Real Law Basics

Nation-States, Jurisdictions

The highest sovereign power is the nation-state, a "public body corporate", a country in accordance with public international law. At this level there is really no binding authority or effective force to hold nations accountable. Nations may have treaties with other nations, but they are honoured voluntarily, with no repercussions other than public stigma or the potential action of an injured party in the event of a breach.

While every nation is free to do things their own way, in general, next are internal states (or provinces), in accordance with national law, and [counties and] municipalities, in accordance with state law. National law trumps state law, and state law trumps regional and municipal law. Where treaties exist, international law trumps national law.

Each jurisdiction, be it federal, state, county, municipal, etc., is sovereign unto itself, subject to its parent, with federal being the highest authority in the nation. In general, a federal court cannot hear a state matter, except on appeal and in accordance with state law. A federal court cannot interfere in state matters, except where they violate federal law. A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all. A county or municipal court cannot hear a state or federal matter.

Applicability of Law

Unless you make your own law (that nobody cares about) it is impossible to appear in law except under a nation-state. You can't contract out of national law because the contract law you're using is subject to that same nation. Likewise, you can't call citizenship a trust because there is no position or law above the nation to call it a trust from. The nation dictates how things operate and there is nothing lawful you can do about it short of leaving the area, starting your own nation and declaring war.

The laws of a nation-state apply equally to everyone. Anyone in or on territory claimed by a nation is expected to conform to all the laws of the nation, state and municipality (as applicable). Where one does not wish to conform and is forced to, there is no lawful remedy one can employ to collect compensation. One can only potentially be awarded damages when federal, state or municipal laws are violated. There is no higher law as some believe. This could be viewed as an unfortunate case of might making right. Theories about what makes such a social contract legitimate vary from divine blessing to tacit acceptance by staying in a claimed area or using the products of society.

Challenging Constitutionality

Until such time as a superior court deems a piece of legislation unconstitutional or invalid it is in full force and effect. The way it works is this: bad laws are enacted, someone is eventually harmed, that someone now has standing to sue and challenge the law to potentially have it struck down. It is not up to individuals to determine the constitutionality of laws or declare them invalid. Only the highest courts can do this.

Common Law vs. Statute Law

Many seem to think common law trumps statute law. This is false. The local federal, state and municipal constitutions and legislatures are supreme. Statutes have always displaced common law, since the first English statutes. The constitution, king and parliament (or congress, state legislature or regional council) have always been stronger than the judges and courts they employ in their realm.

Again, the nation-state is the highest entity in law. Sovereign states can choose to receive third party law, such as English law. English colonies automatically receive English law whereas the US received it voluntarily via reception statutes, clearly subject to local law. Local governments, being sovereign inasmuch as they do not violate higher national, state or regional law, are always able to overturn foreign law they inherited or received.

Contract Law – Is silence consent?

There is a common misconception based on the spongy maxim "silence is consent" that one can simply send a Notice, Affidavit, Fee Schedule or other document with a time limit for response and failing that response a binding contract is made. This is not valid contract law. According to the reigning case law (contracts remain primarily at common law), contracts cannot be established unilaterally through silence, there must be a clear offer and acceptance and meeting of the minds. The recipient failing to respond in a certain time is not binding unless there is some specific valid governing legislation or common law that dictates the same. For example, many Acts, contracts, court rules, etc. dictate that certain notices and time limits apply.

UCC-1, PPSA and other Financing Statements

When a document is ignored a wayward pseudolaw proponent may turn to abusing other legal processes to try to enforce their view of the law. A common method is through UCC or PPSA filings (for the US or Canada, respectively), as these are not checked for validity at the time of filing. Such filings are a direct attack on the well-being of a person and can severely affect their economic status, credit rating, etc. In some jurisdictions frivolous or vexatious filings can garner cash awards, years in jail or both.

Financing statements are a form of expressing interest in collateral. In order for collateral to be properly owed to a secured party and qualify for a filing a clear contract or security agreement describing the intent and collateral must exist between the would-be secured party creditor and debtor. In the US and Canada, pursuant to UCC, PPSA or other legislation such as a Statute of Frauds, the debtor must authenticate the security agreement by signature.

Where no collateral is involved, financing statements are useless and improper. For a standard contract, one would simply sue in court to obtain a judgment which would allow garnishment of income and seizure of assets.

