Posted by ' on October 01, 1998 at 11:46:47:
In Reply to: Paul Mitchell's letter to Dan Meador, 9/29/98 posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 21:10:37:
Words can be used is more than one context.
Legal or law words can be used in the the context of voluntary or by force.
"Positve law" I have read can be voluntary or by force.
'Constitutional' can be used in the context of a specific voluntary 'constitution' or used in the context of "by force" under roman based law in which executive orders are constitutional.
One must always remember that GOV. deception and ruse are legal under today's system of code and regulation by force.
Below are three examples of the context in which the term "positive law" can be used.
(a) Those established by men as POLITICAL SUPERIORS to those who are subject to them (sovereignty and subjection). In the aggregate I will call these LAW or POSITIVE LAW - meaning that they exist by position.
(b) Those not established by men as political superiors, or not in that capacity - e.g. master and servant (rules of professional body). In the aggregate I will call these POSITIVE MORALITY.
'Positive law' consists of voluntary law derived from presumed consent, human compacts or agreements, either express or unplied; that is, they are dependent on custom or convention.
The reality of today's system of code and regulation suggests that our system of law enforcement is based on 'force' and not on any specific voluntary constitution.
RE:But you like it when the experts agree with you, is that a correct statement?
Actually; I agree with the experts.
: : : 3. The U.S. Supreme Court has given us notice that it places
: : : some value in the opinions of experts.
: : PERSUASION BY BAFFLEGAB IS PREFERRED OVER FACTS.
: But you like it when the experts agree with you,
: is that a correct statement?
: See the URL below, for a contemporary example:
: /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
: Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
: and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup