Can a law itself be a crime?

[anotherlife]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

 

[fncceo]

‘When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators’


P.J. O’Rourke

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on who is defining "crime".

 

[anotherlife]

Depends on who is defining "crime".

Unfortunately yes. And this means that if a democratic voter screws himself, then you will be his criminal until you break down and decide to screw yourself the same way too. National unity.

 

[shockedcanadian]

This is a classic case of "The Golden Rule".

"Those who have the gold make the rules..."

 

[toobfreak]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

Absolutely. In literal terms, the vast majority of federal laws these days go beyond the intended constitutional scope of the Federal Government, usurping power from both the States and its people, making them essentially ILLEGAL.

 

[emilynghiem]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

Dear anotherlife
If there is something unjust, unlawful or discriminatory with a law, then passing it, enforcing it or abusing govt to pass or enforce it can be argued as THAT person or group responsible for passing/enforcing it "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is a felony.

However this argument has not been used against govt officials largely because of govt immunity

Now if you want to say govt immunity is unlawful, or the whole judicial branch of govt is Unconstitutional because it serves to establish beliefs or biases that violate equal religious freedom and exercise of dissenters forced to comply against their beliefs, that is close to what you are saying, and pointing out on principle the entire policy or practice is criminal by a collective conspiracy or system to violate civil rights of individuals.

But still to argue this point requires naming a specific act, case or person/group committing a wrong in order to petition or sue in real life

You can argue abstractly in order to sway the public, but still require an exact act or agent to argue a real case in practice

Note: you can argue that's what's wrong with the legal system. It doesn't protect the equal right of all people to redress grievances, prevent or correct abuses, but only works for people with resources or leverage to hire lawyers to win. So yes I have argued the whole legal system is Unconstitutional or unlawful. Mediation would protect all interests equally but we don't offer equal access to that so people are not equally protected under law.

To correct this system takes resolving conflicts case by case to build support for consensus.

And in that consensus building process, any other flaws in the laws and system can find correction as well.

My advice to you is take it case by case, address each wrong specifically and this will lead to correcting all wrongs collectively.

 

[Brick Layer]

When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he immediately focused his attention on the domestic economic situation created by the Great Depression. Believing that recovery would come from measures taken at home rather than abroad, he secured Congressional passage of a series of far-reaching domestic economic reforms that would come to be known as the first New Deal. His doubts about the ability of foreign economic policy to contribute to domestic recovery were reflected in his approach to the London Economic Conference. Countries that remained on the gold standard, sought to convince countries that had left the gold standard, to agree to stabilize the par values of their currencies. Roosevelt rejected such an agreement as “a purely artificial and temporary experiment,” asserting that a “sound internal economic situation” was more important to a country’s prosperity than the external value of its currency.
Milestones: 1921–1936 - Office of the Historian
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (1934)

Social Security Act §458
Social Security Act Title IV

Social Workers acting in public under the umbrella of Social Security

Social Security is not an insurance policy instead it is a social policy “trust” and was part of the New Deal introduced (national debt/based currency) and sold to the American people with the historic declared emergency and has been back in front of Congress again and again voted on to raise the borrowing ceiling; Social Security was always designed for the needy; backed by the faith and credit of the American people.

Title IV-D Contractors (Child Support Enforcement Agencies) are the driving factor for the creation of a non-custodial parent and the creation of a child support order.
Federal Title IV-D Program dollars is what is keeping state and local county government budgets afloat (feeding the statists).

Grant programs are being used for revenue generation by the states as opposed to solving legitimate societal problems. States being able to use the Title IV-D / Child Support Enforcement Program as a tool for State Revenue Generation instead of Aid for Actual Needy Families.

Michigan Analysis,
"Michigan is a fairly centralized state, and local governments depend heavily on state grants..."


Government for the people by the people; the state and local governments need to find a new source of funding without destroying families for their actors acting as the de jure government via private for profit public contacts; contractual agreements; civil servants.

My work here is in hopes that my kids, [y]our kids, and their kid's kid's kids none of them, never ever fall pray to the systematic Title IV-D family court and the disastrous incentives that have created most all Divorce (an industry) and FRACKING 'fracturing the family parent child relationships fractionalizing time together and time apart' all across America; one generation after another; family business... judge's kids are judges, sheriff's kids are cops, lawyer's kids are attorneys / public pretenders, etc... mostly Title IV-D contractors working in the child support industry are just statist feeding off the rest of us like parasites. Sucking our families dry one case at a time at the expense of social security (WELFARE) and ultimately the taxpayer; bleeding America, transferring family wealth one generation after the other.

There is more money going to the service fees, interest on arrears , incentives, EVER INCREASING EXPENDITURES for the next budget allotment, ect.... than any assistance going to actual needy families. What was set out to help families only helps the system [county Title IV-D fund], so instead of children being abandoned-they are being forcibly removed and these [unwanted often 'ex parte' or 'otherwise'] services are costing taxpayers more than welfare to any family. Cost Avoidance allegedly being through Child Support, fat chance-instead it is just a revenue scheme at the expense of children and families and the family unit. I vow for 50 / 50 parenting time with joint legal and joint physical custody in situations where the parents cannot work out their differences; hopefully promoting families and marriages to stay together.

> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:52:21 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: Brick Layer
> Subject: Library Question - Answer [Question #3075340]
>
> Hello Brick Layer
>
> This is in reply to your inquiry concerning a petition filed with the congress during the first administration of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
>
>
> Question History:
>
> Patron: On or About 1933 Theodore Roosevelt’s Administration declared the United States of America’s federal government bankrupt; demanding the American people to turn in their gold and silver under the “New Deal” and the Emergency War Powers Act. United States Notes and introducing Federal Reserve Notes; Public money vs. Private credit and introducing the National Deficit (perpetual deficit spending rather than paying all bills in gold and silver) plunging America into world government via international banking.
>
> Question: Is there a record or petition filed in the Library of Congress of this said federal government bankruptcy? I would like to thank you in advance for all your help locating and providing this requested information and or formal conformation that the said petition does not exist; patriot.
>
> Librarian 1: This is in reply to your inquiry concerning a petition filed with the congress during the first administration of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
>
> There is no such petition on file at the Library of Congress. The withdraw of gold from private ownership was ordered by President Roosevelt in Executive Order 6102, however, this did not affect the value of the dollar which continued to be valued against gold until 1971. This document did not order the surrendering of silver. In fact silver certificates continued to be honored through out the period and most denominations of U.S. coins were minted in silver up until 1965. A copy of Executive Order 6102 is available on the website of the American Presidency Project at
>
> < Franklin D. Roosevelt: Executive Order 6102—Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government >
>
> Public Services Division
> Law Library of Congress
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave., SE
> Washington, D.C. 20540-3120
> URL: < Law Library Reading Room | Law Library of Congress >
> E-Mail: < Law Library of Congress - Ask a Librarian (Library of Congress) >
>
> Please take a moment to fill out a survey at: Ask A Librarian Error
>
> Thank you for contacting the Law Library of Congress reference librarians. If you wish to send another question to us, please visit our question form at < Law Library of Congress - Ask a Librarian (Library of Congress) >.

All the grant monies [five streams of funding plus incentives] flow into each county's general fund (Title IV-D fund) through thier comprehensive annual financial reports; investment funds.

Local Government CAFR reports

Malachi 4:6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction."

Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Clearfield Doctrine
"Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation, and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities entirely separate from government."
http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgro...-trust-co-v-united-states-318-us-363-1942.doc

What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private commercial paper is used by corporate government, then Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no different than a mere private corporation. As such, government (or in your case a court) then becomes bound by the rules and laws that govern private corporations which means that if they intend to compel an individual to some specific performance based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder in due course of a contract or other commercial agreement between it and the one upon whom demands for specific performance are made and further, the government must be willing to enter the contract or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.

Part of the New Deal

The reason I can see is... taking God's portable property, gold, silver, copper, etc. out of the money (substance) and replacing it with (fiat currency) a debt based currency.

The NEW DEAL!!! Where the backs of every American and their children are pledged 'birth certificate' the creditors on account, the account of the United States deficit spending [Federal Title IV-D Fun[ding]], backed by We the People's faith and credit.

FEDERAL TITLE IV 'WELFARE' PART D 'CHILD SUPPORT' (Law) Education & Awareness

....domestic economic situation created by The NEW DEAL recovery coming from measures taken at home rather than abroad asserting that a “sound internal economic situation” from Breaking Up Families and the family unit - Title IV-D ledgers and balances moving the currency (one charge at a time) from being stagnant; keeping the local governments afloat (busyness).

FEDERAL TITLE IV 'WELFARE' PART D 'CHILD SUPPORT' (Law) Education & Awareness

 

[Brick Layer]

This may be offtopic to the thread (I apologize), yet gives a bigger picture of my quoted post (quoted below) that which is on topic and or was intended to be on topic....
'Can a law itself be a crime'.

All good works and philanthropy aside there is an underlining evil with the tax exempt foundations of America!

> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:52:21 -0500
> From: [email protected]
> To: Brick Layer
> Subject: Library Question - Answer [Question #3075340]
>
> Hello Brick Layer
>
> This is in reply to your inquiry concerning a petition filed with the congress during the first administration of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
>
>
> Question History:
>
> Patron: On or About 1933 Theodore Roosevelt’s Administration declared the United States of America’s federal government bankrupt; demanding the American people to turn in their gold and silver under the “New Deal” and the Emergency War Powers Act. United States Notes and introducing Federal Reserve Notes; Public money vs. Private credit and introducing the National Deficit (perpetual deficit spending rather than paying all bills in gold and silver) plunging America into world government via international banking.
>
> Question: Is there a record or petition filed in the Library of Congress of this said federal government bankruptcy? I would like to thank you in advance for all your help locating and providing this requested information and or formal conformation that the said petition does not exist; patriot.
>
> Librarian 1: This is in reply to your inquiry concerning a petition filed with the congress during the first administration of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
>
> There is no such petition on file at the Library of Congress. The withdraw of gold from private ownership was ordered by President Roosevelt in Executive Order 6102, however, this did not affect the value of the dollar which continued to be valued against gold until 1971. This document did not order the surrendering of silver. In fact silver certificates continued to be honored through out the period and most denominations of U.S. coins were minted in silver up until 1965. A copy of Executive Order 6102 is available on the website of the American Presidency Project at
>
> < Franklin D. Roosevelt: Executive Order 6102—Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government >
>
> Public Services Division
> Law Library of Congress
> Library of Congress
> 101 Independence Ave., SE
> Washington, D.C. 20540-3120
> URL: < Law Library Reading Room | Law Library of Congress >
> E-Mail: < Law Library of Congress - Ask a Librarian (Library of Congress) >
>
> Please take a moment to fill out a survey at: Ask A Librarian Error
>
> Thank you for contacting the Law Library of Congress reference librarians. If you wish to send another question to us, please visit our question form at < Law Library of Congress - Ask a Librarian (Library of Congress) >.

....domestic economic situation created by The NEW DEAL recovery coming from measures taken at home rather than abroad asserting that a “sound internal economic situation” from Breaking Up Families and the family unit - Title IV-D ledgers and balances moving the currency (one charge at a time) from being stagnant; keeping the local governments afloat (busyness).

It's just business!!!! The New Deal (Social Security)

Trading With The Enemy Act - United States Declares Its Citizens To Be The Enemy

WE are the “Enemies of the State”

United States Code: Title 50a,TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917 | LII / Legal Information Institute

All Americans need to see this to connect the dots regarding the hidden agenda for world government! » Intellihub

The Hidden Evil - 07

Facebook Photos on 'Money' with educational hyperlinks in the comments of each:
Darren Edward
Darren Edward
Darren Edward
Darren Edward

The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. ~ Burke, Edmund



"Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." Westbrook Pegler: New York Journal American, 1/25/51, entitled "Upholds Republic of U.S. Against Phony Democracy, Democracy in the U.S. Branded Meaningless"

TRAINING MANUAL } WAR DEPARTMENT,
No. 2000-25 } WASHINGTON, November 30, 1928.
CITIZENSHIP
https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/tm2000-25.rtf

As always thank you for being patient with me... I am a little slow.


Dumbing Down Society - Sui Juris Club Forum

 

[Brick Layer]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

Dear anotherlife
My advice to you is take it case by case, address each wrong specifically and this will lead to correcting all wrongs collectively.

I agree with emilynghiem 100% on this!!!

 

[IsaacNewton]

Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia

Slave codes - Wikipedia

 

[anotherlife]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

Dear anotherlife
If there is something unjust, unlawful or discriminatory with a law, then passing it, enforcing it or abusing govt to pass or enforce it can be argued as THAT person or group responsible for passing/enforcing it "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is a felony.

However this argument has not been used against govt officials largely because of govt immunity

Now if you want to say govt immunity is unlawful, or the whole judicial branch of govt is Unconstitutional because it serves to establish beliefs or biases that violate equal religious freedom and exercise of dissenters forced to comply against their beliefs, that is close to what you are saying, and pointing out on principle the entire policy or practice is criminal by a collective conspiracy or system to violate civil rights of individuals.

But still to argue this point requires naming a specific act, case or person/group committing a wrong in order to petition or sue in real life

You can argue abstractly in order to sway the public, but still require an exact act or agent to argue a real case in practice

Note: you can argue that's what's wrong with the legal system. It doesn't protect the equal right of all people to redress grievances, prevent or correct abuses, but only works for people with resources or leverage to hire lawyers to win. So yes I have argued the whole legal system is Unconstitutional or unlawful. Mediation would protect all interests equally but we don't offer equal access to that so people are not equally protected under law.

To correct this system takes resolving conflicts case by case to build support for consensus.

And in that consensus building process, any other flaws in the laws and system can find correction as well.

My advice to you is take it case by case, address each wrong specifically and this will lead to correcting all wrongs collectively.

If the solution is only in case by case practice, then nothing can match the power of sweeping new laws day by day.