Definition of Legal Terms

A common mistake is applying definitions of legal terms universally, often from an incorrect source. One might think a law dictionary is the best place to define words for use in law. This is unfortunately incorrect. The first place a court looks for a definition is in the Act related to the specific charge. If the charge is a state traffic violation, for example, the state traffic code and definitions found therein would apply. Where a word isn't defined in legislation a court might look to its own past rulings, a superior court or any number of dictionaries or other sources for suggestions before deciding for itself what a word means.

Meads v. Meads

A Canadian case, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, explores numerous pseudo-legal theories at length. It is highly recommended to read the case in full.

  • rita mendiola

    Are you mind warped or just ignorant? The government was not created to issue or create rights. No imperfect human, has any right or power over another. For that to happen, they would have to be perfect. Not psychotic in their own mind, to think they are better than anyone. Society does not exist. Individuals exist. No one individual has any more right, than another. So therefore, your point is moot and obscure. You are trying to force free individuals, into the thinking process of other individuals. That is the definition of Tyranny and Sociopath. So in no way can you say any individual owes anything to society. It was one man that invented the internet, it was one man that came up with the turbine engine. Your outlook on life is sadly twisted and wrong. You must really support the devil!

    • Ken S.

      Sorry, but this site is set in reality, where people actually interact with each other and the environment, and not in some kind of wacky thought experiment vacuum out of a first-year philosophy textbook, where countless Sovereigns float through space consuming nothing, producing nothing, and doing absolutely nothing of any utility to anybody.

      • rita mendiola

        Then please leave the real world, where no human made it rain. So they have no right to sell the ground water to the rest. No human made the land under our feet. So they have no right to claim they own it. No human created the food we eat. So they can not sell it to us. Why do you not want to live in the real world Ken S. Why do you support the theory that other humans are superior to some. When in reality, none are! None have more rights and society does not exist, except in the heads of the weak who can not live on their own, and rely on the rest of the individuals to do it for them. Are you one of those weaker vessels and that is why you wont let go of others? Why not be a HUMAN instead of entity? Cause you have a warped sense of reality? NO NATURAL HUMAN would want to live in your reality!

        • Ken S.

          No human made it rain, but quite a few humans work quite hard to treat and pump clean water to people who don't have their own pumps or access to groundwater. No human made the land under our feet, but quite a few humans have spent time, effort, and money to develop and maintain it. As for food, that's just wrong outright — unless you literally harvest every thing you eat for yourself, there's somebody working hard to raise food animals and grow crops for you to eat. The real world is one where people interact with each other as part of a community with organization and standards of conduct and delegated responsibilities instead of bizarre self-sufficient hermits in the woods muttering to a squirrel skull about how we're truly sovereign now, both of us, my little squirrel friend…my love…

          But you're on the internet, so I already know you depend on the labor of others, and participate in the world you claim to repudiate. I strongly doubt that you practice even a shred of the sovereign independence you preach.

          • rita mendiola

            Well seeing those same humans went out of their way, to make it harder for the rest of the humans to afford pumps and the shovels needed to dig out their own water. Clearly those "hardworking" people, are only working hard at stealing the resources so others have to purchase them from them. So your THEORY (cause it clearly isnt working in the real world!) on relying on a society is flawed from the ground up! Time to step back and realize, we are all EQUAL and NO ONE HUMAN has ANYMORE RIGHTS THAN THE OTHER! Lets also discuss the FREE INTERNET, THAT 1 MAN CREATED FOR ALL TO USE FREELY! BUT MORONS LIKE YOU, ARE TRYING TO STEAL IT AND CHARGE FOR IT. SO YOU ARE CLEARLY WHATS WRONG WITH HUMANITY! And lets stop lying to yourself! NO ONE IS WORKING HARD TO MAKE THE LAND ANY BETTER! ALL YOU USERS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH FOR PERSONAL GAIN. NOT FOR THE BETTER OF ALL! SO GET YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR ASS AND REALIZE YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG SINCE THE START! If your way worked, WE WOULD ALL BE LIVING IN PEACE AND HARMONY! CLEARLY YOU ARE THE DUMBEST LINK! GOODBYE!

          • Ken S.

            Off to go shoot some cops about it?

          • rita mendiola

            No, unlike you. Im not a SOCIOPATH (Serial killer!) I have NO desire to have power or authority over others! Im not a NAZI oppressor like you. Unlike Policy enforcers. I do not kill when morons do not listen. Only a psycho uses violence to get their point across or to intimidate, cause they lack education and common sense like you! Keep supporting Domestic Terrorism. You clearly are a child of the Devil!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            Except that you want to forbid anybody from selling the fruits of their labor if you deem their product something that's "supposed to be free." Even if I clean and pump the water, I "have no right to sell it." Even if I grow and harvest the crop, I "have no right to sell it." Even if I build and lay the fiber-optic cable, you denounce me for "stealing the internet" if I charge for it. Sovereign philosophy doesn't seem consistent with Communism, so I really don't understand what you want.

