Common Law

[Nikki]

There doesn't appear to be a sub-forum specifically appropriate to this topic, so it goes here.

Why do all the paytridiots and sovereignoramuses constantly scream 'COMMON LAW' ?

Based upon their shrill caterwaulings, it appears that they believe -- to a man and a woman -- that there is something magical about 'common law' and 'common law courts' which will cure all their legal problems, erase all their tax liens and probably clear up their acne and STDs.

Ignoring the fact that they are totally uninformed as to what 'common law' actually is (as opposed to statutory law and also brushing aside the fact that common law was established by courts -- which they all hate), where did this insanity originate?

On painfully rereading multiple posts on multiple forums relating to multiple pleas for a return to 'common law', it seems that THEY are looking to (1) a return to the law as prescribed in some version of the King James Bible (2) something which was in effect under the Crown prior to the revolution (3) implementations of various versions of Blacks, or (4) something based on the Declaration and the Constitution up to (but not including) the 14th Amendment.

Can anyone enlighten us as to what the hell THEY are talking about and looking for?

[notorial dissent]

The plain fact of the matter is that to a one, they haven't got clue one as to what "common law" is or means, and they for some reason think it is the magical answer to all their problems, when in fact true "common law" has nothing to do with what is peeving them at the moment, since most of what is peeving them didn't exist and was never contemplated by "common law", and cannot be resolved at common law, basically since there is none.

As to your question, not likely since they don't know what they are looking for either, but they just know it has to be superior to what they are dealing, or more to the point, not dealing with currently.

[fortinbras]

I share your distress. These people hardly know the meaning, much less the details, of common law. They simply think that somehow common law lets them make up their own rules as they go along.

[Cathulhu]

I think 'common law" is a code for "I'm always right!"

[Nikki]

Background -- to be corrected by anyone who actually knows what s/he is talking about:

Common law is that body of 'law' which was enacted from the bench. That is, it is (was) a body of law which was never addressed by statute but, instead, came into being via courts' deciding cases / issuing opinions / making decisions to cover situations where statutory law had not yet been enacted to address the situation at hand.

Common law, as we know it, originated in Great Britain during the times when the legislators lagged far behind the times. Thus, the courts had to fill in the gaps where statutes were absent.

Jump forward a few centuries. Also, jump south-west a few hundred miles. We are now in Louisiana. Not so strangely, common law there is significantly different from the rest of the country since Louisiana is based on the Napoleanic codes.

So, the next step in this thread is for someone with actual knowledge of common law to correct all my errors and then for others to explain why COMMON LAW is the catchphrase of all the lunatics.

[notorial dissent]

Nikki, in modern, real world parlance, “common law” is exactly what you say it is, the body of ‘law’ that has been enacted from the bench based upon decisions and interpretations that have come about because of the way our laws are written.

Common Law in the truest sense of the word was what amounted to the customs of a given area and was passed down through word of mouth by the elders or law deciders of the area, and it was pretty much what you had in an illiterate society. It was what people remembered, what people believed, and what was custom in a given area. The problem was that that “common law” wasn’t consistent from one place to another, what as acceptable and lawful in one part of the country might not have been in another, and that was where the disputes came up, and when your laws are based on only what is custom in one area and not another you get lots of conflict, and when it finally made it into court there was no way to decide since there were two conflicting sets of “common law” in dispute. This would probably have continued on longer than it did, except that these conflicts got in the way of what the King wanted done, and the simple solution was that the King would then write a law that supplanted whatever the “common law” at the time was with a uniform legislated law that applied equally to all parts of the realm. We can probably blame Henry I and Henry for most of it since they were the ones in England who pretty well did away with “common law” and went to statute law, although an awful lot of “common law” survived well in to modern times, but it was constantly being eroded as it came into conflict with modern problems that it couldn’t relate to and require law be written to deal with issues.

The “common law” the sovereignignoramouses want to go on about is something they have dreamt up out of whole cloth and has nothing to do with either version.

[Nikki]

But how did THEY get this fixation on common law cures everything?

