Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Private Attorney General in USA replies Re: UK Law School answer to Who Makes Common Law?

Expand Messages
  • Supreme Law Firm
    ... the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 1, 2011
      "... the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."  -- U.S. Supreme Court infra


      Greetings John Wilson:

      Professor Clarke appears to be manifesting the mental conditioning
      that comes from living in a monarchy where the people are "subjects"  --
      as in "subjects of the Crown".

      (I must rely upon your studied expertise to explain the legal situation
      specific to Australia, however, because I am not an expert in your laws.)

      In America, the situation is radically different, however;  and, this difference
      can be easily confirmed by citing relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
      Acts of Congress, and pertinent Clauses in the U.S. Constitution rendered
      supreme Law of our Land by the Supremacy Clause:

      Chiefly, the "common law" is expressly mentioned TWICE in the Seventh Amendment
      to the Constitution for the United States of America:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#7th-amend

      AMENDMENT VII.

      In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
      exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
      preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-
      examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
      rules of the common law.


      And, the Act of Congress at 42 U.S.C. 1988 expressly authorizes
      a State's common law to be applied in cases where there is
      no adequate Federal remedy, even in criminal cases, to wit:


      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-.html

      "... but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are
      deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and
      punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by
      the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having
      jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same
      is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
      States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and
      disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the
      infliction of punishment on the party found guilty."

      Moreover, the Act of Congress at 28 U.S.C. 1652 expressly authorizes
      the importation of State statutes, like California Civil Code section 22.2:

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001652----000-.html

      The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.


      Thus, California Civil Code section 22.2 could be "imported" as rules of decision
      in civil actions in the courts of the United States (federal government):

      http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=22-22.2.

      22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
      or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
      Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
      the courts of this State. [i.e. California]

      See also Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone" entitled "Sovereignty" here:

      http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

      For example, in America ...

      The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the People themselves.  Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U.S. Constitution.  That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual People like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness.  Nothing stands between us and the Creator.  We think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows:

       

            Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;  but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.  And the law is the definition and limitation of power.  It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision;  and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.  But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men."  For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

       

      [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]



      That published decision is here:

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356

      Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

      [end quote]

       
      Sincerely yours,
      /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
      Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
      http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
      http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

      All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



      From: John Wilson <jhwilson@...>
      To: STOP INJUSTICE NOW <catchthesun2@...>
      Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 1:37:02 PM
      Subject: UK Law School answer to Who makes Common Law

       
      Dear Fellow Freedom Fighters,
       
      Further to my pursuit of the germinal layer of judicial corruption and treason, below is the attitude of an eminent legal academic in England who typically dismisses the Sovereignty, ie: the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, of the People in favour of Parliaments having Sovereignty over the People, ie: Bureaucracy overruling Democracy, especially with his paragraph 3.
       
      My coming back at the "good" Professor would be a waste of time, of course.
       
      Yours sincerely,
      John Wilson.
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "David Clarke" <D.N.Clarke@...>
      To: "John Wilson" <jhwilson@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:19 PM
      Subject: Re: Who makes Common Law

      Dear Mr Wilson,
       
      I am sorry, I cannot assist you fully as to do so would involve a long correspondence.
       
      Just a few points may help you:

      1. The Common Law World Review is an academic journal bringing together matters of academic interest in those legal jurisdictions that are based on the common law.
       
      2. The common law gets its name from the law that was common to all 800 and more years ago (as opposing to local laws). Judges do not make new laws today for to do so would usurp the role of Parliament but they do mould, explain and sometimes extend old principles in new situations.
       
      3. Most of common law is civil law, not criminal law. Juries in most common law countries only sit on serious criminal trials (though defamation actions are an exception). So juries cannot have any impact whatsoever except in such trials and even there they sit primarily as judges of fact in the light of the law explained to them by the presiding judge.
       
      I am afraid I cannot enter into any further correspondence but I hope this helps a bit.
       
      Yours sincerely
       
      David Clarke
       
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      On 31 May 2011 22:06 +1000 John Wilson <
      jhwilson@...> wrote:
       

      Professor David Clarke,
      School of Law,
      University of Bristol,
      U.K.

       Dear Professor Clarke,

       Re:  The Common Law World Review.

       I tried to send the email below to Professor Peter Crane... but it came back as "User Unknown", which is strange because his contact details are on the current ANU website.

       Again , most unfortunate.......however, the email is equally applicable to you, ie: being the Editor of the journal.

       Therefore,  I would like to pose the same question to you, ie: "Who makes Common Law .... Judges or Juries?"

       If you're wondering why I place such importance on the question, perhaps a glance at my website of
      http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au might provide the answer.

