What is assembling is the first court in history to bring judgment against the Vatican and the

Crown of England as institutions. But our Court also signals the dawn of a new notion of
justice: one defined by the people themselves, and especially by the historic victims of church
and state, to bring about not only a judgement on their persecutors, but a new political and
spiritual arrangement to undo the systems responsible for intergenerational crimes against
humanity.
- from the founding Charter of The International Common Law Court of Justice, September 1,
2012
Establishing the Reign of Natural Liberty:
The Common Law and its Courts
A Community Training Manual
Issued by The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
(Brussels)
Introduction
History was made on February 11, 2013, when the first Catholic Pope in history resigned
from his office during peacetime in order to avoid arrest for protecting and aiding child
raping priests.
Barely two weeks later, the same Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, was found guilty by
the International Common Law Court of Justice for Crimes against Humanity , including
child trafficking. And the Arrest Warrant that he had anticipated, and which provoked
his resignation, was issued against him on February 25.
Evading justice inside the Vatican, Ratzinger is presently an international fugitive from
the law - and a living example of the power of Common Law courts to successfully
prosecute so-called "heads of state".
The lawful verdict of the International Common Law Court of Justice was a "shot heard
around the world", and has spawned efforts in twenty one countries to establish similar
popular courts of justice to reclaim the law from the wealthy and their compliant
governments.
This Manual provides instruction and training to those of you who have moved from
words to actions. We speak to those who not only recognize the permanent war being
waged against humanity by a global corporate tyranny, but who are actively engaged in
dismantling that murderous system at its source so that justice can be made real in a
reclaimed world.
You are part of a growing movement to create a new, liberated society within the shell of
the old by first allowing the law to act for all people and not a clique of judicial specialists
and their friends. That new society is emerging through every act of courage and
integrity by we who know what is at stake, and that is, our children and the future of our
species.
Why We are Taking Action: Freeing Ourselves by Remembering
the True Law
"Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains".
That fact has altered little over the centuries. But the chains of oppression over much of
our species have been forged through the weapons of violence and ignorance, and they
can be undone.
Long before any rulers held sway over humanity, men and women established customs
and laws among themselves to ensure their peace and liberties as free, self-governing
people. They did so from an inherent recognition of a Natural Law of Equality or Divine
Law whereby no one has any right to dominate or rule over others, to seize more of
creation than another, or to own any part of a world given equally to all people.
It is the Divine Principle of Creation that every child born is endowed with unalienable
liberties that no authority, law, government or religion can diminish or abolish. Any
power that attempts to do so is tyrannical and illegitimate, even if it operates according
to its own laws - for such tyranny is a denial of God and an attack upon divinity and
humanity.
Two great principles summarize this Natural Law:
1. All things exist and are held in common. By the state of nature, no one has any
more of a claim to the earth than another, as noted by a founder of modern law, Thomas
Hobbes:
"I demonstrate in the first place, that in the natural state of men (which state we may
properly call the state of nature) all men have equal right unto all things" (Leviathan,
1651)

2. The Law does harm to no-one. (Actus Regis Nemini Facit Injuriam) Arising
from the Ten Commandments and God's law to do no harm to one's neighbour, this
principle forms the basis of modern law.
John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty where he argued that, "The only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (1869)
An equivalent was earlier stated in France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the
Citizen of 1789 as, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one
else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those
which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights.
These limits can only be determined by law."

This Natural Law exists to maintain the natural peace and equity between people and is
their shield and protector against unjust rule, rather than a force over them. Within the
ancient traditions of tribal communities, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, this Law
evolved into what became known as the Customary or Common Law, or the Law of the
Land. It has strong echoes in the customs of indigenous nations all over the world.
Here is a basic summary of the nature of True or Common Law versus abritrary law.
Natural Liberty and the Basis of Common Law Courts: First
Principles
1. Every man, woman and child is born and is by nature free, equal and sovereign, and
possesses an inherent knowledge of what is true and right. Accordingly, no-one can be
subordinated to another or to any external authority, since every person's inherent
wisdom and liberty makes them complete and sufficient creations in themselves, within
a wider community of equals.
2. This personal sovereignty is a reflection of the wider Natural Law, whereby all life by
nature is indivisible and placed in common for the survival and happiness of all. In any
just society, this commonality endows all people with the unalienable right to establish
among themselves their own governance, and defend themselves against any tyranny or
violence, including that inflicted by external authorities. Any authority that rules
unjustly and arbitrarily, without the free and uncoerced consent of the people, has lost
its right to rule and can be lawfully overthrown. "Unjust government is not
government but tyranny" - Plato
3. This Natural Law gives rise to customary Common Law whose purpose is to protect
the inherent liberties and sovereignty of men and women in a community by
maintaining equity and peace among them. The Common Law derives its authority from
the people themselves, and from the capacity of the people to know what is just and to
judge right and wrong for themselves. This capacity is expressed in a jury system of
twelve freely chosen people who are the ultimate judge and authority under Common
Law and its courts.
4. Historically, Common Law arose in Europe and especially in England after the
Norman Conquest as a bulwark against the aribtrary rule of elites over the people,
especially monarchs and popes. The authority of these elites was derived unnaturally,
from warfare, violent conquest and the theft of the earth, rather than from the divine law
of peace and equality. This elite rule arose most strongly in the Roman Empire and its
descendent, the Church of Rome, under whose beliefs even "god" is a dominator and
conqueror ("domine").
5. Such a conquest-based rule of papal and kingly elites gave rise to a legal system known
as Civil or Roman Law, and the belief that men and women are not endowed with the
capacity for self-rule and wisdom. All law and authority is therefore derived externally,
from statutes devised and imposed by a ruler, whether a pope, a monarch or a
government. This system developed from Aristotelian philosophy and Roman property
law in which creation is divided and human beings are treated as chattels and the
possessions of others, and thereby devoid of inherent liberties. The people are thus in
every sense enslaved, cut off from the world given freely and in common to all. This slave
system ranks and categories all people, and grants restricted "freedoms" (freithoms, or
slave privileges) that are defined and limited through statutes issued by rulers.
6. Common and Civil (Roman) Law are therefore fundamentally opposed and are at war
with each other. They cannot be reconciled, since they arise from two completely
different notions of humanity and justice: Common Law knows life as a free gift given
equally to all, while to Civil Law life is a conditional privilege, and humanity is a
managed slave populace. Accordingly, governments operate in practice according to Civil
(statute) law and denigrate or ignore Common Law altogether through the rule of
arbitrary judge-dominated courts.
7. The most extreme form of elite-based Civil Law is what is called Papal or Canon Law,
which defines the Church of Rome as the only legitimate authority on earth to which all
other laws, people and governments are subordinate. Canon law is self-governing and
completely unaccountable to anything but itself. Despite its Christian rhetoric, Roman
Catholicism is a neo-pagan cult based upon the late 3rd century Roman
Emperor-worship system known as Sol Invictus, in which one sovereign entitled "God
and Master" (Deus et Dominus) rules heaven and earth: specifically, the Pope. This
tyrannical cult has not surprisingly caused more warfare, genocide, conquest and
murder than any power in human history, and continues to constitute the single greatest
threat to Common Law and human liberty.
8. The Church of Rome was the first and is the oldest corporation on our planet: a legal
entity designed for the protection of tyrants, which nullifies the individual liability or
responsibility of the elites for any crime or conquest they perpetrate. From Rome and
the Vatican Incorporated has spread the contagion that now threatens to destroy our
planet and our lives, as unaccountable corporate oligarchy everywhere subverts liberty
and the health of our planet by subordinating all of life to profit and power.
9. At this very moment of corporate conquest and its subjugation of humanity, a
counter-movement is arising to reassert the divine purpose and its operation through
the Common Law, and to restore the earth and humanity to their natural being as a
common body. This movement is foretold Biblically and in prophecy as the time when all
people are returned to their natural equality, devoid of all divisions, privileges and
oppression, in order live in harmony with creation and one another.
10. This restoration of humanity is a divine purpose, and begins by actively
dis-establishing all existing authority and institutions derived from Roman civil law, and
replacing them with a new governance under Common Law jurisdiction. The creation of
that new Natural Law authority among a liberated humanity is the fundamental purpose
of the Common Law Courts.
How Do We Use the Common Law?
The truth is that throughout everyday life, people everywhere use and rely on Common
Law to live and work together. It is simply the inherent way that people conduct their
affairs together. Liken it to the roots that bind together human communities by
unconditionally upholding the life, dignity and wellbeing of every man, woman and
child. These roots are especially necessary and foundational in the face of tyrannical
governments that seek to subvert such natural freedom.
The Common Law's firm horizontal guarantees of mutual respect and protection are a
permanent threat to the efforts by arbitrary rulers to harness men and women into the
unnatural and vertical arrangement known as the State. That is why every government
and religion seeks to annul the Common Law with their own authority and statutes, in
order to reduce free peoples everywhere to the status of regimented, obedient tax paying
wage slaves who serve a ruling clique.
To extend our everyday reign of Common Law into all areas of life means to challenge
the arbitrary rule of those cliques, and of all State level regimes. But the very fact that it
is the Law of we, the vast majority of humanity, means that it only needs to be practiced
by enough of us for all arbitrary authority and dangers to crumble.
We use the Common Law by simply employing and relying on it, in all spheres of life.
And that means, first, by establishing functioning Common Law Courts with absolute
and ultimate jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives and communities.
Matters Before a Common Law Court
Traditionally, law in the European tradition falls into two general categories: civil and
criminal law. The former deals with disputes between individuals - often called "Tort"
offenses - or issues of negligence that cause harm. Criminal law deals with acts of
intentional harm to individuals but which, in a larger sense, are offences against all
people because they somehow threaten the community.
Arising as a defense against absolutism and state or church tyranny, the Common Law
traditionally has dealt with Criminal Law matters that "crown" or "canon law" courts
refuse to address, including murder, rape, warfare and other crimes against the
community. But civil matters of personal disputes may also be brought into a Common
Law Court, which after all claims universal jurisdiction over all legal matters within a
community.
Indeed, because Common Law is rooted in the jury system, what better forum can there
be for the settling of civil matters between individuals than a trial before one's own
neighbours?
For our purposes, however, the major focus of litigation before our Common Law Courts
will be on Criminal Law and matters involving serious threats or crimes made against
people and communities.
As in any lawful system, the burden of proof in any such litigation brought before the
Common Law Court will be on the plaintiffs - those bringing the lawsuit - and normal
Rules of Evidence will apply. For example, allegations against a party cannot be made in
court without there being a basis in provable facts, such as eyewitnesses to the alleged
crime, or documentation that is certified by an independent party.
Another crucial Rule of Evidence is the inadmissability of hearsay evidence, as in "No, I
wasn't there, but I heard about what happened". This is an especially relevant rule when
it comes to the commission of serious crimes, such as murder, genocide or rape.
In short, any allegation must be backed up with provable facts, and must be made by one
who was a direct participant in or an eyewitness to the event.
Common law juries, and not individual judges, are a far better guarantee against the
abuse of Rules of Evidence and just procedure in a courtroom. Self-governing judges are
notoriously prone to corruption and political manipulation, and routinely waive just
procedure and rules of evidence. In Canada, "crown" appointed judges even have the
power to alter or destroy court records, silence one party in a dispute, and ignore due
process altogether!
Indeed, the whole point of establishing a jury-run Common Law Court is to prevent such
a manipulation of the law and justice by unaccountable parties or vested interests. It is
not accidental that a Founding Father of the American Republic, John Hancock,
declared in 1777,
"If we have not Courts that are established and maintained by the People, rather than
by bribable Judges, then we will have no Republic ... Our Constitution and our Nation
will rise or fall according to the independence of our Courts".
Establishing and Maintaining Common Law Courts
The Common Law's First Principles establish its general legitimacy and lawfulness. This
valid system gives rise to Courts with the power to protect the people as a whole by
prosecuting and indicting any persons and institutions that threaten the community.
The mandate to establish such Courts is derived from the sovereignty of the people as a
whole, and not from any particular political system or government. Common Law Courts
are therefore universal, not constricted by customary borders or laws, and are
jurisdictionally competent to adjudicate any issue or grievance. Common Law Courts are
not subject to and do not recognize any other legal or moral authority, immunity or
privilege.
Enjoying universal jurisdiction because of its rootedness in the Natural Law, Common
Law Courts can be established in any country or community, and not only within nations
with a specifically common law legal tradition, such as England, Canada and America.
Common Law Courts are established when any number of men and women come
together to judge a matter of concern to them and to their community. Thus, such Courts
are invariably and naturally linked to political movements, "town hall gatherings" and
Tribunals of Conscience that unite citizens and give direct voice to their concerns and
demands. The Court is thereby the expression of that voice.
The Court itself is established by the direct will and vote of the people as a whole, who
elect a Citizen Jury of at least twelve people, a Citizen Prosecutor to conduct the case on
behalf of the people, a presiding Adjudicator whose job is strictly advisory, and a Sheriff
and group of Peace Officers to enforce the summonses, warrants and verdicts of the
Court.
All of the participants in a Common Law Court must present their own case in all of the
Court proceedings, since to allow another to "re-present" them would constitute a
surrender of their natural rights and sovereignty. This applies both to the plaintiffs and
the defendants involved in any matter before the Court.
There are, accordingly, no professional lawyers or permanent presiding judges in a
Common Law Court system.
There is no restriction on the power of a Common Law Court to access any person, place
or thing, nor any limitation on the duration or rights of the Court. Through the person of
the Citizen Prosecutor, the Court can issue Public Summonses that are binding on any
person or institution, and enforceable by the Court Sheriff, who has an unrestricted right
to detain any person named in the Summons and bring them into Court.
The final verdict of the Common Law Court Jury is final and not subject to appeal,
simply because a reasonable and uncoerced group of citizens can come to the truth of
any matter on the basis of the evidence alone, posssesed as they are of an inherent
knowledge of right and wrong. The truth is not mutable. A defendant is either innocent
or guilty; the truth is not subject to revision or reconsideration, since then it is not true.
The sentence of the Court is also final, and is enforced not only by the Court Sheriff but
by all citizens. For the Common Law arises from and is the direct responsibility of all
people, as are all of its procedures. The verdict really is a declaration of the people that
they will govern themselves according to their own democratic law and decisions.
There is no restriction on the power of a Citizen Jury to impose a sentence on any
person, group or institution. The Court Adjudicator has no power to alter, influence or
direct the verdict or sentence of the Jury - simply to advise the Jury on legal procedure
and points of law.
Finally, upon issuing its final verdict and sentence, the Common Law Court jury is
automatically concluded and its members are released from their duty. No Court is
maintained without the conscious consent and participation of the people themselves.
Again, there is no professional, permanent caste of either lawyers or judges in a
Common Law Court system, but rather elected and temporary Court officers.
Legal Procedure and Court Protocol
Common Law, being derived from Natural Justice, bases its legal procedures on the
centrality of Due Process: the three-fold right of anyone to be notified of the charges
being brought against him, to see the evidence in such a suit, and to be tried and judged
before his own peers.
No legitimate trial can proceed nor can a conviction be rendered if the accused has not
been given these rights, and afforded the chance to freely defend himself in a court of
law.
Such rights are based on these fundamental doctrines of the Common Law:
- It is presumed that the accused is innocent, not guilty
- The burden of proof of the accused's guilt rests not upon the defendant but
the plaintiff, who must convince a jury of the guilt of the accused beyond any
reasonable doubt
- The accused cannot be detained without due process but must appear
promptly before a Court, according to the principle of Habeas Corpus (Latin
for "produce the body")
Both sides in a dispute are given equal time to file their statements and evidence, make
motions to the Court, and respond to arguments. But to avoid "vexatious litigation"
designed to simply harrass or disrupt an adversary - which can drag out and impede
justice and due process itself - the Court normally sets a strict time limit on pre-trial
proceedings, after which the trial must commence.
The pre-trial period is designed to allow both sides the opportunity to present their
evidence and arguments to one another in order to seek a settlement prior to a Court
appearance. This presentation is usually referred to as "Examination for Discovery" or
Voir Dire ("see and say"), where either party can demand any relevant evidence or
document from one another.
If Examination does not produce a settlement of differences, then the Court is convened
and a trial begins.
The general procedures and protocols of a Common Law Court are summarized in the
following outline, which must be followed by anyone seeking to accuse and try other
parties.
Step One - Compiling the Case
A Statement of Claim must be produced by those bringing a case, known as the
Plaintiffs. Their Statement sets out in point form the basic facts of the dispute, the wrong
being alleged, and the relief or remedy being sought.
Next, the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim must be accompanied by supporting evidence:
documents and testimonies proving their case beyond any reasonable doubt. This
evidence must be notarized and duly sworn by those not party to the dispute, and cannot
consist of copies of original documents, but the documents themselves.
As well, anyone whose testimony is used in this body of evidence must be willing to come
into Court to testify and affirm their own statement.
Step Two - Seeking the Remedy of a Common Law Court: Filing a Notice of
Claim of Right
After gathering his case, a Plaintiff must then seek the aid of a Common Law Court and
its officers. Such a Court can be brought into being by publishing a Notice of Claim of
Right (see Appendix B, "Court Documents"), which is a public declaration calling for the
assistance of the community in the asserting of the Plaintiff's right under Natural Justice
to have his case heard through the Common Law, by way of a jury of his neighbours and
peers.
Such a Notice can be published in local newspapers or simply notarized and posted in a
prominent public location, like a town hall or library.
Step Three - Forming a Common Law Court
Within 24 hours of the issuing of such a Notice of Claim of Right, any twelve citizens of a
community can constitute themselves as a Common Law Court and its jury, and must
then appoint the following Court Officers from their ranks:
- a Court Adjudicator, to advise and oversee the Court
- a Public or Citizen Prosecutor to conduct the case; this person is normally the Plaintiff
himself or someone he authorizes to advise but not represent him
- a Defense Counsel to advise but not represent the accused
- a Court Sheriff, either elected from the community or delegated from among existing
peace officers
- Bailiffs, a Court Registrar and a Court Reporter
It is assumed that people with knowledge of the Common Law and legal procedure will
act in these capacities.
Step Four - Swearing in and Convening the Jury and Court Officers: Oaths of
Office
Upon the appointment of these Court Officers, the Adjudicator will formally convene the
Court by taking and administering the following Oath of Common Law Court Office:
I (name) will faithfully perform my duties as an officer of this Common Law Court
according to the principles of Natural Justice and Due Process, acting at all times with
integrity, honesty and lawfulness. I recognize that if I fail to consistently abide by this
Oath I can and will be removed from my Office. I make this public Oath freely, without
coercion or ulterior motive, and without any mental reservation.
The Jury, Court Counsellors, Sheriffs and Reporter will then convene and receive
instructions from the Adjudicator concerning the case. The Adjudicator is not a
presiding Judge or Magistrate but an advisor to the Court, and has no power to
influence, direct or halt the actions or the decisions of the Jury or other Court officers.
Thus, the Court is self-regulating and dependent on the mutual respect and governance
of all the Court officers and the Jury.
Step Five - Pre-Trial Conference
The Adjudicator brings together both parties in a pre-trial conference in an attempt to
settle the case prior to a trial. If a settlement is not achieved, both parties must then
engage in a mandatory Examination of Discovery, in which the evidence and
counter-evidence and statements of both sides will be presented. After a period of not
more than one week, this pre-trial conference will conclude and the trial will commence.
Step Six - Issuing of Public Summonses
No person or agency may be lawfully summoned into a Common Law Court without first
receiving a complete set of charges being brought against them and a formal Notice to
Appear, or Writ of Public Summons. Such a Summons outlines the exact time, date and
address when and where the trial will commence.
The Public Summons is applied for by the Plaintiff through the Court Registrar. The
Summons will be issued under the signature of the Court Adjudicator and delivered to
the Defendant by the Court Sheriff within 24 hours of its filing in the Court Registry by
the Plaintiff. The Sheriff must personally serve the Defendant, or post the Summons in a
public place if the Defendant avoids service.
The Defendant has seven days to appear in Court from the date of service.
Step Seven - The Trial Commences: Opening Arguments
After an introduction by the Adjudicator, the trial commences with opening arguments
by first the Plaintiff or Prosecutor, and then the Defendant. The Adjudicator and both
Counsellors, if advised, will then have the chance to question either parties for
clarification, and to make motions to the Court if it is apparent that the proceedings can
be expedited.
Note: Step Seven can still occur even if one side, usually the Defendant, is not present in
Court and refuses to participate. Such a trial, being conducted "in absentia", remains a
legitimate legal procedure once the Defendant is given every opportunity to appear and
respond to the charges and evidence against him. An In absentia trial will commence
with the Plaintiff presenting his opening argument followed by his central case. The
Court-appointed Defense Counsel will then be given the chance to argue on behalf of the
absent Defendant, if that is the wish of the latter.
It is often the case that a non-response or non-appearance by the Defendant can result in
the Adjudicator advising the Jury to declare a verdict in favour of the Plaintiff, on the
grounds that the Defendant has tacitly agreed with the case against himself by not
disputing the evidence or charges.
Step Eight - The Main Proceedings
Assuming the proceedings are not being conducted in absentia and the Defendant is
present, the main proceedings of the trial then commence with the Plaintiff's
presentation of the details of his evidence and argument against the Defendant, who can
then respond. The Plaintiff may be assisted by the Citizen Prosecutor.
After his presentation, the Plaintiff is then cross-examined by the Defendant or his
advising Counsel.
Following cross-examination, the Defendant presents his case, with or without his
advising counsellor, and in turn is cross-examined by the Plaintiff or the Citizen
Prosecutor.
Step Nine - Closing Summaries and Arguments to the Jury and final advice
by the Adjudicator
After the main proceedings, the Adjudicator has the chance to further question both
parties in order to give final advice to the Jury. The Plaintiff and then the Defendant
then have the right to give their closing summary and argument to the Court. The
Adjudicator closes with any final comments to the Jury.
Step Ten - The Jury retires to deliberate
The Court is held in recess while the twelve citizen jury members retire to come to a
verdict and a sentence, based on their appraisal of all the evidence. There is no time
restriction on their deliberations, and during that time, they are not allowed contact with
anyone save the Court Bailiff, who is their guard and escort. The Jury's verdict and
sentence must be consensual, uncoerced, and unanimous.
Step Eleven - The Jury issues its unanimous verdict and sentence
The Court is reconvened after the Jury has come to a verdict. The Jury spokesman,
chosen from among them by a vote, announces the verdict to the Court, and based on
that verdict, the final sentence.
Step Twelve - The Court adjourns and the Sentence is Enforced
Following the announcement of the Verdict and Sentence, the Adjudicator either frees
the Defendant or affirms the decision of the Jury, and instructs the Sheriff to enforce
that sentence. The Adjudicator then dismisses the Jury and formally concludes the trial
proceedings, and the Court is concluded. The entire record of the Court proceedings is a
public document, accessible to anyone, and can in no way be withheld, altered or
compromised by the Adjudicator or any other party.
A Note on Common Law Enforcement: It is understood that every able bodied
citizen is obligated and empowered by Natural Law to assist the Court Sheriff and his
Deputies in enforcing the sentence of the Court, including by ensuring the imprisonment
of the guilty, the monitoring of his associates and the public expropriation of the assets
and property of the guilty and his agents, if such is the sentence of the Court. This
collective law enforcement is required in the interest of public safety, especially when the
guilty party is an entire institution or head officers of that body.
A Note on Appealing Common Law Court Decisions: Under the doctrine of
Natural Law, in which every man and woman is born with an inherent grasp of right and
wrong and of justice, it is understood that a jury of twelve citizens, when given the
complete evidence and facts of a case, will arrive at a just and proper verdict. The truth
of that verdict must stand and is not subject to re-evaluation or dispute, except in the
case of a gross dereliction of duty or non-consideration of evidence. Therefore, the
verdicts of Common Law Court juries are not subject to appeal or revision, since the
truth is not mutable or reformable.
