This article follows on from The Covid-19 & Contagion Fraud, in the respect that the way the legal system is supposed to work is being completely trampled, and this has actually been the case for a very long time. This article takes a logical and systems approach to analysing how the legal system is supposed to work, congruent with elements of its history, but likely contradicting the narrative of how the law is so often taught.

Systems:

For any system to function – whether that system be logical, virtual, electronic, biological, mechanical or otherwise – without exception, all systems must be logically congruent with themselves, and with the laws governing the domain in which they reside.

For example: if you have a machine with two levers, and these levers generate different functionality depending on their respective positions, and one state the machine must be able to enter for a particular functionality, would require those levers to cross through each other, this would break the laws of physics, unless of course you can find a way for matter to occupy the same space. Hence it would not be congruent with itself or the laws of the physical domain in which it resides, thus the machine will not function correctly.

The law is a logical system, a philosophical system, governed entirely by the laws of argument and reasoning, which are the provence of philosophy. So for the legal system to function, it must be congruent with those principles. To argue otherwise is to suggest that the legal system is allowed to be unreasonable, but this would contradict the pursuit of justice. If the purpose of law is to achieve justice, then it must follow the rules of argument ( logic, reasoning, and evidence ), which makes it in many respects, very similar to science.

History:

Elements of the legal system, such as contract law, date back to Roman times, and perhaps earlier in other cultures. Along the way the very best parts of it have been corrupted, misinterpreted, misrepresented etc., and so what we see today is incongruent with its own basic principles.

At one time in terms of European / Western law, the legal profession effectively manufactured their own language, being a combination of Latin, French, Greek and perhaps other languages as well, and this was largely done as both industry protection – ie: how can you practice law if you don’t understand the language – and for privilege, so that the law could be unjustly applied in different ways to different people, while technically claiming they had received the same law ( a dubious excuse ).

This history is long and complex, so I will not bother researching it further for this article, but I just wanted to point out here the age of some of the components, which date back many centuries.

The Legal System:

Natural Law:

The foundation of law, before all other areas of law, and on which all other areas rest, is Natural Law. This “Natural Law” basically refers to such things as logic, physics, and other laws of nature, without which we would not even have a basis for argument and reasoning, and without which there would be no basis for any legal case.

So for example: if you are trying to argue that something happened or didn’t happen, but the forensic evidence does not support even the possibility of your claim, then the lack of any witness to the contrary is secondary to the natural law which says it isn’t even possible.

So when you hear people talking about which areas of law take the highest precedent, understand that Natural Law trumps all, as we require this logical basis for any certainty about anything claimed by anyone.

Framework:

The legal framework, politics and legislation aside, is based on the underlying principle that all law is social contract, and in the modern system, everything is effectively either civil law or criminal law, but in either case, social contract. Constitutional law is merely a specialised area of civil law, which is supposed to restrict the powers of government, and all acts of legislation are supposed to be social contracts ( though many are arguably invalidated by the corruption of politicians, whom have breached their end of the bargain ).

The logical connection to democracy and taxation, is by way of contract law, and the concept of precedent law and legal precedent, also comes from the definition of a contract under contract law.

Contract Law:

For a contract to be valid, with agreements being merely another name for contracts, it must abide by several principles:

1. Offer: this is an offer of goods or services to be exchanged;
2. Acceptance: acceptance of the offer by the other party or parties;
3. Consideration: there must be payment of some kind, a reward in return for the offer;
4. Intention to form legal relations: for the contract to be binding, there must be intention, and hence the reason many forms of contract, while not strictly needing to be written, are deemed as invalid if not written where disputes are concerned, unless there is some other form of evidence as to the nature of the agreement;
5. Legality of terms: if a contract is not legal, if it asks one or another party to the contract to break some law, then it is considered an invalid contract.

Now while some systems I have seen include a 6th and 7th term, these are the important ones, particularly the 5th, as this is the logical basis of a thing called “legal precedent”. In other words: if some other law ( social contract ) existed prior to the agreement you are attempting to enter, and that agreement contradicts it, then this would make the contract invalid, and thus the notion of legal precedent.

Civil vs. Criminal:

The difference between civil and criminal is basically that, for something to be a crime, it must involve Tort ( damages ) and intent to do harm – so where there is no intent, there may still be negligence or reckless endangerment, and therein lies the fuzzy line between a civil and criminal offence, but what it does tell us is that “breaking the law” is not necessarily a crime, because it doesn’t fit the definition of a crime in all circumstances. Moreover, unless the social contract is valid, politicians have no real basis for expecting you to comply, and since politicians are constantly in breach of the social contract that is democracy, I think we all have a pretty strong case to just ignore them a lot of the time – which is not to say you will find support for that in a court, but arguably you should.

In terms of criminal offences, I find it easiest to understand the relationship to contract law by thinking about hypocrisy. So if we had a serial killer who said “I do not wish to enter this social contract of not murdering people”, we can argue that such a position is hypocritical, whether they admit to it or not, because if someone tried to kill them, the only way they could actually “like” it, is if they are insane, and even then, they would still be trying to stop the other person from killing them. So it is still a social contract, but it is a kind of social contract that doesn’t need our approval specifically, because everyone is generally in agreement that we do not want to be murdered.

However the language you often hear is that breaking any law is a crime, but this is simply not true, a crime is only so where there is damage and intent to cause harm, or at the very least reckless endangerment or extreme negligence ( which is where you will hear the term “duty of care” – ie: we all have a duty of care to each other in public places ).

Precedent:

So if you were to enter one contract, and attempt to enter another, where the second would ask you to contravene the first, it is the first that takes precedence. However knowingly entering that contract, while invalidating the contract in many respects, would not necessarily absolve you of responsibility, as your failure to inform the other party about the prior contract invalidating the current contract, would likely result in some kind of actionable Tort claim against you.

What’s more important here though, is that a contract breaking other laws, is definitely invalid. So a contract to murder someone would be invalid, as the murder would constitute a breach of law.

Legislation:

Since all law is social contract, legislation comes under contract law as well, and hence the reason it is invalid for politicians to enact legislation which contradicts a previously existing piece of legislation, other precedent law, or other legal precedent, and which is beyond their powers to nullify. Politicians try to get around this by granting themselves “special powers” or “emergency powers” ( or just ignoring the precedent entirely ), but such acts are themselves invalid, as no one ever got to actually agree or disagree with it.

No government should ever be considered as having the power to nullify the very principle of legal precedent, as this would nullify the logical foundations of the entire legal system. How would for example a judge know which law to apply, if there were two relevant but contradictory laws, and how could their decision either way be seen as an unbiased act, if they applied one law to one person, and another to a different person in exactly the same situation.

Another point I want to mention here is that if the government is to be considered a legal entity, capable of entering a social contract with the electorate, then how can it be allowed to break promises made by prior management of that government? Is it not the same entity regardless of who is currently in management of it? If we stuck to this idea, then no change of management in government would allow the new management to cut funding for public education without specifically stating that was their intent during an election, because otherwise they’re breaking a promise made, and then acting in a manner no one ever agreed to. Herein lies the heart of the fraud in the legal system with respect to how corrupt governments behave.

Justice:

Justice implies a lack of bias, and the two concepts are entirely antithetical – if you have bias, it is incongruent with justice. However, since injustice is antithetical to the objectives of the legal system ( or at least it is supposed to be ), this does allow flexibility for interpretation, and in the Westminster system of government, the courts are afforded the power to interpret law ( all of it, not just legislation ), in order to achieve a just outcome. I am sure many legal scholars will disagree with my assertion that it is “all of it”, but arguably if the purpose of them having the power at all is to prevent injustice, and prevent the enactment of invalid laws, then they must be able to do so, and thus it would be a fraudulent element of the social contract to suggest they were going to do it, but fail to give them the powers to do it – thus if you want to consider it a valid contract, regardless of what it says in the constitution, you must give them all the powers required.

Coercion:

Since economic coercion is just as much coercion as physical force, this would allow a judge to ignore a law with respect to a defendant in court, where the application of that law would require that the person was being expected to place themselves in harms way economically. So on the civil side of things, if a piece of legislation is an injustice to you, asks you to place yourself in harm’s way, and you are under significant economic pressure to agree to it, then arguably the application of that law would be as invalid as it is unjust, and entirely within the powers of a court to ignore, so long as ignoring the application of that law upon you, did not itself cause unwarranted harm to someone else.

