Become 100% unliable

**Birmingham** · 12-09-2006, 09:26 AM

My theory goes that the way to become 100% NOT liable for breaching the law is if your strictly following the orders of the person at the top of the government (the Prime Minister in the UK, perhaps the President in the USA).

I sent an email to the UK PM and haven't had a reply yet but am looking forward to it - I told him 'please tell me everything I need to know in order to follow the law' - and anything I don't know and have not been told or directly directed to in a simple and clear way, in theory, is not my fault :glare:

Any thoughts?

**imported_illusion** · 12-09-2006, 09:49 AM

That is pretty funny, you sent an email to a guy who doesn't care about you as a single person, and gave him a spammy email.

**Birmingham** · 12-11-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illusion

That is pretty funny, you sent an email to a guy who doesn't care about you as a single person, and gave him a spammy email.

But if I don't get a reply, I'll send the next by post which is said to have a guaranteed reply

**marketjunction** · 12-24-2006, 10:15 PM

That's not a good theory and makes no sense.. While I'm speaking about the USA, we do get a lot of law from England common law.

The responsibility is on you and you alone to know the law. Following orders isn't an excuse to remove liability from you. At best, you could be charged with a reduced or secondary crime.

For instance, the President tells you to murder someone and you do it. You are guilty of murder and of conspiracy to commit murder. The President is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

**jakerz** · 12-24-2006, 10:42 PM

That was totally stupid

**Ganceann** · 12-24-2006, 11:30 PM

Those at the top do as they like.

They have a team of lawyers constantly covering their tracks and finding loopholes to get them out of any situations.

It wont work the same for everyday people.

99% of the time they will never even read the email or letters anyway, so again it is pretty much pointless as one of their staff will likely disregard it.

**johniman7** · 12-27-2006, 02:33 PM

Save your money and hire the best lawyer you can find. That and knowing the right people is what will get you out of trouble.

**Birmingham** · 12-28-2006, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketjunction

The responsibility is on you and you alone to know the law.

any fool knows that theres too much law for even the greatest boffin to learn. i'm sure there are loopholes in the law where u can justify ur actions on grounds of reasonableness and defend yourself from committing crimes due to 'unreasonableness' such as the unreasonable responsibility u described above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketjunction

For instance, the President tells you to murder someone and you do it. You are guilty of murder and of conspiracy to commit murder. The President is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

but law is contradictory in so many places - when one thing says one and another says another it comes down to precedent (which is the more powerful, overriding law) and the man at the top is usually the guy who can make this all-overriding law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakerz

That was totally stupid

thanks for enlightening me with ur so much wiser comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganceann

Those at the top do as they like.

true - but i think they fear the public catching on in powerful groups. they still try to look credible where it doesn't interrupt their greedy lifestyle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganceann

They have a team of lawyers constantly covering their tracks and finding loopholes to get them out of any situations.

It wont work the same for everyday people.

but nomatter how complicated it gets, if one can put it in simple terms and share it with the world then people can see exactly what fraudulent behaviour is going on. if there is only ever going to be a pro-gov outcome then there will be patterns to spot from one case to the next.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganceann

99% of the time they will never even read the email or letters anyway, so again it is pretty much pointless as one of their staff will likely disregard it.

in the webmaster world of internet media we can make them listen. with all the people surfing the web, a web marketing expert can be rather powerful - influencing endless people's thoughts

**Cyberworkspace** · 12-28-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birmingham

My theory goes that the way to become 100% NOT liable for breaching the law is if your strictly following the orders of the person at the top of the government (the Prime Minister in the UK, perhaps the President in the USA).

well, i like to think about weird thinks like this very much, so first of all thank you for this idea

however, there is one flaw to your theory and that is, that the guy on top of the government has in fact absolutely NO power to tell you anything at all. he can't make you do anything at all. it would need someone with executive powers to do so. like the policeman around the corner

that is, why we have the segregation of powers into legislative, judicative and executive powers and they are NOT combined in one authority.

every president (at least in a civilized nation

) has to obey to the constitution which will be ruled by the supreme court. and he has no vote at all in whether your action was justified because he said so (or did not).

so, no: although it seems so, it is not, that it matters at all what someone on top tells you, unless you are ... in the military or military-like organization, which puts some of your constitutional rights aside for the time that you belong to them.

but even then chances are high, that these guys in the military will court-martial you in case you do something dumb

**Bookworm-SEO** · 12-29-2006, 12:50 AM

Ok, a few things to clear up:
1) The person on top is the main part of the executive. His power and that of the policeman's fall into the same category. The reason for separation is to protect the citizen from any part abusing their powers.
2) