Forget what you think you know
Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law
Connotation 1 distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies). This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that interpret and decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law," includes judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations, and examples of application of law to facts.
Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems
Connotation 2 differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" with the same force of law as statutes—for nearly a millennium, common law courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in, or is combined with common law in, Europe and most non-Islamic, non-common law countries), courts lack authority to act where there is no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight (which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably), and scholarly literature is given more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law.
"Provided you keep the peace, do not cause harm or loss to another individual, and do not employ mischief in your promises and agreements, then you will remain within the terms of Common Law and will not break it."
What is Common Law?
It's the "law-of-the-land", grand deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land", there are very real difference between "the land" and "the sea".
Statutes are passed by Parliament, which apply to the "law-of-the-sea", if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land, which is Common Law.
Common Law derives from the mists of time, it comprises those customs and traditions that make a Nation or Country what it is. The following description applies to the United Kingdom, specifically England but - since all Common Law stems from this (world-wide), it is generally applicable to everyone on this planet.
Back in the Celtic times the British Isles were populated by tribes, they had traditions and customs. Although nothing was permanently written down, they lived by rules that everyone knew. This entirely mirrors the situation world-wide.
There was a time when everything was tribal, and each member knew the rules that governed their lives. If anyone broke these rules there would be some kind of Tribal Meeting, and the Chief or Holy Man would preside. A judgment was made on the basis of arguments put forward by both sides, and that judgment was executed.
In the year 1100 the English Monarch Henry I, took the first step towards rationalising the situation by actually writing it down. He issued what is known as the Charter of Liberties. It was a small-ish step to codify the customs and traditions at the time. This codification was felt necessary in order to provide some semblance of order and unification of justice, thereby preventing 'wayward' decisions/judgments resulting from various forms of corruption. The idea of 'money' - in place of pure bartering - had already taken root, and any Monetary System always provides golden opportunities for corruption.
It was recognised that a living breathing human being had certain fundamental requirements, food, water, shelter, and so on, if these were not available in sufficient quantities, that individual would surely die.
It was therefore recognised that a living breathing human being had and needed basically, fundamental rights to the "necessities for sustaining their life".
The necessity to have personnel available to fight wars on behalf of the King was undoubtedly an important factor, that means live men are needed, live women are needed in order to bring these men into the world, furthermore, to bring other women into the world, in order to continue the supply of men. This reasoning, you can be sure, did not escape our ancestors.
In fact the lack of benevolence next came to a head in 1215. This year, as many people know, is the year that the (original) Magna Carta was signed on 15th June at Runnymede. At that point the lack of benevolence had reached such proportions as to cause the English to say, fundamentally, "Listen: Enough is enough”! King John was forced to listen.
The Nobility, who forced the King to sign, were mainly looking out for themselves , once again - recognised that by ignoring the rights of the common individual they, themselves, would lack an army to defend their own piece of the pie.
The Magna Carta was a massive step forward in securing Common Law rights for everyone, anyone who reads the original version can see for themselves, one major step was the introduction of the idea of a Jury to decide guilt or innocence. In other words a Prosecutor did not need to convince one single Judge, but needed to convince "13 normal people", people who could put themselves in the place of the Accused, and look at it from their own point of view. They could use their own discretion, and that was very important step. Alternatively it can be said that the Accused had to convince these 13 of their innocence.
The first Court De Jure is/has opened in Devon, what will a Court De Jure mean? Every living soul has the right to a LAWFUL trial and Lawful treatment. Until this historic moment, there has been nowhere to have a LAWFUL trial that ensures we are treated Lawfully. The Legislators have removed all such courts from the land.
But that is only one aspect of the Magna Carta. Other essential and fundamental steps were agreed, the major ones being:
1) Trial by Jury as an essential right.
2) Everyone engaged in applying the law must know the law, and be minded to observe it well.
3) Property can only ever be seized on the basis of a verdict from a court of law.
4) Trivial offences can be dealt with based on "the oaths of good men in the neighbourhood".
5) No-one can be placed on trial based solely on their own unsupported confession.
6) The right to justice can never be removed, cannot be sold, nor can it be delayed. In summary: You have the right to know what you are charged with, the right to defend yourself, and the right to your day in court.
7) The right to petition the Monarch and allow 40 days for any grievance to be settled. The right to enter into a state of lawful rebellion if that grievance still remains after this period. In the state of lawful rebellion to be able to seize the Monarch's property and to throw every spanner in the works necessary to have the grievance resolved (apart from harm, injury, etc. In other words simple non-co-operation in every respect), the right to encourage any others to help in this respect. To hand back any seized property once the dispute has been settled.
This was the kick-start to Common Law, It forms the bedrock of Common Law.
