Who does the 'law' apply to?

I have a LOT of questions listed here so I will number them and if you have an answer (because you actually deal with the law) or an opinion, please quote the question number.

Imagine you are a person whose job is law-related, like a lawyer or a police officer. Let's take for example the police officer. You are a police officer on duty, and for whatever reason (for example you have finished a job somewhere and you're on your way back to your station and you're taking the shortest route) you are crossing through some countryside. You hear someone scream, follow the sound and you find an entrance to a cave or underground tunnel, take your pick, and find, as you find out later, a so far undiscovered tribe. You witness one member killing the other. I will ask now a few questions, and if you would like to answer please also include which country's laws you are referring to. So the questions are:
(No. 01) Can the murderer be brought to trial for murder? (Is he subject to your country's legal system? Does the law apply to him?)
(No. 02) If he can't, what makes the law apply to you/me? What determines who it applies to?
If he can, that raises a number of further questions like:
(No. 03) If that tribe does not use language, how is the murderer supposed to defend himself in court? Especially not even knowing what a court is or why he is taken there?
(No. 04) What right does the society have to impose its laws on people that do not belong to that society? (No. 05) (And how do you, as the officer, know that it wasn't an execution that you witnessed? You'll never find out if the tribe don't have a language.) This is a valid question for 2 reasons:
1. Chances are, that tribe had been there longer than your society, (No. 06) why not apply their laws on us? (No. 07) What makes us and our laws 'superior' to theirs? (No. 08) Especially if they don't recognize them?
2. When you go to a foreing country you are under the local laws, and if you break the local law without knowing you will still be punished. (No. 09) In what way is my imaginary situation different? The tribe have their own laws, and if, suppose, murder is not against their laws, (No. 10) what gives us the right to overrule that? Obviously there has to be a line between these imaginary jurisdictions, like if the tribesman killed a member of our society, we'd trial him. (No. 11) But then, who is a member of our society? (No. 12) Furthermore, if a tribesman was killed by another tribesman, what if the family claimed that the victim was a member of our society, just to have the killer punished? If a member of our society killed a tribesman, which jurisdiction would he fall under? (No. 13) And would the case change if the tribe wanted the person to prove that he's a member of this society but that person has no birth certificate, ID, NI number, etc.? (No. 14) Furthermore, do our own laws apply to such a person then? (No. 15) Couldn't anyone claim that they belong under a different jurisdiction (like that of a local tribe)? (No. 16) Who can make up a separate jurisdiction? (No. 17) Can I claim my own jurisdiction on my own land? (No. 18) If not, how about if I claim that land as my own country? Countries have to be established at some point, and even then, some countries might recognize it as an independent state, others not. So my closing questions will be: (No. 19) If I visit a country like, for example, Kosovo, and break the law there, what law applies to me? (No. 20) Does it depend on whether the country I come from recognizes Kosovo as independent or not? Suppose Kosovo law said murderers are killed like in Texas, but Serbia law says they're only imprisoned. (No. 21) What law is going to apply to me? (No. 22) And if my country does not recognize Kosovo as independent but suppose Serbia does, which country will my country start a war with? Serbia? Or a country we don't recognize? And last but not least: (No. 23) If there is a murder in a territory claimed by 2 countries, like between China and India, which country's laws will apply, who will trial the murderer? (No. 24) If an Argentinian kills a Briton on the Falkland Islands, Argentina (which considers the FI to be Argentinian territory) will demand jurisdiction, just like Britain will demand jurisdiction, claiming the islands to be theirs. And the bonus question: (No. 25) If an Eskimo uses a ship to travel from Canada to Siberia, will he need a passport? Or if he claims he's always lived in Russia, is he allowed to stay? Can anyone walk into another country with no papers (as a Free-Man-On-The-Land) and claim right of stay? Why not?

Thanks for anyone's efforts in trying to answer, or even for reading and pondering, and if you don't want to answer any of the questions, my main one for everyone is: Does (or should) any society's law apply to the indigenous people who had been there before the society, and if not, why would any member of a society want to have them apply to themselves? Can I give up my 'membership' of any society, and that done, can I live off the land without having to pay property taxes like indigenous people do all around the world? Thanks for any answers.

The law, or more specifically, the "rule of law" applies to everyone equally. At least that is the answer on the U.S. Citizens exam, but we all know that isn't true.

Originally posted by Rolci

Who does the 'law' apply to?

Law applies to those free to participate.

Freedom is based sole on economic capabilities.

Therefore Law applies to those economically capable.

i watched a murder trial or parts of one on television...and when the charges were read it went something like this:

you, the defendant and your full name is read, are charged with unlawfully taking the life of, victim and their full name is read...

if this tribe was not known to exist then their names are not known...how could they be charged when technically, they do not exist within the system that seeks to try them?

Laws apply only to the commoners. The upper-class doesnt have to play by the rules in life. Only when they become unfavorable by displeasing one of their upper-class brethren do they have to face the wrath of the laws meant for the commoners.

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


you may be correct. i only go to court if I feel like it. i'll tell a judge in a minute to not waste my time with the BS.

i figure...i'm only going along with the crap to keep up appearances.

First off I just want to say thank you, you have made a VERY strong example of just how fooled we all are when it comes to the "law" and "statutes" and so on and so forth. Now I am not exactly a law guru so to speak but I get the jist of where you are going and you even mentioned the freeman on the land concept, which I have looked into and tried to make sense of just what it is to be truly free. Most of you questions can be answered by understanding just what jurisdiction is. There are many forms of jurisdiction.

When you are born you are given an identity that is recorded. That identity whenever it associates itself inside of a society immediately comes under it's jurisdiction. This could mean driving around on the roads, you have geographical jurisdiction (the road) lets say it is in America, you drive on an American road you must abide by American traffic laws, but remember the association isn't necessarily your physical body, it is your identity. If they cannot identify you within the time frame that their jurisdiction allows then they must release you. So say you are riding around in a car that is not registered within any American database as a "motor vehicle" then it technically isn't a motor vehicle so say you get pulled over, they cannot identify the car and say you do not have any way of being identified if they arrest you, you will be held for 72 hours by American law and then they must release you.

Jurisdiction is what pulls you into "the law" wherever you are. Now you must understand you only have the true right to be inside of a country (geographical jurisdiction) if you were born there, or go through the usual means (passport etc, whatever that countries laws are). Say you were born in America and you have NON STATE ISSUED identity, meaning it is not the identity that THE STATE gave you but YOUR PARENTS gave you, say a hospital record of your birth, NOT THE STATE ISSUED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, then you identify yourself as a National of America, not a citizen, see how it works? Truly being free means you detach yourself from the Citizen and become the National, sorry if I am being confusing.

The tricky thing is when it actually comes to the courts, say you get a ticket and MUST APPEAR, if you show up and walk up to the table and say on the record that you are FIRST MIDDLE LAST name then they on the record now have you in their jurisdiction because you identified yourself as a citizen's name attaching the body to the name, and you are now under that citizens limits, meaning all laws even small stupid statutes that bring nothing but state revenue like seat-belt tickets.

Say you get the ticket and you MUST APPEAR, if you don't sure they will issue a warrant, but that only applies to the citizen not your body, if you never identify yourself as the citizen then they can never arrest you under that warrant because you are not FIRST MIDDLE LAST, you are just a man named First.

Now say a cop sees you murder someone, if you are withing a geographical jurisdiction then you can bet you will be arrested. However think about it, if you cannot be identified, then who will they charge? Who will they record the court hearing with? They have no clue who you are. What language you speak. Where you are from. Granted murder is a big deal, and I understand there are areas in the world where they freely execute people, but think about it, would someone from that area who does that sort of thing, have a random cop walking up on them? I understand where you are coming from however MURDER is a defined crime meaning certain aspects must be met for it to be murder. Usually premeditation and other things. Now granted as far back as most true LAW goes (magna-carta, etc) murder is unlawful period, now certain areas of the world have extended that simple concept into statutory definitions. So a cop sees you murder someone, and he may or may not know who or where you are from, being in his jurisdiction gives him the right to stop you, and arrest you, NOW think about this, if someone was simply doing an execution, do you think they are going to SURRENDER their body to an alien person for no reason? Most likely not, they will fight for THEIR own jurisdiction.

I know this answer may not exactly be simple to understand but just try to remember, the odds of a cop in America just walking up on an unidentified tribe is rather slim, other areas in the world maybe, but in areas where there may be unidentified tribes around the world, most likely dont have officers just cruising around to maintain the peace. In America wo have "Indian Reservations" (go figure that one...) from what I understand no government has any authority within those actual geographic locations. Granted that whole issue is crap, how can we show up slaughter and then go hey we'll "give you" some land to have. BS but that is another thread.

Sorry I know this is hard to get but hopefully it helps. If you have any more questions or whatever just holler, lol.


Ok so rereading I noticed my response was pretty basic.


Just remember your born you are given an identity that must follow the countries laws it is a citizen of. If you go to another country and take your identity (citizen) and go through customs and the government of that country gives you (citizen) permission to visit, you now and alien to that country on a visa, which means you (citizen) must now follow all that countries laws while you visit, if you don't and are caught and identified, then you cannot be prosecuted in that country because you are not a citizen, you will be deported to you home country and THEN executed under its laws because they apply to you (citizen).

