What Do You Believe About Law?
Before you read the information on this page, let's do a quick examination of what you believe about law.
Let us pretend, for sake of this examination, that you are sitting as a juror hearing a court case. The Prosecutor has proven way beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused did indeed break the law. In fact, the accused sat on the witness stand and testified, "Yes, I broke that law."
Will you find the accused guilty because the accused broke the law?
If you found the accused guilty, then you have been indoctrinated into worshiping authority and never questioning the law's validity.
Let's now examine, What is law?
What is Law?
1) Any system of regulations to govern the conduct of the people of an organization, community, society, or nation. 2) A statute, ordinance, or regulation enacted by the legislative branch of a government.
Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary
What is LAW?
[...] "Law" is a solemn expression of legislative will. It orders and permits and forbids. It announces rewards and punishments. [...]
The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Ed.
Stated simply as most would understand law:
Law is a command to do or not to do some action.
Doesn't that statement contain an assumption that every law applies to everyone?
If you are having trouble recognizing the assumption contained in that definition, perhaps this question will bring it into focus.
- Can anybody violate a law that does not apply to them?
If a particular law does not apply, then, to restate the obvious, that particular law just does not apply.
Why is this point important?
No applicability - No crime
Inherent in the claim of a law being violated is the implied claim that the law applies to the accused.
I asked a lawyer, "How does a claim become a fact in a court room?" This lawyer refused to state the obvious truth: By presentation of supporting evidence and testimony. Admission of this truth exposes the reality that ANY court conviction is based upon an assumption (that the law applies) regardless of any other evidence.
Cops, persecutors (sic), lawyers, and judges ALWAYS assume that the law applies... And some go ballistic, postal even, when their assumption is challenged.
"Everybody knows that laws apply" is a common (and incorrect) assumption of the indoctrinated. Having shed my indoctrination, I have also shed my unexamined assumption regarding the applicability of law. This has left me with this question:
- How can any persecutor prove a violation of a law if the persecutor can not prove the law applies?
A law must apply before it can be violated. From there it follows, with simple logic, that If a law can not be proven to apply, then the law does not apply. Assumptions and opinions are not facts in a court of law until proven. Assumptions and opinions that the laws apply, without proof, are not facts.
Every persecutor is required to allege a violation of a law in order to charge a defendant of committing a crime.
A crime is an act committed or
omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding
Wilkins v. U. S
Law Dictionary (Black's Law Dictionary)
If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law.
Entick v Carrington
This concept is attributed to Lord Camden as stated in a 1765 case. In other words:
No law - No crime
In drafting your legal claims, you are likely to have
grouping claims together or listing them separately. For instance, a
claim might be “Defendant engaged in unlawful discrimination by denying
plaintiff an apartment because of plaintiff’s national origin in
violation of” and then listing the various statutes, regulations, and
other sources of law.
Shriver Center on Poverty law
Municipal Court: The Basics
The charging instrument in municipal court is a complaint. The complaint is a sworn allegation charging an accused with the commission of an offense
The complaint must:
1. show that the accused committed an offense against the laws of this state and must assert that the affiant has good reason to believe and does believe that the accused committed an offense against the law of this state.
Texas City Attorneys Association
Can a federal indictment be challenged?
Here are some examples that an indictment can be challenged for:
failing to set forth an actual violation of law;
failing to plead all of the elements of a crime;
Burnham & Gorokhov, PLLC
All Law is Comply or Die
Yes. It is.
Bear with me while I lay it out for you.
The one in particular I'm examining is the politician's opinion that you must obey a cop's commands. You know, The one that says you must pull over and stop when a cop lights you up (turns on his red and/ or blue disco lights) and its brother that says you must obey a cop when he gives you a command.
If you refuse to stop, what will the cop do? Will he just wave good bye to you or will he ram the car you are driving to make you stop? If you accelerate away from the cop will he let you go or speed up to stay with you until he can stop you? If you continue to resist the cop will he say I just want to share my donuts with you or will he tackle you, taser you, or shoot you because you didn't obey him and stop?
See Force Continuum elsewhere on this website.
As stated, every law is comply or die. If you don't obey, men with guns will come to capture you and put you in a cage. If you resist this, they will increase the force they will use against you.
And they will do it to you for doing actions that harm nobody. These actions are called Victim-less Crimes. The laws proscribing these actions are known as malum prohibitum laws.
Malum prohibitum (plural) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se. Smoking marijuana is a mala prohibita (singular) crime. Murder is a mala in se (singular) crime.
Meaningless Law Prohibiting Murder
There have been laws against murder since time immemorial. There have been murders during that same time immemorial. Thus laws against murder have done nothing to stop murder from happening. Why?
Because murderers don't care about anti-murder laws. And non-murderers don't need anti-murder laws because they aren't going to commit murder anyway.
