Enforcing Common Law


The big and thorny 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 , www.murderbydecree.com)

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.

Enforcing Common Law
A citizens arrest in Melbourne using a milk crate

For one thing, the February 25 verdict – which sentenced all the defendants to public banishment, twenty five years in prison and the loss of 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 clearly understood 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 governments and courts refuse to address 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 in the spring of 2013 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 our website www.itccs.org we have reprinted all of the Court documents from 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 man or woman, in short, can assist in the arrest of Joseph Ratzinger, Tarcisio Bertone and the officials of church and state found guilty of Crimes against Humanity by the ICLCJ.

Such enforcement of the law by the people themselves is generally recognized in most countries, under the precedent known generically as a right of Citizens Arrest. In Canada, for example, under a law known as the Citizens Arrest and Self-Defence 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 been broadened under this new Canadian law, from what it was previously. (see: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatues/2012_9/FullText.html)

In theory, then, the enforcement of Common Law Court verdicts by anyone is not only 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.

In Australia, the LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002 – SECT 4 states that under Common law the police have an obligation to act on a common law court indictment:

  • Unless this Act otherwise provides expressly or by implication, this Act does not limit–
    • the functions, obligations and liabilities that a police officer has as a constable at common law, or
    • the functions that a police officer may lawfully exercise, whether under an Act or any other law as an individual (otherwise than as a police officer) including, for example, powers for protecting property. (an ‘individual’ refers to someone making a citizen’s arrest)
  • Without limiting subsection (1) and subject to section 9, nothing in this Act affects the powers conferred by the common law on police officers to deal with breaches of the peace.

As well as the police, anyone can make citizen’s arrest if they witness a person has just committed or is in the act of committing an indictable offence. An indictable offence is one that can be tried in a crown court in front of a jury. Types of indictable offences include: robbery or stealing from someone, destroying or damaging property, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

However, there must be a basis for the arrest. For example, if you hear someone yelling at another person who is running away and see that the person running off is clutching a handbag in his or her hands then you may have a basis to believe that the person running away has stolen the person’s handbag. In most cases these powers are used by security guards or other personnel who are required to detain people as part of their jobs.

The law also says you must only use force that is reasonably necessary when detaining the alleged offender. This means the force must be proportionate to the offence and not go beyond what is needed to prevent the person’s escape. Use of force may be justified in cases of self-defense or to prevent the offender from escaping.

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 arresting and sentencing is apparently so much greater than ours?

Enforcing Common Law

Another great pioneer, the Chinese general Sun Tzu, wrote millennia ago that in any conflict, power is not ultimately what you have materially but rather psychologically; and the superior firepower of a much bigger enemy can always be negated with the right, unforeseen maneuvers.

Those rulers indicted by the ICLCJ are people 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 rich and the powerful is not as important as the reality that any functional law rests upon its moral and political legitimacy. Once such legitimacy is weakened or gone, the laws and hard physical power of a state or church begin to crumble. Once 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 simple: 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. The ICLCJ proved this 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 big institutions.

A Common Law Court verdict like the one of February 25, 2013, is a wedge between the credibility of an institution like the Vatican and the rest of the world. By striking at that credibility – a weak link in the church’s chain – we are maneuvering around the 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 through such a strategic maneuver that on August 4, 2013, the Vatican was declared a Transnational Criminal body under international law.

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 Convent against Transnational Organized Crime, November 2000, articles 5, 6 and 12: http://www.unodc.org/unodc/treaties/CTOC/#Fulltext)

So while it isn’t normally possible to immediately detain heads of states or corporations after a sentence is passed against them, such an arrest does follow naturally as their credibility and protection diminishes. Their overt power tends to crumble as the law and public condemnation works around their strong defenses and undermines them, like water flowing around a wall or a rock.

Today, during the Covid “pandemic” the politicians and police are actually helping to undermine their own powers by issuing unlawful edicts that are harming millions of people, and by the police using unwarranted force to intimidate people to wear masks in public, or to obey unlawful “covid rules” that are not even laws passed by Federal Parliament and enacted with the signature of a lawfully appointed Governor General authorized by HM Queen Elizabeth II, Protector of the Faith.

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.