Ignorance Of The Law Excuses No One

Ignorantia juris non excusat!

After reading the hysterical reactions to the recent SCOTUS ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission I was reminded of just how ignorant so many people can be of the law. In a court of law, ignorance of the law will not, and indeed can not function as a valid defense. As John Seldon, an English jurist, scholar of England's ancient laws and constitution, (1584-1654), so aptly explained:

"Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him."

This explains why ignorance can not be used as a valid defense, but it does not explain why ignorance of the law outside of defense and in the realm of politics is no more tolerable. Indeed, the pervasive ignorance of law among many of the people in the United States is extremely problematic simply because that government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and it is We the People who hold the inherent political power.

It is a power that brings with it great responsibility. Of the many responsibilities the people have, in terms of government, is knowing the law. While the U.S. has established a Constitutional republic that endeavors to put in place certain checks and balances to keep government from usurping power, if the people who hold the inherent political power agree to ignorance of the law, then those checks and balances will, and most certainly have, erode and crumble, allowing the usurpation's We the People have witnessed in great dismay.

It is often said, often times by lawyers and judges, that the law is a complex area where laymen and laywomen should dare not tread. Too often are we advised to seek representation or counsel from attorneys at law, just so that we can avoid running afoul of the law, when all we are trying to do is make a living or build a house, or some other such action that would fall under the purview of a right. How has it come to this, that we must seek out representation or counsel just so we many enjoy our basic rights?

How it has come to this, is because of our own willful ignorance of the law, and naive trust in "experts" of the law. In truth, there is nothing complex about the law at all. Laws that govern people are nothing more than a collection of statutes and codes that should be efforts to protect the rights of individuals. There are some positive laws, such as taxation, that do not directly protect the rights of individuals but are in place to keep the wheels of justice turning so that a government may enforce those laws that do protect the rights of individuals.

When legislation occurs that moves beyond the protection of rights and into the field of crime prevention or even worse prohibition of rights, then this is not law, merely legislation enacted that is masquerading under the color of law. In fact, the phrase; "under color of law" should be a law that all people know and understand.

Color of Law: (n) the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.

When Congress legislates a law that is contrary to the Constitution that makes their legal authority valid, then that legislation is not law, and while it may serve as evidence of law, if it is law, then it is a protection of a right or rights, or some form of taxation conforming to the Constitution. If this legislation seeks to prohibit an act or hinder an act that is a basic right, it is not law. Any enforcement of this legislation would not be enforced by legal right but instead under color of law.

This is not a complex concept that only highly qualified experts can understand. It is a very simple concept that functions as a protection of rights, not as some strange mystical incantation uttered by priest class law makers, judges and attorneys. Because there is a proclivity to revere the priest class mystics who pompously wear their titles of attorney at law, (with an "Esquire" attached to it!), and judges, simple concepts of law have been perverted into a complexity that now requires Congress to legislate law in thousands of pages with tautological definitions that are circumlocutions that appear to be intended to confuse rather than explain.

When a bill or act requires more than a few pages to explain the nature of that law, it should be clear that this act of legislation is not law but just legislation and more times than not, it is legislation attempting to make legal plunder, or worse to regulate, restrain or prohibit a basic right or rights. No different than the street level con man who attempts to draw you into his sting with a game of three card Monty, legislative acts that come with an excess of verbiage are just another sting perpetuated by a bunch of confidence men and women.

The confusions of law, the mistakes of fact and misinterpretations are, in a large part, due to this game of confidence hoisted upon the public by law makers, attorneys and judges. Unlike certain fields such as astrophysics, genetics, chemistry and others where a highly advanced and well trained specialist is required, the field of law should not require the same type of specialist and the public, if they understood the basic principles of law, would not need to hire an attorney to "represent" them, but only need to rely upon them as competent assistance of counsel.

It is telling that the language of the Miranda Act will inform you upon your arrest or detainment that you are entitled to an attorney, but the Constitution states it otherwise and informs you that you are entitled to competent assistance of counsel. Those who take advantage of the privilege of attorney will find themselves asked to sign over power of attorney so that lawyer may "represent" you in a court of law. Of course, that power of attorney signed over, essentially renders your own power moot. If you instead, insist upon a right to competent assistance of counsel, no signatures surrendering your own right to represent yourself and face your accusers directly, are required.