       Perhaps, also, you might care to comment on the attached leaflet ("Courts are Government") ... I would be most grateful.

       Yours sincerely,
       John Wilson.

       ************************************************************************




       From: John Wilson
       Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:08 AM
       To:
      peter.crane@...
       Cc: vice.chancellor@...
       Subject: Common Law


       Professor Peter Crane,
       BA LLB (Sydney); BCL, DCL (Oxford)
       Director of Research,
       ANU College of Law.

       Dear Professor Crane,

       Re: Common Law.

       I visited the UNSW Law School and my curiosity was aroused on seeing a photocopy of the cover of a journal called the "Common Law World Review" on a wall in the library indicating recent publications. However, I have been unable to track down the journal, ie: apart from getting a printout by a librarian at the State Library giving details of the "CLWR: Editors' contact details" where you are listed as the Australian Overseas Corresponding Editor.

       I hope you don't mind this intrusion, but I have taken a particular interest in the subject of Common Law and am concerned by the approach the legal profession have to it. Could you please clarify what exactly Common Law is and who makes it?

       The reason I ask this is because it is often quoted that "Common Law is Judge made Law", which is really disturbing as Judges are appointees of the Crown and the Crown, as you know, is the Legislature (with the advice and consent of the Parliament) for the creating of Statute Law.

       If Common Law is "Judge made Law", then that would make the Judiciary its own Legislature and making Laws that are not with the advice and consent of the Parliament. How does that sit with their Oath "to well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second"?

       Surely, Common Law is People made Law - and made by the lawful judgments of Juries? This seems logical to me because, in a Democracy, Sovereignty lies with the People ... and Sovereignty is "the ultimate authority to make and impose laws".

       Which brings up another disturbing misconception when the legal profession would have us believe that "Statute Law overrules Common Law".

       Who is the master and who is the servant?

       Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fear the people, you have liberty."

       We have the horrendous situation in Australia, at the moment, where the right to trial by jury has been abolished ... and this is tyranny at its worst.

       I am trying to secure an appointment with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Dr Michael Spence, and the Dean of the Sydney Law School, Professor Gillian Triggs, on these very issues.

       As you would appreciate, "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom" (John Locke), as a large banner at the entrance to the UNSW Law School tells us.

       So the simple question is: "Who makes Common Law .... Judges or Juries?"


       Yours sincerely,
       John Wilson,
       19 Elm Place,
       North Rocks,
       NSW 2151.
       Mobile: 0401 413 650
       
       
       
      ----------------------
       David Clarke
       
      D.N.Clarke@...
       
       
      -----
       No virus found in this message.
       Checked by AVG -
      www.avg.com
       Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3672 - Release Date: 05/31/11
    • Supreme Law Firm
      ... Both: if Parties to a lawsuit voluntarily WAIVE their Right to a trial by jury, then a judge would be free to render a JUDGMENT based upon the common law.
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 1, 2011
        "Who makes Common Law....Judges or Juries?".

        Both:  if Parties to a lawsuit voluntarily WAIVE their Right to a trial by jury,
        then a judge would be free to render a JUDGMENT based upon the common law.

        In this latter sense, then, a common law JUDGMENT would be "judge-made"
        i.e. with the consent of all Proper Parties, or in instances where there is
        no Right to trial by jury e.g. see Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
        also discussed further below:

        (e) Admiralty and Maritime Claims.

        These rules do not create a right to a jury trial

        on issues in a claim that is an admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h).



        If parties do not WAIVE their Right to a trial by jury,
        yes, it is the jury that ultimately enforces the law,
        NOT the prosecutor(s) and NOT the judge(s).

        The U.S. policy with respect to jury service is found at 28 U.S.C. 1861:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001861----000-.html

        It is the policy of the United States that all litigants in Federal courts entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes. It is further the policy of the United States that all citizens shall have the opportunity to be considered for service on grand and petit juries in the district courts of the United States, and shall have an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.

        And, in particular see Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule38.htm

        (a) Right Preserved.

        The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution

        — or as provided by a federal statute — is preserved to the parties inviolate.



        There is plenty of support in American Constitutional Jurisprudence
        for the finding that juries are free to nullify bad laws, not merely
        issue verdicts on the facts of any particular case.

        One of the best documented instances of the latter
        were  juries that refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws:

        http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

        Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws.  In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act.  In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws.  And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

        The Fully Informed Jury Association has prepared a lot of
        documentation concerning "jury nullification": 

        http://www.fija.org/   <--- several relevant links here

        http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

        http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

        http://fija.org/document-library/

        http://fija.org/document-library/jurors-guide-2/


        I hope this helps you with the answers you seek, John.

