This, I hope, is about Law-abiding people 'entertaining' other Law-abiding people with the fancies and fallacies of statute 'law'. Let me be clear that I’m not referring to Common Law, but statute ‘law' and by-laws which have no jurisdiction over us, without our express consent. Statutes act like (pretend to be) law and have the form of Law, and they are referred to as Law by those who operate under them, but are without jurisdiction as pertains to humans unless you are a legal person working as an agent for, or performing a function for, the entity that created the statute.
Who is the "our" in this case law? The court system? The government that directs their court system? "The Crown" for which our government works?
'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.' –Mark Twain
"Ignorance of law is no excuse" is a maxim of Common Law, but what about ignorance of statutes? Ignorance of statute law is a valid excuse for a man who is not obligated to that form of 'private' law. What of those who, out of their ignorance of real Law, apply statute ‘law' against those over whom these statutes have no jurisdiction? I think we need to hold them accountable. What do you think?
I'll try to keep these 'thoughts' brief, keeping to a single point. I'll write what I learn at the time and that may change as I gain insight. Many others are involved in the search for truth and I gain from reading their work. I trust this will be an entertaining experience.
I am not anti-government, rather, I believe that legitimate government can be useful—when it serves the people using corporations to do so—under us, not over us. Present federal and provincial governments are corporations serving other corporations using us—men and women—as their ATM's.
Legitimate government is under the authority of the people, not over us.
“Can a public servant delegate a right that (s)he doesn’t have to someone else?”
If anyone finds error in these 'entertaining' thoughts please teach me where I went wrong.
Subscribe to the RSS feed and/or check back here often and also browse the achieves, as I do update (and correct) details occasionally…
The Holder Rule refers to the Holder in Due Course doctrine in commercial law.
Holder in Due Course (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/holder+in+due+course)
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) defines a holder in due course as onewho takes an instrument for value in good faith absent any notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to any defense against it or claim to it by anyother person. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved
We are "Holder in Due Course" of any or all of the following: