LAWS v. STATUTES: A Brief Explanation

After reading this, you will know more than almost ALL attorneys and rookie district court judges!

                                                                                            LAWS versus STATUTES

                                                                                                        June 18, 2014

LAW and STATUTES (the latter often called “statutory law”) are NOT the same by a long shot! In America true (along with Britain) LAW refers to the unwritten Common Law (which determines what is “lawful” and “unlawful”) was developed over the centuries by juries and tribunals in Common Law courts in Britain, America and most former British colonies. STATUTES (ACTS) and ORDINANCES refer to legislated POLICIES (which determine what is “legal” or “illegal”, which are themselves derived from the word “legislated”) or rules passed by a legislature or legislature-like political body on the local level (such as a city council or a town’s board-of-selectmen). Regulations are simply detailed rules written by unelected, administrative government personnel to implement the legislated statutes and ordinances. These legislated POLICIES (a statute or a collection of statutes called “codes”) and administrative regulations are enforced by the POLICE – that is, “police” enforce legislated and administrative “policy”; they do NOT enforce true LAW, which is the unwritten Common Law. Common Law consists ONLY of unwritten Common Law established through numerous Common Law court decisions accumulated over the centuries in Britain and its former colonies, including America. Make no mistake: the unwritten Common Law remains today the highest “law of the land” both in Britain and America. Further, in America the Common Law is superior in authority to the U.S. Constitution and all U.S. Supreme Court decisions – a fact the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed in their written opinions to this very day!

Why is the distinction between Common Law (true LAW) and statutory law (i.e., legislated POLICY and administrative REGULATIONS) so extremely important? Because Common Law must be followed by everyone and does NOT require your individual consent. It is the LAW of your society based on local customs. Conversely, statutes and regulations require that you, as an individual man or woman, give your CONSENT to that statutory law (legislated policy) BEFORE you fall under its jurisdiction and under the authority of the police and the legislative-administrative courts. A statute is NEVER a law; ONLY after an individual man has freely consented to a statute does that statute acquire the FORCE OF LAW – but it NEVER becomes true law.  That is what is meant by the phrase “consent of the governed”: You must give your individual consent BEFORE you are obligated to follow legislated statutes or administrative regulations. You are required to follow Common Law or customs of your local area, which is based on God’s law of “do no harm”. However you, as an individual man or woman, must CONSENT to a statute or regulation before you may be subject to any penalties under that statute and/or regulation as adjudged by a legislated-administrative legislated court. Most state and federal appeals and supreme court “judges” are, in fact, NOT judges at all. They are called “justices”; not “judges”. Justices in the state and federal appeals and supreme courts are required to act FIRST under Common Law – and, have no doubt, they know this fact of law. Only after the person has waived his Common Law rights in the inferior courts (lower-level courts such as district courts) may the higher (superior) courts invoke statutes and regulations. And these justices most certainly know the enormous difference between an “unlawful” act and an “illegal” act. That is precisely why they are properly called “justices” – they are required to administer justice under the Common Law FIRST. The “judges” of the lower state and federal courts (most often called “district courts”, “traffic courts”, etc.) are NOT properly called “justices” – they do NOT administer “justice” under the Common Law. Instead, they most often enforce legislated policy. But be warned: do NOT count on attorneys and lower-level judges knowing these facts, much less “police officers” by any titles assigned to them by their governments at all levels – local, state or federal!


OK. True LAW is the “Common Law” only. Statutes, regulations, ordinances and codes are legislated POLICY; not true LAW.  But WHY should it matter to the average person? What PRACTICAL significance can this distinction make in anyone’s life?

If you violate a POLICY created by a legislated statute, you have committed an “illegal” act – that is, you acted contrary to legislated policy – and have NOT necessarily committed an “unlawful” act (properly a “crime”) by violating Common Law. For our first example, by applying for and accepting a state-issued “driver’s license”, you have actually signed a CONTRACT. If you are then stop by the “police” for “speeding” (exceeding the posted “speed limit” which is an “illegal” act) while “driving” in a “motor vehicle” on a public road, you have violated public policy (statutes and regulations) under that contract. If you knowingly or unknowingly CONSENT to these statutes or regulations, either by word or deed, then you fall under the jurisdiction of their statutory administrative, non-judicial courts and/or their administrative agencies. On the other hand, while traveling in your automobile on a public road at a speed exceeding their posted speed limit, you have NOT committed an “unlawful act” under Common Law, UNLESS you caused injury or harm to another other human being and/or his property (which is a true “crime” in Common Law). Under Common Law, you have an inherent and unalienable right to travel. (An “Unalienable” right means a natural, inherent right that you can never forfeit or involuntarily have taken from you.) Further, under Common Law, you may be jailed or fined ONLY after being convicted of a crime by a 12-person jury operating in a true Common Law court-of-record. However, it is possible to WAIVE your natural rights under Common Law, after which you fall under the jurisdiction of statutes and regulations – deceptively called “statutory law”. The state is merely enforcing a contract to which you consented.