Thanks for replies so far, especially guesswhoyouknew. Yes I understand the low chances of a police officer finding a tribe and witnessing a murder, maybe I shouldn't have invented an imaginary scenario, makes it look like it's all hypothetical. Truth is, it's all factual and very much real-world. Like you pointed out, hite man goes to North America, takes their land, invents its own laws, imposes them on indigenous people who have their own laws and had been their longer. Likewise, white man goes to South America, forces tribes there to adapt christianity. White man goes to Australia, takes their land, takes their children, and after all those years, all he has to say today is "sorry". Check "stolen generations" on wiki. As for African tribes, see how they live and what they have to tolerate from the societies that live around them divided by imaginary borders: sites.google.com... Last but not least, the Eskimos. Guess they're just lucky, living in the "right" place. But then again, the next question is, how do you define "indigenous"? If laws don't apply to indigenous people, how much are isolated villages living up in the mountains in China any different? That's billions of people we're talking about. What law should apply to them, if any. Finally, I may also add to my above questions, what if it turns out that the DNA of a tribe or an isolated village is slightly different from homo sapiens, but they can still interbreed with HS, but haven't done so for a very long time and have "evolved" into something different. Like the cro magnon and the neanderthal, different species but can interbreed. Sorry if I got this wrong, the point I'm trying to make, laws apply to humans, meaning HS, if you impose it on a tribe with different DNA, next time you will want to send apes to work, pay tax and go to court. Where's the line drawn?

I have a LOT of questions listed here so I will number them and if you have an answer (because you actually deal with the law) or an opinion, please quote the question number.

Imagine you are a person

Who are you posting to?

In any case, you sort of answered your own question, but in a reverse way. Acts and statutes apply only to persons, not to living, human beings.. unless.. well, read on.

LAW applies to ALL HUMAN BEINGS ON PLANET EARTH.

Acts and statutes have the force of law, only to those who have specifically consented to being governed by them.

Law is very simple. Acts and statutes use legalese, and are very complex - you can't read most of them just by knowing the english language (you would read them wrong, because they changed the meaning of certain english-looking words).

Law is basically: Don't murder or injure anyone without their consent. Don't steal, trespass or use anyone's property without the owner's consent. Be honest in all your dealings (contracts).

A sidenote: just because an act or statute is NAMED "Law about (something)", doesn't mean it is the law. The word "law" is just included in it's NAME, to fool people to thinking that it IS the law, when in fact, it doesn't apply to people who do not consent to being governed by acts and statutes!

Research "Freeman on the land", "Rob Menard", "John Harris", "Artificial Person", "Meet your strawman" (from youtube and google, you get different things, both of which are very informative). That should get you started.

"Before The Law" - A Parable For These Strange Days In Which We Live, by Franz Kafka
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Before The Law

Before the law stands a doorkeeper. To this doorkeeper there comes a man from the country and prays for admittance to the Law. But the doorkeeper says that he cannot grant admittance at the moment. The man thinks it over and asks if he will be allowed in later. "It is possible," says the doorkeeper, "but not at the moment." Since the gate stands open as usual, and the doorkeeper steps to one side, the man stoops to peer through the gateway into the interior. Observing that, the doorkeeper laughs and says: "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers. From hall to hall there is one doorkeeper after another, each more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is already so terrible that even I cannot bear to look at him." These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be admitted, and wearies the doorkeeper by his importunity. The doorkeeper frequently has little interviews with him, asking him questions about his home and many other things, but the questions are put indifferently, as great lords put them, and always finish with the statement that he cannot be let in yet. The man, who has furnished himself with many things for his journey, sacrifices all he has, however valuable to the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper accepts everything, but always with the remark: "I am only taking it to keep you from thinking you have omitted anything." During these many years the man fixes his attention almost continuously on the doorkeeper. He forgets the other doorkeepers, and this first one seems to him the sole obstacle preventing access to the Law. He curses his bad luck, in his early years boldly and loudly; later, as he grows old, he only grumbles to himself. He becomes childish, and since in his yearlong comtemplation of the doorkeeper he has come to know even the fleas in his fur collar, he begs the fleas to help him and to change the doorkeeper's mind. At length his eyesight begins to fail, and he does not know whether the world is darker or whether his eyes are only deceiving him. Yet in his darkness he is now aware of a radiance that streams inextinguishably from the gatway of the Law. Now he has not very long to live. Before he dies, all his experiences in these long years gather themselves in his head to one point, a question he has not yet asked the doorkeeper. He waves him nearer since he can no longer raise his stiffening body. The doorkeeper has to bend low toward him, for the difference in height between them has altered much to the man's disadvantage. "What do you want to know now?" asks the doorkeeper; "you are insatiable." "Everyone strives to reach the Law," says the man, "so how does it happen that for all these many years no one but myself has ever begged for admittance?" The doorkeeper recognizes the man has reached his end, and, to let his failing senses catch the words, roars in his ear: "No one else could ever be admitted here, since this gate was made only for you. I am now going to shut it."
- Translated by Willa and Edwin Muir
www.endeneu.com...

And there you have it.