Of course, it is often said that a man who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for an attorney, but I suspect that this axiom was invented by lawyers. It is a clever advertising ploy and not necessarily a truism. Indeed, few attorneys today would willingly represent you, feigning to zealously defend you, and challenge the jurisdiction of a law. However, often times that is exactly what is required and is truly the best defense. As it is also said, the best defense is a good offense. Challenging jurisdiction turns the tables on your accusers and forces them to prove on record that they do indeed have such jurisdiction.

You as a the accused need not prove a thing, and it is a long accepted truth of law that a negative can't be proven. Thus, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff or court party asserting jurisdiction to prove such jurisdiction exists. Yet another simple concept of law. When We the People come to better understand these simple concepts of law, the confidence games played by law makers, judges and lawyers becomes easy to foil and the law no longer perverted serves the people as it should...as an instrument of justice.

You're almost there. Why not take it a bit further?

One swears an oath to an invisible God, in a superstitious ceremony involving the use of a book of fairy tales, and expects truth and justice from an unduly revered mess of cobbled together, antiquated principles and ideas that were codified and then promptly disregarded by a bunch of wealthy, Englishman trying to get rich without paying tribute to their King?

Law is about as useful as the Easter Bunny. Just something to give an illusion of decency and fairness while the wheel grinds us up and feeds us to the war machine.

183 pages of scholarly crap about nothing. Words that fail to acknowledge even the most obvious of truths about money, people, and the "political process". The legal equivalent of a Ponzi scheme, or prime-time advertising. Illusion without substance. Irony on top of irony.

reply to post by John_Brown


I agree, laws are written to take away our freedoms and civil liberties. We are more prisoners then free men when the writ of law takes place.

Not to say all law is lawless, but it aims to serve political power oligarchies and they never have to face the laws they create, so why should we?

The system is hypocritical. Social engineering and mind control served up in the house of law.

Originally posted by John_Brown
You're almost there. Why not take it a bit further?

One swears an oath to an invisible God, in a superstitious ceremony involving the use of a book of fairy tales, and expects truth and justice from an unduly revered mess of cobbled together, antiquated principles and ideas that were codified and then promptly disregarded by a bunch of wealthy, Englishman trying to get rich without paying tribute to their King?

Law is about as useful as the Easter Bunny. Just something to give an illusion of decency and fairness while the wheel grinds us up and feeds us to the war machine.

183 pages of scholarly crap about nothing. Words that fail to acknowledge even the most obvious of truths about money, people, and the "political process". The legal equivalent of a Ponzi scheme, or prime-time advertising. Illusion without substance. Irony on top of irony.

I am not so sure how useful the Easter Bunny may or may not be, but the law is most assuredly useful. It has been a tragic mistake to attempt to separate the laws of physics and nature from the laws that govern people. Just is as self evident as gravity is, so is it self evident that murder, that theft and other such crimes are wrong. Just as sure as one would feel the painful punishment that comes from defying the law of gravity, so too will one feel the painful punishment of defying the law of murder or theft.

There a basic simple laws that govern a society which endeavors to live with each other harmoniously and defying those laws only brings dissonance or an absence of justice. These laws are as self evident as the rights of people are. It is self evident that all people have the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. No explanation need be given as to why people have these rights as it is self evident. No explanation need be given as to why murder is an act that defies law. No explanation need be given as the why thievery or rape or assault and battery or kidnapping are acts that defy the law.

There is no need for 183 books to explain the gravity is real. And people well aware of the existence of gravity long before Sir Isaac Newton wrote down on paper the equation that explained gravity, and writing it down on paper did not make gravity any more or less real, and it certainly didn't create gravity. The same holds true for laws that govern people. The legislation that describes law does not create it, it merely describes it just as Newton described gravity.

In this regard, law is not just useful, it is imperative.

If the law is made far too complex so that it deliberately confuses and obfuscates; if thousands of news laws are made every year; if no common person or even a single lawyer can keep up with all the existing and new laws; if laws are based on ambiguity, nonsense and other laws;

Then one must presume that the law is simply a tool that is used by a criminal government to enslave, by making every person, decent or otherwise, a criminal. An equalization of legal status if you will, with varying degrees of alleged criminality.

