Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

Postby strawmansarah » Wed May 16, 2012 10:58 am

Check it out for yourself. Find ONE piece of legislation that claims to be 'law' and I will eat my hat

It is a popular misconception (that is called hearsay and is a reason to 'object'), and opinion (that is inadmissible hearsay and is a reason to 'object') and common practice (because it has never been LEGALLY challenged (yet!!)) but Statutes/Legislation/Statutory instruments are NOT, I repeat NOT LAWS, they are just treated as such because the case has not been made a precident (yet) that proves them to be otherwise.

What they are, are RULES. Rules have strict legal guidelines. Rules MUST be prescriptive (that means they must state what must/must not be done), they must have some sort of repercussion attached for not following the rule. The rule must be made for a specific target/group. In the case of legislation, that's the 'person'. Rules must be made under an 'authority' that HAS the authority to make the rule...
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

Postby pedawson » Wed May 16, 2012 4:49 pm

I agree whole heartedly with this article and I would like to put a different slant on it if I may.
I am, as I say, a simple man and my thoughts are usually close to, if not the actual truth.

In a society there needs to be rules, not always the case but in our case we definitely need rules. Not many, just a few that makes things clear.
Now there are going to be people who know the rules who, LEAVE - Die. They don't need the rules anymore. There are those that are left behind, these people will be at various stages in life so lets say after 21 one knows the rules. Of these there will be those who understand and agree and there will be those that understand and don't agree ; and all the combinations thereof.
Below 21 there will be people entering the society, born, they do not understand nor know the rules and they do not have the capacity to decide if they wish to follow the rules or not until they reach an age of majority.

So if you understand the first section you will understand that there has to be free choice, regardless as to how one puts it.

It is what happens BEFORE birth that I am interested in, I was given NO indication that I was to be born into a society that had rules.
Why then at any point in my life should I accept them at all?
We ARE, however BORN with an innate set of rules and these are NATURAL by their very nature. I have NO WAY of breaking these rules so they are not essentially rules per se they are LAWS.
So LAW is not exactly what we think it is. a LAW cannot ever be broken. We have LAWS that we consider laws as in physics or nature and these cannot be broken. LAW IS LAW.
Now we say this country has LAWS, which is by the very nature of LAW not possible - A country cannot have LAWS save for the natural law of grass growing or trees swaying in the wind and the like. BUT these government types say there IS / ARE LAWS of the land. Again impossible.

An ACT
act
noun
1.anything done, being done, or to be done; deed; performance
2.the process of doing
3.a formal decision, law, or the like, by a legislature, ruler, court, or other authority; decree or edict; statute; judgment, resolve, or award: an act of Congress.
4.an instrument or document stating something done or transacted.
5.one of the main divisions of a play or opera: the second act of Hamlet.

The definition goes quite well untill #3 a formal decision (OK), law(?), or the like(??), by a legislature(ok), ruler, court, or other authority; decree or edict; statute; judgment, resolve, or award: an act of Congress. The rest is ok and I agree, however by the very definition of act all these are 'ANYTHING DONE' So they have been done. SO WHAT they mean nothing, nothing at all other than they have been done.
In #4 it states that an act is 'an instrument or document stating something done or transacted.'. Ok so they write it down, this is what this means. However they use the word TRANSactED

trans-
1.a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin ( transcend; transfix ); on this model, used with the meanings “across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” “transverse,” in combination with elements of any origin: transisthmian; trans-Siberian; transempirical; transvalue.
2.Chemistry ....
3.Astronomy ... (irrelevant)
"“across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly"
trans·act
verb
1.to carry on or conduct ... to a conclusion or settlement.

As they use the word transacted and it is more akin to the meaning, as opposed to the Latin TRANS I will continue with that definition.

Nothing in the use of the word act or transacted is there anywhere were it states a LAW. It is 'NOT FIXED' rather 'settled'.
BY WHOM?
When these transacted documents settlements or deeds were made I was not HERE is was in the ether I had no knowledge of them nor did I agree.
Absolutely, they were 'DONE' or conducted maybe even settled but NOT by me NOR, I may add, anyone who represented me on this earth and if they TRIED to represent me 'DID I accept?'

For those who saw 'LAW' in the definition of ACT and believe this to be ture I have another word that can be inserted and be just as useful to the definition of ACT. 'FUCK'.

One HAS to get ones HEAD round the word ACT they say in the definition an act of congress. What this really meant is that congress did something

IT DID NOT MAKE WHAT IT DID LAW, and as I mentioned earlier if it is a LAW it cannot be broken so why is it even mentioned.

Do LAWS apply to me 'YES' resoundingly 'YES'
Are acts and statutes LAW 'NO' resounding 'NO', by the very definition and use the words 'ACTS and statutes' define what THAT organisation DID.
And THAT, as they say, IS THAT.

Namaste, rev;
Unless that is of course one has a different meaning for the words I use. We are of course talking definition NOT interpretation; those are a bit like clitorises, to coin a phrase.
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

Postby squark » Wed May 16, 2012 10:52 pm

This reminder me for some reason of situations where an American would, as a legal defence, mention constitutional rights and freedoms. The Judge, I have read, would respond, You are not a signatory and so not a party to that agreement.
Bingo!
Maxim: No man shall be held responsible for the act of another.
Acts of parliment.....I am not a signatory to that agreement and therefore not party to it!
?
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
squark
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

Postby strawmansarah » Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

squark wrote:.I am not a signatory to that agreement and therefore not party to it! ?
... these are the LEGAL arguments that have to be made in court. Precedent is King. It only takes ONE case.......... :thinks:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm


Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest