Excellent piece Alex. I was the MC at a wedding recently, international crowd, my first toast was to 'natural law, serendipity and attraction'. Natural law, as I grow older in the countryside of St France, is unambiguously the only one that matters...
Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/
Most important 'their narrative' is collapsing. Dynamite has been.."thrown into the sh_thouse" ie. they either come out of this covered with their 'own sh_t' stinkin', or perhaps they are literally 'blown-to-bits'. Cheers Alex :)
I have been in court for the past four years with a problem that the courts have no easy solution for: I am seriously allergic to mold; it has damaged my heart and kidneys. It's next to impossible to sue landlord for exposure to it. I've been in federal court on a case for the past 3 years. My opponents are 3 national corporations with 5 defendants. I am conducting this case pro se. There is also an ongoing state case against landlord; in both suits I am not seeking monetary damages I simply want them to eradicate the mold. Through this process I have had to learn law as I've gone along. I am a seeress and so understand that there is a psychic component to it. The more attuned to oneself, to one's inner being the better one fares before the bench as is true in all areas of life. I believe that students in school should be trained to represent themself on the more basic, simpler cases in court which iempowers one as an active citizen. Thanks Alex, great conference!
I went to court against a landlord re mold issues also in 2010. I represented myself although I had some questionable help from Legal aid. The case, although not as big as yours, I do have mold allergies and came down w a case of thrush in my mouth and throat which is now my Achilles heel. The Landlord actually hired a mold expert whose brain I picked. The Landlord was a DC attorney which was out of state to my residence. I must have been nuts right?! She immediately pissed off the Judge who sent us to mediation. Legal Aid gave me no hope of claiming any settlement. I walked away w $5k. They were amazed. I don't trust lawyers to have my interests as much as I do. 👍
HI Alex, I'm not sure if you read this if so I would love to chat with you. Unfortunately what the speakers spoke on at that conference is not an accurate depiction of the system of law we are in. They aren't the only ones, many people interested in 'freedom' have seemed to gotten caught up in mythology, echoed by what you picked up about what they were saying regarding contracts and contracting away things with birth documents, etc etc. Those aren't accurate depictions...and unfortunately foster a belief in peoples minds that actually end up creating more chaos (and subsequent order that would follow) and many respects impacts the freedoms that are found in law.
Law simply is nothing but agreements between men, and just because agreements were made that established the system of law we are in now when I wasn't around, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If that was the case, integrity would be out the window and no one would trust anyone.
Regardless, when you examine the system of law from its origins things make much more sense, unfortunately few do that. And end up speaking about it in a foggy way, like for example when people speak of natural law, almost relating to it as if it is the law of nature, two distinct different things in law.
This is getting long but if you are interested I would love to shed some light on it as someone that has studied it from its origin.
The laws of nature are ways in which things would be in nature. In nature there is no ownership for example. You have something until you are no longer using it. Once you stop using it it’s there for someone else. Natural law is a function of the system of law you are in. Meaning its meaning is established by English law (you can say law of the king). So it has meaning based on what that system of law says it mean. This is why I made that comment above. People speak of natural law not realizing that what that means is based on the definition of the English system of law. It’s one of the many confusions. The same thing with the Magna Carta people refer. When that was passed there were 20 different classes of people (you and I being peasants and serfs with no rights). That agreement was between king and nobles. Law is specific. That agreement was specific between certain classes of people. Today it only represents the beginnings of what became a government. But not government. Again people fail to put things in the right context and I think this is because they don’t know the foundations of law. Which leads to misinterpretation, like for example in the article Alex posted about registration of birth or your car has you lose your rights, that's not accurate.
Thank you Mark, for that feedback. Indeed, this whole issue of law is a new revelation to me and I am still full of doubts about it. For one thing, I did suspect that Magna Carta had the intention as you suggest: to disempower the sovereign to the benefit of the oligarchy, not the ordinary man. The registration issue - point taken.
Cool wayfinder - I'm very impressed if your 13 and 11 year olds would read this. I also have an 11 and 13 year olds and am not sure if they'd be able to digest it.