          • rita mendiola

            Realize, you do not have the right to the raw materials to begin with. You can not take from the ground, what you did not make appear and then sell it to other humans. Your labor means nothing! Just cause you went out of your way to steal the material from the ground to begin with. The point you miss, is you are not entitled to make money off of what you did not make appear on the earth to begin with. Make it rain, then you can sell others water. Make silver or gold appear in the earth, then you can mine it to sell it. Make a seed appear out of nowhere, then you can grow it to sell it. Till then, your point remains moot and invalid!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            So…are beavers stealing when they build a dam? Are trees stealing when they suck water up out of the soil? Are algae stealing from the sun when they photosynthesize? Every animal needs to use natural resources in order to survive. So far as I can tell, you're telling me that the only moral way to live is to sit in a dark place, hold your breath, and wait until you die.

          • Kennyb

            Yep thats exactly what she is saying Ken, but as my poor old mother used to say 'They are more to be pitied than scolded'

          • Kennyb

            Rita – I am really sorry to tell you that everything Ken S has said is correct. You are living in cloud cukoo land with a tin foil hat to stop the negative vibes shrinking whats left of your brain. So pray tell me, which individual or individuals made it rain, made silver or gold, or invented seed from nowhere.

          • rita mendiola

            Gonna go kick a homeless person now Ken? I see you like to oppress and hold down other humans. You must be a special type of psycho!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You're the one who comes in screeching like a lunatic about how everybody who disagrees with you is a horrific monster, so I just figure that for somebody as deranged and paranoid as you, you'd have a fairly low threshold for violence. After all, it seems that everybody in the real world is a child of the devil from your perspective, and living that way must be pretty stressful. Not to mention that sovereign nutjobs have a history of murdering people they consider oppressors. Like me, apparently! 😀

          • rita mendiola

            Just cause you support evil and tyranny, does not make it wrong to point out your non human characteristics. You would have made hitler proud with your blind following ignorance. It takes a special kind of stupid, to think these laws are good or work!

          • James Michael

            They are well brainwashed freedom hating slaves that love their masters boot on their neck Rita….
            Or just liars …Most likely that actually.
            Their end fast approaches, because they know the people of the world are wakening and they are getting more and more brutal and psychopathic to hold their slave system together.
            Their end is coming and like the Nazis they will hang for their lies and deceptions.

          • rita mendiola

            Way to prove your not a human and your desire is not to coexist with other humans. You would have made Hitler proud!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            You seem to want to coexist even less. From everything I've read from you, you consider anybody with a job to be an evil sociopath who's inflicting a Satanic society on you with its evil laws that are restricting your natural right to…apparently just mooch off of everybody else? Or just magically receive everything you want out of thin air like manna from heaven? I've gotta ask, do you provide all your own food, water, shelter, and internet access without buying anything from anybody? If you had really rejected the society that exchanges goods, services, and labor in the framework of laws and courts, then there is no way that you would be commenting on a website. Aren't you a child of Satan, too, for voluntarily participating in a community like this? If your ideal is for us all to live as autonomous, sovereign, self-sufficient mountain men, then that means giving up the things we can only do together, within a community and the rules we make together. Things like the complex infrastructure and services needed to establish and maintain the Internet. You cannot accuse everybody around you while you're going to the same stores and using the same technology as the rest of us, supporting the same system that the rest of us have decided is necessary for our mutual safety and progress. You're being an absolute hypocrite, and I suspect that you're seriously mentally ill.

          • rita mendiola

            See, your so stupid you can not read. No one period has a right tu use raw materials from the earth, to sell to another person period! Everything from the earth, belongs to every human on the earth. No 1 individual ever has the rights to it over another. Wow you must be ignorant!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            If I put in the work to chop down a tree and make a table out of it, who are you to say the table isn't mine to sell? If I grow wheat, who are you to say I shouldn't be paid for it? If I build a mine to collect iron ore, who are you to say I have no right to sell it to somebody who wants to make steel? More importantly, what are you going to do to prevent me from charging money for the fruit of my labor? This isn't Star Trek where people only get jobs because they think it'd be fun — the ability to benefit from the sale of goods is pretty important to the existence of the economy. There are no goods to sell without raw materials, and we don't have another source of raw materials besides the Earth. Nobody outside of a psychiatric institution is going to back you up on this.