Now if any of you are on the fence, let me know if you plan on going out and committing murder if laws against murders were rescinded.
Ten years ago today, [June 23, 2015] the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the City of New London, Connecticut’s “right” to condemn Connecticut homeowners’ properties, transfer them to a state-created entity called the New London Development Corporation, which would then transfer those properties to a private developer of a planned mixed-use redevelopment project aimed at supporting an adjacent Pfizer research facility.
Competitive Enterprise Institute.org
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org
How to Identify Legal Plunder
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
-- Frederic Bastiat --
As German Jews, Anne and her family are very affected by the anti-Jewish laws brought on by the Nazis, which restrict them from everyday activities, including owning businesses. These laws were especially harsh after 1940. They also must wear yellow stars with the word "Jew" at all times.
BookRags: Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl
Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service
"Civil servants who are not of Aryan (non-Jewish) descent are to be retired."
Law Regarding Admission to the Bar
"Persons who, according to the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 7, 1933, are of non-Aryan descent may be denied admission to the bar."
Law Against the Crowding of German Schools
"In new admissions, care is to be taken that the number of Reich Germans who, according to the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of April 7, 1933, are of non-Aryan descent, out of the total attending each school and each faculty, does not exceed the proportion of non-Aryans within the Reich German population."
Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor
"Marriages between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood are forbidden...Extramarital intercourse forbidden between Jews and subjects of German or kindred blood...Jews are forbidden to fly the Reich and national flag and to display Reich colors...They are, on the other hand, allowed to display the Jewish colors...Whoever violates the prohibition...will be punished by penal servitude."
Reich Citizenship Law
"A Reich citizen is only that subject of German or kindred blood who proves by his conduct that he is willing and suited loyally to serve the German people and the Reich."
Reich Citizenship Law
"A Jew cannot be a Reich citizen. He is not entitled to the right to vote on political matters; he cannot hold public office...A Jew is anyone descended from at least three grandparents who are fully Jewish as regards race...Also deemed a Jew is a Jewish Mischlung subject who is descended from two fully Jewish grandparents and...who belonged to the Jewish religious community...who was married to a Jew...who is the offspring of a marriage concluded by a Jew...who is an offspring of extramarital intercourse with a Jew..."
The Law Regarding Changes of Family Names
"Jews may be given only such given names as are listed in the Guidelines on the Use of Given Names issued by the Reich Minister of the Interior... Insofar as Jews have other given names than those which may be given to Jews...they are obligated, beginning January 1, 1939, to assume an additional given name, namely the given name Israel in the case of males and the given name Sarah in the case of females."
Anti Defamation League
If the law says that it is one's legal duty to shove Jews and other undesirables into cattle cars will you do so?
If you were one of the idiots that found the accused guilty in the first section of this webpage, I have no doubt that you would shove Jews and other undesirables into the cattle cars because that's what the law says you must do.
- Should law be obeyed when it is evil, allows evil, or commands evil be done?
The term "Nuremberg Defense" was originally coined during the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg after World War II. Nazi war criminals who were charged with genocide, mass murder, torture and other atrocities used the defense "I was only following orders" so frequently that the argument became known generically as "The Nuremberg Defense".
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
- What is law, if not an alleged superior's orders given under alleged authority over you?
"I'm just following orders."
"I'm just doing my job."
"I didn't write the law, I only enforce it."
If you collect a 'government' paycheck, you are paid with money extorted from the 'government's' victims. Please explain how it is that you don't have a moral choice available. The Nuremberg principles are quite clear, you have duty to disobey orders, commands, and laws you know are wrong.
For those who would claim that laws enforce morality upon those allegedly subject to those laws... The only thing left for me to state is, Read and reread this page until you get "IT".
The mainstream definitions are only partially accurate. They omit addressing where and how the laws get any alleged authority.
It is clear to this author that Legislators, Senators, and Congresspersons are merely men and women. Such politicians are not gods or demigods. They have no supernatural intellect or knowledge. And most importantly, they were not born with innate authority over any other humans.
These politicians write their opinions, squabble about their opinions, and then vote on their opinions. The winning opinions are then called "law".
I find this definition to be more encompassing of the larger truth.
Law is a politician's opinion
Anybody who thinks that they can refute that statement, please send your attempt to do so to me via the Contact page. I am looking for good logical attempts of refutation to use on this page to counter-balance the narrative I am providing. Tell me if you want your name used or if you want to be anonymous.
With the information provided so far, the first definition of law can now be transformed to more accurately describe what law is.
Law is a politician's opinion to do or not do some action.
The above listed German laws were the precursors to the horrible deeds that followed those laws. Graphic images of the horrible deeds are on their own page. To skip that page click Next on this page.
The Graphic and Upsetting Images