Questions from a Freeman-on-the-land

[Nam]

Do statutes require consent to have the force of law upon a living man?

If a judge has found a law/statute to be invalid, unconstitutional, and has
no force or effect, are police and/or law enforcement officers obligated to
obey the judges findings?

[annjd]

You do not have to consent.

And yes if a court finds they are unconstitutional, then the police and prosecutors must obey that.

[Nam]

Originally Posted by annjd You do not have to consent.

I find this answer a little vague. I know that I do not have to consent to anything that I do not want to, But I do not consent to something, how can someone else force it upon me? Is that not slavery? Governments claim they get the power to govern, by the consent of those who they are governing. Well, if someone does not consent, how can a government force it's governance upon them? After all, isn't government supposed to be a representative one.

Originally Posted by annjd And yes if a court finds they are unconstitutional, then the police and prosecutors must obey that.

Thanks, I talked to a police officer who claims he does not care, and will arrest anyone for anything he feels is against the law, no matter what the courts say. What do you feel would be the best way to remedy that situation to avoid conflict?

which law was found unconstitutional? it seems to me that if the officer was to re arrest you again then i would get a complaints form file it and then press charges for gross negligence of duty!remember ignorance of the law is no excuse

Re "I find this answer a little vague. I know that I do not have to consent to anything that I do not want to, But I do not consent to something, how can someone else force it upon me? Is that not slavery? Governments claim they get the power to govern, by the consent of those who they are governing. Well, if someone does not consent, how can a government force it's governance upon them? After all, isn't government supposed to be a representative one."

Representative government means representation of the majority. The distinction between statute and common law is just ridiculous

Just suppose that ... the people who realise that the legislation being used against them does not reflect the needs or wishes of the community and is therefore not lawful*. To make changes to the negative mode of operation- in which it appears that legislation is being used to defraud local communities and to stop the people going about there lawful business,that is when they need to distinguish again that the purpose of law is to protect ,that the police forces job is to help and support and to help stop crime *(specifically a crime needs a victim so therefore acts and statutes are not laws). This is not ridiculous it is mind blowing that we are part of a framework that allows the go............ Just supposing

Originally Posted by Unregistered Re "I find this answer a little vague. I know that I do not have to consent to anything that I do not want to, But I do not consent to something, how can someone else force it upon me? Is that not slavery? Governments claim they get the power to govern, by the consent of those who they are governing. Well, if someone does not consent, how can a government force it's governance upon them? After all, isn't government supposed to be a representative one." Representative government means representation of the majority. The distinction between statute and common law is just ridiculous

Rpresentative giovernments who are attempting to enforce STATUTES which is
"A legislative rule of society given the force of Law by consent of the governed". . Where does it say the MAJORITY of the governed?