Law Legislation

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is dead-or-alive-700x910.png

Law vs Legislation

The Law is the Common Law and it is the foundation of justice for living people. Laws serve all People equally. Laws defend our Unalienable Rights, provide reparations to the injured, and through them we can live in peace and harmony with other people. The Law is the definition of the People’s power, and is Common Sense. The Law protects living peoplefrom harm, loss, and fraud.

Statutes are the en-act-ments of the Legislature that apply to publicly registered legal entities as franchises of the public State. Statutes offer limited “privileges and benefits” to “artificial persons” of various kinds, prescribing contract “rules and regulations” by consent. Statutes can have the appearance, or “colour of law”. Statutes govern legal entitiesas a franchise benefit to the public State.

Statutes are not Laws. The Law is from the People. Statutes are from the State.

Maxim of Law:Quid fas non veritas est.Legality is not Reality.
The difference between what is “lawful” and what is “legal” is a matter of life and death. What is lawful is for the living people. What is legal is for dead corporate entities.

legal = fictionstatute = statuelegislation = leg of a statueact = act of a statue
New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. All Private Sovereign men and women, are de jure “in law”. All Public Servants in corporate roles, and all artificial legal entities, are de facto “in practice”. The government is divided into three branches:

The People’s Common Law power of justice is “Judicial”, and exercised “Lawfully” (Trial-by-Jury), whereas the State’s delegated duty of management is “Executive”, and exercised “Legally” (Legislation).

Statute types are “Acts, Bills and Legislative Instruments”, and they apply to artificial legal (legislated) “persons”, so their texts never refer to a living “man” or “woman”. Statute titles never end with the word “Law”. Public officials habitually refer to “Acts” as “Laws”. But an “Act” is not a “Law”, i.e. the Land Transport Act, is not titled the Land Transport Law.

In New Zealand, only a few statutes acknowledge the right of living men and women to “due process of law”, including the Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988, which states that the ‘common law … shall be part of the laws of New Zealand’, the Observance of Due Process of Law Statute 1368, which acknowledges ‘due process’ … ‘according to the old law of the land,’ and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which is … ‘for the benefit of all natural persons’.

There is a natural compulsion to obey the Law because it safeguards our living rights and freedoms. If we do not honour the Law then it cannot afford us protection. However, obeying statutes is voluntary. We are members of the “legal society” as a matter of choice. Our consent is given unilaterally, not collectively via a government election. In a truly free nation, men and women in the Common Law jurisdiction, would give their consent freely to obtain the commercial “privileges” and “benefits” offered by the State in the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction. We must be aware that the State has been incorporated to serve the debt-money system of bondage, so the people are not offered de jure Common Law contracts serving the State, but de facto Admiralty Maritime contracts serving the Banks as surety for debt. If corrupt statutes become onerous to the common good, the people have a right to withdraw their consent in order to defend their rights, and indeed they have an obligation and a duty to do so because only the people can redress the corruption of their government.

Statutes are contracts. Statutes prescribe the “terms and conditions” of commercial contracts, relying for their effect upon your consent.

‘Kia ora. The authoritative source of Acts, Bills & Legislative Instruments’www.legislation.govt.nz
‘INSTRUMENT, contracts. The writing which contains some agreement, and is so called because it has been prepared as a memorial of what has taken place or been agreed upon. The agreement and the instrument in which it is contained are very different things, the latter being only evidence of the existence of the former. The instrument or form of the contract may be valid, but the contract itself may be void on account of fraud.’ – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

The Judiciary comprises two types of court venues; a corporate “administrative court”, and a Common Law “court of record”. A judge in an “administrative court” does not act judicially but as an administrator to settle contractual disputes. A judge in a “court of record” sits judicially with a “jury of the People” to remedy harm to other living people. The courts are attended by “Commercial List Judges”, some of whom are designated as “jury” judges able to sit in a Common Law “court of record”.

Common Law acknowledges the LAWFUL Rights possessed by living Men and Women.Statutes prescribe Legislation to administer artificial LEGAL “Persons”.
A Statutory “administrative court” is for commerce, in practice (de facto). It is a place of corporate banking offering “a dispute resolution service for consenting parties”, where living men and women (unwittingly) consent to be party (joined) to an artificial legal “person”, obligated to settle the accounts of commercial (adhesion) contracts. The Judge does not sit “judicially”, but acts as a corporate “administrative officer”. “Administrative courts” are not sanctioned by Parliament, and are not part of the de jure laws and usages of the realm. All “administrative courts” are UNLAWFUL because they do not have a jury present.

ANY COURT WITHOUT A JURY PRESENT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE COURT!‘The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courtsin this country, and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.’  – Halsbury’s Law 2011
A Common Law “court of record” is for justice with a jury, in law (de jure). It is a place of real world criminal evidence where a jury of one’s peers examines what is true in fact, in order to determine what is right or wrong, just and fair. The parties are living men and women, and their decisions attempt to remedy harm or loss suffered by one or more injured parties, and to provide protections for living people and their community of life. The Judge sits “judicially”. The only venue of “justice” for a living man or woman is a Constitutionally sanctioned Common Law “court of record” with a jury of one’s peers.

A Common Law court de jure, with a Jury,is the only venue of “Justice” for a living Man or Woman.
Administrative courts operate on assumptions and presumptions. The Crown makes the presumption that you are “acting” in “joinder” to the “artificial person” NAME. When you answer to the NAME, you are joining the action involving the NAME, such that the man/woman and the NAME are joined in a single case. But that case is in legal fiction commerce, in the Admiralty Maritime jurisdiction, which is the International Law of the Sea. Having joined the case by your “agreement by conduct”, there is the presumption of your “implied agency” for the vessel NAME (i.e. JOHN DOE) on the sea of commerce, including your willingness to settle its account liabilities in court as the Trustee of the vessel’s Estate Trust (i.e. MR JOHN DOE TRUST).

Whereas, as an aware man/woman, you are the rightful controlling Agent, Beneficiary, Executor/Executrix for MR JOHN DOE TRUST. You are not the liable Trustee.

All legal jurisdiction arises from the consent of a man/woman to be party to an “artificial person” NAME. Without consent, there can only be the “presumption” of consent. So when you “rebut the presumption” they have no jurisdiction and cannot proceed. Any further action is fraudulent.

To Rebut The Presumption it is only necessary to correct the mistake in the NAME.

Presumption n. a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption. Each presumption is based upon a particular set of apparent facts paired with established laws, logic, reasoning or individual rights. A presumption is rebuttable in that it can be refuted by factual evidence. One can present facts to persuade the judge that the presumption is not true.

Jurisdiction is over the NAME, Liability is attached to the NAME,
So correct the “mistake in the matter of the NAME”