In our second example, if you rob another man’s house, you will have broken BOTH the Common Law and so-called “statutory law” (legislated policy). Under Common Law jurisdiction, if a 12-person jury finds you, the “accused”, guilty in a true judicial Common Law court-of-record, then the usual penalty is DEATH. (The only alternative finding by a jury is “innocent” – never “not guilty.) If you retain your rights under Common Law, you are assuming full criminal and commercial liability for your actions. However, the government offers you an alternative. If you waive your rights under Common Law and consent to the jurisdiction of the state’s legislated policies under STATUTES, then by contract with the state, the state grants you the “benefits and privileges” of “limited commercial liability”. The state assumes “full commercial liability” for your actions and reduces your criminal liability. In return, by contract and consent, you are required to follow their RULES enforced by their police and administrative courts, in which you are called the “defendant” (not the “accused”). Consequently, now you must pay fines for those speeding tickets and other “illegal” actions, even though you have harmed or injured no other man or woman. However, with the bitter comes the sweet! If you stole someone’s property or physically injured someone, you may choose to consent to the state’s jurisdiction under its “statutory law” or policy. By consenting to this policy, the state grants you the “benefit and privilege” of “limited commercial liability” and reduced criminal liability for your actions. As a result, your punishment will be limited by contract to a fine and/or brief imprisonment as prescribed by their legislated rules (statutes and regulations) – NOT death, as per Common Law. Under which system you operate in any given situation is YOUR choice.

When most people appear in a so-called “court-of-law”, in most instances they are appearing in a non-judicial, legislative-administrative court operating under commercial-contract law; and NOT a true judicial “court of record” which is required to operate ONLY under the unwritten Common Law – NO exceptions! Such a Common Law “court of record” out-ranks absolutely ALL other courts – even the U.S. Supreme Court (which may act either as a true judicial court or a legislated-administrative court under contract-commercial court). In numerous court rulings the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the superior and absolute authority of true Common Law court-of-record (which is the ONLY true “superior court”), stating that verdicts and rulings in a Common Law “court of record” can NOT be challenged by ANY other court, including state and federal district courts, state and federal appeals courts, state supreme courts, or even the U.S. Supreme Court and all international courts. Wow!

But HOW do you know if you are operating in a legislative-administrative court and not in a true judicial court, which by definition is required to be a true Common Law court-of-record? Quite easily, If the judge issues ANY decisions or rulings about proper procedure, issues warnings or rulings about “contempt of court”, or issues decisions regarding guilt or innocence; or threatens to fine or imprison you at ANY time, then you are DEFINITELY in a non-judicial legislative-administrative “court of no record”, regardless of whether or not a transcript (call the “minutes”) is kept of the proceedings. In a true judicial Common Law court-of-record, the judge can act ONLY as an administrator of court procedures, such as scheduling hearings, collecting documents and maintaining reasonable order. The judge can NOT ever function as the TRIBUNAL. Under Common Law the TRIBUNAL is the SOLE lawful entity that can decide what are the LAW and the FACTS of the case. And ONLY the TRIBUNAL (as either the person acting as the plaintiff OR a 12 jury of no fewer than12 people) can make any decision on the innocence or guilt of an accused person, or impose any sentence upon the accused person found guilty, whether the punishment is a fine and/or imprisonment. To repeat myself, in a true judicial Common Law court-of-record a  court judge can NEVER act as the Tribunal which is the ONLY lawful entity that can decide both the LAW and FACTS of the case and can impose a sentence upon those found guilty.

Further, ONLY a Tribunal can issue a judgment of “contempt of court” in a true Common Law court-of-record. Consequently, a judge in a typical court (a non-judicial, administrative court-of-no-record) may “legally”issue a “contempt of court” ruling against a person ONLY if that person has consented to the administrative authority of that court. If that person has NOT consented to the court’s jurisdiction, that same “contempt-of-court” is “legal”, but “unlawful” under true LAW (Common Law). If this explanation is too confusing, you can be absolutely certain that any court you have ever observed on TV or real-life was NOT been a true judicial Common Law court-of-record. A lower-level judge will almost NEVER allow it. In fact, the judge may be unaware of the different types of courts! Instead the judge will presume (under implied consent and/or by your words or actions demonstrating any adherence to his/her administrative court rules) that you have WAIVED your Common Law right to 12-person jury trial before a true judicial Common Law court-of-record, UNLESS you demand it over and over and over again!!! And under the unwritten Common Law, the judge will be correct: an ancient maxim of unwritten Common Law states that “A statement or presumption not rebutted before or during a court appearance becomes a fact of law in that particular case. As an ancient Roman maxim of law proclaimed, “He, who would be deceived, let him.”; or in modern English, “If you do NOT know the law and consequently waive your rights, that is YOUR fault! The court is under NO obligation to teach you.”

When in court, if you stand when instructed by the court when the judge enters the courtroom; or pass through the courtroom’s railing to the prosecution and defense tables; or plead either “guilty”, “not guilty” or “nolo contendre” (“no contest”) at arraignment, hearing or trial; or do NOT object to ALL rules, regulations, orders and decisions by the judge (even those favorable to you!); or if you remain silent and do not expressly object to EACH and EVERY presumption made the prosecution and the judge, then the judge will make a “presumption of fact in law” that you have WAIVED all your natural rights under Common Law, agree with everything the prosecutor and judge have said,  and have CONSENTED to the jurisdiction of the judge’s legislated, non-judicial administrative court operating under legislated statutes and regulations. That is why you can be fined and/or imprisoned in a legislated, non-judicial administrative court without the benefit of a 12-person trial by jury. Knowingly or unknowingly, by either words or deeds, by actions or non-actions, you have waived all of your rights under Common Law. Silence is NOT golden – it can be fatal!


One comment

  1. I need to print this

%d bloggers like this: