Statute vs. Common law - What's the difference?

[chason58]

People keep telling me online that statute laws are "fake" and that you don't need to follow them. WHat do they mean by that?

Someone please explain this is detail. Also, what would happen in court if you argue the difference?

[bellden]

In England and Wales, and other common law jurisdictions, common law is the historic law, the oldest of which dates from the Anglo-Saxon period, but its application is under constant modification by the Courts, particularly the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court (as is most Statute Law, especially in the case of older Statutes. Common law could therefore be said to have evolved to its present state today.

Statute law is what it says, ie the law stemming from Acts of Parliament; however, once again, its application can be and frequently is modified by precedent, and this is, incidentally, where barristers really earn their Serious Ill-Gotten Akkers. An Act of Parliament can and quite often does supersede common law, and can itself be superseded by a subsequent Act - a simple example of this being the Witchcraft Act being superseded and repealed by the Fraudulent Mediums Act.

As to the nonsense you have read online, it's about as reliable as the Wapping Liar, aka the Sun, and I would love to see some fool try it on in court. It is, quite simply, Bullshit, and any Learned Judge would tell you as much, but perhaps in more words.

[emmanuil54]

Under US law, statutes generally supersede common law, except where the common law covers issues not expressly dealt with in the statutes, or the common law is based upon court decisions of any court having superiority in that jurisdiction. For instance, rulings of the US Supreme Court constitute the common law for all jurisdictions in the USA, regardless of what their respective statutes may say to the contrary.

However, the only way to find out if a statute is "unconstitutional" is to challenge it in court, either as a suit against the attorney general (prohibiting enforcement) or as an appeal of an actual case in which the law was applied.

[gall]

Our Common law was given to us by our King Alfred the Great, who ruled from 871 to 901 A.D. He used Customary law, and the Ten Commandments to establish our Common law, that our Sovereign Queen took an Coronation oath to uphold.
In 1688/9 We were given our 'The Declaration of Rights' by his Highness the prince of Orange, at his coronation. All Constitutions were based on these documents.
But now we have Roman Civil Laws, which come from the City of London Bar Association, which come from the Vatican, where Rothschild was the treasurer.
So we have Lawful and Unlawful, which is our only law, but are being conned into believing in Legal or Illegal, which statute law comes from.

[ludano17]

Ill just state quickly that statute laws are not laws but more like contractual requirements. You are presumed to have agreed by them so you must follow them. They have lots of tricks and manipulation to make it appears that you agreed to these contracts but at the end of the day the police will probably kill you if you dont comply.

I have read many definitions of Common Law and it appears to change at the behest of individual judges.

My advice, there is no Law as you think of it. Law disappeared a long time ago with the advent of the Talmudic Ju-dicial system, you know where we get ju-stice. They make it up as they go along. and its only for us and not for them. Them being the invisible overseers who run the courts from Tel Aviv.