This solidity of a verdict is also required by the Common Law doctrine and custom of
Stare Decisis, meaning "the decision stands", whereby the precedent decisions of
previous Court verdicts have binding authority. Without Stare Decisis, the law is subject
to the whims and political interference of rulers and despots.
In the words of Black's Law Dictionary,
The doctrine of stare decisis states that legal decisions are binding and shall not be
reversed. "The decision stands." That is, once a court has entered its judgment upon an
issue, it shall not reverse itself. This is in fact the foundation of legality in the
common law system - and is one of the principal differences between
common and civil law.

Verdicts, Enforcement, and Convicting Rulers and Institutions
Every legal system operates according to its own worldview and essential purpose. In the
case of Civil or statute law, the contending interests of individuals waging war with one
another in a courtroom define the process and aims of the Court. This system serves
whoever has the money or influence to present the most convincing case, usually before
a single magistrate who is part of a self-governing and unaccountable judicial clique.
The law, under this elite-derived system, is a private club to wield against another person
or group over commercial interests, not an avenue of justice for all or of the common
good.
In the Common Law, contrarily, the Court is defined not by contending individual
interests, but by the needs of the community as a whole, and by justice as defined by
those who have suffered from the lack of it. A bedrock of collective morality shapes how
the Common Law operates, according to a simple issue: Will this legal decision and
precedent best serve the community as a whole, and those within it who are the most
vulnerable or who have suffered or been victimized, or who may be?
Men and women have a natural tendency to resolve their differences and mediate
disputes among themselves, when uncoerced and left to themselves to apply their own
natural sense of right and wrong. Despite this, the State has under threat of force
violently conditioned people to automatically deny their own judgement and defer to
external authorities whenever they are in dispute or they seek justice. And so a long
"relearning of freedom" is needed for Common Law to become a functional part of
human life once again.
Fortunately, we have found that the very act of publicly declaring and establishing the
supremacy of the People and their Common Law has sparked that process of relearning
freedom in the hearts and minds of growing numbers of people. Sparked, but not
secured. For the greatest impediment to the efficacy of Common Law courts lies in the
fears and doubts that seize citizens when they are presented with the power to be the
law, and not have the law done to them.
"Taking the law into your own hands", we have been taught, is a cardinal sin, when in
reality, for citizens to judge legal matters for themselves is the highest civic virtue and
the cornerstone of true democracy, according to the Athenian law maker Solon.
At the heart of that responsibility for the law is the capacity of citizens to judge a law suit
for themselves as sworn jurors, and impose a verdict and sentence in such a suit. The
jury system has always been the purest expression of the Common Law and its capacity
to empower the people themselves to defend traditional liberties and ascertain the truth
of a matter.
To render a fair and reasonable verdict, anyone simply needs to know all the facts and
the evidence, and consider it all soberly, without threats, influence or coercion. The more
people who gather to determine the truth of a matter, the more likely they will come to a
just and truthful verdict. Individual bias or prejudice, which is always present and
undeniable within a jury, becomes through the jury process counterbalanced and
absorbed into a broader collective truth imposed by the natural reason and fairness
among jury members.
The issue, of course, is not whether men and women can come to a Court verdict, but
rather, how their decision can be enforced, and effective in their community. This is
especially an issue when the verdict is imposed against heads of church or state, or even
entire institutions, as in the February 25, 2013 verdict of the International Common
Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ) concerning Genocide in Canada. (www.itccs.org/ICLCJ)
To use that case as an example, the moral weight of the verdict was clearly the strongest
weapon in the arsenal of the Court, and created the conditions for the enforcement of
the verdict against the thirty officials of church and state named in the indictment.
For one thing, the February 25 verdict - which sentenced all the defendants to public
banishment, twenty five years in prison and the loss of all property and assets - directly
helped depose not only Pope Benedict, Joseph Ratzinger, but the most powerful Catholic
Cardinal in Rome: the Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who also resigned
while in office after the ICLCJ verdict was pronounced.
Ratzinger and Bertone know about international law, even if others don't. They
understand that the verdict of the ICLCJ carries a recognized legitimacy under the Law
of Nations and the public right to form Tribunals of Conscience when courts refuse to
adjudicate a matter. And the Vatican also knows that the ICLCJ verdict can be entered
into other nation's courts and used for the issuing of arrest warrants against proven war
criminals like church officers. And so the resignation of these ostensibly "untouchable"
church leaders is simple proof of the power of independent, common law court verdicts.
A court verdict, after all, is a binding order carrying with it the full force of the law, and
whoever ignores or subverts such a verdict, and the Court's orders arising from it, is
guilty of an indictable crime.
In the Appendix to this Manual, we have reprinted all of the Court documents related to
that first ICLCJ case of Genocide in Canada. The Court Order and Arrest Warrant dated
March 5, 2013, can be acted on by any sworn agent of the ICLCJ or whoever such an
Agent appoints. Any citizen, in short, can assist in the arrest of Joseph Ratzinger,
Tarcisio Bertone and the twenty eight other officials of church and state found guilty of
Crimes against Humanity by the ICLCJ.
Such enforcement of the law by citizens themselves is generally recognized in most
countries, under the precedent known generically as "the right of Citizens' arrest". In
Canada, for example, under a law known as the Citizens Arrest and self-defense Act
(2012), citizens can detain anyone who either commits a crime or is even suspected of
having done so, or who poses a threat to their own or others' safety: like, for our
purposes, a child raping priest. This power of Citizens Arrest has in fact been broadened
under this new Canadian law, from what it was previously. (see :
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2012_9/FullText.html)
In theory, then, the enforcement of Common Law Court verdicts by any citizen is not
only perfectly legitimate and lawful, but is guaranteed even under the laws of countries
dominated by Civil, statute law. But power, as we know, is not only about laws and
theory, but ultimately involves naked force: the capacity of one group to impose its will
upon another.
Hugh Grotius, a sixteenth century pioneer of international law, said that legal principles
acquired power only when backed by cannon fire. So besides its legal and moral weight,
what "cannons" will back up and enforce the verdicts of our Common Law courts?
Especially when the fire power of those we are sentencing and arresting is apparently so
much greater than ours?