If the common person cannot follow the direction of all laws and is not provided with complete copies of said laws and cannot understand all the laws (that would take a lifetime or more to read), then ignorance of the law should be a valid legal excuse. No common person can afford to have multiple or even single legal council on call 24/7/365 to insure they don't break some "alleged" law.

Ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse only when the law is simplified and based on common sense.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


This is my point exactly! All the nonsense you just described is not law, it is legislation presented under color of law. When people agree to be ignorant of that fact they wind making a plea of either guilty or not guilty instead of challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislation itself. It is that simple, and in that simplicity the law will set you free!



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

I've always wondered, what would swearing on a bible mean to an Atheist? They don't believe in God so they don't worry about and moral repercusions of lying so why not lie?

Originally posted by Misoir
I've always wondered, what would swearing on a bible mean to an Atheist? They don't believe in God so they don't worry about and moral repercusions of lying so why not lie?

Perjury is a very serious crime and it was that crime that led to the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton while he was President of the United States. The act of placing your hand on the Bible is symbolic of taking an oath and whatever ones religious beliefs or lack thereof, that oath is a sworn testimony to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, regardless of ones beliefs in God.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Excellent thought-provoking post my friend. I have always held a firm beleif that the reason for all of the legal-ease and obsfuscation in legislation is not only to confuse but also to give the widest berth possible for the gov't's interpretation of how to enforce or carry-out the law. Case in point: Shoplifting. The act of stealing an item that belongs to another without payment or permission is a fairly easy concept for most to grasp. However in a court of law it requires the said 'thief' to exit a store or building before being prosecuted as such. However in other case depending on the dollar amount of the item the person can be prosecuted on concealment of item in the store. ( I have personally brought both case situations before the courts.) This has done nothing more than reinforce my belief that the gov't intentionally makes these laws as vague so that the layperson won't know the true law they are being prosecuted with and allowing a fudging of facts and circumstances to get a conviction by the state. I fully believe that this is a conspiracy between law-practitioners and the court systems.

reply to post by djvexd


I fully believe this as well. Another great example of total ambiguity fully designed to confuse the public is the 16th Amendment. While most people today believe this Amendment "authorized" Congress to pass a tax directly on income with out apportionment, this is not true. Had Congress done such a thing, it would have been most assuredly been struck down as unconstitutional.

In both Brushaber and Stanton, Chief Justice White explained why the 16th Amendment was not unconstitutional and instead harmonious with the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was a response to a previous SCOTUS ruling, known as the Pollack ruling which struck down the entire income portion of a revenue law as unconstitutional because they viewed that particular income tax as direct tax without apportionment.

In response, Congress flexed their own muscles and reminded future courts and We the People that they have the complete and plenary power of taxation, always had the power to tax income either directly or indirectly and made sure that any future revenue law were a tax levied on income was non apportioned be viewed as an indirect tax rather than a direct tax.

Thus, the 16th Amendment all comes down to the word "on" which Chief Justice White explains in this regards means a measurement of, as in income is not the subject of the tax but rather the measurement used to gauge how much tax his owed. The subject of the tax is not made clear in the 16th Amendment, yet people today believe that subject is income.

The 16th Amendment is actually a brilliant piece of ambiguity written by Senator Aldrich W. Nelson, (also the architect of the Federal Reserve), who used his own devious skills as an attorney to conspire to dupe the public into believing they had been made liable for a tax simply by the ambiguity of this Amendment.

Thanks for sharing your own understanding and perspective on this my friend.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Jean Paul

It is rare that a thread pops up that is thought provoking and requires more than an emotional knee-jerk reaction lately. So much so I am trying to gather the thoughts as to where to begin.

I remember once in a high-school history class, my teacher (who I am still friends with to this day) was explaining a concept that he used to enjoy and has watched it dwindle year after year and become morphed into a monstrosity. This of course was common law.

There was a time when ambiguity didn't poison the pages of our law books. There was a time when a law, piece of legislation and even a simple contract were clear as your momma's kitchen window.

It was once said that in America, a man could walk freely down the street because he wished to, not because he was allowed to. Tell me, do you feel that statement still rings true today?

Or does that man have to find out if he is breaking curfew or some other insane law that has strangled our freedoms for far too long.

------

Regarding the SCOTUS decision

The laws that were overturned were rightly deserving of being overturned. Anti-distortion laws and tests go directly against the First Amendment. Political Speech, probably either the top reason or close second as to why we have the First Amendment in place.

