quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the police work for and enforce the above noted agencies and have nothing to do with enforcing law.

I mean I hope we agree that government cannot make "Law"

Administrations cannot make "Law"

nor can management make "Law"

they can only make policy, code et al

I am suprised he suckered you on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

the police work for and enforce the above noted agencies and have nothing to do with enforcing law.

I mean I hope we agree that government cannot make "Law"

Administrations cannot make "Law"

nor can management make "Law"

they can only make policy, code et al

I am suprised he suckered you on that.

Words fail me.

The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding so basic that its hard to know where to begin in correcting it, since its by no means assured that an explanation using even the simplest terms will be comprehended.

In its most basic form though, the misunderstanding appears to be one arising from a perception of alienation from the rest of society such that almost everything arising from society that has influence on the individual is seen as an intrusion and an attack.

Consequentially the individual comes to fear and hate all agencies of society and to project onto them at best a sense of distrust by which only conspiracy theories provide satisfactory explanation in the context of such preconceptions, or at worst a need to show outright hostility as a means of satisfying the psychic need for self preservation.
 
There is no question that such individuals must be maladjusted to society, for they live under a severe and enduring misconception about society. Whether any effective corrective treatment might be possible is in doubt, since any attempt to rectify the source of the problem will be strongly resisted and merely be felt to support and reinforce the misconception. Treatment is therefore only recommended where the problem presents a clear and present danger to the individual or others in its effects.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

At the risk of again wasting hours of my time by engaging you RO, it would appear that you misunderstand the idea of "color of law" and wish to apply it to all legislative acts and their application as if the government - as the elected representatives of the people - have no right to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have no right to apply them.

This is clearly not the case, since the people have not only consented but in effect also instructed the government to make such laws and see to it that they are applied, and thus there is a lawful right to make law residing in government and a lawful right residing in the agencies of government to apply it. Indeed, it is because of these lawful rights that there might arise a notion such as acting under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between lawful and unlawful application of the law.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

At the risk of again wasting hours of my time by engaging you RO, it would appear that you misunderstand the idea of "color of law" and wish to apply it to all legislative acts and their application as if the government - as the elected representatives of the people - have no right to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have no right to apply them.

This is clearly not the case, since the people have not only consented but in effect also instructed the government to make such laws and see to it that they are applied, and thus there is a lawful right to make law residing in government and a lawful right residing in the agencies of government to apply it. Indeed, it is because of these lawful rights that there might arise a notion such as acting under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between lawful and unlawful application of the law.

E

corrected:
RO, it would appear that you understand "color of law" and claim it applies to all legislative acts and their application as if the government.    

The elected representatives of the people have been granted the authority to enact them, and the various agencies of government including police and courts have been granted the authority to apply them.

This is clearly the case, for the people whom have consented to be ruled and governed by another.   

The people who have consented have waived their rights to self government by authorizing the hive to make such code and enforce it with the power of law and see to it that they are applied to those whom consented to the contract.  

There is lawful authority even though government has no rights to make “colored law” for the consenting that resides in government and a lawful authority residing in the agencies of government to apply it to apply it to all parties under said contract.  

Indeed, it is because of this lawfully granted authority by each contracting-consenting-governed that there might arise a notion such as acting legally under color of law in that thereby we may distinguish between fictions, contracts, and organic law, legal and lawful and unlawful application of the color of law under legal.             


this was rather difficult to convert the monarchial version to the republic but I think that shouold get the point across none the less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ellen, I think you have to be one of the Bizzarati to understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

You do realise RO, that the Queen doesnt rule at all, here or anywhere else?

Of course not the trustees take care of that :)

That she is purely a figurehead as head of state and that we are a Parliamentary democracy wherein we vote to elect representatives who then form a government and implement policy including by way of legislation, and that this situation has obtained for the last few centuries, evolving to the point where everyone over 18 may vote?

Again that is a misnomer because the queen has never

There is the catch.  She still retains her power and that will never change. relinquished the power, just chooses not to exercize it.

You may wish to examine three key periods of change - the first being the English Civil War of the 1640s through to 1651, the second being the Restoration of the Stuart King Charles II and the third being the Glorious Revolution of 1689. By the close of the 17th century, the position and powers of the monarch were utterly changed from those you appear to believe still apply.

The situation has evolved ever since, to the point where there is a small but significant proportion of the population who move for a republic here with a president rather than a monarch.

A monarch has more power than a president as a president is under a monarch. 

Presidents are the creation of the monarch to be the executor of the corporation(s) created by the monarch so that will never happen.

If the situation were anything like what you appear to believe, these people should be imprisoned for treason and guess what, theyre not, because despite some notable differences, the situation here is not too different to the situation there - which is perhaps hardly any wonder given that the changes here of the 17th century fed into and were inspired by the same forces that fed into and inspired the creation of the US.

Its just like the magna charta....if the king wants to live without a revolt every 6 months they better accomondate the people.  Precisely they way its done here with patriots that get tossed in jail for reading the irs code and making the foolish mistake to think the courts will uphold the law they pick away at the fringes while the propagandist bash them relentlessly so the people justify it or become complacent.  You know psyterrorism against the republic. That way the king looks ok and only has to deal with the fringes rather than the population at large.

Are things perfect in your country or ours? No. And from what I hear on here the problems correspond quite well and have the same sources and symptoms in both countries - political corruption and ineptitude, corporate manipulations and general apathy and particular anger being perhaps the core. We may well be entering another period like the 17th century where great socio-political change is inevitable.

Its like I told you some time ago, that what ever direction motha englang goes with the law is here in 20 years sometimes less depending on how worried they are about an uprsing.

Perhaps you may be able to be part of that, but not if you continue with such ignorant, and obstinately ignorant at that, spoutings such as you produce here. If random persons on the internet are not convinced by and in fact rip apart your posts, how much chance do you feel you should have in convincing the large numbers of people you should need to effect the changes you feel are necessary?

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
You have the right to freedom of expression, which is why they are not coming from Germany to put me in a cell with Ernst Zundel, which is a prima facie case of the difference between a natural born Citizen and others in this country, and/or Canada.