Democracy:

Hence the reason democracy itself comes under contract law, because:

• Offer: we will manage communal resources and represent your interests;
• Acceptance: we will vote for who we want to do the job;
• Consideration: we will pay taxes so that you get a wage for doing your job;
• Intention to form legal relations: understanding the system and voting ( though this is arguably often done without true understanding );
• Legality of terms: … hmmm, this one gets a bit tricky.

There are a few problems that arise here, specifically that:

• in Australia for example, voting is mandatory, yet coercion nullifies the notion of an intent to form legal relations, which means if you’re forced to vote, how can it be an intention to form legal relations, when the real intention is to avoid punishment for failing to vote;
• people get around this by doing what they call a “donkey vote” ( nothing to do with the DNC in the USA ), where they just incorrectly fill out their ballot in some way, so that it cannot be counted;
• since the politicians rarely represent our interests, and are arguably corrupt ( taking bribes rebranded as “lobbying” ), they are in breach of contract, and since they didn’t specify half the stuff they do, how can you have agreed to it if you were never told what it was going to be.

So “in theory” it should work, but in practice it has a great many issues.

When a politician takes a bribe, be it directly or via their party, it doesn’t matter one iota whether they have rebranded it as “lobbying”, as it is arguably the case that any form of bribe is an act of corruption, and which any reasonable person would say had breached the social contract in terms of the public expection that politicians not be corrupt.

One person, one vote, is what everyone expects, and in addition to that, they should also expect that in any election, there will be no significant manipulation of the election by way of “lobbying”, gerymandering of electoral bounderies, fear mongering in the mainstream media, misinformation campaigns and all the rest. So by and large, the western style “democracy” is an absolute sham from top to bottom, it doesn’t even remotely resemble the thing it portrays itself to be.

I remember one of my very first thoughts in this life about the society in which I lived, going back to when I was somewhere between 3 and 5 years old, was resentment about the way everyone expected things of me, and no one seemed to care what I wanted for myself. Democracy is a bit like that, you’re basically told “this is how it is done”, and even though its entirely a self contradictory system in the way it is currently run, no one seems to care enough to fix it.

Freedom & Rights:

Your rights, your freedoms, are basically what you are willing to fight for. No one in power ever gave up power without a fight, and all the rights you take for granted were won for you, not by troops of the army, but militant unionists of days gone by, peasant uprisings, and passionate human rights advocates – while every right you have ever lost, has been lost by those who would not fight.

In other words: so long as you are willing to fight for your rights, so long as they do not constitute an act of hypocrisy, and so long as your politicians are corrupt ( enacting laws that are a clear breach of your rights, and constitute an invalid social contract ), your rights are whatever you say they are.

Having said that, it is easier to say than do, and sticking up for those rights or having them recognised by others, is another matter entirely. The point I am trying to make here is that this interpretation is entirely congruent with the foundations of the legal system, and how it is supposed to work, versus how it does in practice.

If something is not logical, if it doesn’t make any sense, if it contradicts more fundamental laws, if it constitutes a breach of your privacy or freedom, which has no justification in terms of you breaching anyone else’s, then arguably it is not a valid law, no matter who says otherwise.

The Covid-19 Legal Fraud:

Since this whole thing began, governments around the world have been enacting policies that make absolutely no scientific or medical sense whatsoever, and which are contradicted by every single known medical protocol beforehand.

In Australia, the government via the mainstream media has been lying about which things are law, and they have introduced regulations that are not law at all, but behaved as if they were, and used the police to enforce them. Meanwhile businesses have been bullied into acting as police too, and the entire brainwashing campaign has been aimed at compliance on a massive scale. But all of it is a fraud.

Since Natural Law trumps all, you cannot enact such measures on the basis of a scientific fraud, regardless of whether your constitution gives you the power otherwise. See my previous article as to why this is a scientific fraud.

Since contract law comes next after natural law, any contract trying to remove your rights at law, would be invalid either way as well.