         
        Sincerely yours,
        /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
        Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

        All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



        From: John Wilson <jhwilson@...>
        To: Supreme Law Firm <paulandrewmitchell2004@...>
        Cc: D.N.Clarke@...; peter.crane@...; vice.chancellor@...; catchthesun2@...
        Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 10:58:45 PM
        Subject: Re: Private Attorney General in USA replies Re: UK Law School answer to Who Makes Common Law?

        Dear Paul,
         
        Thank you for that excellent contribution.
         
        However, it is still not a definitive answer to the question which I am posing to leaders of the legal profession, ie: "Who makes Common Law....Judges or Juries?".
         
        I know it is putting them on the spot... which is my intention .... because the notion that "Common Law is Judge-made Law" is not only a contradiction in terms, but is sinister in its purpose, as I have indicated in my emails below.
         
        Your email emphasizes that Sovereignty lies with the People ... which has to be true for Juries (ie: People) to be able to nullify bad laws - as well as to stave off Slavery for themselves.
         
        Thomas Jefferson said, "If the People don't know how to govern themselves, then educate them"..... which simply does not happen ... and, when you have Universities teaching that "Common Law is Judge-made Law", then extinguishing Liberty is a piece of cake.
         
        Yours sincerely,
        John Wilson.
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 7:21 AM
        Subject: Private Attorney General in USA replies Re: UK Law School answer to Who Makes Common Law?

        "... the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."  -- U.S. Supreme Court infra


        Greetings John Wilson:

        Professor Clarke appears to be manifesting the mental conditioning
        that comes from living in a monarchy where the people are "subjects"  --
        as in "subjects of the Crown".

        (I must rely upon your studied expertise to explain the legal situation
        specific to Australia, however, because I am not an expert in your laws.)

        In America, the situation is radically different, however;  and, this difference
        can be easily confirmed by citing relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,
        Acts of Congress, and pertinent Clauses in the U.S. Constitution rendered
        supreme Law of our Land by the Supremacy Clause:

        Chiefly, the "common law" is expressly mentioned TWICE in the Seventh Amendment
        to the Constitution for the United States of America:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#7th-amend

        AMENDMENT VII.

        In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
        exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
        preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-
        examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the
        rules of the common law.


        And, the Act of Congress at 42 U.S.C. 1988 expressly authorizes
        a State's common law to be applied in cases where there is
        no adequate Federal remedy, even in criminal cases, to wit:


        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001988----000-.html

        "... but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are
        deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and
        punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by
        the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having
        jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same
        is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
        States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and
        disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the
        infliction of punishment on the party found guilty."

        Moreover, the Act of Congress at 28 U.S.C. 1652 expressly authorizes
        the importation of State statutes, like California Civil Code section 22.2:

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001652----000-.html

        The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.


        Thus, California Civil Code section 22.2 could be "imported" as rules of decision
        in civil actions in the courts of the United States (federal government):

        http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=22-22.2.

        22.2.  The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
        or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
        Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
        the courts of this State. [i.e. California]

        See also Chapter 11 in "The Federal Zone" entitled "Sovereignty" here:

        http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm

        For example, in America ...

        The source of all sovereignty in a constitutional Republic like the 50 States, united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America, is the People themselves.  Remember, the States, and the federal government acting inside those States, are both bound by the terms of a contract known as the U.S. Constitution.  That Constitution is a contract of delegated powers which ultimately originate in the sovereignty of the Creator, who endowed creation, individual People like you and me, with sovereignty in that Creator's image and likeness.  Nothing stands between us and the Creator.  We think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court of the United States was never more eloquent when it described the source of sovereignty as follows:

         

              Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;  but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.  And the law is the definition and limitation of power.  It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision;  and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.  But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men."  For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

         

        [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]



        That published decision is here:

        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=118&invol=356

        Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration, the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion, or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts bill of rights, the government of the commonwealth 'may be a government of laws and not of men.' For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

        [end quote]

         
        Sincerely yours,
        /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
        Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
        http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
        http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

        All Rights Reserved without Prejudice



        From: John Wilson <jhwilson@...>
        To: STOP INJUSTICE NOW <catchthesun2@...>
        Sent: Wed, June 1, 2011 1:37:02 PM
        Subject: UK Law School answer to Who makes Common Law

         
        Dear Fellow Freedom Fighters,
         
        Further to my pursuit of the germinal layer of judicial corruption and treason, below is the attitude of an eminent legal academic in England who typically dismisses the Sovereignty, ie: the ultimate authority to make and impose laws, of the People in favour of Parliaments having Sovereignty over the People, ie: Bureaucracy overruling Democracy, especially with his paragraph 3.
         