The concept didn't emerge fully formed from the brow of Zeus. Someone, somewhere was / is presahing it to the extent that it has become a mantra.

We know what it is (correction ... was) and isn't. But why do those two words still ring the mental bells of all the anarchists, sovereigns, 'patriots', tax deniers, and so on?

How did they become so fixated on such an outdated concept?

[notorial dissent]

When I can find one of them that can articulate it I will be happy to pass it along, I've been trying to unravel this mystery myself for a very long time. The closest I have had any of them come is that it is "natural law" - whatever that is, and that is as close as I have seen any of them come. They really don't have an answer, but "common law" has got to better than statute law just because it has to, is the logic or excuse I keep getting.

[The Operative]

They really don't have an answer, but "common law" has got to better than statute law just because it has to, is the logic or excuse I keep getting.

Which is funny since many of the "common law" proponents insist that the courts are corrupt. This only proves that "common law" morons do not understand what common law really is.

[Famspear]

Case law. The aggregate of reported cases as forming a body of jurisprudence, or the law of a particular subject as evidenced or formed by the adjudged cases, in distinction to statutes and other sources of law. See Common law.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 196 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

[ . . . ] the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action [ . . . ] which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts [ . . . ] and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 250-251 (5th ed. 1979) (bolding added).

'Common law' consists of those principles [ . . . ] which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.

--Black's Law Dictionary, p. 251 (5th ed. 1979).

A fundamental principle of English common law is the concept of judicial precedent embodied in the doctrine of stare decisis. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996) (bolding added).

And, as an example, the law of Texas:

Sec. 5.001. RULE OF DECISION. The rule of decision in this state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are not inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution of this state, and the laws of this state.

--Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, sec. 5.001 (bolding added).

Curiously, while some tax wackadoosters like "SkankBeat" at losthorizons extol the virtues of what they think they know about "common law", other tax wackadoosters like Bob Hurt have railed against the common law system, precisely because common law is judge-made law and because the precedents handed down by judges are not to their liking.

[Nikki]

Lovely. We've established what 'common law' is and isn't. Thank you all.

It's obvious that the Sovereignoramuses don't have a clue what it really means despite their incessant screaming to invoke "it" at every chance; that it will be the cure for all that ails them; and that either the existing courts must be forced to adhere to "it' or that "common law" courts be reestablished.

Now, does anyone have any idea how THEY became so fixated upon it?

Was there any one self-proclaimed guru who initiated this (for a small fee, of course) or did it just gradually evolve with the proliferation of whackadoodle Internet sites; copying and misquoting from one to the next?

[Brandybuck]

Why do all the paytridiots and sovereignoramuses constantly scream 'COMMON LAW' ?

It is because they are fauxtarians: libertarians poseurs.

Just like tax deniers, the paytridiots will take on some libertarian trappings without understanding the moral or philosophical underpinnings. Libertarians like common law for a lot of reasons. They see it as better then statutory law, but don't impart to it any mystical properties of freedom. But the paytridiots are different. They never bother learning what common law really is, and coupled with a dose of paranoia and the inability to see reality, you end up with yet another group of people who believe in magic legal words.

[Brandybuck]

But why do those two words still ring the mental bells of all the anarchists, sovereigns, 'patriots', tax deniers, and so on?

Anarchists? I know a few, and none of them like common law for the simple fact that it is still government law.

[notorial dissent]

It all comes back down to the magic words syndrome. "Common law" is a magic word/phrase, therefore it has some deep mystical significance/power not given to regular law. And the fact that they don't know what it means just gives it all the more power.

That is really about as close as I can come to an explanation.

[silversopp]

From what I gathered...

Common Law is also known as God' Law. Parts of its mystery is explained in the Bible, so it's also known as Biblical Law. However, it is NOT the entire books of Exodus/Leviticus which details ancient Jewish Law. Only certain parts of those books are Common Law, such as prohibitions against stealing/murder.

(Let the irony sink a minute. Common Law originated with the Jews...the same group of people these whackos thing are running the world. So to stop the Jews from running the world they have to invoke laws written by these same people.)

I haven't yet heard a Common Law whacko not also mention that the United States is a corporation, privately owned company, British corporation, or something along those lines. Which then leads to:

They believe that all the courts are just corporate offices. Going to court to resolve a dispute is just like visiting your HR department. There is no real government, and no real law in the United States - it's all corporate bylaws. The Constitution is actually law, but it's no longer in effect as it has been replaced by corporate bylaws that look very similiar. Obama is not the head of our government, he's just the CEO of a corporation.

(This is how they get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are real law. The amendments they don't like, are just parts of the corporate bylaws. The parts they like are part of the real Constitution. Most documents cleverly blend the two together to confuse people).

This is where Common Law comes into play. They believe that by invoking Common Law, they are able to go outside the United States corporate offices into REAL courts. The only things that break Common Law are things like stealing, murder, rape, trepassing, and such. So not paying taxes isn't realy a crime, it's just against the corporate policies. If one can get to Common Law courts, they would rule in favor of that person.

I never got a straight answer as to where, physically, these courts are. Some believe they are extinct and others believe they can create them themselves whenever they like. Others believe that the politicians/business owners know about the secret locations of these courts, and use this knowledge to make themselves wealthy/powerful. Anytime a rich person gets acquited, there is talk that he somehow must have utilized a Common Law court.

[BBFlatt]

My memory is a bit hazy on the subject, but I seem to recall back in the late 80's - early 90's there was a movement among sovrun types to set up so-called "common-law" courts where they could seek redress of grievances agains all those in the "illegitimate de-facto" government who were denying their god-given rights or otherwise holding them down.

Why common law? I don't know for sure but I kinda suspect the most frequent interaction these types of individuals had with the term common law was as part of the term "Common law wife" (or husband). I mean, if you could have a legitimately recognized marriage just by holding your relationship as such, why shouldn't you be able to constitute a legitimate court the same way?

[absdes96]

It has been a while since I have entered comments on these forums. The threads with Harvester have been fun reading.

I do recall people within the "Sovereign" and "Tax Protester" camps always making distinctions (in fact, they were obsessed, and probably still are, with these distinctions) between Common Law and Statutory Law - courts, marriages, business arrangments, trusts, etc. This dubious common law/statutory distinction seemed to permeate a lot of their literature and discussions.

I have heard some in this camp say that if people have a "common law" marriage (as opposed to a "stautory" marriage), the state authorities cannot take their children away for some reason or another. Or if something is a "common law trust", the Feds/IRS have no authority to levy or tax. Many, many strange ideas abound in these subcultures.

Without knowing as much as you folks about the origins of Common Law, when those in the "TP" camp discussed it I always took it to mean this: "We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, privately, because the courts, the law, etc. do not have any authority/jurisdiction/whatever over our arrangements".

[silversopp]

I have heard some in this camp say that if people have a "common law" marriage (as opposed to a "stautory" marriage), the state authorities cannot take their children away for some reason or another. Or if something is a "common law trust", the Feds/IRS have no authority to levy or tax. Many, many strange ideas abound in these subcultures.

I've heard that as well. The reasoning goes that a statutory marriage is a marriage performed within the corporation United States. You're not really getting married, you're entering into a corporate contract that is called a marriage to confuse you (and the USCorp the rights to the product of the marriage - kids). Similiar logic to common law trusts. A statutory trust isn't really a trust, it's just a contract with the UScorp that is misleadingly called a trust etc etc.

They have an obsession with word games, and truly believe that there are sinister forces at work trying to trick them into contracting with the corporation (once you contract with the corporation, it's all over). That's why they are so obsessed with colons, semi-colons, capitalization, and things like "Department of Treasury" vs "Treasury Department". They believe everything is an attempt to trick them into contracting with the corporation, so they make up these protection spells.

[Dezcad]

Here's some background from the ADL from 1997 - http://www.adl.org/mwd/common.asp

[Brandybuck]

Anytime a rich person gets acquited, there is talk that he somehow must have utilized a Common Law court.

The huge gaping flaw in their reasoning is that the rich folks use the same courts as the poor folks.