|
|
It is said that
equity, admiralty / maritime jurisdiction merged with the common
law of the land, and, that all 'jurisdictions' were rolled into
one set of rules, with an undisclosed, ulterior design to be
indistinguishable from one another in a mock-court creating
a beast called, ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW.
Administrative Law is not Common Law, Equity, or Admiralty.
Arising under the holding in the adjudged case of Bowen v. Department
of Social Security et al., 127 P.2d 682, 685 (1942), administrative
law is a distinct branch of law, and it is not common law, equity,
or admiralty and therefore can not arise under the Constitution
of the United States, to wit: Colonel O. R. McGuire, a member of
the American Bar Association's special committee on administrative
*153 law, in an article published in 26 Georgetown Law Journal,
574, 589, says: '* * * administrative law is a separate and distinct
branch of the law. It is not common law, equity, or admiralty law
* * *.' The court has recognized the principle with respect to
the industrial insurance act that controversies arising
under it are controlled by "special statutory proceedings exercised
in derogation [To take away; detract] of, or not according to, the
course of the common law." Nafus v. Department of Labor
and Industries, 142 Wash. 48, 52, 251 P. 877, 878.
There exist statutes called Law And Equity Acts. Quote: Subject to this act, the court and every judge of it must recognize and give effect to all legal claims and demands and all estates, titles, rights, duties, obligations and liabilities existing by the common law or by any custom or created by any statute, in the same manner as they would have been recognized and given effect to in the court if this Act had not been enacted.
Some form of this statute, the Law and Equity Act is found in every common law jurisdiction in the British Commonwealth.
These statutes were put in place at the mid to end of the 19th century, 1850 to 1880. These laws unlawfully merged equity into common law courts. It is described as a mixed legal system where adjudicators blur the line between government and the courts. This fine line between government public war policy and common law courts is an unacknowledged jurisdiction called 'administrative' which is not presided over by judges.
Administrative mock-courts are 'quasi-judicial' and 'quasi-criminal' They are mistaken to be 'courts' and the 'adjucators' are mistaken to be 'judges.' These 'administrative courts' operate to extend government public war policy, which is masked and called common law. In truth and in fact it is administrative law. Common law is, "That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856. The Income Tax Act and the Canadian Criminal Code are primary examples of public war policy which has the 'brute force and effect of law' but they never passed by a de jure Parliament, nor given a Royal Assent, nor published in the Canada Gazette and are premier examples of 'public war policy'.
Administrative law is
nothing more than an opinion backed by a gun.
What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man,
or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other
men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption
by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men
to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man,
or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights,
all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men
their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they
may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they
may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right
to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice
itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will,
pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less,
is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as
human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is
imposed. People have been conditioned in the same manner as Pavlov’s
dogs to believe that ‘administrative statute law’ applies
to them, when in truth and in fact the only law that applies to
people is the common law of the land under authority of common law,
and none other.
Below is a classic example of mixed legal law, commonly called
'legalese'. It is said that ‘the law’ is
precise.' The law’ is generically called ‘the law’.'The
law' is of unknown origin, yet 'all' are ASSumed to know IT. Whatever
IT may be. It is also said that ‘the law’ is meant for
anyone of an average intelligence to comprehend. Now for law to
be as precise as it claims to be, this is a major oversight. The
imprecise ‘grab bag’ of mixed legal law and undisclosed
legal jurisdiction is a legalese nightmare only meant to be understood
and applicable to government, lawyers and their ilk.
Quote: In the system, Canadian law system law can be divided by subject matter into three branches: civil, criminal and administrative. [no mention is made the common law of the land] A fundamental principle of common law [no distinction made whether it is English common law or the common law of the land, Anglo-Saxon] that seeks to make the [undeclared origin=administrative] law fair and accessible to all is known as the rule of law. [unknown origin - denotes a vision of government based on ideal law. Referred to quite extensively during Nazi Germany in the notion of a Rechtsstaat.]It is a concept that implies [ASSumes] that everyone should be able to know [ASSumes] what the [undeclared origin=administrative] law requires and that the [undeclared origin=administrative] law should apply equally to everyone. [Common law of the land applies to every man, woman and child, adminstrative law does not]. The rule of [common] law [of the land] expresses our belief that no one is above the [common] law [of the land, derives from the Magna Charta. The Magna Charta forever establishes the common principle that no one, be it king, lawmaker, or legislator is above common law of the land.] and that those who make and enforce the law [undeclared origin=administrative] must do so in a way that is fair [fair=administrative=summary=any act is a crime=equitable=$$$=prisoners for profit] [s. 19 of the Canadian Criminal Code, Ignorance of law is no excuse. Public war policy laws ASSume that a HUMAN BEING will volunteer to play the role of the JURIDICAL PERSON-[ALITY] IT, is then ASSumed guilty, ignorant of any public war policy law.] The importance of the rule of law [unknown origin] is recognized in the Constitution Act of 1982, which contains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter opens with the statement: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God [government agrees negative golden rule is superior to all man-made law. If otherwise, it is not of God] and the rule of law [unknown origin.] Unquote. However, the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms: s. 32 states: This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. It's title is a misnomer as it should read: CANADIAN CORPORATE CHARTER THE PARLIAMENT AND GOVERNMENT RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.
According to the Statute of Westminster 1931, the government was to establish NO courts of admiralty in Canada as the people of the provinces were given Common Law by unalienable birthright, antecedent to England. However with sleight of hand, and with gradualism, the name morphed from admiralty law to administrative law. SUMMARY JURISDICTION=ADMIRALTY LAW. The result is a sham --Star Chamber proceeding-- whose primary intent is to confiscate and re-distribute spoils of war by de facto convictions, prosecutions. Section 6 of the statute reads: Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act.