        My coming back at the "good" Professor would be a waste of time, of course.
         
        Yours sincerely,
        John Wilson.
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "David Clarke" <D.N.Clarke@...>
        To: "John Wilson" <jhwilson@...>
        Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:19 PM
        Subject: Re: Who makes Common Law

        Dear Mr Wilson,
         
        I am sorry, I cannot assist you fully as to do so would involve a long correspondence.
         
        Just a few points may help you:

        1. The Common Law World Review is an academic journal bringing together matters of academic interest in those legal jurisdictions that are based on the common law.
         
        2. The common law gets its name from the law that was common to all 800 and more years ago (as opposing to local laws). Judges do not make new laws today for to do so would usurp the role of Parliament but they do mould, explain and sometimes extend old principles in new situations.
         
        3. Most of common law is civil law, not criminal law. Juries in most common law countries only sit on serious criminal trials (though defamation actions are an exception). So juries cannot have any impact whatsoever except in such trials and even there they sit primarily as judges of fact in the light of the law explained to them by the presiding judge.
         
        I am afraid I cannot enter into any further correspondence but I hope this helps a bit.
         
        Yours sincerely
         
        David Clarke
         
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        On 31 May 2011 22:06 +1000 John Wilson <
        jhwilson@...> wrote:
         

        Professor David Clarke,
        School of Law,
        University of Bristol,
        U.K.

         Dear Professor Clarke,

         Re:  The Common Law World Review.

         I tried to send the email below to Professor Peter Crane... but it came back as "User Unknown", which is strange because his contact details are on the current ANU website.

         Again , most unfortunate.......however, the email is equally applicable to you, ie: being the Editor of the journal.

         Therefore,  I would like to pose the same question to you, ie: "Who makes Common Law .... Judges or Juries?"

         If you're wondering why I place such importance on the question, perhaps a glance at my website of
        http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au might provide the answer.

         Perhaps, also, you might care to comment on the attached leaflet ("Courts are Government") ... I would be most grateful.

         Yours sincerely,
         John Wilson.

         ************************************************************************




         From: John Wilson
         Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:08 AM
         To:
        peter.crane@...
         Cc: vice.chancellor@...
         Subject: Common Law


         Professor Peter Crane,
         BA LLB (Sydney); BCL, DCL (Oxford)
         Director of Research,
         ANU College of Law.

         Dear Professor Crane,

         Re: Common Law.

         I visited the UNSW Law School and my curiosity was aroused on seeing a photocopy of the cover of a journal called the "Common Law World Review" on a wall in the library indicating recent publications. However, I have been unable to track down the journal, ie: apart from getting a printout by a librarian at the State Library giving details of the "CLWR: Editors' contact details" where you are listed as the Australian Overseas Corresponding Editor.

         I hope you don't mind this intrusion, but I have taken a particular interest in the subject of Common Law and am concerned by the approach the legal profession have to it. Could you please clarify what exactly Common Law is and who makes it?

         The reason I ask this is because it is often quoted that "Common Law is Judge made Law", which is really disturbing as Judges are appointees of the Crown and the Crown, as you know, is the Legislature (with the advice and consent of the Parliament) for the creating of Statute Law.

         If Common Law is "Judge made Law", then that would make the Judiciary its own Legislature and making Laws that are not with the advice and consent of the Parliament. How does that sit with their Oath "to well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second"?

         Surely, Common Law is People made Law - and made by the lawful judgments of Juries? This seems logical to me because, in a Democracy, Sovereignty lies with the People ... and Sovereignty is "the ultimate authority to make and impose laws".

         Which brings up another disturbing misconception when the legal profession would have us believe that "Statute Law overrules Common Law".

         Who is the master and who is the servant?

         Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fear the people, you have liberty."

         We have the horrendous situation in Australia, at the moment, where the right to trial by jury has been abolished ... and this is tyranny at its worst.

         I am trying to secure an appointment with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Dr Michael Spence, and the Dean of the Sydney Law School, Professor Gillian Triggs, on these very issues.

         As you would appreciate, "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom" (John Locke), as a large banner at the entrance to the UNSW Law School tells us.

         So the simple question is: "Who makes Common Law .... Judges or Juries?"


         Yours sincerely,
         John Wilson,
         19 Elm Place,
         North Rocks,
         NSW 2151.
         Mobile: 0401 413 650
         
         
         
        ----------------------
         David Clarke
         
        D.N.Clarke@...
         
         
        -----
         No virus found in this message.
         Checked by AVG -
        www.avg.com
         Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1509/3672 - Release Date: 05/31/11

        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3673 - Release Date: 06/01/11

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.