The End of Common Law

by
Steffan Stanford
The common law is a system of "justice" that is the foundation of the legal syst
ems in countries such as: Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States
, among others. Common law has a long and chequered history a history and appli
cation that is often misunderstood and confused.
There is a political movement in the United States which desires to bring back t
he common law. The members of this movement often refer to themselves as patrio
ts. The basic premise of the patriot movement is that the United States has gon
e astray from its foundation via fraud, deception, manipulation, corruption, and
other nefarious means, but that its course can be righted with the return of th
e common law and literal application of the Constitution of the United States.
The heart of this movement then, rests on the premise that liberty can be restor
ed to America with the truthful application of common law and the Constitution c
oncurrent with the eradication of fraud and deceit.
If that sounds a bit idyllic and utopian, that is because it truly is just that.
This essay exposes basic flaws in the patriot movement's premise. First, the
Constitution of the United States has very little to do with individual rights o
f citizens, residents or any other people who are located within the geographic
boundaries of the United States. A reading of that document will reveal that "W
e the People" are granted only a few basic rights within the body of it.
Under the unamended Constitution, the "people" have the privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus unless the government chooses to suspend it under the guise of pr
otecting the public safety or by housing its prisoners offshore. Bills of Attai
nder and ex post facto laws are abolished. Direct taxes are eliminated, the rig
ht to vote for certain groups is granted, and the trial of all crimes shall be b
y jury. This is the basic substance of the rights retained by the people in the
United States Constitution.
To avoid these few constitutional dictates, the various branches of government h
ave interpreted and applied the Constitution to validate bills of attainder and
ex post facto laws when it suits the government interests to do so. Direct taxe
s are not allowed, however, nearly all taxes have miraculously been deemed to be
indirect taxes, hence valid under the Constitution. While the right to vote ha
s been expanded to include more people, this right has been corrupted by a proce
ss that revolves around "connections", money and fraudulent vote counting. Jury
trials are still available in criminal matters, but these are under heavy attac
k from the government. Whenever a daring jury frees an innocent person that the
government wants to punish, the jurors and the jury system are ridiculed.
The real body of rights in the Constitution come from amendments thereto, which
were only add-ons, or after-the-fact allowances to the people. Most of these ri
ghts are contained in the Bill of Rights, or the first ten amendments to the Con
stitution. They include freedom of worship, speech, press, assembly and the rig
ht to petition the government for grievances. Also is the right to bear arms, f
reedom from unreasonable searches, right to an indictment, right against self-in
crimination, right of protection from double jeopardy, right to due process, spe
edy jury trials, trial by jury in common law matters of a civil nature, right ag
ainst cruel and unusual punishment, and retention of certain rights not delegate
d to the government.
The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the Constitution in December of 1791. The Co
nstitution was written created 17th September 1787 and ratified 21st June 1788.
Many believe James Madison to have been the instigator of the Bill of Rights, b
ut this is a misconception, as will be explained.
Throughout history, there are basically two political philosophies. The first b
elieves in rights for the rulers. While many names are used to describe this gr
oup, at the time of the American Revolution, followers of this doctrine were ref
erred to as Tories. The second believes in the rights for individuals. Again,
there have been many different names for them, but during the Revolution, the fo
llowers of that doctrine were called Whigs. Whig and Tory principles can be com
pared to Light and Dark, however, not all who spout Whig principles are working
for the Light, but for selfish interests instead.
Madison was clearly in the Tory camp when he began co-authoring the Federalist P
apers with fellow Tory, Alexander Hamilton. Madison began getting not-so-subtle
nudges away from Hamilton's reasoning from Thomas Jefferson, who was regarded a
s one of the leading Whigs. Madison, realizing that his political ambitions wou
ld be more readily attained from the Whig base, seemingly drifted away from Hami
lton's philosophical bent and towards Jefferson's. This can be readily observed
by reading Federalist Papers, which were released in sequence. The earlier one
s penned by Madison struck Tory chords, while the later ones rang of Whig princi
ples. However, Madison's true essence was showing through in the earlier docume
nts, and the later ones were more for show and flattery to promote his political
agenda.
Madison proudly sent Jefferson a copy of the proposed constitution and was jolte
d when he received a letter dated 20th December 1787 from Thomas Jefferson, who
was in Paris at the time, in which Jefferson wrote about the proposed constituti
on.
... I will now tell you what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of ri
ghts, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion
, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monop
olies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials b
y jury ... Let me add, that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to
against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just gove
rnment should refuse, or rest on inference.
Again Jefferson asserted to Madison that there must be a bill of rights in a let
ter from Paris dated 31st July, 1788, and yet again on 18th November 1788. Sinc
e Madison was trying to promote his own political advancement via Jefferson, on
the issue of a bill of rights he did what was suggested. However, many years la
ter, when Madison finally became President of the United States, he went against
the most basic advice from Jefferson on very serious issues by re-enacting Alex
ander Hamilton's liberty-stealing national bank act to fund his hopeless War of
1812 that nearly broke the back of the young country. Colours do show in time,
especially those of a Tory.
A literal application of the Constitution would be of little effect to freedom i
n America. It is a primarily a Tory document containing only a few Whig princip
les. However, the Whig principles do shine for all to see in the Bill of Rights
. Additionally, a few amendments, such as the Thirteenth abolishing slavery (wh
ich was quite acceptable and protected under the Constitution), the Fourteenth w
hich establishes equal protection under the law, the Fifteenth which prevents ra
cial discrimination, and the Nineteenth which prevents gender discrimination in
assessing the right to vote also benefit "We the People."
