Reflections on the Law

[Büfẽ]

The subject of law has become quite interesting to I as of late, esp the distinction of commercial law vs common law (the following is based primarily on law structure in the USA but in theory is based on universal law and is typically similar in commonwealth countries such as Australia and UK)

theres a lot of terms that can be different ways of talking about the same thing but with different connotations such as ecclesiastical law vs common law vs contract law, where common law is as it sounds ecclesiastical basically means religious which basically mean spiritual which pretty much is universal or common law with extra words contract law I sort of consider the highest form of law because it’s the only thing that supersedes the other forms of law mentioned, ie. not counting commercial law which is a whole other bag of worms a basic tenant of these other laws says to do no harm but under contract law you can agree to anything, an example being a professional boxer/fighter agrees contractually to get punched in the face, in other circumstances that would be considered assault but because everyone agreed to it it’s not violence it’s considered under the color of violence, not operating under the color of something gets interesting because a officer of the law can actually be breaking the law under the color of law this is typically done in the space between lawful and legal this is where you are considered to be operating under commercial statutes and ordinances, often quoted as law but technically is not lawful…

might take a lot more words to unpack that, but moving on with how this transpires everyone is conducting themselves as multiples entities legally, the government is also it’s called ens legis and it means a legal entity or a commercial “person” remember the thing about how cooperations can be treated as “people” which brings me to the next layer of the cake, legally speaking English is not spoken, it is commonly known as legalese and there is entirely different definitions for all the words that sound English many of the definitions match, some do not, and some sound like they match up reasonably well until you realise they are using their own definitions for the words they used to write the definitions of the word you looked up and when you look up the definitions of some of those definitions you realize there’s cracks in the facade, if it sounds confusing it’s because it is, the system is designed to make the average person unable to operate meaningfully, that’s why a lot of people who get interested in this type of stuff gets made out to be what’s called a sovereign citizen and thrown in jail about it, although many of these examples are people who are flagrant criminals who are just trying to use half baked lawful and legal concepts as a get out of jail free card, you also see people who are honest folks trying out something but who made fatal mistakes because they didn’t get all their ducks in a row before executing, you can also find instances where people get arrested and it looks like an epic fail but they actually where able to litigate and be compensated heavily for the unlawful actions taken against them under the color of law. I will conclude this rant for now, hopefully it brings some meaningful thought to the community and instigates some brave souls to explore these waters.

 

[Varallo]

Since when does contract law supersedes statutory or constitutional law?

 

[Büfẽ]

Well there’s certainly different interpretations and I wouldn’t consider myself an expert per se, so feel free to challenge my understanding here but I think the example I used illustrates this idea pretty well, to recap, I would venture to say that if someone assaulted another person then it would be a prosecutable offense but if you fight as part of a boxing championship it is not considered assault because you contracted freely to engage in the activity.

To illustrate a different, more extreme example in certain instances you can find cases where there is evidence of peonage (aka slavery, an illegal activity) but it is not considered as such because the people involved have freely contracted themselves to engage in the activity. I won’t go too far into that rabbit hole for now but I will just say it has to do with the nature of our financial system.

To explore it from a different angle you could say that the various statutes as well as the constitution were created by contracts and would not exist without contract law. As usual it’s extra confusing because it depends on what definitions you are using and one could define contract law as a subsection of commercial law that only exists to define rules of commerce. When I say contract law is above other forms of law, I mean that the ability to contract freely prefaces the existence of other forms of law, i.e. you could not create laws of any kind with out creating a contract to define said laws.

 

[kalebh0420]

Since when does contract law supersedes statutory or constitutional law?

A lot as the OP, mentioned boxing which, I guess in the middle of a fight if one of the stopped and summoned a cop and pressed charges and both got arrested from statutory or state/federal law, a judge would throw it out if the contract is valid and both agreed to the conduct thereby they would have a legal grounds for dismissal, other laws do come in to play when its heinous regardless to what contract states, yes it is good to know the law, and cover yourself with a contract however if it is worth the time, they can & likely will prosecute you for just about anything that causes harm to another even finance crime, however in the exact terms of the topic: I concede that if the contract is valid and signed and notarized, it is to be dismissed from criminal and tried in civil as that is what it would be civil, as all parties willing and knowingly entered into a agreement by law, that by extension even the government has to abide by, we torture people in foreign locations for this same reason, not on US soil " I will add here and say most counties also do this in the form of national security or international intelligence gathering or enforcement levels", different laws apply, and we under this principle are withholding the rule of law and abiding by it at the same time.

I have a lot more examples too, if this is still fuzzy as to why.

 

[Varallo]

Alright, I asked that question earlier not because I don’t know how the law works, but mainly to sharpen the discussion a bit. I think it’s useful to push on ideas like this and test the reasoning behind them.

Personally I think this kind of thinking is problematic, and where it tends to lead in practice, so the following is also as a bit of a warning to people who might come across these ideas and think they are real legal strategies.

The things you write are related to the kind of thinking that shows up a lot in sovereign citizen circles. It tends to sound very appealing on the surface, the idea that people can simply contract freely and therefore operate outside of certain laws. But that’s not how the legal system actually works in practice.

Contracts are subordinate to constitutional and statutory law, they only exist and are enforceable because the legal system allows them to be. Constitutional law, statutory law, and fundamental rights all sit above private agreements. If a contract attempts to authorize something illegal, courts simply treat it as void.

The boxing example is a good illustration of how this often gets misunderstood. Boxing isn’t legal because two people signed a contract agreeing to punch each other. It’s legal because it is a regulated sport that exists within a legal framework created by law. The contract mainly governs things like payment and promotion, not whether hitting someone is allowed.

Where this line of thinking becomes genuinely dangerous is when people start applying it in the real world. In sovereign citizen communities you often see people stop paying taxes, fines, debts, or other obligations because they believe they have somehow contracted themselves out of the legal system. In reality, courts reject these arguments, the result is usually, escalating debts, serious financial problems, and sometimes even prison.

There’s nothing wrong with discussing or questioning how legal systems work. But it’s important to recognize that ideas like this, while they may sound convincing, have no real footing in actual law, and acting on them can lead to very real harm for the people who try.

Take care