It is the very speech that our Founding Fathers wished to protect and ensure complete and unabridged flow from the People.

As I have seen on this site, people here seem to forget a few things about corporations. Actually, it isn't corporations they are pissed at, its pure wealth-envy and it really showed in a few threads.

--- Corporation Examples That Others Seem To Neglect ---
A:
I own a small mom and pop electronic repair shop. Because of legal and tax reasons, I find it more favorable to incorporate my business. I am the only stockholder of the company. According to some, I shouldn't have a voice in the political process because I am now part of a corporation. Where my business, as a sole-proprietor once held the freedom to lobby my representative, I have been striped of that right.

B:
I have started a small book reading club. Along with other charter members, we have found out that there are countless number of book clubs within the state. We get together and form a corporation. Where we once held a voice in politics, no longer should it be allowed because we are now speaking collectively as a corporation?

This is the ambiguity that the Supreme Court sought to strike out of law. Under 441b, the above examples could have been held LEGALLY and MONETARILY responsible for political speech. That my friends is a highly disguised (probably unintentional consequence, but I doubt it) form of censorship. The law as it stood granted speaking privileges of some corporations (I.E, the Media Corporations) the ability to speak politically during the very time that others could not. How is that equal protection under the law for you....so keep screaming about treason

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thank you ownbestenemy for your thoughts and consideration, but most importantly thank you for bringing up the nature of common law. Common law has increasingly become a reviled and disrespected aspect of law, pooh-pooed by law makers, attorneys and judges alike. It is remarkable that the very representatives and judges who operate under a Constitution that grants them limited power for a limited time and is itself a document founded on common law principles, now endeavor to "repeal" common law!

You were very fortunate indeed to have a high school history teacher who endeavored to hold up as worthy of respect common law. As to your direct question; do I think that a person can walk freely down the streets simply because he wished to and not because he was allowed to? I answer you this; I have been approached by law enforcement officers in the past who upon approaching me immediately asked for identification. It wasn't until I began asking such pertinent questions as was I being detained and if so why, that this blatant effort to impose authoritarian tactics stopped.

I was amazed how easy it was to counter a law enforcement officers attempts to bully me simply by asking well placed questions. A few of these officers would answer that yes I was being detained, and I would ask why? The reasons given were usually due to the hour of the night and the color of my clothing. I would respond by asking if I was in violation of some curfew law and if I were wearing clothing that was illegal. One officer had the audacity to argue that my complaint wasn't with him and instead was with the Supreme Court that gave him authority to detain me because of reasonable suspicion.

I asked this officer if he had interpreted that SCOTUS ruling to be a mandate and that he was now required to detain all people he deemed as suspicious. The look on his face when I asked this question was priceless. I then suggested he would be well advised to call the Sheriff on the matter and bring, at the very least, a Deputy Sheriff who held proper jurisdiction in this matter. I went further to suggest that he could very well be guilty of breaking many laws including acting under color of law, impersonating a government official, illegal detainment, and obstruction of justice.

This police officer asked me if I was threatening him, and I answered that I was merely doing my due diligence as a law abiding citizen and was fulfilling my obligation of informing him of the laws he may be guilty of breaking. I then again, politely asked if he would call the Sheriff. He told me that would not be necessary and I asked why? He answered by asking if I was a lawyer. I told him no, and that I doubted a lawyer would know the law in this matter. He smiled and agreed with me and apologized for the confusion and actually shook my hand before leaving.

So, my short answer to your question is yes and no. As long as people remain ignorant of the law, and that would include common law, then they very well may find themselves in a position where they are being allowed to exist rather than existing by right. If they know the law, they then know they exist by right and will vigorously assert their rights whenever necessary and will respectfully and politely refuse to co-operate with unlawful tyranny.

That said, the law itself will not protect a person from abrogation and derogation of rights, and there will be, from time to time, unlawful tyrants who will act upon their own private beliefs in a manner not fitting a government official. This is what I mean by the law acting in a negative sense as that all it can hope to do is put justice back in the event there was or is an absence of justice.

Ignorance is no excuse, even though those who write, interpret and practice law seem to be on an ever vigilant quest to ensure the populace becomes more and more ignorant.

As mentioned in the OP,

When a bill or act requires more than a few pages to explain the nature of that law, it should be clear that this act of legislation is not law but just legislation and more times than not, it is legislation attempting to make legal plunder, or worse to regulate, restrain or prohibit a basic right or rights.

It is impossible to be more succinct on that topic. However, I would like to add the use of misleading and mischaracterizing titles, often given to legislation, to give the false appearance of altruism.

Unfortunately, that is our burden for installing lawyers in positions of legislative authority. Many do not realize the amount of theatrics in the practice of law, which is easily transferred to the political stage. As mentioned in the OP, it is a confidence game or "con". We become swindled after our confidence or trust has been won, by a convincing theatrical performance. Consider how attorneys can, one day purport to be an advocate of a victim and the next, be the voice of the victimizer. One day a defense attorney and the next a prosecutor, and vis a vis. The law has become akin to professional wrestling, except that we have a choice in buying a ticket to Wrestle Mania.

The law and taxation have become self-perpetuating empires. It would be a daunting task to reform either, as they now are bolstered by huge industries. As example I refer to the proposals of a "flat tax". The oversimplification of tax law would cause the collapse of an entire industry of tax attorneys, CPAs and tax preparers. Untold numbers of families would be, instantly, adversely affected by the abolition of the current tax code.

One thing I would like to clarify, is the requirement of the Miranda Warning. It is often, falsely, presented that the Warning must be given to everyone who is arrested and/or detained. Miranda is only relevant to the use of statements made to law enforcement, as a result of questioning by the LEO. It does not apply to unsolicited statements or to the questioning of a person who is not being detained.

It's been said that "90% of the laws are written for 10% of the people". I would agree, in regards to the penal laws, however the expanding regulatory laws of such things as construction on private property, are becoming stifling. I see these as being, simply, revenue generating.

And to think, we haven't begun to touch on those who ignore the very laws they themselves write. (Charlie Rangel, Tim Geithner, etc, etc, ad nauseum)

[edit on 31-1-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by WTFover


Thank you WTFover, for your spot on and considered reply. The dubious and sometimes audacious practice of misleading titles to Acts or Bills is a great point and one well worth discussing in this thread. In fact, I am compelled to make a list of just some of the ridiculous names attached to Bills or Acts of legislation, but before I do so, I would like to first address some other points you've made.

As to the peoples proclivity to elect lawyers as Senators and Representatives, it is astounding to me that so much trust would be placed in lawyers, given the current animosity held towards that profession by so many people. Indeed, it is one of Shakespeare's more famous quotes, that from Henry VI, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Which should lend some evidence and offer revelation as to how long lawyers have been reviled.

Yet, year after year, We the People elect more and more lawyers to Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal Executive branches, and of course, no doubt, are our Justices picked based upon their experience as a practicing and licensed lawyer. As if a judge couldn't read case law, legal authorities, historical context and legislation and understand it without first having joined the priesthood of attorneys who utter the mystical incantations of legalese.

As to your concerns of restructuring revenue laws and levies of taxes, you are again spot on and absolutely correct that by doing so would adversely affect untold numbers of families and individuals. However, those very same tax collectors, tax attorneys and tax accountants who have benefited greatly from the current confusion of revenue laws, have through their own actions and willful compliance with these dubious tax laws, adversely affected even more untold numbers of families and individuals.

While abolishing or even simplifying, (I found it interesting that you used the term "oversimplification", as if any tax law could be oversimplified.), may do economic damage to those who have profited from these tax laws, there are people currently residing in federal penitentiaries and state prisons due to these tax laws, and many of them are not so much "tax evaders" as they are individuals who after reading the laws for themselves acted in what they believed was best, being told by a judge and jury that they were mistaken and confused, and this mistake and confusion becomes a "crime" to justify imprisoning them, not to mention the countless number of people who have been financially devastated by these tax laws.

The tax code is a five volume set consisting of millions of words, much of those words written in a tautological and circumlocutory way, that engenders so much confusion it is alarming and one could reasonably argue criminal!

Your clarification of the Miranda warning is also great information as it is important in knowing the law, that when a law enforcement officer approaches a person, this in itself is not necessarily a detention or arrest, and it is important at all times that anyone approached by a LEO and asked to answer questions, to ask these LEO's if they are detaining or arresting. If they are not, the most prudent thing one can do is refuse to answer any questions, as too often an innocent remark can lead to a dubious arrest.

So, that said, here is a list of some of the misleading Acts or Bills legislated by Congress, beginning with the 111th Congress and legislation passed in 2009 and working backwards:

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Passed June 22nd of 2009 this Act gives the FDA power to regulate the tobacco industry. One of the provisions of this Act is to impose new warning labels on tobacco products that are intended to discourage minors and young adults from smoking. As if the plethora of Ad Council ads and others haven't done this job, as if these warning labels are even taken seriously. Considering that Congress imposed warning labels on anti-depressants that warn that a symptom of taking these narcotics might lead to suicidal tendencies and considering how many people still take these narcotics in spite of that warning, the effectiveness of imposing warning labels is questionable, and since the meat of this Bill is to empower the FDA, the title of the Act is misleading.

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (May 22, 2009)

First of all, given that Accountability is often defined as Responsibility and is no doubt a synonym of the word and vice versa, and that disclosure entails being accountable and responsible, Congress may have well called this The Credit Card Act of Redunancy and Repitition Act. It is a Bill passed that is intended to "...to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes." Yet, since this bill has been passed we have seen many threads in this site, many reports on other websites, and even in the MSM, about people canceling their credit cards due to dubious methods by the banks and credit card issuers, of raising interest rates and acting in general in an unfair way, and hardly showing any transparency to their methods, other than they intend to charge astronomical amounts of interest for their loans.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (May 20, 2009)

A Bill that pretends to enhance criminal enforcement of fraud. Fraud has long been a crime and understood to be one since time immemorial, and why Congress feels compelled to legislate an Act above and beyond the simple laws prohibiting fraud would be amusing if it weren't so mendacious. Given that Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve have all put a great amount of effort into selling to the public the idea of "too big to fail", propaganda that flies in the face of every anti-trust law on the books, it could be argued that Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve would be the biggest law breakers, in relation to this Act.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; 110th Congress (September 14, 2007)

Of course, the name alone reveals the chicanery of such and act and perhaps needs no further explanation, but the Bill is designed to strengthen public disclosure requirements in regards to campaign finance and funding, and lobbying activity in general. It is not as if Congress passed a law demanding that political leaders forgo deceit and mendacity and required them to be honest at all times, and the "open government"...well, you know.

Running out of character space in this field, I will not belabor the point to much more other than to use the remaining space to list some of the more infamous Acts passed by Congress of which their names are clearly misleading and need no explanation:

Protect America Act of 2007
Removing warrant requirements for government surveillance agencies spying on foreign countries.
Combating Autism Act (2006)
Tax Increase and Reconciliation Act of 2005
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
Do-Not-Call-Implementation Act of 2003
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

And finally, but not at all limited to:

The Patriot Act

Which in no way legislated patriotism, and instead endeavored to spit on the rights of individuals in the name of fear and the illusion of security.

It does not even seem to occur to the people or members of Congress, that repealing stupid Acts of legislation is just as much, and arguably a much more important job, than that of passing legislation.

Thanks again for your contribution in this thread WTFover.

Under the constitution, if you do not step beyond the "Bar" the imaginary line you cross when stepping into the actual judicial area of a court, You can under the "Supreme Law f the Land" state that you do not wish to be goverened by those laws and instead wish to be tried by a military tribunal, this is extremely upsetting to the courts as they CAN NOT do anything about it. you have not submitted to their rule of law. I have done this and won. I was almost hit by a car in a cross walk, and anywhere besides NY you are a legal pedestrian and must be yielded to by other motor vehicles. In my BARE feet I was almost run over by a person performing a "california stop" that is when you roll to a stop sign tap your breaks and keep moving, I had to jump out of the way, the driver simply waved and I in response kicked her vehicle. this landed me a FELONY violation, i was threatened I had the right of way and yet I was the one in trouble. I was arrested by police that gained information of my address from the person whom I kicked, SHE got it from a corporate file,Ill-friggin-Legal!! So after arrest I show in court, state that I wished to be tried by tribunal did not submit my self to court rule and was given my hearing, was found innocent and let go. you only have as much power as you grant them, know your law, know your free.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I will start off by saying S&F, clap, when do we get to vote for the man behind the Avatar/Ghost Writer Jean Paul Zodeaux.

First off with a request, you know I am looking for the info regarding Sovereignty and my inalienable rights.

I, like many others, are interested in stopping the MAN.