For example, American law is just, relatively to most European laws, but is made to fall silent when it has to protect Americans against Europeans. Case example could be any of the huge financial law suits against Microsoft, Google, Apple, and so on, that the Europeans rage onto them in spite of American protection. The criminality of European laws is thereby upheld, and that should be addressed but case law would never have the power.

Another case law could be the marriage based immigration in the USA, where fiancée visas are now newly unlawful, unless the inviting citizen partner can prove that he started the relationship by full criminal disclosure. But how can a relationship start when the first word is an excuse about being a criminal? Such laws would fit the problem, but case law has no power for them.

 

[Slashsnake]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

Yes, any law the Supreme Court sees as unconstitutional is considered a crime because it's illegal.

 

[emilynghiem]

Laws are written to define who the criminal is.

But can a law itself be a crime?

There are many current financial legislatures that are now on the books and their purpose is only to rob and steal. But probably the easier examples of when law itself is a crime is the laws of countries under totalitarian governments.

But does democracy as such and the "democratic process" give us a definitive protection, that laws themselves are not a crime?

Discuss.

Dear anotherlife
If there is something unjust, unlawful or discriminatory with a law, then passing it, enforcing it or abusing govt to pass or enforce it can be argued as THAT person or group responsible for passing/enforcing it "conspiring to violate civil rights" which is a felony.

However this argument has not been used against govt officials largely because of govt immunity

Now if you want to say govt immunity is unlawful, or the whole judicial branch of govt is Unconstitutional because it serves to establish beliefs or biases that violate equal religious freedom and exercise of dissenters forced to comply against their beliefs, that is close to what you are saying, and pointing out on principle the entire policy or practice is criminal by a collective conspiracy or system to violate civil rights of individuals.

But still to argue this point requires naming a specific act, case or person/group committing a wrong in order to petition or sue in real life

You can argue abstractly in order to sway the public, but still require an exact act or agent to argue a real case in practice

Note: you can argue that's what's wrong with the legal system. It doesn't protect the equal right of all people to redress grievances, prevent or correct abuses, but only works for people with resources or leverage to hire lawyers to win. So yes I have argued the whole legal system is Unconstitutional or unlawful. Mediation would protect all interests equally but we don't offer equal access to that so people are not equally protected under law.

To correct this system takes resolving conflicts case by case to build support for consensus.

And in that consensus building process, any other flaws in the laws and system can find correction as well.

My advice to you is take it case by case, address each wrong specifically and this will lead to correcting all wrongs collectively.

If the solution is only in case by case practice, then nothing can match the power of sweeping new laws day by day.

For example, American law is just, relatively to most European laws, but is made to fall silent when it has to protect Americans against Europeans. Case example could be any of the huge financial law suits against Microsoft, Google, Apple, and so on, that the Europeans rage onto them in spite of American protection. The criminality of European laws is thereby upheld, and that should be addressed but case law would never have the power.

Another case law could be the marriage based immigration in the USA, where fiancée visas are now newly unlawful, unless the inviting citizen partner can prove that he started the relationship by full criminal disclosure. But how can a relationship start when the first word is an excuse about being a criminal? Such laws would fit the problem, but case law has no power for them.

Dear anotherlife
With American govt, much of these overreaching and unjust laws could be prevented
by adhering to Constitutional limits on govt authority in the first place.

For laws to be binding social contracts they must carry authority of Consent of the Governed.
So this whole business of pushing laws by political bullying by coercion or exclusion
SKEWS the representation and the way laws are written and creates these huge problems.
If we listened to the objections, and resolved the problems behind the complaints,
we could correct problems with the laws or find better ways to address the issues,
instead of railroading laws over the objections of dissenters and fighting to fix it later.

For laws to be constitutional they not only have to
follow the process and meet the restrictions and requirements
of what each branch is authorized to do, but also respect
the other Constitutionally protected principles of:
free exercise of religion and neither prohibiting nor establishing a
faith based belief or favoring or penalizing people of one creed over another
due process of laws
not depriving citizens of liberty unless convicted of a crime
equal protection of laws
as well as basic principles of
no taxation without representation
respect for rights reserved to people and states
no ethical conflicts of interest with private or political biases
interfering with the neutral equal and inclusive duty to the public universally.

See Code of Ethics for Govt Service
www.ethics-commission.net
Most violations and abuses can be attributed to abridging
one or more of the basic principles in the Bill of Rights,
Code of Ethics, or the general Fourteenth Amendment
protecting rights of citizens equally under govt jurisdiction.

The problem with bad laws anotherlife is
they have flaws or biases that violate these
Constitutional principles standards and ethics.

So if we enforced these standards in the first place
we would not end up with bad laws due to
political compromises and conflicts of interest.