Another great pioneer, the Chinese general Sun Tzu, wrote millenia ago that in any
conflict, power is never what you have materially but rather psychologically; and the
superior firepower of a much bigger enemy can always be negated with the right,
unforeseen manuevers. (We've reprinted forty of Sun Tzu's most relevant teachings in
Appendix C).
Those rulers indicted by the ICLCJ are men and women garbed by the illusory robes of
their offices, and they are guarded by other men and women who, like the rulers
themselves, are motivated primarily by fear. That fear is their greatest weakness, and can
be easily exploited by even a small group of people, as anyone who has occupied a
Roman Catholic church learns very quickly.
The fact that laws guard the powerful is not as important as the reality that any
functionable law rests upon its moral and political legitimacy, and once that is gone, the
laws and hard physical power of a state or church begin to crumble. Once public
confidence in a ruler wanes, internal divisions appear in the ruling hierarchy, and
usually a "palace coup" occurs and the regime falls. We are witnessing precisely such
developments and such a collapse of legitimacy within the Roman Catholic church today,
in the manner of events prior to the deposing of any dictatorship.
And so the short answer to the question, how do we enforce our verdicts in the face of
the power of the enemy, is simply, we do as Sun Tzu teaches, and strike at the weakest,
not the strongest, part of that enemy.
The weak point of any institution, especially a church, is its public image and its source
of money. Threaten either, and the entire institution must respond to the smallest of
enemies. We have proven that in practice. And the very fact of our smallness gives us a
freedom and flexibility to strike at such big targets when and how we like: a power that is
denied to massive institutions.
A Common Law Court verdict like the one of February 25 is a wedge between the
credibility of an institution like the Vatican and the rest of the world. Clearly, by striking
at that credibility - a weak link in the church's chain - we are manuevering around the
obvious strong points of that opponent and hitting them where they have no defense: the
fact that as an organization, they officially protect and aid child rapists and human
trafficking. And it was precisely by doing so that on August 4, 2013, the Vatican was
declared a Transnational Criminal Organization under international law.
(www.itccs.org)
As such a criminal body, the Vatican can now be legally disestablished, its officers
arrested, and its property and wealth seized, not simply under Common Law but
according to the Law of Nations. (see The United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime, November 2000, articles 5, 6 and 12:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/treaties/CTOC/#Fulltext)
So no, it isn't immediately possible to physically detain heads of states, churches or large
corporations after sentence is pronounced against them, although we will certainly
attempt to do so. But the apprehension of criminals in high office can and does
eventually follows as their credibility and protection crumbles, and as the law and
morality work around their strong defenses and undermines them, like water flowing
around a wall or a rock.
The point of any Common Law Court verdict, after all, is not to target or imprison mere
individuals, but to stop any threat to the helpless and to the community: to arrest such
threats so they do not reoccur, primarily by ending the institutional source of those
threats. And our chief means to do so is the moral weight of our evidence and verdicts
combined with the capacity of many people to enforce those verdicts.
Common Law Sheriffs and Peace Officers
That brings us to a key aspect of the Court: its police arm, without which it cannot
function.
The tradition of Common Law sheriffs is an old one in the English speaking world: men
or women appointed from the local community to detain those harming others, bring
them into town or "shire" courts for judgement, and enforce that court's sentence. In the
United States, that tradition is still alive and embodied in locally elected sheriffs who are
granted considerable power within their communities.
The role of the Common Law Court Sheriff is fourfold: to provide security for the Court,
to deliver Court Summonses and Orders to Appear, to detain and physically deliver to
Court those summoned who evade a Court Order, and finally, to enforce the final
sentence of the Court, including by jailing and monitoring the guilty.
The Sheriff does not perform these duties alone, but with deputies and other agents he
appoints to assist him. Such a "posse" is another pejorative term that actually refers to
an important traditional custom of mobilizing all the able bodied men in a community to
stop anyone who has committed a crime. The word "posse" comes from a Latin term
"pro toto posse suo" meaning "to do the utmost in one's power". According to one writer,
All persons who were the victims of a crime in Anglo-Saxon England were expected to raise
their "hue and cry" and apprehend the criminal; and upon hearing their cry, every able-bodied
man in the community was expected to do the "utmost in his power" (pro toto posse suo) to
chase and apprehend the accused as a "posse.
- 1215: The Year of Magna Carta by J. Danziger et al (2003)

The custom of electing community peace officers like sheriffs, in other words, arose from
the belief that everyone in a community had the obligation to police and protect
themselves and their children. The Court Sheriff is thereby the servant of the people,
taken from among them, answerable to and recallable by them, and not an external force
over them.
Part of the power of such a Sheriff is that he can deputize anyone to assist him, including
other police officers and agents of the very institutions being named and tried in
Common Law courts. This is an especially important action and tactic during
this, the early stages of the development of our local Common Law courts,
since it uses the very strength of the system we are opposing against itself.
To give an example, if a Common Law Court Summons or Arrest Warrant is to be
delivered against a church or government official, the Court Sheriff will first deliver a
copy of it to the local, existing police agency along with a Deputizing Notice placing those
police under the jurisdiction of the Common Law. (See Court Documents, Appendix B).
As such, the police are then obligated to assist the Sheriff and must take the same Oath
of Common Law Office as the Sheriff.
If those issued such a Notice deny or dispute it or refuse to take the Oath, they are then
ordered to stand down from their position and to not interfere with the Sheriff in his
duties. If they agree with the Notice, either directly or through their silence or
non-interference, such police agencies are tacitly abiding by the Common Law action,
and the normal protection around criminals in high office is suddenly nullified.
Such an encounter is in effect an enormous tug of war between two contending legal
systems: a battle of wills, played out in full public view as an enormous "teaching
moment".
This is the bigger and crucial point of that particular confrontation between Court
Sheriffs and Civil law policemen, which must always be visible and televised to the world
as it occurs: that it is a chance for the people to learn directly that those policemen and
soldiers who provide the muscle for the system are not exempt from the authority of
Common Law, and must ultimately make a choice concerning who and what they serve.
The moral and propaganda value of publicly posing such a question is inestimable.
