This text is written for the purpose of showing ONLY from examples in the California Codes that you can file a suit at common law instead of using statutory or roman law in California. It says you can file a suit at common law in the 7th Amendment in the Federal Bill of Rights, but below are shown quite a few state codes which also certify it as valid.
There are actually numerous references in the California Codes to the right to file a suit according to the common law and to use common law forms of action, such as Trespass on the Case, and to proceed under such law in the course of such suits.
The first references provided herein are from three different codes, but they say approximately the same thing:
“The provisions of this article are not exclusive. The remedies specified in this article for violation of any section of this article or for conduct proscribed by any section of this article shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.
Nothing in this article shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any other person. If any act or practice proscribed by this article is also the basis for a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the purchaser may assert the common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies applicable thereto.” Business and Professions Code 17511.10“The provisions of this title are not exclusive. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.
Nothing in this title shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General or any other person to bring class actions. Class actions by consumers brought under the specific provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1770) of this title shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1780); however, this shall not be construed so as to deprive a consumer of any statutory or common law right to bring a class action without resort to this title. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the consumer may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such law.” Civil Code 1752“The provisions of this title are not exclusive. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.
Nothing in this title shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General, any district attorney or city attorney, or any other person. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the purchaser may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such other law.” Civil Code 1812.219 (emph. added)
This is particularly clear that “any ... person” may at any time with the violation of a common law right or rights, if the violation “constitutes a cause of action in common law” they may “assert such common law ... cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such other law.” So, anyone, including government prosecutors and officials (as stated above), may invoke, use, and proceed according to the common law in courts in California. They do not have to use or proceed according to the civil law. Essentially, the right to file a suit at common law is affirmed thrice here by way three different codes. If these codes are not convincing enough, there is much more.
In the Tax Code, it speaks of the ability of an entity to evoke and use common law forms of action as discussed in Brief #2:
“The Franchise Tax Board may bring an appropriate action, whether in the form of a common law action of debt or indebitatus assumpsit or a code or other action, in any court of competent jurisdiction in the United States or in a foreign country, in the name of the people of the State of California, to recover the amount of any tax, penalties, and interest due.” Revenue and Taxation Code 19375
Here is an instance where a government entity is encouraged to use the common law and common law forms of actions in courts of this state, federally, and internationally. “The form of a common law action of debt” shown here is used to collect an amount owed.
Of the codes above, we see that not only government officials may use the common law in suits in the state of California, but also everyone else may too. By these codes, of courts in this state, common law suits quite literally are encouraged. There is more.
The following code references the common law in conjunction with property ownership and damages to them:
“ (d) (1) The common law duty to mitigate damages shall apply to any failure of the owner of a site to give a timely notice of potential liability when the owner is required to give this notice pursuant to this chapter. Where an owner fails to mitigate damages by not giving a timely notice of potential liability, the owner's damage claim shall be reduced in accordance with common law principles by the amount that the potentially responsible party proves would have likely been mitigated had a timely notice of potential liability been given.
(2) Common law principles shall apply to the failure of the potentially responsible party to issue a timely release report. Where a potentially responsible party fails to give a timely release report, the potentially responsible party, in accordance with common law principles, shall be responsible to the owner of the site, for damages that the owner proves are likely caused by such failure to provide a release report.
(3) Any party who argues the applicability of this subdivision carries the burden of proof in that regard.
(4) Nothing in this section is intended to create a new cause of action or defense beyond that which already exists under common law.” Civil Code 851
So, this particular code states that it very much follows the “principles” of the common law. Part 4 is perhaps the most important in that it states that this code is not trying to add another common law form of action for one to use (one may recall the ten common law forms), but this code encourages one to file their suit using one of the forms “which already exists under common law.”
In another passage, this time from the Code of Civil Procedure, we find the common law:
“Nothing in this chapter limits the right to recover for damages caused by an attachment or protective order on any common law theory of recovery.” Code of Civil Procedure 490.060
Here is an additional affirmation that one may seek to recover damages using “common law theory.” As one may recall from other site documents, common law theory is the “magic” of “good common sense.” It is so magic, because common law theory is the law of good common sense.