A full rollback to the bare-bones Constitution would actually exclude the amendm
ents thereto, including the Bill of Rights. Slavery would once again be permiss
ible and openly supported by the Constitution of the United States! This would
leave only the common law as the purported sword of justice that the patriot mov
ement would yield. The common law has its roots in Arthurian England, supposedl
y the brainchild of King Arthur, however this would be an overstatement. Many a
re the legends leading to this statement, and whether it is true is for the read
er to judge, as time has vanquished and corrupted much of history, however, ther
e are significant pointers towards Arthur massively corrupting the then existing
court system of "justice" into what we now call the "common law."
When Arthur was king he expanded and corrupted the existing court system until i
t was ready for his evil purpose to contrive a case against Gwenevere and Lancel
ot. By using the newly corrupted court system, Arthur was able to absolve himse
lf from responsibility for the verdict and the sentence, however, it was obvious
that even in the unjust courts of his, he could not succeed in a case against t
he Queen with honest testimony. That she was innocent was irrelevant and incons
equential to Arthur as he began trying to build a false case against the Queen.
But Arthur had difficulty in acquiring perjured testimony for his murderous att
empt because the penalty for perjury was so severe that potential false witnesse
s were too frightened to lie under oath. Arthur resolved this problem by corrup
ting the standard of proof necessary to convict for perjury, thereby making it h
ighly improbable for anyone to be convicted unless they actually confessed to ly
ing under oath. Then, through a combination of enticing and threatening witness
es to lie, Arthur was able to contrive a false, yet very powerful case against G
wenevere.
Arthur's corrupted system of "justice" now emulated its corruptor, being that wa
s strict, rigid and severe while at the same time being deceptive and murderous.
With this court system, which sufficiently promoted perjury and fraud while it
severely punished honesty and sincerity, Arthur set about framing the Queen whi
le hiding from responsibility by behind the "common law" system of "justice." H
istory has protected Arthur because the legal system, embedded with fraud, has b
een held accountable for the horrible deed and the murderous perpetrator has gon
e unpunished. So outraged were the supporters of Gwenevere that she had been co
nvicted at a perjured trial, that Lancelot was able to summon a vast army to sto
rm Camelot and rescue the Queen from Arthur's heinous plot. The aftermath of al
l this is the common law, which haunts us even today. And fraud is among the mo
st difficult causes of action to prove in common law courts, and prosecutions fo
r perjury so rare as to be virtually non-existent.
Ostensibly, the common law is based upon the principal that when things happen r
epeatedly, they ought to have a consistent treatment. It provides for remedies
for legal wrongs. That is, if a person steals a loaf of bread, under common law
, the owner of that bread should have a remedy against the thief. Likewise, the
state should have a punishment that it can mete out for the wrong. Over time,
and over case after case, a body of law developed to compensate the victim and p
unish the thief. This is the common law.
The common law has some very noticeable problems. First, it is slow to evolve,
so it is cumbersome and difficult to change. Second, it is complex and mysterio
us. Third, it encourages perjury and discourages honesty. Forth, it is strict
and unwavering. It is said of the common law that ignorance of it is no excuse,
which is true, however, knowledge of it often is. Under common law, the techni
cally "innocent" often go free, while the morally innocent are frequently and se
verely punished. The common law strictly requires procedural adherence to it wh
ile worrying little about substantive issues that are being contested.
There is no room for common sense in the common law. For example, if a merchant
has a caravan parked on the county line, and a thief purloins bread from that c
arriage, it could be that the thief would get away just because nobody could pro
ve from which county the bread was stolen! In another area of the law, a person
could be deprived of the benefit of a contract because of a strict, common law
reading of an agreement, regardless of how unconscionable the strict interpretat
ion of the "agreement" was. This is the common law.
In the study of many legal systems, I have never uncovered one so stark and stri
ct as the common law, which cares so little for the spirit of the law and so muc
h for the letter of it. In essence, the common law is a god unto itself that de
mands its tithes and must be obeyed. It is painfully slow and unfair by design
to extract maximal suffering. It is a system where a criminal can literally get
away with murder via perjury or through technical interpretations of it. In sh
ort, the common law knows not justice it is evil.
In an ironic twist of fate, people turned to the ecclesiastical courts for mercy
from the harshness of the common law. It should be remembered that the clergy
was responsible for the inquisitions, so mercy and fairness were not a given in
their chambers. However, the ecclesiastical courts developed several doctrines
which are today lumped into the category of equity. In equity, the chancellor c
ould use common sense and award proper relief for those who could have no justic
e under the common law. However, equity is subject to the whims of whoever occu
pies the bench, and many jurists can be quite cavalier in their rulings. It oft
en happens that the "equitable" remedy for the common law is much worse than the
original ailment.
So harsh is the common law, that the jury system was developed to counter the la
w's tyranny. When the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was drafted,
it paid particular attention to allowing jury trials for civil disputes over $20
for suits at common law. And, the Amendment forbids judicial review of facts a
scertained by juries. The Seventh Amendment is a strong pointer to Americans th
at the common law is putrid, but the import of this purpose for the Amendment is
lost on most scholars of American jurisprudence today.
In summary, those who wish to return to the strict common law either know not wh
at they seek, or else, they fully deserve what they desire. Those who seek unbe
nding and literal interpretation of the Constitution are basically Tories who ca
re not for individual rights. Those who wish to follow the Bill of Rights are s
eeking Whig (Light) principles, however, they fancifully seek those principles i
n a Tory (Dark) world, the world of the physical realm. But, things are changin
g; murder and perjury are about to meet Truth.
Utopia cannot exist in this realm, but turning within to the Love of the Divine
Mother can afford one peace and comfort in this corrupt and deteriorating world.
The Correction is underway, and soon the disgusting common law will be flushed
away and be of no account whatsoever, along with all of the other earthly forms
of "justice."