On those occasions when this tactic has been tested in Canada and elswhere, the results
have always been the same: the police back off and do not interfere. Time and again,
neither the RCMP nor the Vancouver police have interfered with protestors who
peacefully occupied Catholic or Protestant churches responsible for the death of Indian
children. On one occasion, a senior police sergeant even stated that if the church had
committed such crimes, he'd be duty bound to help arrest those responsible!
Again, quoting Sun Tzu, to defeat an enemy one must know them; and such knowledge
can only be gained through constant contact. "Provoke them to learn their responses.
Prick them to test their strength and weakness. Do not outfight them but outthink
them."
Common Law peace officers return power to the people by making them their own police
authorities. In so doing, they challenge the very basis of the status quo and its elite-based
rule, by undermining those unaccountable "armed bodies of men" who constitute the
final and ultimate power of the State.
The Common Law, in short, is a seed of fundamental social and political transformation,
not simply a weapon for the oppressed.
Broader Consequences of the Common Law Court:
A World made New
Our first real step towards independence from England was the establishment of our
own Republican courts, right under the nose of the Brits. We set up a different legal
system of our traditional Brehon laws, even while under military occupation. And we
had to defend that system in arms. So you can say that once we started living under
our own laws, everything else had to follow, right up to becoming a new nation.
- Joe MacInnes, Republican veteran of the Irish Civil War (1974 interview)
"For what you call the Law is but a club of the rich over the lowest of men, sanctifying
the conquest of the earth by a few and making their theft the way of things. But over
and above these pitiful statutes of yours that enclose the common land and reduce us to
poverty to make you fat stands the Law of Creation, which renders judgement on rich
and poor alike, making them one. For freedom is the man who will thus turn the world
upside down, therefore no wonder he has enemies"

- Gerrard Winstanley, The True Levellers' Standard, Surrey, England, 1649

For the people themselves to sit in judgement of historically "untouchable" rulers like
popes and heads of state, and to render an enforceable verdict on their crimes, is a
revolutionary act. And such a revolution has begun, with the February 25, 2013 verdict
of the International Common Law Court of Justice.
We cannot shrink from or deny the profound consequences of taking such a necessary
historic step. Rather, we must recognize that the new judicial system in our hands is in
fact a doorway to a transformed world, in which the land and its wealth and society as a
whole is reclaimed by all people, and brought into harmony with Natural Justice through
a great social levelling.
Many traditions and prophecies foresee such a time as now as a judgement upon the
corruption and injustice of the past. Biblically, such a moment was known as the Jubilee,
when all human laws an divisions are abolished, and society, like nature during a fallow
year, is allowed to rest from warfare, corruption and injustice.
In truth, we recognize this historic moment not ultimately as a condemnation of what
has been but a transformation ionto what is coming to be: a reinventing of humanity
according to the simple principle that no law or authority shall ever again cause anyone
to rule, harm or dominate others.
The aim of Common Law is to re-establish direct relations of mutual aid among people
by placing justice and the law within their reach again. And that devolution of power will
simultaneously disestablish all hierarchical institutions of state, business and church
which control and mediate human life as a power over people.
A process so profound and revolutionary can only be enacted from the grassroots, by
many people who have relearned freedom and use it to take action in their own
communities to govern themselves as their own judge, jury and police. On the basis of
this good renewed soil, a great harvest will one day arise in the form of new and local
Republics of Equals, in harmony with itself and all creation. The Common Law is a
catalyst and a means towards achieving this political and spiritual end.
For now, as we struggle to give birth to the Courts that are like a great plow breaking
open the dead soil of the status quo, we must never forget that much of what we have
been taught will betray us, for we have been raised as slaves to think and operate under
laws that serve the few. Everything must be rethought and retried according to the two
great Principles of Natural Law: All things are placed in common for the good of all; and
therefore, The law shall cause harm to no-one.
Our principles are firm, but our methods and tactics are supple. We must audaciously try
ever new ways to expose and indict and stop the criminal institutions and corporations
that are killing our planet, our children and our sacred liberties. And together, we must
learn from every mistake and defeat, and generalize the victories and wisdom we gain
into clear precedent, during this redemptive struggle that will span many lifetimes.
The conscience born into us is our lamp during this long journey, as is our great heritage
of Natural Law and Reason, passed down to us so that a free and independent humanity
may never perish from the earth.
The Law is the public conscience. And the Common Law is but common reason.
- Sir Edward Coke, 1622
There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the Law of our
Creator, the law of humanity, justice and equity - The law of Nature and of Nations.
- Edmund Burke, 1780
......................
Appendix
A. Sources and Resources
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier, (1856) Legal Maxims, by Broom and
Bouvier, (1856) A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, (1893) Black's Law
Dictionary, by Henry Campell Black, (3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Editions, 1933-1990)
Maxims of Law, by Charles A. Weisman, (1990)
See also O. W. Holmes, The Common Law (1881; new ed., ed. by M. DeWolfe Howe,
1963, repr. 1968); T. F. Plucknett, Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed. 1956);
H. Potter, Historical Introduction to English Law and Its Institutions (4th ed. 1958); A.
R. Hogue, Origins of the Common Law (1966); R. C. van Caenegem, The Birth of the
English Common Law (1973); J. H. Baker, The Legal Profession and the Common Law
(1986); R. L. Abel and P. S. C. Lewis, ed., The Common Law World (1988).
Further publications of aspects of the International Common Law Court of Justice and
its procedures and principles will be forthcoming, issued by the ICLCJ Legal Advisory
Board.

B. Examples of Common Law Court Documents
1. Notice of Claim of Right - To be publicly issued in order to convene a local
Common Law Court
2. Deputizing Notice issued by Court Sheriffs to other peace officers
3. Documents in the first case of The International Common Law Court of
Justice, Docket No. , In the matter of The People v. Joseph Ratzinger, Elizabeth
Windsor et al. (Genocide in Canada)

C. Strategy and Tactics: Forty Key Lessons from Sun Tzu
1. One skilled in battle summons others and is not summoned by them.
2. One skilled at moving an enemy Forms, and the enemy must follow; Offers, and the
enemy must take.