The "inalienable rights" of the many are opposed by the political and economic power of the few. No system of self-government has yet been perfected which can prevent the concentration of such power, the subversion of any constraints, and the abuse of those "rights". The present system resembles the "democratic despotism" predicted by Alexis de Toqueville nearly 200 years ago in his book "Democracy in America" (1835):
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate... Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." rawhistory.com/democratic-despotism-as-described-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
Toqueville came to America as the third generation of Americans came to power. The first two generations lived free prosperous lives in their communities more so than later generations ... a la Mormons, Amish, and Anarchists... yet, over time ... "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I just shared it with my 21 yo daughter and her boyfriend of the same age, and both are very thoughtful and open-minded individuals and that provides the hope for their generation. With things unfolding, I think it is this generation that will have to bare the most burden of defending laws & freedoms against faux-contracts
Yes, indeed. Glad to hear there are thoughtful 21 year olds. I know they're out there but it's all the unthoughtful ones that are drawing attention to themselves whenever they're offended, which is pretty much all the time.
Natural law are the laws of nature. It is a dog eat dog world in nature. Laws of the jungle have nothing to do with property. You are not granted an acre of land with a 3 bedroom 3 bath home at birth. Property boundaries require man-made laws. Killing, rape, assault, theft, and cheating are givens in natural law. A grizzly will eat people in nature. Then you belong to him.
To combat the king of the jungle with the biggest nuclear weapon, the "State" must be employed.
Ludwig von Mises is correct,
"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Predators, however, can live long successful lives and become famous in the history books.
My brother Benny died, in 1967, on the front lines in Vietnam “defending Democracy” before he reached his 19th birthday while Sir Heinz lived a full successful life for over 100 years.
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” ― Henry Kissinger
Yes, such a tragedy. And it's happened millions of times over. We should do our utmost to end this malignant system and replace it with one that's a true reflection of our core values.
Either the "democratic" leadership has forgotten this principle, allowing the savages to run wild in every major US city under their control, or they are pursuing a different and subversive agenda contrary to "property, liberty and peace".
"Narrative Economics" by Robert Schiller ... not the "State" is ruling the world today. The "State" is handcuffed by narratives... from high paid charlatans. If elected officials are not bound by law, (adhering to the constitution) then they are a mob not a government. "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: Theodore Roosevelt's Foreign Policy"
Oh god, Letsrock! we're in the same boat. My things are also in storage. perhaps we should continue this conversation in private. My email is luhren@gmail.com
Ok, despite the general excitement about this post - it seems to me that speakers (and Alex) had summarised and generalised modernity’s take on law, freedom, rights.....etc. There is nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge that this is a particular, historical formulation of how we understand law. As Hannah Arendt said, there are no human rights, there are only political rights. The idea of inalienable rights is nice, but if there is no state to enforce it....
Hi Alex, Such a great post with so many salient points to contemplate and embrace.
Some observations...
While reading, it reminded me of two movies: A Time To Kill and 12 Angry Men.
A Time to Kill marvelously illustrates your point about 'moral principle', a 'proper trial' and statutes themselves being 'on trial' Watch the movie and these will be most apparent.
12 Angry Men brilliantly illustrates the pitfalls of statutes and prejudices. In the end, due to the efforts of the one man who held tight to his morals, the entire jury saw the light in this respect.
Regarding code-based (civil) law and common (case based) law, we can see that the latter is far superior (when it strictly adheres to the aforementioned moral principle), at least in my opinion/understanding.
Code-based law can unfortunately be used as a weapon to enforce unlawful laws/rules/regulations/mandates/diktats. Notice I said "unlawful" law (there is a difference with the concept of legal which is not the same as lawful). We could get into the 'legal person' aspect (with your name being referred to in ALL CAPS) in the legal fictional realm rather than the true Common Law one, but we'll save that for another day...