In another reference to this “theory” at the start of both the Civil Code and Civil Procedure code it reads:
“The rule of the common law, that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. The Code establishes the law of this State respecting the subjects to which it relates, and its provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” Civil Code 4 and Civil Code of Procedure 4
The first sentence is in reference to a maxim of the civil law that “statutes in derogation [to the common law] are to be strictly construed,” that for these statutes this shall not apply, but instead that the codes (according to the second sentence) are to actually follow the principles of the common law — that the law is flexible so as to aid in the administration of justice, not injustice at flaws of form. They “are to be liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” Not injustice. Clearly this says that even these civil codes are not the law, but reason is and justice is.
Returning now to the ability to file a suit at common law we find yet another civil code affirming the ability:
“This section shall not prohibit any party from bringing any action for damages under any other provision or principle of law, including but not limited to, common law.” Civil Code 3333.5 (g)
This is so crystal clear here, that one shall not be prohibited “from bringing any action for damages under any ... principle of law, including ... common law.” The word “any” leaves one to understand under no conditions can one forbid or hinder common law pleading and practice in California, but that one may evoke and use and proceed according to any “principles of law,” “including ... common law.”
So, to inhibit anyone from filing a suit using common law forms and a common law court, called a court of record, is forbidden by these statutes. You may evoke any principle of law, including common law.
In another section we read of further affirmation that one may seek to remedy a situation using the common law:
“Nothing in this section limits any remedies available to a landlord or tenant under other provisions of this chapter, the rental agreement, or applicable statutory or common law. Civil Code 1942 (c)
...
The remedy provided by this section may be utilized in addition to any other remedy provided by this chapter, the rental agreement, lease, or other applicable statutory or common law.” Civil Code 1942.4 (f)
Twice above we see it that one can seek remedy in the courts using either statutory or common law. Note the distinction that common law is different than statutory law, that they are different kinds of law, but either is just as valid to use. One is a written type of law, the other is not. This makes sense in light of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1895, which reads, “Laws, whether organic or ordinary, are either written or unwritten.” Statutory law is written, common law is not, both are just as valid. Civil code 1942.4 (f) says above that even as that section provides a possible remedy, that that remedy is merely “in addition to ... [remedies sought by] common law.” This, as well as other codes quotes herein, speak that when you go to court, you can use whatever form of remedy and procedure you like, whether it’s based on statutes or not. And section 1942 (c) speaks of the limitness of what one may use to remedy one’s injuires with the words, “Nothing in this section limits any remedies available.” Furthermore, by such statutes and reasoning, it is absurd that anyone should have to argue for the right to file a suit using their choice of law and procession, any more than someone filing a suit according to statutes need not argue for their right.
In the following, it shows how one may use the common law to defend one’s self:
“In addition to the affirmative defenses set forth in Section 945.5, a general contractor, subcontractor, material supplier, design professional, individual product manufacturer, or other entity may also offer common law and contractual defenses as applicable to any claimed violation of a standard.” Civil Code 936
This shows here the continued applicability of the common law to our lives and in our interactions with others, that when one is attacked, one may invoke the common law at any time and that that is a perfectly legitimate form of law and defense.
In review of the above examples from the California codes, we see that “any ... person” may at any time with the violation of a common law right or rights, if the violation “constitutes a cause of action in common law” they may “assert such common law ... cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such other law.” (Civil Code 1812.219, and see Business and Professions Code 17511.10 and Civil Code 1752) To use a common law form of action, proceed according to the common law, and use remedies by it is completely allowed and legal. One may use it not just in courts in California, but also in federal and international courts (Revenue and Taxation Code 19375). Using common law forms of action for one’s suit is a completely legitimate way to remedy one’s self (Civil Code 851, Civil Code 1812.219, Business and Professions Code 17511.10, Civil Code 1752, and Revenue and Taxation Code 19375). Common law theory and defenses are perfectly valid to be invoked at any time to recover damages or to defend one’s self (Code of Civil Procedure 490.060 and Civil Code 936). And finally, just because there are statutes, this does not hinder one from filing a suit using common law, for the codes “shall not prohibit any party from bringing any action for damages under any other provision or principle of law, including but not limited to, common law.” (Civil Code 3333.5 (g), and see Civil Code 1942 (c) and Civil Code 1942.4 (f)) The legitimacy of the common law and to bring a suit using it is shown to be quite valid according to the California codes.