Not that it shouldn't exist, but given the landscape, why even pretend? The entire judicial system is broken, and yet idiots still cling to the idea it will work with the right people. It never worked properly, even a hundred years ago, explain: prohibition, woman's rights, CRA, Federal reserve, buying random plots of land without approval, the bullshit gun laws. So why even bother with the charade?
If you read the histories of law you realize we don't have rule of law. Legeslation is not law and most of our legeslation is not even lawful. We have an occupation force violating the law. Reading the early debates on parlamentarianism and all thier fears they were gaslit as never going to happen have happened. Basics of law are, and it really is this simple, you need victim and intent and for legeslation to be lawful enforcement needs to be on the grounds of voluntary informed consent. So the idea was we make rules and people agree to praticipate and pay fines but they need to consent to follow that rule. The force to follow legeslation violates the law. this is common law which is above all other law( jury of your peers determines by conscience whether or not you broke a law, in canada this is coded by our early parlamentarians as a jury can say you violated a rule but it wasn't unlawful( like you killed a pedo and they decide that is OK by conscience)). This is how roman law works and our legal system technically should work but the buerocrat class has enforcement idiots who don't know better. Police and judges are technically all comiting treason with how they make everyone follow legeslation
OftenWrong 0 points 9 months ago
If you read the histories of law you realize we don't have rule of law. Legeslation is not law and most of our legeslation is not even lawful. We have an occupation force violating the law. Reading the early debates on parlamentarianism and all thier fears they were gaslit as never going to happen have happened. Basics of law are, and it really is this simple, you need victim and intent and for legeslation to be lawful enforcement needs to be on the grounds of voluntary informed consent. So the idea was we make rules and people agree to praticipate and pay fines but they need to consent to follow that rule. The force to follow legeslation violates the law. this is common law which is above all other law( jury of your peers determines by conscience whether or not you broke a law, in canada this is coded by our early parlamentarians as a jury can say you violated a rule but it wasn't unlawful( like you killed a pedo and they decide that is OK by conscience)). This is how roman law works and our legal system technically should work but the buerocrat class has enforcement idiots who don't know better. Police and judges are technically all comiting treason with how they make everyone follow legeslation