Here's a case in point, I live in Quebec - the only province in Canada that uses civil law. Here is one example of how such statutes can become abusive and weaponized:
123. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, while the public health emergency is in effect, the Government or the Minister, if he or she has been so empowered, may, without delay and without further formality, to protect the health of the population,(1) order compulsory vaccination of the entire population or any part of it against smallpox or any other contagious disease seriously threatening the health of the population and, if necessary, prepare a list of persons or groups who require priority vaccination;(2) order the closing of educational institutions or of any other place of assembly;(3) order any person, government department or body to communicate or give to the Government or the Minister immediate access to any document or information held, even personal or confidential information or a confidential document;(4) prohibit entry into all or part of the area concerned or allow access to an area only to certain persons and subject to certain conditions, or order, for the time necessary where there is no other means of protection, the evacuation of persons from all or any part of the area or their confinement and, if the persons affected have no other resources, provide for their lodging, feeding, clothing and security needs;(5) order the construction of any work, the installation of sanitary facilities or the provision of health and social services;(6) require the assistance of any government department or body capable of assisting the personnel deployed;(7) incur such expenses and enter into such contracts as are considered necessary;(8) order any other measure necessary to protect the health of the population.
The Government, the Minister or another person may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers.
126. If a person fails to submit to a vaccination ordered under section 123, a judge of the Court of Québec or of the municipal courts of the cities of Montréal, Laval or Québec having jurisdiction in the locality where the person is to be found may order the person to submit to the vaccination.
In addition, the judge may, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person will not submit to the vaccination and if of the opinion that the protection of public health warrants it, order that the person be taken to a specific place to be vaccinated.
===QUEBEC EXAMPLE END
Another aspect of the law which is not covered in this post, but should be contemplated is under which AUTHORITY the law is enacted and supervised.
For instance, in certain Canadian provinces like B.C., the province is a CORPORATION and as such its legal framework and even its bar association fall under the umbrella of this corporation and NOT under real Common Law. The lawyers pledge their allegiance to the bar/Queen/King/Crown and not the people. Many have written about this (see the writings and thoughts of Christopher James, https://awarriorcalls.com/common-law/).
The same could be said about the District of Columbia (D.C.) in the states. Just look at all the sham (Kangaroo court) trials they have held in recent years and decades, punishing countless political enemies and dissidents. These trials are very little about law and justice, and more about punishment and abuse.
From your post: "we live under the illusion that others have power over us and that they can tell us what to do."
Oh my goodness, has this very notion not been blatantly demonstrated during the Covid-19 Scamdemic? The masses followed like sheep since they "lost" their rights because they didn't know them (as was mentioned in one of the bullet points above in this post).
A major problem in society now is that the sheeple people continue in this mindset and until they awaken, acknowledge, and embrace their own individual sovereignty, they will remain in serfdom/slavery (physically, mentally/consciously, and spiritually).
The passage: "Under a common law democratic constitution, it is people that govern themselves as true anarchists and the government is subjugated merely as an administrative body. But this requires that we do the work and get united on the issue and really shine a spotlight of truth on how wildly off track we have allowed our governing system to become," really nails the crux of the matter. We have collectively lost the way and this needs to be reversed and restored.
Finally, I am not sure if you have read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat (see http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html), but I've been meaning to read it (is on my to do/read list). If you did, thoughts on it are most welcome.
Thank you Alex for sharing this very insightful and important piece.
Excellent piece Alex. I was the MC at a wedding recently, international crowd, my first toast was to 'natural law, serendipity and attraction'. Natural law, as I grow older in the countryside of St France, is unambiguously the only one that matters...
Brilliant, thank you. That's a good toast!
Off Topic perhaps but IMPORTANT!!!
Wikileaks just dumped all of their files online. Everything from Hillary Clinton's emails, McCain's being guilty, Vegas shooting done by an FBI sniper, Steve Jobs HIV letter, PedoPodesta, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Bilderberg, CIA agents arrested for rape, WHO pandemic. Happy Digging! Here you go, please read and pass it on..... https://file.wikileaks.org/file/... These are Clinton’s emails: https://file.wikileaks.org/file/clinton-emails/
Index file! https://file.wikileaks.org/file/...
I read about it, but apparently there's nothing new or particularly valuae there (according to a few ppl on Twitter).
Or they don't want us to look?
