Legislation does NOT claim to be LAW

[ljtherock]

@ legaleagle.

I noted you replied to my question to strawmansarah.

However, perhaps you could give your expertise over to "The law does not require the impossible."
Would you agree that the above is true based on your legal knowledge?

[johny]

Hi ljtherock I will answer your question. It could be argued both ways as to wether the law expects the impossible. On the one hand I would say no, BUT I can see where you are going with this and yes the law does require you to know everything about the law. That is where the excuse of honestly believing you had a lawful right comes in. It is however down to you to prove this.

[frogmanbrabs]

At Legaleagle the reason people voted for the party they voted for, could have been for the manifesto that the party presented to the electorate. But once they were voted into office the manifesto gets changed and you find that what you were told you voted for is not exactly what you are going to get after all. Cameron said he had no intention of raising VAT to 20% what happened it went up to 20%. Clegg promised no increase of tuition fees what happened tuition fees went up. I choose not to vote because none of the parties who stand for election have my interests at heart. They are all there to line their own pockets and impose more rules (Legislation) on the electorate to take away more of their freedom. I do not belong to anyone, I am a life form on a large planet who is being forced into living in someone else's world and in so doing I am being made a prisoner. I do not cause anyone harm or loss and I live my life and treat other humans how I would want them to treat me.
You state that because I didn't exercise my right to vote doesn't mean I am not subject to their authority. But I didn't give them my authority so what right do they have to assume they have authority over me?

[legaleagle]

As I said maybe a different thread to explore elections, however I do see your point and agree that normally people vote for the political party that best represents their views and that the political parties do change their policies. I however still do not see how society can operate if we can pick and choose which laws we obey. Your argument is as equally valid in relation to common law which I don't personally know any one who signed up too. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on my 'POLISH LAWFUL REBELLION' thread in the general forum.

[legaleagle]

Sorry it is in the Common law forum

[ljtherock]

Hi ljtherock I will answer your question. It could be argued both ways as to wether the law expects the impossible. On the one hand I would say no, BUT I can see where you are going with this and yes the law does require you to know everything about the law. That is where the excuse of honestly believing you had a lawful right comes in. It is however down to you to prove this.

This thread is operating in the quantum realm surely...

That stated, good to have a reply albeit from someone other than legaleagle, who appears to only answer to me via third parties...

So, the answer to my question is "The law requires the impossible", or truly "Legislation requires the impossible."


It only requires a clear mind, open eyes and good sense to conclude that where legislation is concerned it is decieptful...

The Law does not, repeat does not require the impossible but for one to firstly realise this, one has to know what Law is Law and what is most certainly not.

Once one is aware of The Law, then one can see the remedy in which to combat all unlawful legislation and prove that all are equal under The Law.

[Thomas]

.

Good one ljtherock, good to see you about, but knowing you are always about Spiritually.

P.S. Do you have time or need for that device we spoke of.

[ljtherock]

.

Good one ljtherock, good to see you about, but knowing you are always about Spiritually.

P.S. Do you have time or need for that device we spoke of.

Good to know you are still about Thomas.

I may well have time or need for that device we talk of, especially in light of in the next few weeks I will be homeless, intentionally of course...

I plan to buy a plot of land/woodland and live upon it but no doubt will face many legislation enforcers to do so peacefully.

[legaleagle]

Hi ljtherock sorry about the third party reply before (some issues logging on, all resolved now.) You are certainly correct to say that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The law (legislation) does not expect the impossible, it does however expect us to ensure we are operating within it. As I have said you cannot use (successfully at least) the excuse "I did not know it was illegal." You can however use the excuse "I thought what I was doing was legal," tho is because the law does not expect the average man to be an expert on the law.

Here is an example to (hopefully) illustrate it. Suppose I am banned from driving and ask you to let me drive your car with you in the passenger seat supervising me.You do so and we are stopped by the police. Now assuming that you did not know I was banned you have an excuse to the offence (use,cause or permit the driving of a motor vehicle without a license.) as you can say "I know people without a licence can drive so long as they are supervised." I do not have an excuse as know I (you would hope ) am banned from DRIVING not just DRIVING WITHOUT SUPERVISION.

[ljtherock]

Hi ljtherock sorry about the third party reply before (some issues logging on, all resolved now.) You are certainly correct to say that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The law (legislation) does not expect the impossible, it does however expect us to ensure we are operating within it. As I have said you cannot use (successfully at least) the excuse "I did not know it was illegal." You can however use the excuse "I thought what I was doing was legal," tho is because the law does not expect the average man to be an expert on the law.

Here is an example to (hopefully) illustrate it. Suppose I am banned from driving and ask you to let me drive your car with you in the passenger seat supervising me.You do so and we are stopped by the police. Now assuming that you did not know I was banned you have an excuse to the offence (use,cause or permit the driving of a motor vehicle without a license.) as you can say "I know people without a licence can drive so long as they are supervised." I do not have an excuse as know I (you would hope ) am banned from DRIVING not just DRIVING WITHOUT SUPERVISION.

Thank you for your reply legaleagle.

So it appears legislation claims the maxim "The law does not require the impossible" and then does not hold true to it because THEY have taken a round peg and leave the masses to attempt to squeeze it into a square hole.
UK legislation alone I believe is in the thousands and as present have yet to meet with anyone who can claim to know them all in their entirety... this is more than a conundrum below deciept.

Legislation declares something either legal or illegal, guilty or not guilty, whereas Law declares something lawful or unlawful, guilty or innocent. So therefore legislation is a square hole to the round peg of Law.

Now if we follow through that Elizabeth II claims her authority from God (putting aside your own personal beliefs) and that she also swore an Oath to God and signed her name to it and yet has failed to uphold it...
Then If it is implied that Law is God's Law we suddenly are left with a round peg to fit a round hole. So the maxim "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" is humanly obtainable for all in light of there being very few of God's Law's and those being very easily taken to memory and understood.

Also, the maxims "All are equal under the Law", "There is always remedy in Law", all appear to fit as round pegs in round holes.
Of course when one should require foundational evidence to support such as the above, then one only has to call upon the name of Elizabeth II to bear witness to your defense should one ever be enforced to do so.

Elizabeth's motto is good for me also "Dieu et mon droit", as all are equal under the Law and her law book is also good for people also. I would never suggest anyone enter a court of Elizabeth's without The Book On Law.
By doing so one can always quote Law directly from The Law Book and also refer to it when unfamiliar with particular word for word support
Of course, one could not be denied in doing so as it is used by Elizabeth also and we are all equal under Law. If the courts should see fit not to allow your use of it then one should seek to call Elizabeth as support of it.

The above stated, one should always seek to first ensure that the courts firstly prove their jurisdiction/authority to decide over ones alleged misdemeanours and thereby their right to enforce their legislation over one.