Common Statutory

This writer will apologize for not being able to explain in 500 words or less.
This writer does not and will not define common law but such definition exists and
as defined by a Google search1:
common law
noun
noun: common law
1. the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather
than statutes. Often contrasted with statutory law.

The United States Supreme court in 1872 opined Carpenter v. Longan

83 U.S. 271 (1872). Within the opinion are these words:
The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the
latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage
with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.
Most likely and unknown to those who carry not a BAR card, on August 21,
1878 the American Bar Association came into existence.
In 1887 a member of the American Bankers Association began penning a
Negotiable Inststrument Law bill for Congress according to an article2 from The
Michigan Law Review Association. From history a fact is determined; the opinion

https://www.google.com/search?q=common+law&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en
US:official&client=firefoxa&channel=sb

2
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1271860?seq=1

within Carpenter versus Logan was opined before statutory laws were codified into
law. Could such opinion have been made upon Common Law?
As the United States of America consists of the 50 states and territories, this writer
will leave it upon a party of each jurisdiction to locate and produce admissible
evidence that a Mortgage Note and a Security Instrument to secure constitutes a
singular contract. It is very important to be able to prove beyond any reasonable
doubt that such two parts constitutes a singular contract.
This writer will not cite the covenants of the contracts for each party having the
contracts will be able to verify and confirm the precise covenants. With most if not
all Security Instruments there is a covenant somewhat titled Severability and
Applicable Law(s). The covenants clearly state that the contract will be subject to
all applicable law, not just common law [Emphasis added]. Statutory law(s)
vary from federal to state. Within many of the alleged secured note(s) one
routinely finds a condition of contractual waiver. Beware of terms, such term as
secured noted is not defined within the Uniform Commercial Code, the codified
law enacted to replace Negotiable Instrument law(s) to which was common law
usurped?
The Security Instrument in conjunction with the Note, the Note roughly states that
the obligor of the instrument waives right(s). Such warning is usually found in

typical font form as the remainder of the document(s). Question presents, if a party
is to sign a contract with verbiage to waive rights, why is such notice not
emphasized? If the wording is not readably identifiable by emphasis has not a
violation of statutory notice not be complied with?
Does common law usurp [to take and keep (something, such as power) in a
forceful or violent way and especially without the right to do so] override statutory
law or do courts require compliance with both set(s) of law? If a judicial tribunal
acts no lawfully, would such tribune have protection for ruling outside the robe?