          • Illegible

            it really is Star Trek, or getting closer.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I do love me some Trek…

          • Illegible

            the illusion of exchange is an archaic psychomeme foisted on little brains by public fool teachers. Marx already deconstructed that nonsense 150 years past. We dont live in a peasant village where i trade cheese for internet or chopped wood for digital signals.

            By most accounts everything is a wash as to money, so there's no evidence in the fluctuations of currency, just spinning useless whells. Everything is actually free right here right now the economy is macro integrated not competitive.

            For example the United States cannot go broke. All structural functions are pay it forward with most public and social spending financed by so called 'deficits', which are really just expansions of money supplies.

          • Ken S.

            P.S. I love the idea that water utilities are part of a conspiracy to make shovels and pumps more expensive. On that note, if it's evil to sell water, isn't it evil to sell pumps and shovels? Isn't it evil to sell the parts and tools used to build pumps and shovels? Isn't all of this just the same as me trying to "steal the internet" which was apparently invented by one person (who?) for everybody? Aren't you destroying the Earth by using the internet with technology built and sold by companies that buy evil shovels and cables and routers but which should apparently are supposed to be doing this for free? BTW I would have gotten away with the great Internet heist if it weren't for the big hole in my burlap sack! All the internet ran out while I was running to my getaway car.

          • rita mendiola

            Your lack of education shines through! Keep making my point more valid!

          • Ken S.

            *should apparently be doing this for free

          • Illegible

            The Man Who Stole the World. David Bowie!

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The Man Who Stole the Internet!! 😉

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hey Rita, I agree that no one individual has more right than another. I think equality is exactly what many modern legal systems were created or have developed to ensure. But often we take it for granted, we don't see it, we don't use it… we just want to destroy it without fully understanding what our forefathers dreamed, fought for and built for us. There was a lot less fairness and justice in the past. No longer are we chained up in town square to be ridiculed publicly or executed at the whim of a monarch or for petty or prejudicial crimes. We've come a long way from the middle ages. Technology is making life a breeze and the people are being heard more and more. Try looking on the bright side and being thankful once in a while. <3

      • Sam

        """Hey Rita, I agree that no one individual has more right than another"""

        then you must also agree than no government or corporation has more rights than the individual.

        In America, the People retain their full sovereignty. The government has partial, specifically delegated sovereignty.

        If you can't do it yourself, neither can the government. Welcome to America, where the criminals wear uniforms and robes.

        • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

          Theoretically, you *can* do anything the government can do. If you were powerful enough, you could enforce environmental regulations all by yourself. If people would listen, you could write and publish those rules all alone if you pleased. If you had the influence to do it, you could establish a judiciary on your own personal authority. In fact, at this very moment you could overthrow the United States or any other government on Earth, appoint yourself Emperor Sam, and rule the world on your own say-so. There's no Supreme Meta-Law that prevents you from doing this. You have the authority to personally govern the entire planet as a dictator, if you have the strength to enforce your will.

          The only trouble is that you don't, and neither do I, and neither does anyone else. There's a lot we can do as individuals, but it's very unlikely that we can become one-man governments. If a lot of people get together, though, they certainly have the ability to enforce their will and do at least some of the things I described above. That's what's happened in most countries, actually! A lot of people decided that they could accomplish more together than they could separately, and they created governments to pool their resources and strength.

          So, you're half-right, but you're missing the target. It's sort of true, the government can't do anything that a single immensely powerful person couldn't do. The reality is that we've created governments stronger than any one of us precisely BECAUSE we want to do things bigger than any one of us could do. By forming a government and lending it our collective sovereignty, we're able to protect ourselves, improve our lives, send people to the moon, and otherwise enjoy the progress we've made since the introduction of agriculture in ways that we could never do as individuals.

          • Steve Anderson

            ENTER YOUR SSI#, PLEASE…

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            457-55-5462

          • Steve Anderson

            Upon birth you were invested to be a million dollar baby! Me to but the numbers are way off. Your a good sport Ken! Thank you

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            I've heard this theory before, but I haven't seen any evidence that held up to scrutiny. What makes you believe in the strawman theory?

            (By the way, that's my my SSN, it's Todd Davis's. At least it was before his identity was stolen over a dozen times.)

          • Steve Anderson

            Was worried about things then 10 years ago I started listening to a minister pure KJV where Tom Gambile taught me. And I am a talk radio junkie for John B. Wells! This old worn out Veteran searchs desperately for truth sometimes. I find your thinking to be logical thats just about it.

          • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

            The strawman theory is bunk, though. I hope you're not putting your finances at risk over it!

          • Steve Anderson

            Church mouse poor enough for a C7 only.

        • fuster

          how can you retain your full sovereignty when you've agreed to delegate so much authority to the state and federal government?

          theories are nice, but living in the material world requires the occasional intrusion of a shared reality.

      • ricotorpe

        Are you interested in having contributed material? I think that the the sovcits and FMotL nuts are annoying and dangerous, and I would like to help make a resource that people can have as a counter to all of the the nutter websites promoting various versions of pseudolaw.

        Reply if you are interested, and we can discuss more via email. You can use a pseudonym email address initially, if you want to preserve your privacy/anonymity.

  • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

    I wonder how many sovereign/freeman types would flip out if they realized that every one of their "common law" arguments is doubly worthless in Louisiana. When I've got better internet I'm going to have to look for some comedy gold from the Pelican State…

  • hlgraham

    Whoever wrote this drivel does not know diddly about the law. Don't trust it. For example, it states " A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all." Until 1876 there were no federal district courts. All federal issues were heard in state courts at the initial level. Today it is a matter of jurisdiction in a specific federal matter. Federal matters cannot be heard in federal court unless the subject matter is civil rights, specific statutory grants of jurisdiction or in matters between two different citizens from two different states,and there is $50000 at issue- diversity jurisdiction.

    • Ken S., As Seen On Watch Lists

      What are you talking about? The federal district courts were established by the first Congress in 1789. Who told you that they weren't created until 1876?

    • pseudolaw.com

      Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I believe you're right that my statement "A state court cannot hear a federal matter at all." is deficient. Federal statutes do sometimes have provisions for enforcement by states and individuals in state courts. A helpful publication State Enforcement of Federal Law by Margaret H. Lemos, states in part:

      "Virtually all federal civil statutes vest enforcement authority in a federal agency; some also create private rights of action that permit private parties to sue to enforce federal law. … Many federal statutes authorize civil enforcement by both a federal agency and the states, typically through states' attorneys general. State enforcement provisions appear most frequently in federal laws designed to protect consumers, such as the recent Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill."

      One example is the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, which can be litigated in a state court, however the defendant has the option to remove the case to federal court and may commonly do so (Source).

      I will have to consider how to update the page to better describe the distinct separation between state and federal jurisdictions without discounting their ability to delegate to one another. Thanks again.

      PS. Don't trust me – I'm still learning, too! Question, think and verify for yourself.

  • pseudolaw.com

    Law crash course:
    Government laws apply because they have the military and police force to enforce their law. Your consent is not required, and there is nowhere to argue otherwise because nobody else can defeat the military and police. The highest jurisdiction on earth is that of sovereign nation-states, countries, of which there are nearly 200 today. International law consists of treaties between nation-states, but there is little to no military or police force at that level to enforce the law, and international law violations can only be enforced by voluntary actions of other nation-states. The actual, enforceable law is based on national and state constitutions and legislation. Constitutions and legislation may import law from third parties. For example, on independence most of the US states imported English law, subject to their constitutions, legislation and common law decisions. In common law countries, judges are granted the power to interpret the constitutions and legislation, particularly where they are vague or silent, and set binding precedent equal to the power of statute law. Nevertheless, the highest law remains with the people through their representatives in legislature, who can change the constitution or legislation and overturn court precedent. When all of a country's institutions become corrupt and stop listening to their people the only remedy is for the people to overthrow the entire nation-state by force. Then a new nation-state is formed and the whole thing starts all over again.

    • Lord Walker El

      LMFAO Good one. Only the Nationals/Cestui Que Trust/Benificiaries of a nation-state can change a Constitution!!! Not the trustee's or anyone else. Especially European Colonials, or Stateless persons!!!

      • pseudolaw.com

        Yeah, in the US at least, the government is based on popular sovereignty, which is the will of the majority of people. Unfortunately for you very few are of the view that individual sovereignty is conducive to law, order or good government. In a republic, the power to change the Constitution and laws is delegated to representatives.

  • Bob Smith

    What a bunch of legalistic bravo Sierra. Just come out and say it. The politicians are corrupt, the courts enforce what ever revenue generating laws the corrupt politicians pass, and law enforcement blindly does whatever either say…..the constitution be damned. That's why it's called the "just-us" system.

    • pseudolaw.com

      Any specific examples, or are you just here for an unsubstantiated rant? I didn't always view it this way but from what I can tell the US justice system is actually fairly reliable at protecting people's rights and awarding damages for violations.