Ideological differences-Part 6: Statutory law and bureaucratic Administrative policy


Disclaimer: It is sad that I need to post a disclaimer on what is clearly my opinion because of the control of the BAR Association and the courts and their definition of "practicing law without a license," when any license to exercise a right now becomes a privilege which is a sad and laughable bastardization of our system of law. No, I am not an attorney nor do I believe American Jurisprudence requires the suspension of opinion, like mine, that is reserved only for the elect few which also laughably violates the lost 13th Amendment that forbids any Title of Nobility. All posts on my website are my opinion and therefore do not offer any legal advice.


It's the law! it's the Law! It's the Law! But is it?


Statutory law: the written law established by enactments expressing the will of the legislature, as distinguished from the unwritten law or common law.


Unwritten law: : law based chiefly on custom rather than legislative enactments


Common law: the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes. Often contrasted with statutory law or the body of English law as adopted and modified separately by the different states of the US and by the federal government.


All we hear about today in our increasingly oppressive incremental totalitarian state is the term "law" or shall I say "legal" or legal system. I grew up understanding that words mean things and because we do not know them we are subject to the changing whims of those who seek to continually re-define them. If we do not understand the history behind these words like law, it is like a country floating around in the wind or being built on a foundation of sand and not on solid rock. Have you ever noticed the more laws that are created the more lawless the people become? I believe it isn't just because we don't understand words but we are also dealing with the everchanging definitions kind of like the Tower of Babel of law.


As I have stated before in previous posts, I personally and most I know don't need man's law. Now don't go thinking I am some anarchist or some antigovernmental "right-wing kook," think about what I am saying. If law should only apply when someone does evil, why then does it apply to a once free people that incrementally carves out the freedom of a free people?


I was once told if I believed in God's two greatest commandments: to love God and to love thy neighbor, I would have no need for other laws and I believe this to be true. Why? If we loved God, we would obey His commandments and we would love others as well as ourselves and taking care of others in accordance with His will would eliminate the need for other laws. I also believe that this would especially be consistent with freedom if all laws that were created were to preserve freedom and not encroach upon it which proves that statutory law may not be what we think it is.


Think of it this way, if government was instituted to secure God Given Rights and the government makes law, how is it possible for law to be used to encroach upon the rights of all people while elevating certain rights or privileges to a special people chosen by the government? I am not seeing "equal justice under the law" here, are you?


I have also mentioned that statutory law is law that is passed by the legislature or by Congress. With this understanding, no other entity should lawfully create and pass law. The one part people forget about is that not all laws passed are lawful.


In other posts I have also commented on administrative policy that is commonly understood as policy created by any non-governmental organization (NGO). This to most uninformed people is considered law and it isn't. it is policy and it is administrative. It is also a tremendous abuse and encroachment upon the liberties of the people because not only do we have the legislatures writing unlawful laws but we also have NGO's writing law and they even have an enforcement mechanism because the average person not only doesn't understand law but the people charged with enforcement don't know any better either. This is what I call "lawless in the name of the law."


When I was first becoming politically active, I used to attend every meeting I could find out why people were so active and why so many people were concerned and to learn what people were concerned about. I was new and ignorant and was barely awake.


I attended tea party groups, law groups, rallies and even "Sovereign Citizen" groups and learned a lot not only about the subject matter but the people involved. Peoples emotion and anger were mixed with the inability to communicate, to articulate and even to organize but I realized many were just like me, new and concerned and wanted to find out what the root cause of the problem was and to find solutions.


A common "solution" amongst the "Sovereigns" is that claiming such a status would remove you from the statutory or administrative system and that the statutory laws/policy created would no longer apply to you. With this status change you also gave up certain "rights" or privileges that came with being what is called a federal (14th amendment) citizen or Corporate fiction. As easy as it would be for anyone uninformed to write off such "heresy" there was much written in law to substantiate such a position, too bad the group was not more effective at presenting the message and providing evidence for consideration from a position of history.


Now that an alleged solution was found, there was a need to find out what the problem was and after years of attending these meetings because I was purely intrigued by them, they focused on the fact that in 1871 the Organic united states was replaced by the provisions in the Act of 1871. It wasn't until most recently that there has been talk that it wasn't necessarily the Act of 1871, it was related to the Reconstruction Acts or both, Its been some time since I followed up on all of it. Either way one thing is clear, the more oppressive the government becomes the more people try to find ways to escape it.


So why is it that our geniuses in government or those complying with it have never asked?

"Was the rise of the liberty groups including the Sovereign Citizen movement created because of the governments incremental abuse and would they not have had to worry about these groups if they had not become oppressive and chose to keep the peace rather than agitate to rebellion?"

Well, first of all, there is no money in keeping the peace. There are no jobs, no new "toys," no money for the retirement of the judges or those serving the communities and peace would only bring cut backs so maybe all of this is not only related to ignorance but also related to job security? Don't people say "Follow the Money?"


The government believes that any edict they create is law. The government also believes that any NGO, since they have an (unlawful) connection to government can also make law and the more law they create the more enforcement they need because they inherently know they will eventually meet resistance. If they don't know, there is no other word for it than stupid.


So, the government not only uses the local police to defend themselves from the people, pinning local police between a rock and a hard place but they use tax dollars to pay for the enforcement of the policies of any and all bureaucratic agencies that they call law and people now wonder why people are becoming more restless?


So, as the government continues to become more concerned about "right-wing extremism", they are not only "pied-pipered" to believe such propaganda to see the truth that the left has always been the party of chaos as clearly evidenced in the news and cornered law enforcement between the oath to the policy manual and that of the constitution? I argue such an oath inconsistent and places the master (sovereign person) in an inferior position where taking a moral stand to the greater law can have consequences when being forced to adhere to the lesser.


The sad part of all of this is that as the left calls for the defunding the police, calling for violence in the streets, local law enforcement is responding to the growing agitation which when emotionally fueled, sadly includes such an outward show of intimidation, the right, that typically support local law enforcement now inadvertently join the left in their hated for law enforcement and that my friends is how the last free bastion of freedom becomes like any other totalitarian state ushering in a nationalized or even global police force.


Therefore I am left only to ask one question: If law enforcement is an entity used by the state against the people, why then would law enforcement allow for themselves to be pigeon-holed by their own government as they are forced to keep the peace when their own government advocated for Civil Unrest? To me, it appears they are being played as we are to fight against one another.


Would this understanding bring law enforcement closer to the people? Although I am hopeful, I also understand history and from what I am seeing we are about to repeat it unless enough of us act to not only understand it but commit to doing something about it.


I still support law enforcement because I feel I understand what will happen if we don't. If you are interested in fighting the bureaucracy, maybe and seemingly ironic, starting a Support Your Local Police committee would be a mechanism. For more information please reach out to me or go to www.jbs.org.


15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

  • White Facebook Icon

© 2019 TomMunds.com