The difference between law and legislation!
The difference between law and legislation! One is Facts and the other is very Deceptive All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as Legislation's Legal Law Society, meaning its all merely Regulations or Rules. They are not laws.
Statutes are often far to often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ Barristers and Solicitors whom have a duty to know better, however, the correct interpretation would be Halsbury's laws, as "legislative rule of a society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, they are not law and now government act can be passed to make them law (meaning Statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that Statutes and laws are different.
If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains.
Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word common law -LAW – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between Statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit. A ‘Statute’ is defined as a Rule or Regulation of a society – they are edicts of Legislation Legal law Society used to govern that society. All Statutes are subject to the consent of the society and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice I choose not to.
The distinction between a law and a Statute is that a law applies equally to us all but Statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous) and some within the Government whom are all also in Office if they work for any Government run sector now will even commit crimes and follow the Government claiming that they have to obey and follow the law and then enforce this on to the public and even use threats and will take away their right to some-things as punishments. There is a compulsion to obey laws (meaning common law) and never to a Legislation's, Legal Law Society.
Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them, we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with common laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection. Obeying Statutes is voluntary i.e. with each of our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed at any time (controlled) by the Government legislative Statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, ONLY if the man/woman never paid into it, otherwise the Government is then Obligated, and has the Responsibility and the Duty to pay back in full all payments due to man/woman who made years of payment into a form of TAXES from all the years of service he paid in threw working, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is mine and mine alone.
Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be Dictatorship by the Majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution! if services are imposed upon a person inappropriately or against one's will the Government is again Obliged and has a duty payback and compensate IN FULL, Government is elected into ‘Office’, not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim including all those whom work at any Government building are all in Office thus these all come under the law of the seven principles of public life i.e. in public Office, breaking any of these is a common law offence and anyone can be held accountable.
The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (Office) is the people's ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and Government then becomes tyrannical. thus this is then RAPE which is a criminal offence and can be jailed for life and an unlimited amount of fines added on top. people foolish enough to give authority to known lyres ( whose spin doctor (public relations officer) places the get out clause in their manifesto pledges are not subject to reasonable expectations) they never give 'power' to those they foolishly believe they elect they merely give them AUTHORITY to act on their behalf and ave Duty, Obligations, and Responsibility to serve and protect man and property and nor more then this. they can only control those who work for the Government, and control the Commercial side's, Today’s Governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves and those that help them and all Outlaws all now think there are all above the law, these are all criminals and shall be brought to justice by a trial by Jury.
All must be brought to Jury trail the means by which the abuse of Office is dealt with.
A rejection of Statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of Statutes is a rejection of Governance.
The distinction between laws and Statutes appears to have been lost.
Many long-in-the-tooth ‘Legal’ Practitioners will argue that Statutes are laws – but if Statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘Legal’ profession has failed in its Duty, Obligations, and Responsibility, to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and Statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘Legal’ Society profession enhanced their Authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is, after all, the Legal Society Profession that now runs the Legal Court System – with Magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by Statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980).
Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the Legal Legislative Society Adviser in Court. This was a power-grab Statute. Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferential treatment under Statutes.
Politicians, for example, have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a Statute) rewards wealthy landowners – but not tenant or farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) even when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty they can! meaning one law for them another law of the public to whom there are there to serve and protect saying this one has to see that these are all public servants i.e. in Office only. Special interest groups often benefit from Statutes – Banks being a notable example.
Politicians on leaving Politics will often be rewarded by these Special interest groups by way of Generous Salaries, Director’s Fees and Perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing Preferential Legislation.
A disproportionately large number of Ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (i use that word advisedly) for the Banks. Some would describe this as a ‘Perk’ i have another word in mind. If a Statute is passed transferring their Authority (to Brussels for example)
It has become the habit of the Legal profession to describe Statutes as laws which of course it is not.
Habits, no matter how entrenched do not, however, create facts. Statutes are not laws those who try to enforce this as law on to any public member should be held accountable for their actions.
Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just Governance, but from time to time (over centuries) Statutes mutate to become more and more Oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable only benefit small sections of society meaning themselves.
During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves.
Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and Legal Legislation.
Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control. Statutes are often unjust – they can be Punitive, Unfair, Unreasonably Prescriptive and Authoritarian. We are all equal in the eyes of the law. (common law) those who are outside of it are now classed as Outlaws Criminals. We are not all equal in the eyes of Legislative Legal Statutes.
Law: - Law refers to common law. - Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms. - Law is based on principles – Legal Statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed. - Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim. - Laws may NOT be taken into Statutes but if repealed in Legal Statute, common law they remain in force in law, it is the only force that you hear so much, of so many public servants speak off, and only through consent of the people and that is not by the migratory each man/woman has the right to consent or not to consent and is protect by the law. - Lawful and unlawful refers to the law. Legal and Illegal refers to Legislation Legal Law Society. - Laws are used to keep the peace. - Without law we have Anarchy. - The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions. - Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all. - Parliament does not make law – it makes Legislation Legal for the Public Servants and Commercial side only. - Judges do not make the law – they interpret Legal Legislation and keep a record of laws. - Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the Legal profession are not even taught about our constitution.
Courts, Judges And Juries: - If Parliament made a Statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that Rules & Regulation was found not guilty – that Statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a Judge in the handing down of justice. - Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a Judge than a whole jury. Common Law vs Statutes and understanding it Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by a jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent, crooked, deceitful Judges. Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair Statutes are pursued by the Authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the Statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the Statute.