Since the policies they are putting in place constitute at the very least reckless endangerment, and in many cases real damages, it is the politicians whom are committing a criminal act, as they have:

• seriously breached the social contract of democracy;
• ignored how the legal system is supposed to function;
• taken bribes, and have other conflicts of interest;
• further enacted policies that no one agreed to;
• achieving this through massive brainwashing;
• enforced and coerced compliance through economic and other threats;
• lied about scientific arguments in favour of their measures and claims;
• ignored all valid medical protocols, and done the exact opposite;
• ignored people being harmed by their measures, and continued to push those measures;

… and if all of that’s not intent to do harm, then what is?

With so many contractual breaches laid at their feet, and so much harm resulting, it is impossible to say that this is anything less that a criminal act. To call it reckless endangerment seems like such an understatement, and it is simply not a plausible defence to say it was an accident, when this is so clearly an intentional policy to do harm.

The Reasonable Person Test:

In law, many texts refer to this notion of a “reasonable person test”, which basically means: “if we were to ask a reasonable third party, uninvolved in the situation, and without bias, what would they think?” – and if you ask a reasonable person with half a functioning brain, whether anyone could ignore so much evidence to the contrary, and do everything that just happens to coincidentally fit the plans of the insane people they take bribes from.

I think you would find in the vast majority of cases, that most people would say this constitutes “implausible deniability” – which is a term I coined a while ago, around the time satire died back in 2015, when we could no longer tell if something was a joke or not, because our politicians and other so-called “leaders” are all so bat shit crazy, that there’s really nothing stupid enough that they wouldn’t do.

I would imagine this makes a lot of comedians rather sad, as they no longer get laughs from these jokes, and instead people share it thinking it is real. This really should scare everyone, how the hell did we get here? The truth is, there aren’t many truly reasonable, rational, logical, methodical, intelligent, imaginative, and well educated people left. We live in a world where a great many are utterly braindead, cannot speak their own language very well, are utterly politically apathetic, and they sit there listening to the mainstream media as if it were a valid source of news, or at best “Googling it”, as if Google wasn’t filtering and censoring half the damn internet.

There was a landmark legal case a number of years ago in the USA, where Google successfully argued that use of any of their products constituted “implied consent” for them to snoop through your stuff and do just about anything else they wanted, which in turn opened the doors for all other tech companies having had the legal precedent set for them. This was of course a completely insane and invalid decision, which no rational judge should ever have made, but therein lies the flaw of the system, when it is combined with the flaws of capitalism, in which money equals power, and people are incentivised to corrupt the system.

What reasonable person would accept that “implied consent” argument? It makes no sense at all. When most people sign up for any online service, especially those that are free to use, they don’t have time to read a non-negotiable contract a million pages long, there is no meeting of the minds or intention to form legal relations, and if the service was free, then where was the “consideration”, without which it cannot be a valid contract at all.

Summary:

All law is social contract, thus comes under contract law, with the only exception being natural law, which precedes all else, and is governed by the nature of reality itself, thus requiring all law to obey the principles of argument, reasoning, logic, and evidence.

A contract is invalidated if it involves coercion of any kind, or is invalid at law, and thus you cannot by way of contract remove someone’s rights at law. Since all legislation is enacted under social contract, legislation is also subservient to this principle.

The only exception to this rule on contracts being criminal law, wherein damages and intent to do harm has occurred, unless some kind of justification for the act can be found – for example: if someone murdered your family, and in a fit of rage you tracked them down and killed them, this revenge style killing might get a pass, under the banner of “temporary insanity”, as it is unlikely you would ever have done any such thing in any other circumstances, and only once provoked to such an extreme, did your reaction become any kind of possibility. In other words: it would be largely illogical to blame someone for what anyone might do in those circumstances, and where there was no justification for the extreme provocation, which no one should ever have to suffer. Thus we see an example of how legal precedent occurs, where judges are able to interpret law to suit the case of the individual, and hence the need to have judges whom are wise and uncorrupted by ideology or vested interests.

In Closing:

There are plenty of sites run by lawyers which deal with your legal rights, I am betting many of them will disagree with at least some aspects of my summation, but I think this is only because it is not how the law is taught, but instead it is an analysis of what is apparent by looking at the law, and seeing the logical elements of its construction.

Now perhaps these things are there by pure accident of circumstance, but either way, I think I have made a pretty strong argument for how the system SHOULD work, and that is what I was aiming at.

The point you really want to remember is this:

if someone else makes a claim that you have to obey their rules, and you agree, then you have already lost.