3. Form the ground of battle before engaging an enemy, on terms favourable to you.
Then shape the ground to deceive the enemy, with actions that fit the enemy's own mind
and action. Thus you form victory before battle by standing on the ground of no defeat.
4. Victory is not achieved by the physical destruction of an enemy but by their
demoralization, which is accomplished by manuever. Do not repeat successful
manuevers with the same enemy or they will recover and adapt to your tactics.
5. War is only a means to a political end, not an end in itself.
6. Knowing the enemy and knowing yourself: in every battle, no danger. Not knowing
the enemy and knowing yourself: one defeat for every victory. Not knowing the enemy
and not knowing yourself: In every battle, certain defeat.
7. Defend and one is insufficient. Attack and one has a surplus.
8. The victorious army is first victorious and then does battle. The defeated army first
does battle and after that seeks victory.
9. It is the nature of warfare that swiftness rules. Everything will be won with swift
action at the right moment, or lost without it.
10. Only fight an enemy if a position is critical; only move if there is something to gain.
11. Do not respond to the ground your enemy has prepared for you, but instead, shape
their ground. Then they have no alternative but to be led by you, as if it was their own
idea. This is skill.
12. Hide the time of battle from an enemy, and make what he loves and defends your
first objective. When near, manifest far; when able, manifest inability, so as to confuse
him.
13. Let your plans be as dark as night, then strike like a thunderbolt with utter surprise.
Prior to such a surprise attack, feign weakness and offer the enemy a truce, to lull his
defences. The unexpected attack always negates the superior strength of an enemy.
14. If I do not wish to do battle, I mark a line on the earth to defend it, and the enemy
cannot do battle with me. I misdirect him.
15. Respond to aggression by creating space, so as to control the actions of the aggressor.
Resist, and you swell the attacker. Create room for the aggressor and he will dissipate.
16. When I am few and the enemy is many, I can use the few to strike the many because
those whom I battle are restricted.
17. Use order to await chaos. Use stillness to await clamor. At the right moment, not
acting is the most skillful action. This is ordering the heart-mind.
18. It is not necessary to exercise your strength. Instead, rest in your sufficiency.
19. Every sage commander acts from his own ground of strength, which is formed solely
by the completeness of his being. He accepts his nature and remains himself, which
brings the power to discern clearly. The clarity and the will of the commander forms the
ground of his entire army; and clarity comes from an honest and a humble heart.
20. The commander must never issue ambiguous orders.
21. The victorious commander does not win victory by conquering an opponent but by
creating the larger view that includes both sides. Outthink, do not outfight, your enemy.
22. Always carefully discern the enemy's purpose. True knowledge of the enemy comes
from active contact. Provoke them to reveal themselves, assessing their nature and
responses. Prick them and know their movements. Probe them and know their strength
and deficiencies.
23. An enemy can be subdued without battle once you understand the relationships and
combination of things that constitutes its power. This skill of understanding exceeds one
hundred victories in battle.
24. Power is found not in solid things but in the constant flow of relationships, which are
never still. The power of a squirrel to cross a river on a log lies neither in the squirrel nor
the log, but in their momentary combination. That combination is its power.
25. To employ the skill of understanding an enemy's power, one must be formless, like
water. The water moves from high to low; your army's movements are determined
fluidly, according to the state of your enemy. Thus is your power not fixed, and it is
without permanent form, to reflect and capture the power of your enemy.
26. Never reinforce error or a defeat, but let your understanding move fluidly with each
new experience. There is never a final or definitive outcome to the army that moves like
water.
27. Being without permanent form and fluid in your movements and tactics, you compel
your enemy to defend against you at every point. He is thereby dissipated and weakened,
and kept ignorant of your purpose while forced to reveal his condition to you.
28. By this means of formlessness, you can form the strongest enemy to the ground you
have chosen for it, on the terms of your victory. But without foreknowledge of the ground
itself, none of this is possible.
29. Hostile ground heightens your focus. Cut off from home support, you take
nourishment from the enemy. Such supply lines cannot be severed. Use the threat
surrounding you to stay united and sustain your army.
30. Place your soldiers where they cannot leave. Facing death, they find their true
strength and cannot be routed. When they cannot leave, they stand firm and fight.
31. Extreme situations cause your troops to respond from profound sources of inner
power. Training and commands cannot accomplish this. Dire circumstances
automatically evoke it, unsought yet attained. The right relationships unleash enormous
power greater than the individual parts.
32. If an enemy occupies high ground, do not engage him; if he attacks from high
ground, do not oppose him.
33. If a mightier enemy pauses though enjoying an advantage, they are tired. If divisions
appear in their ranks, they are frightened. If their commander repeatedly speaks
soothing reassurances to his army, he has lost his power. Many punishments indicate
panic. Many bribes and rewards means the enemy is seeking retreat.
34. Bind your own army to you with deeds. Do not command them with words.
35. Engage an enemy with what they expect, so that what you allow them to see confirms
their own projections. This settles them into predictable patterns of response, distracting
them from your actions while you wait calmly for the extraordinary moment: that which
they cannot anticipate or prepare for. Use the extraordinary to win victory.
36. Be in this manner invisible and unfathomable to your enemy. To be thus without
form, first be so orthodox that nothing remains to give you away. Then be so
extraordinary that no-one can predict your action or purpose.
37. Thus, in battle, use a direct attack to engage, and an indirect attack to win.
38. Ride the inadequacies of your enemy. Go by unpredicted ways. Attack where your
enemy has not taken precautions and avoid where they have.
39. Do not confront the enemy in their strength, but at the points of their weakness.
Seize something the enemy holds dear. Their strength is then rendered useless; they
must stop to listen and respond. Likewise, whatever you love makes you vulnerable.
Prepare yourself to relinquish it.
40. Being thus prepared and awaiting the unprepared is victory. Thus it is said, "Victory
can be known. It cannot be made".
In summary:
- Know your enemy and know yourself
- Subdue the enemy without fighting
- Avoid what is strong. Attack what is weak.
These three great Principles are tied together like braided strands of hair.
The Five Factors of Victory: Weather, Terrain, Leadership, Military Doctrine, and Moral
Influence.