Most important 'their narrative' is collapsing. Dynamite has been.."thrown into the sh_thouse" ie. they either come out of this covered with their 'own sh_t' stinkin', or perhaps they are literally 'blown-to-bits'. Cheers Alex :)
Well, a high 5 to that! 😊
I have been in court for the past four years with a problem that the courts have no easy solution for: I am seriously allergic to mold; it has damaged my heart and kidneys. It's next to impossible to sue landlord for exposure to it. I've been in federal court on a case for the past 3 years. My opponents are 3 national corporations with 5 defendants. I am conducting this case pro se. There is also an ongoing state case against landlord; in both suits I am not seeking monetary damages I simply want them to eradicate the mold. Through this process I have had to learn law as I've gone along. I am a seeress and so understand that there is a psychic component to it. The more attuned to oneself, to one's inner being the better one fares before the bench as is true in all areas of life. I believe that students in school should be trained to represent themself on the more basic, simpler cases in court which iempowers one as an active citizen. Thanks Alex, great conference!
That makes sense. I had the same experience in divorce proceeding and subsequent suits. I represented myself and won all 4.
clap! clap! clap!
😊
I went to court against a landlord re mold issues also in 2010. I represented myself although I had some questionable help from Legal aid. The case, although not as big as yours, I do have mold allergies and came down w a case of thrush in my mouth and throat which is now my Achilles heel. The Landlord actually hired a mold expert whose brain I picked. The Landlord was a DC attorney which was out of state to my residence. I must have been nuts right?! She immediately pissed off the Judge who sent us to mediation. Legal Aid gave me no hope of claiming any settlement. I walked away w $5k. They were amazed. I don't trust lawyers to have my interests as much as I do. 👍
I would be intrested in reading your case
Thank you. I'd love to share it w you but most of my belongings are in storage at the moment. If I can answer any questions I'd be happy to.
HI Alex, I'm not sure if you read this if so I would love to chat with you. Unfortunately what the speakers spoke on at that conference is not an accurate depiction of the system of law we are in. They aren't the only ones, many people interested in 'freedom' have seemed to gotten caught up in mythology, echoed by what you picked up about what they were saying regarding contracts and contracting away things with birth documents, etc etc. Those aren't accurate depictions...and unfortunately foster a belief in peoples minds that actually end up creating more chaos (and subsequent order that would follow) and many respects impacts the freedoms that are found in law.
Law simply is nothing but agreements between men, and just because agreements were made that established the system of law we are in now when I wasn't around, it doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. If that was the case, integrity would be out the window and no one would trust anyone.
Regardless, when you examine the system of law from its origins things make much more sense, unfortunately few do that. And end up speaking about it in a foggy way, like for example when people speak of natural law, almost relating to it as if it is the law of nature, two distinct different things in law.
This is getting long but if you are interested I would love to shed some light on it as someone that has studied it from its origin.
Hi Mark, thank you. Can you drop me an email pls? It's xela.reniark@gmail.com
The laws of nature are ways in which things would be in nature. In nature there is no ownership for example. You have something until you are no longer using it. Once you stop using it it’s there for someone else. Natural law is a function of the system of law you are in. Meaning its meaning is established by English law (you can say law of the king). So it has meaning based on what that system of law says it mean. This is why I made that comment above. People speak of natural law not realizing that what that means is based on the definition of the English system of law. It’s one of the many confusions. The same thing with the Magna Carta people refer. When that was passed there were 20 different classes of people (you and I being peasants and serfs with no rights). That agreement was between king and nobles. Law is specific. That agreement was specific between certain classes of people. Today it only represents the beginnings of what became a government. But not government. Again people fail to put things in the right context and I think this is because they don’t know the foundations of law. Which leads to misinterpretation, like for example in the article Alex posted about registration of birth or your car has you lose your rights, that's not accurate.
Thank you Mark, for that feedback. Indeed, this whole issue of law is a new revelation to me and I am still full of doubts about it. For one thing, I did suspect that Magna Carta had the intention as you suggest: to disempower the sovereign to the benefit of the oligarchy, not the ordinary man. The registration issue - point taken.
i appreciate this blog post, Alex.
i gave it to my 13 an 11 year olds to read and report back on as an intro to our discussion of 'law'..
Cool wayfinder - I'm very impressed if your 13 and 11 year olds would read this. I also have an 11 and 13 year olds and am not sure if they'd be able to digest it.
for my family it is an introduction, and discussion with a focus on relating
the information to the individuals present.
update; they told me they read it. a 13 year old young man quoted it.
an 11 year old woman was unsure what important points were made.
so, we shall read it together, and discuss it together as an alternative method of learning
about thy exploration, 'what is law?'.
my name is lee
Keep going to conferences with such good messages and then share the information with us.
