Societies & Statutes

Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013]

In the first Chapter I promised to ‘expose solutions’, and – so far – I haven’t really done very much of that. The reason is, of course, the solutions depend on a lot of background knowledge. It would not be possible to play a game of Chess without knowing the layout of the board, and the attributes of each Chess piece.

Thus, I’m forced to continue to expand on the background. For a while, at least. And this Chapter will be no exception, because I know that I still have yet to get to the core of “Legislation” versus “Law”.

“Legislation” comprises Statutes. We have got that far. So now let’s examine the definition of a Statute, which is: “The Legislated Rule of a Society”.

Which sounds fair enough. But what is a Society? The definition of a Society is “A group of like-minded people who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals”.

And, if you think about it, that’s correct. That defines ‘Societies’, in many contexts. Think about the British Medical Association. (“Association” indicates “Society” ... the “soc” is in the word). Now, they have their own Rules, don’t they? Rules that Doctors, GPs, Surgeons and Nurses, etc. must obey (or be ‘struck off’!) These Rules are the Statutes of the BMA. The ‘like-minded people’ are the Health Professionals, who have joined the BMA in order to practice professionally. The Rules (Statutes) have been deliberated and determined in the past, and acted upon to publish the common goals into instructions on how Health Professionals must behave (or be ‘struck off’!)

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the BMA? If not, then the Statutes of the BMA do not apply to you, do they?

Let’s look at another example, The Law Society. This Society dictates how Legal Professionals will behave, such as to be able to practice in Courts. It has its own Rules (Statutes) which are not the same as those of the BMA. For example, Lawyers don’t take the Hippocratic Oath, as do Doctors of Medicine.

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the Law Society? If not, then the Statutes of the Law Society don’t apply to you, do they? They don’t apply to your Doctor either – he or she has their own set of Rules, defined by the BMA.

And, similarly, the Rules of the BMA don’t apply to your Solicitor.

And neither set of Statutes apply to your Postman.

And so on, which (hopefully) sets Statutes into their true context. YES – they ARE Law – TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY – but not to anyone else!

Similarly if you work for a Company (which is a Society, in fact), you will undoubtedly receive a Company Handbook, which defines how to behave during your working hours. These are the Statutes of your employer. And there’s another similarity in all of this. Many of these Statute Rules only apply during working hours. In your Social Time, many of them can be disregarded.

Now it’s important to investigate the attributes of any Society. I suggest they are:

1. A Membership (i.e. like-minded people’, to go back to the definition);

2. A distinct Name (so as to distinguish it from all other Groups);

3. A Legislative Body (who ‘deliberate, determine and act);

4. A set of Legislated Rules aka Statutes (which are published as ‘common goals’);

5. A defined method a creating the Membership (i.e. via ‘Applications to join’);

6. A defined method of Resignation.

Now the question is: Can you become the Member of a Society, without you – yourself - deciding to join it, of your own free will? Can someone else decide to join you, and then just say “You’re a Member, so you WILL obey the Statutes!”?

And, even if it is possible for someone else to join you up, what about your ability to resign? Is it possible to prevent the ability to resign?

I think you’ll find that no honourable Society would ever accept Applications to Join other than from the actual person making that Application, out of their own free will. I further think that no honourable Society would prevent Resignations.

But that’s the exact opposite of the Society in which we live, isn’t it? The Statutes decided upon by Parliament (whether you vote or not!) are enforced upon you (even though you never made an Application to Join), and oblivious to the fact that there is no Orthodox Resignation Method (except, presumably, to become a drop-out Hippie!)

This so-called ‘Society in which we live’, which doesn’t even really have a distinct Name, operates in the most DIShonourable manner possible. It decides, of its own accord, to collect you as a Member, enforces its Legislation upon you – whether you agree or not – by means of threats, coercion, extortion and intimidation, and won’t even allow you to resign! If that’s ‘honourable’ then – to quote an American friend from Louisiana – I’m a blowed-out peckerwood!

Yes, Statutes ARE Law – IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. BUT THEY ARE NOT LAW, IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER. That’s where they sit, in “Law”.

Fundamentally, if course, it’s all about  consent. If you decide to join a Society, then you must be consenting to its Rules. If you don’t consent, then you don’t join, do you?

So this is how we derive the shortform definition: “Statutes are Law BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. “The governed” being “those who have consented  to be governed”.

But (I scream!) not Law that can be honourably enforced those who have never been consulted, or have withheld consent!

And it is a CRIMINAL ACT to apply or enforce – as “Law” – Rules ... on those who have not consented to abide by them, in the first place.

This is not to suggest that we should all ignore all rules of decency, and run riot. Of course it’s not! Go back to The Common Law, and Common Sense. That caters for everything. Who wants trouble? Who wants aggravation? Who wants war? No-one ... except Politicians!

I might even be prepared to sign up to a Society that was honourable. One that made sensible Rules in the form of Statutes. One that regarded my Indefeasible Human Rights as paramount. One that allowed me the free will to decide to join. One that allowed me to resign, if I found the Society intolerable at some future time. One that wasn’t utterly corrupt. I might be prepared to join that kind of Society. And obey its Legislated Rules. But that’s not the one I see today ... do you?

Perhaps you can begin to understand why myself, and others, are engaged in what is called Lawful Rebellion? We simply wish to rid our ‘current Society’ of corruption, and bring it back to the Rule of Law, to the best ‘justice’ we can find, via The Common Law. But you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. This means we have the break the current stranglehold of Statutes, and fight tooth and nail to utilise The Common Law, as much as possible. Fortunately we still retain vestiges of it, and that is where we can find all of our ‘possible solutions’.

Previous Chapter : Next Chapter

(This page produced in its entirety on Veronica's Local Web Organiser © Veronica: of the Chapman family, 2006-2013)