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.
"Ignorance of law is no excuse" is a maxim of Common Law, but what about ignorance of statutes? 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 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.
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 through the achieves, as I do update (and correct) details occasionally...
For some time now I've been trying to understand how police officers can man check points in court buildings around Canada.
To detain and strip search (removing coats, belts, etc.) a man/woman, without reasonable cause, is a direct violation of the …
I once tried to use the Canadian Bill of Rights Act in my defence of an alleged traffic violation.
From the Bill of Rights I presented the statement:
Every law of Canada shall,...be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared
Ontario's Highway Traffic Act did infringe upon my rights, since I did injury to no one in the alleged offence, but the Ontario court stuck that down as a defence stating that "provincial violations of civil liberties are not covered by" the Canadian Bill of Rights Act because it is only a federal act.
All of humankind are born equal in rights.
- no one is born with more rights or authority over another
No one has the right to harm another or their property.
- this is the only law that is binding on every man/woman
$10 Million per week! If this isn't a business than I don't know what is.
Why would anyone permit the courts to assume that they were agents for, or performing a function within, these corporations? That unrebutted assumption permits the courts to rule in favour of proposed the fine.