This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people only thus all powers they speak of all comes derived from the people only.
The fact is if it has not been judged by a Court de-jure it is nothing more than hearsay in law, heck the lower administrative court de-facto's as defined by Halsbury's laws
"" The law is absolutely clear on this subject, No administrative court has any authority in this country and no government act can be found to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints pleased upon the monarch at her coronation, The collection of revenue by such means is extortion and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times,""
Common law trumps Statutes it's that simple in anything and in all things. Some in the Legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior.
If a Government passed Legislation making itself Permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did)
The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law. - A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. -
If the Government makes Legislation or Legal and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the Authority of the jury over Government.
A Judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A Judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the common law. The jury is entirely independent of the Judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by an or any Judge. The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of Statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts. Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by Government, Nor the Police, Judges, or Solicitors, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.
Magistrates Courts are Statute courts and are illegal they have no standing in law … mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights.
Magistrates and Judges make rulings on their interpretation of Statutes and their Legal laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the Legal Adviser in Court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s Courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed by Statutes. These may be Legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are not enforced with consent without consent, Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court constitutionally convened court of law with a jury of 12.
The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see) PCN’s are unlawful. Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and Legal Advisers Subjugated to the Authority of Magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of Oppression. If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court. The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personnel nor Magistrates, Legal Advisers, District or Circuit Judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this anyway. Our Monarch represents the power of the people without the people a King or Queen is nothing more than a dreamer, thus the people and the common law comes from the people the public as she took an Oath under the common law, and (not the Government) in our courts. The courts do not get their Authority from the Government.
Magistrates and Judges give allegiance to Her Majesty if not then they have no authority at all and if the King or Queen has Broken that Oath of the people and its laws, thus this then reverts all back to the people to redo everything that removes all from office and rebuild their communities and societies they way the people want it by law they have this freedom and rights to do so. they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people. Neither Judge nor Legal Adviser Nor Government nor the Monarch can tell the people the public by whom we can be represented. The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the Legal Law society profession in a Court is a ‘Statute’ imposed, unwittingly and without consent – and not written by the people in common law but only by the Legal Law Society is thus fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’ The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money and services. It also enforces Slave Labour of working for 30 hrs a week for no payment, and those whom are will into pushing people into this are Guilty of a Criminal offence.
In each Magistrate’s Court, there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a Higher Court where a jury trial will be available, but there should be a jury trial on all based cases.
The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to Statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge of the Government Legislative Legal Law Society at using threats in all manner to be JUDGE, JURY, & EXECUTIONER, towards the people this would clearly be very wrong to do so but it been happening for too long at great expense to myself and family. In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – all Statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. you do not need permission to claim common law rights it is an innate right to do so. To deny common law rights in court – Is contempt of court… and that includes judges. Consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them.
Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law (common law) – does not make them invalid. If they ignore the constitution and the rule-of-law then I have a right (and a duty) to ignore their Statutes… all of their statutes of Legislation Legal Law society.
Governments do not make law, nor can they change, Amend, nor remove any laws. They make and change Legislation's Legal Law Society for the public servants its the only thing there are allowed to control, but never the people the public. - Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of their Statutes of their Legislative Legal Law Society. It is probable that because they know they are above Statutes (which they are we all are if we so chose – Only they make and enforce them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law.
The truth is the truth even if no one believes it,
A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it.
"A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed"
This is the commonly used definition of the word 'Statute'. It raises some questions as most of us to live our lives according to the rules of our various statutes and Acts they derive from, and yet in no part of that definition does it suggest that it is a Law.
Rather it is a rule.
Aren't rules made to be broken? I would certainly say so; the more rules you break, the more you have to pay to the court!
Rather than finding the precise source, let's discover whether this much-used definition is acceptable. So, can this much-quoted definition be either disproved and discarded or confirmed and accepted?
First, let’s look at a sourced definition of “statute”. statute. An act of the legislature as an organized body. Washington v Dowling, 92 Fla 601, 109 So 588.
The written will of the legislative department expressed according to the form necessary to constitute it a law of the United States or of the state, and rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities.
In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. 50 Am J1st Stat § 2. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1212)
Let’s now use this as our base to work from … In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature, an administrative regulation, or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state gives the force of law. act,n. A thing done or established; a deed or other written instrument evidencing a contract or an obligation. A statute; a bill which has been enacted by the legislature into a law, as distinguished from a bill which is in the form of a law presented to the legislature for enactment. Anne 5 ALR 1422. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 16-17)
legislature.- Broadly, anybody having legislative power. 49 Am J1st States § 28. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 724)
regulation.- Control or direction by restriction or rule of something permitted or suffered to exist. 30 Am J rev ed Intox L § 22. Any rule for the ordering of affairs, public or private, whether by statute, ordinance, or resolution. Kepner v Commonwealth, 40 Pa St 124, 129. Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1081)
state.- A body politic or 'society' of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government.
McLaughlin v Poucher, 127 Conn 441, 17 A2d 767. … a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanction and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed. Coyle v Smith, 221 US 559, 55 L Ed 853, 31 S Ct 688. (Ballantines, 3rd edition, Page 1210)
Summary An act of the legislature = legislative An administrative regulation = a rule The state = a political community, organized under a government, established by the consent of the governed.
In a broader sense, inclusive of an act of the legislature (legislative), an administrative regulation (rule), or an enactment, from whatever source originating, to which the state (political community established by the consent of the governed) gives the force of law.
Connect the dots; A legislative rule, given the force of law by the political community established by the consent of the governed. Compare this too; A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed.
