer to the first question, above (that question gets ignored)

So, you can ask: "You didn't mention Politicians, you didn't answer the first question"

You'll get: "Politicians/Parliament/Congress make Law for BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL matters"

So, you can say: "Thanks ... now go back to the first question: Why, then, do we employ Juries?"


So you can add: "Oh, and btw, libel, slander and defamation are CIVIL matters ... but we employ Juries for them ... so have another go at all your answers ..."

The reason for this is very, very, simple. Irrespective of what brainwashed ROBOTs say (and how many BILLIONS of them say it ...) ... the facts remain:


(Thus, if Politicians cannot make Law, and what they make are Statutes ... then STATUTES CANNOT BE LAW)

All it takes is Single-Think ... as opposed to the Double-Think we've all be schooled in, since birth.

And that fits perfectly with everything Kenn d'Oudney wrote, and all the references he quoted to all the historic Thinkers & Luminaries including Sir William Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke, Lysander Spooner ... etc. etc.

(Oh ... one final point. Referring to the Magna Carta 1215 can - a times - be thrown back at you as: "That's a very old thing" ... the implication being that "It's old, and thus not relevant to today". The re-joiner is: "It's age is it's STRENGTH ... the fact that it has stood, unchanged, for 700+ years is a measure of it's importance, eternal relevance, applicability, and strength")

But that all begs two questions:
1. What are Politicians & Parliament/Congress for, then?

2. What are Judges for, then?
Politicians & Parliament/Congress

What are they for? You tell me. They've had since 1295 to 'get it right', and what have they ever achieved? Don't forget, the whole idea of a Parliament was conceived and implemented UNDER The Common Law ... and was (and always has been) SUBSERVIENT to The Common Law. So ... at the end of the day ... what COULD they ever achieve ... that wasn't already achieved in 1215?

What do they do? Aaaah that's another matter! What they've done - since 1295 - is to relentlessly brainwash The Common Law away ... as much as possible. Originally this was very slow, and very much 'back burner' ... but in the 19th & 20th centuries it started to go 'exponential'. Culminating in 'today'.

They have instituted THEMSELVES ... along with Lawyers and Solicitors ... and entities such as the IPCC, CPS, ACPO, etc into our psyche as "the way it is, an always was" ... but  (a) That's not how it "always was", and (b) "The way it is", is totally unacceptable.

It was an 'experiment in Human Relations' ... and (after 700+ years of it), I think we can safely say "The Great Experiment has completely failed"?

Time to dump this miserably-failed experiment into the dustbin of history? (Along with all its 'trappings'?)



(B) TO ENSURE THAT OUR COMMON LAW RIGHTS ARE ALWAYS PRESERVED (and never trampled on … by an EU, for example?)

That's it. They have no other job ... unless we want a 'monetary system' within our nation (to ensure smooth-running) ... in which case there's the third job:

(C) TO ISSUE DEBT- AND INTEREST-FREE MONETARY UNITS EQUALLY AND FAIRLY ... such that no-one is 'unhappy' about anything. (Taxation? No much point in issuing it, just to take it back, is there? Taxation becomes non-existent, in all forms)


Are there two do TWO (possible) jobs:

1. CRIMINAL: To run a Common Law Court, making sure that all the 'i's are dotted, and 't's crossed, in relation to evidence placed in front of the Jury. They are there to ensure that only FIRST-HAND evidence is placed before the Jury, such that it can come to a Verdict based on the maximum amount of Truth available.


That's it.

What happens is that (a) They now no longer bother to ask you if you agree to an Arbitrator, and (b) Consider that "resolving a dispute between two Parties" is the same thing as "making Law". Which it isn't! If I see two friends arguing about something, and they ask my opinion, and I give it ... and they accept my opinion, as a resolution ... do I consider I've "made Law"? No ... of course not!

It is VERY HARD to see much need for Civil Dispute Arbitration ... when The Government is issuing debt- and interest-free Treasury Notes equally and fairly, and without Taxation ... as in (C), above.

On this subject, and at the time of the "haircuts" proposed in Cyprus, I sent the following e-mail to the Cyprus Mail - to my way of thinking it expresses the situation in the most comprehensive terms possible:
Dear Sirs,

The situation in your country is all over the International News. What you are experiencing is simply a microcosm of what the entire planet is experiencing.

My friends and I have been working (and thinking about) this problem for quite a while. Particularly in view of what the Icelanders discovered.

It is our suggestion that, if you want to help to solve your country's problems, you should ask your Readership to consider the following fundamental questions:
"Why are the Banks in the loop?"
"Are their elected Servants, the Government of Cyprus, their Government, or not?"
"If they are, then why do they need to rely on Banks?"
"Are they men and woman as elected Servants, or are they mice?"
The reason for asking these questions, and why they are so fundamental, is because of the very simple logic and rationale:
"If a Government claims itself to be the supreme organiser of a country, then it cannot (by definition) be beholden to any other entity"
If, however, a Government is beholden to Banking Institutions, then the Government cannot claim to be supreme, simply because the Banking Institutions must be supreme.
And, if the Government's claim to supremacy is false, then why should anyone vote for it, or even take any notice of it?
Why should people not say
"Oh, I need the Right to vote for the Directors of the Banking Institutions, because they are the ones who are - ultimately - directing my life"?
The plain fact is that a Government SHOULD BE supreme. And that means it should create the country's Money Supply.
And not, in any way, shape, form, be beholden to Banking Institutions. A Government must be beholden solely to its Electorate. Period.
Both Abraham Lincoln and British Chancellor Lloyd George discovered that was the truth.

Of course, IT WORKED SO WELL, that Lincoln was shot, and Lloyd George was told (in no uncertain terms) to swiftly revert to "Banks in the loop".

However, if the entire planet was behind the idea, then those who implemented it would be considered 'saviours'.

The link to the UK version of our efforts is here ... and we fully intend to pursue this matter through our Courts, via Private Criminal Prosecutions, if the scheme is not even openly discussed, leading to its realisation and implementation.

I respectfully suggest that you seriously consider what I've written here, and consider enlightening your Readership accordingly.

Yours sincerely, etc

Previous Chapter : Next Chapter

(This page produced in its entirety on Veronica's Local Web Organiser © Veronica: of the Chapman family, 2006-2013)