First, I am a technical person. I like things laid out like an outline or a graphical represented flow chart. Are their any Common/Constitutional/Natural law books or other info locations that this is laid out in that way? If not, can you point me and anyone else interested in the direction of a simplified; yet detailed, location of the Common/Constitutional/Natural law.

Second, it seems that you are VERY well informed on the Natural law. May I ask where you learned of it or did you learn it along the way of life?

As for the OP

Just some of my observations of my own perceptions regarding Natural or God's Law.

We as a society have lost or have been driven from the path of enlightenment. We have allowed "order" to be hammered upon us by our own societal inadequacies. The "order" I speak of is not social order but control. By our own ignorance we have allowed it to occur.

Their is a bright side, people are awakening, slowly but surely. But now, the "order" is trying to use our own fears of EVERYTHING to subvert our path, again.

There is but one law-

You shall not hurt another or by your actions, infringe upon another's rights.

That is freedom. That is what IT, is all about.

I still believe people are frightened, that is the whole crux of the situation. They use the fear of total freedom to subjugate the masses. The fear of one's own freedom of free will and self determination.

Okay, I went off topic there for a bit. Now back on track.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse-How many statutes, how many codes, how many laws will it take to reach Utopia? I believe it is but one, the one I mentioned.

One example I work off of on this is the recklessness laws. Why do we have posted speed limits? Are they to prevent accidents and if they are why? Is it to help society as a whole? The reason I go here is this is one of the ones I have trouble with. If we return to Natural Law, what do we do with these statutes? DUI, speeding, reckless driving, drugs etc etc etc.

I know what I would want. The one law. If you hurt someone, you are punished.

I was thinking of writing up another OP kind of like this, but just show the amount of codes, regulations, statutes etc that have been passed over time. If I could put together the stats it would be quite an eye opener.

I would like to give an example of what would happen when or if the current health care bill passes. The bill is not the law, it is only a bill. When it leaves the Congress, then it goes to the CMS (Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services). There is where the REAL work begins. Who will be writing the code for this bill? I do not know, the head has not even been appointed yet by Obama. 1 year in and STILL no head for the largest division(in regards to money) behind the military.

Last but not least-

If we only give them more power, they will make a Utopia.

Again, excellent OP. God Bless and Peace.






edit to bold ONE law-highlight did not work



[edit on 2/1/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As to your concerns of restructuring revenue laws and levies of taxes,...

It's really not a concern so much. I just see it as a difficult obstacle to necessary reform, intentionally created by the industry. I am very much a proponent of the "flat tax"., but have a friend, who is a CPA, who swears it would be impossible. Go figure!

While abolishing or even simplifying, (I found it interesting that you used the term "oversimplification", as if any tax law could be oversimplified.),...

Only in the eyes of those who profit from the boondoggle of the current tax code, my friend. Only in their eyes.

The tax code is a five volume set consisting of millions of words,...

is all I can say

[edit on 1-2-2010 by WTFover]

Originally posted by endisnighe

I was thinking of writing up another OP kind of like this, but just show the amount of codes, regulations, statutes etc that have been passed over time. If I could put together the stats it would be quite an eye opener.

I've often thought about how to undertake the enormous task of just identifying the duplications of statutes. Legislation of new law has become nothing more than the attempt to justify the existence of the bureaucracies.

reply to post by WTFover


In my line of business-construction, I hate when a new series of codes goes into effect.

I have to investigate the new year codes that apply to where ever I am working. The different states having different codes does not bother me, it is when I have to learn different ones, from different states when the changeovers happen in the same year.

Of course, without work now going on 1.5 years, maybe I won't have to worry about that anymore. Over qualified and high salary history, not a good combination in today's construction market.

Self fulfilling requirements, just like you and Jean Paul talking about the tax system. I had Acounting 101 and 201 in college and the prof was the same for both. She use to come to some of the gatherings I went to. We use to talk about the Acctg and Tax code requirements. She did joke once that all it would take to eliminate most lawyers and accountants would be to install a flat tax.

Never happen. Not because of their work, but because the ability to manipulate ones taxes when you become wealthy enough. Foundation, Trusts, Charities, etc etc etc. If we could look behind these entities, that is where we would see the real power brokers. Carnegie Foundation, Rockefellor, Gates et al. That is where the real tax evasion is.