Deal! So long as I get invited! 😊
I like your definition of freedom. It's important for us to know what we are fighting for.
The "inalienable rights" of the many are opposed by the political and economic power of the few. No system of self-government has yet been perfected which can prevent the concentration of such power, the subversion of any constraints, and the abuse of those "rights". The present system resembles the "democratic despotism" predicted by Alexis de Toqueville nearly 200 years ago in his book "Democracy in America" (1835):
"After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate... Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." rawhistory.com/democratic-despotism-as-described-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
Toqueville came to America as the third generation of Americans came to power. The first two generations lived free prosperous lives in their communities more so than later generations ... a la Mormons, Amish, and Anarchists... yet, over time ... "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
God puts the law in our hearts. It is up to us to choose to do right or wrong. Genesis 1:26-28.
Hi Alex, Great as always. Very good, very informative and educational to me. Regards Peter
Thank you Peter. Actually, it was the same for me when I attended the conference.
Powerful message, Alex, and undoubtedly, an eye-opening one. Thank you!
Thank you BTFEyesWide - all credit to the speakers.
And to you as well for sharing it :)
I just shared it with my 21 yo daughter and her boyfriend of the same age, and both are very thoughtful and open-minded individuals and that provides the hope for their generation. With things unfolding, I think it is this generation that will have to bare the most burden of defending laws & freedoms against faux-contracts
Again, thank you!
Yes, indeed. Glad to hear there are thoughtful 21 year olds. I know they're out there but it's all the unthoughtful ones that are drawing attention to themselves whenever they're offended, which is pretty much all the time.
Congratulations - I am very impressed. With young people like that, we have a future!
Natural law are the laws of nature. It is a dog eat dog world in nature. Laws of the jungle have nothing to do with property. You are not granted an acre of land with a 3 bedroom 3 bath home at birth. Property boundaries require man-made laws. Killing, rape, assault, theft, and cheating are givens in natural law. A grizzly will eat people in nature. Then you belong to him.
To combat the king of the jungle with the biggest nuclear weapon, the "State" must be employed.
Ludwig von Mises is correct,
"One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Would you say that under natural law life would be "nasty, brutish and short"?
Yes, for prey.
Predators, however, can live long successful lives and become famous in the history books.
My brother Benny died, in 1967, on the front lines in Vietnam “defending Democracy” before he reached his 19th birthday while Sir Heinz lived a full successful life for over 100 years.
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” ― Henry Kissinger
Yes, such a tragedy. And it's happened millions of times over. We should do our utmost to end this malignant system and replace it with one that's a true reflection of our core values.
He's so damned disgusting.
Either the "democratic" leadership has forgotten this principle, allowing the savages to run wild in every major US city under their control, or they are pursuing a different and subversive agenda contrary to "property, liberty and peace".
"Narrative Economics" by Robert Schiller ... not the "State" is ruling the world today. The "State" is handcuffed by narratives... from high paid charlatans. If elected officials are not bound by law, (adhering to the constitution) then they are a mob not a government. "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick: Theodore Roosevelt's Foreign Policy"
Oh god, Letsrock! we're in the same boat. My things are also in storage. perhaps we should continue this conversation in private. My email is luhren@gmail.com
Ok, despite the general excitement about this post - it seems to me that speakers (and Alex) had summarised and generalised modernity’s take on law, freedom, rights.....etc. There is nothing wrong with that if you acknowledge that this is a particular, historical formulation of how we understand law. As Hannah Arendt said, there are no human rights, there are only political rights. The idea of inalienable rights is nice, but if there is no state to enforce it....
Hi Alex, Such a great post with so many salient points to contemplate and embrace.
Some observations...
While reading, it reminded me of two movies: A Time To Kill and 12 Angry Men.
A Time to Kill marvelously illustrates your point about 'moral principle', a 'proper trial' and statutes themselves being 'on trial' Watch the movie and these will be most apparent.
12 Angry Men brilliantly illustrates the pitfalls of statutes and prejudices. In the end, due to the efforts of the one man who held tight to his morals, the entire jury saw the light in this respect.