Subsequently there were more distinct codifications, particularly in 1688/89 and 1701. The bulk of Common Law has subsequently been derived from precedents handed down as judgments and verdicts since that time. It is important to remember that all (Case Law) judgments and verdicts have been based on, and do not deviate from, those fundamentals previously established by the Magna Carta, etc.
Common Law, real law, the law-of-the-land, addresses the fundamental human condition, assuming equality of all before it. It has been said "Don't use your head ... use your heart. If your heart tells you it's fair, right, and just, then Common Law will support and fully protect you. If you know, in your heart, it's wrong or unfair, and you do it anyway, Common Law will come down on you like a ton of bricks".
fundamentally, that's all you really need to know. You do not have to wade through Case Law because those concepts were employed in order to create that Case Law.
What are Statutes?
A Statute is nothing more than "A Legislated Rule of a Society"
Society is nothing more than "A group of like-minded individuals who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals".
They apply to the "law-of-the-sea" is sometimes called Maritime Law, or Admiralty Law, other terms meaning the same thing are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law.
Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law seen in Common Law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of the judiciary in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy). Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.
Put simply if you live peaceably, you will not violate Common Law. And you will not, therefore, end up in court charged with breaking Common Law. Consequently, if you end up in court, it will be because you violated a Statute. (And therefore you did not need to end up in court, as you will see if you read on. So, in essence, if a peaceful person ever actually ends up in court, it was because (they simply did not know their rights)
A Statute is the final result of a Bill placed before Parliament, if the Bill is passed by Parliament, it becomes an Act of Parliament, upon receipt of the Royal Assent it becomes a Statute.
In a well-ordered society, we assume our elected representatives create our Parliament and make our laws, this is where the Grand Deception starts.
A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed.
"... by the consent of the governed", by definition are you the Government? No. Therefore you must be 'the governed'.
So in other words a Statute only carries the force of law upon you “if you consent to it”. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever, the courts know this, you may not, but they certainly do the last thing they will do is tell you, in point of fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity. On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true. This is the Grand Deception.
The United Kingdom, like all other countries on the planet, is actually a Corporation, you can check this out by obtaining a Credit Report on it via Dunn & Bradstreet. A number of these companies, such as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION and THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION are, in point of fact, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy - but being only Chapter 11 are still, therefore, allowed to trade.
So this is a bit more of The Grand Deception. More of the Grand Deception is that the UK Ministry of Justice is a Corporation, all courts are sub-franchises actively trading.
The term codified law refers to statutes that have been organized ("codified") by subject matter; in this narrower sense, some but not all statutes are considered "codified." The entire body of codified statute is referred to as a "code," such as the United States Code, the Ohio Revised Code or the Code of Canon Law. The substantive provisions of the Act could be codified (arranged by subject matter) in one or more titles of the United States Code while the "effective date" provisions—remaining uncodified—would be available by reference to the United States Statutes at Large. Another meaning of "codified law" is a statute that takes the common law in a certain area of the law and puts it in statute or code form.
Another example of statutes that are not typically codified is a "private law" that may originate as a private bill, a law affecting only one person or a small group of persons. An example was divorce in Canada prior to the passage of the Divorce Act of 1968. It was possible to obtain a legislative divorce in Canada by application to the Canadian Senate, which reviewed and investigated petitions for divorce, which would then be voted upon by the Senate and subsequently made into law. In the United Kingdom Parliament, private bills were used in the nineteenth century to create corporations, grant monopolies and give individuals attention to be more fully considered by the parliament. The government may also seek to have a bill introduced unofficially by a backbencher so as not to create a public scandal; such bills may also be introduced by the loyal opposition — members of the opposition party or parties. Sometimes a private member's bill may also have private bill aspects, in such case the proposed legislation is called a hybrid bill.
In Canon Law, private law is called "particular law.
Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.
A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.
In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the simplified system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems.
One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law. Particularly common law is in England where it originated in the Middle Ages, and in countries that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including India, the United States, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Canada, with the exception of Québec where a mix of civil law (on the provincial level) and common law (mostly on the federal level) is used, Malaysia, Ghana, Australia, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Singapore, Myanmar, Ireland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Cyprus, Barbados, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Namibia, Botswana, Guyana and Israel.
As a rough rule of thumb, common law systems trace their history to England, while civil law systems trace their history to Roman law and the Napoleonic Code.
Disclaimer: Nothing herein constitutes professional legal advice. I am not a Lawyer. Before embarking on anything you should seek professional legal advice. The hope is simply that, when seeking that advice, you know which questions to ask. Please note: This only applies to the United Kingdom, and specifically to England. Other nations/countries may have variances.