WCE Player Refusing Vaccination

[mount eerie]

The laws are pretty clear.

So you will adhere to a direction but dimiss the definitions of the words contained within?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

So you will adhere to a direction but dimiss the definitions of the words contained within?

The laws themselves don’t actually refer to a “mandate”. It’s a general term being used in a general sense in various circles to describe a variety of measures being put in place.

 

[mount eerie]

The laws themselves don’t actually refer to a “mandate”. It’s a general term being used in a general sense in various circles to describe a variety of measures being put in place.

The laws themselves aren't laws, but rather statutes, acts, legislation, directions etc.

The definition of a statute is:
“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

Same rule of consent applies.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The laws themselves aren't laws, but rather statutes, acts, legislation, directions etc.

The definition of a statute is:
“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

Same rule of consent applies.

It really seems like you’re trying to say that laws don’t apply to you unless you consent to them.

That’s simply not true. Otherwise you could go out and murder someone and then say “I don’t consent to the Criminal Code being given the force of law”.

Doesn’t work like that.

 

[mount eerie]

It really seems like you’re trying to say that laws don’t apply to you unless you consent to them.

That’s simply not true. Otherwise you could go out and murder someone and then say “I don’t consent to the Criminal Code being given the force of law”.

Doesn’t work like that.

I am highlighting the distinction between law and legislation.

Law (common law / law of the land) absolutely applies regardless of consent.

Legislation (maritime law / law of the sea) applies only by consent as per the above definition.

The 1689 Bill of Rights (UK) states “All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm”.

Why the need for distinction if laws and statutes are synonymous?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I am highlighting the distinction between law and legislation.

Law (common law / law of the land) absolutely applies regardless of consent.

Legislation (maritime law / law of the sea) applies only by consent as per the above definition.

The 1689 Bill of Rights (UK) states “All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm”.

Why the need for distinction if laws and statutes are synonymous?

Are you saying legislation doesn’t apply to you if you don’t consent to it?

Otherwise I really don’t get what the point of all this is.

 

[mount eerie]

Are you saying legislation doesn’t apply to you if you don’t consent to it?

Otherwise I really don’t get what the point of all this is.

I'm just parroting what is already written.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I'm just parroting what is already written.

Great. What do you think the result of what is written is?

 

[Forward Press]

All legislation is law but not all law is legislation. Great. Common law and statute law are distinct. Also great.

But is there common law that negates the application of vaccination laws created by statute? What on earth does a 17th century British law have to do with this? Are you going to throw in the Magna Carta next?

Bizarre ramblings from possibly a sovereign citizen type poster.

 

[Malifice]

The definition of a statute is:
“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

A quick google of that definition takes me to literally dozens of Sovereign Citizen pages.

You're a nutter.

 

[mount eerie]

A quick google of that definition takes me to literally dozens of Sovereign Citizen pages.

You're a nutter.

So the definition of statute according to Halsbury's Laws of England is wrong?

Why resort to ad hominem attacks?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

So the definition of statute according to Halsbury's Laws of England is wrong?

Why resort to ad hominem attacks?

The definition is fine.

Your interpretation of what the definition means is wrong. (Assuming your interpretation is what you’ve hinted at, because you haven’t had the balls to say it outright yet)

 

[mount eerie]

The definition is fine.

Your interpretation of what the definition means is wrong. (Assuming your interpretation is what you’ve hinted at, because you haven’t had the balls to say it outright yet)

How am I misinterpreting it?

“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

Is it not stating that consent gives it force?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

How am I misinterpreting it?

“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

Is it not stating that consent gives it force?

That is what it says.

Again, what do you say the effect of that is? How would such consent be withheld, and by who?

Have you actually thought that far ahead, or have you just leapt on the word “consent” and assumed that means you can refuse to consent?

 

[sr36]

I am highlighting the distinction between law and legislation.

Law (common law / law of the land) absolutely applies regardless of consent.

Legislation (maritime law / law of the sea) applies only by consent as per the above definition.

The 1689 Bill of Rights (UK) states “All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm”.

Why the need for distinction if laws and statutes are synonymous?

The definitional differences are statutes have gone through the houses of parliament. Law includes this but is broader as it also includes mandates and other laws that have not been through the senate - such as much common law. Mandates are laws that have been introduced by a government for things that don't need parliamentary approval.

 

[JackOutback]

So you will adhere to a direction but dimiss the definitions of the words contained within?

I love pedantry more than the next guy, but why don’t you ‘withhold your consent’ and see how that works out for you.

 

[Malifice]

How am I misinterpreting it?

“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed, a rule, as of a corporation.”

Is it not stating that consent gives it force?

No, it is not.

You consent to be governed by living here, and being involved in the democratic process that leads to the laws being written in the first place. If you don't consent, immigrate somewhere else.

You cant pick and choose what laws apply to you after the fact.

 

[The 747]

Legislation (maritime law / law of the sea) applies only by consent as per the above definition.

 

[mount eerie]

That is what it says.

Again, what do you say the effect of that is? How would such consent be withheld, and by who?

Have you actually thought that far ahead, or have you just leapt on the word “consent” and assumed that means you can refuse to consent?

I like you. You're patient, mostly respectful, and willing to have a genuine conversation.

Non consent... well, that's easier said than done.

First, you will need to know who you are.
Are you a living man / woman of substance, or are you a legal 'person' of fiction.
They are antonymous.
You can't be both.

Your status determines which jurisdiction you are subject to.

 

[mount eerie]

No, it is not.

You consent to be governed by living here, and being involved in the democratic process that leads to the laws being written in the first place. If you don't consent, immigrate somewhere else.

You cant pick and choose what laws apply to you after the fact.

I agree. You cannot pick and choose which laws apply to you.

Are you still claiming that laws and legislation are one and the same?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

First, you will need to know who you are.
Are you a living man / woman of substance, or are you a legal 'person' of fiction.
They are antonymous.
You can't be both.

Your status determines which jurisdiction you are subject to.

This is absolute and utter nonsense.

Sorry if that makes you like me less, but my status is I don’t care.

 

[mount eerie]

T

This is absolute and utter nonsense.

Sorry if that makes you like me less, but my status is I don’t care.

That's ok.

I get the feeling this thread isn't even about Jack Darling anymore anyway.

Have a nice day.

 

[RAPPA]

Who invited General Nutbar into this thread?

 

[mount eerie]

Who invited General Nutbar into this thread?

Why the need for name calling?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

T

That's ok.

I get the feeling this thread isn't even about Jack Darling anymore anyway.

Have a nice day.

Well you kicked off with this:

Mandates require your consent to take effect.
They are not lawfully applicable if you express your non consent.

Which is also complete and utter nonsense.

The idea that you can simply decide whether you’re a person or not, and therefore decide whether you consent to the laws of the jurisdiction you’re in, is just … nothing. It’s not a thing.

If you’re in the jurisdiction the laws apply to you. Test it out if you like. Go put a dent in the bonnet of a police and then tell them you’re a living person of substance and don’t consent to the laws against criminal damage. See what happens.