Regarding code-based (civil) law and common (case based) law, we can see that the latter is far superior (when it strictly adheres to the aforementioned moral principle), at least in my opinion/understanding.
Code-based law can unfortunately be used as a weapon to enforce unlawful laws/rules/regulations/mandates/diktats. Notice I said "unlawful" law (there is a difference with the concept of legal which is not the same as lawful). We could get into the 'legal person' aspect (with your name being referred to in ALL CAPS) in the legal fictional realm rather than the true Common Law one, but we'll save that for another day...
Here's a case in point, I live in Quebec - the only province in Canada that uses civil law. Here is one example of how such statutes can become abusive and weaponized:
===QUEBEC EXAMPLE BEGIN:
Quebec’s Public Health Act S-2.2.
https://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/lc/S-2.2?langCont=en
Selected statutes from the law:
123. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, while the public health emergency is in effect, the Government or the Minister, if he or she has been so empowered, may, without delay and without further formality, to protect the health of the population,(1) order compulsory vaccination of the entire population or any part of it against smallpox or any other contagious disease seriously threatening the health of the population and, if necessary, prepare a list of persons or groups who require priority vaccination;(2) order the closing of educational institutions or of any other place of assembly;(3) order any person, government department or body to communicate or give to the Government or the Minister immediate access to any document or information held, even personal or confidential information or a confidential document;(4) prohibit entry into all or part of the area concerned or allow access to an area only to certain persons and subject to certain conditions, or order, for the time necessary where there is no other means of protection, the evacuation of persons from all or any part of the area or their confinement and, if the persons affected have no other resources, provide for their lodging, feeding, clothing and security needs;(5) order the construction of any work, the installation of sanitary facilities or the provision of health and social services;(6) require the assistance of any government department or body capable of assisting the personnel deployed;(7) incur such expenses and enter into such contracts as are considered necessary;(8) order any other measure necessary to protect the health of the population.
The Government, the Minister or another person may not be prosecuted by reason of an act performed in good faith in or in relation to the exercise of those powers.
126. If a person fails to submit to a vaccination ordered under section 123, a judge of the Court of Québec or of the municipal courts of the cities of Montréal, Laval or Québec having jurisdiction in the locality where the person is to be found may order the person to submit to the vaccination.
In addition, the judge may, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person will not submit to the vaccination and if of the opinion that the protection of public health warrants it, order that the person be taken to a specific place to be vaccinated.
===QUEBEC EXAMPLE END
Another aspect of the law which is not covered in this post, but should be contemplated is under which AUTHORITY the law is enacted and supervised.
For instance, in certain Canadian provinces like B.C., the province is a CORPORATION and as such its legal framework and even its bar association fall under the umbrella of this corporation and NOT under real Common Law. The lawyers pledge their allegiance to the bar/Queen/King/Crown and not the people. Many have written about this (see the writings and thoughts of Christopher James, https://awarriorcalls.com/common-law/).
The same could be said about the District of Columbia (D.C.) in the states. Just look at all the sham (Kangaroo court) trials they have held in recent years and decades, punishing countless political enemies and dissidents. These trials are very little about law and justice, and more about punishment and abuse.
From your post: "we live under the illusion that others have power over us and that they can tell us what to do."
Oh my goodness, has this very notion not been blatantly demonstrated during the Covid-19 Scamdemic? The masses followed like sheep since they "lost" their rights because they didn't know them (as was mentioned in one of the bullet points above in this post).
A major problem in society now is that the sheeple people continue in this mindset and until they awaken, acknowledge, and embrace their own individual sovereignty, they will remain in serfdom/slavery (physically, mentally/consciously, and spiritually).
The passage: "Under a common law democratic constitution, it is people that govern themselves as true anarchists and the government is subjugated merely as an administrative body. But this requires that we do the work and get united on the issue and really shine a spotlight of truth on how wildly off track we have allowed our governing system to become," really nails the crux of the matter. We have collectively lost the way and this needs to be reversed and restored.
Finally, I am not sure if you have read The Law by Frédéric Bastiat (see http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html), but I've been meaning to read it (is on my to do/read list). If you did, thoughts on it are most welcome.
Thank you Alex for sharing this very insightful and important piece.
God bless.