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…
Law Common to Man and Law Common to Corporations.
There are other names for these various systems of law such as Law Merchant Law, Admiralty Law, Equity Law, Commerical Law, even Common Law (but common to who?).
The legal term "The Public" is defined in one law dictionary as:
Adjective: Belonging to the entire community. Unrestricted in participation.
Noun: The people. The populace; the community. “That vast multitude, which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions” [J. W. Collins Co. v. F. M. Paist Co. (DC Pa) 14 F2d 614].
It is conceded that the public does not mean all the people in the state or any county or town. The public is a term used to designate individuals in general without restriction or selection [Garkane Power Co. v. Public Service Co. 98 Utah 466, 100 P2d 571, 132 ALR 1490].
The word sometimes has the meaning of international sometimes national, and sometimes state [see Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt 773]. Ballantine’s Law Dictionary (3rd edition)
“That vast multitude, which includes the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous, who, in making purchases, do not stop to analyze, but are governed by appearance and general impressions”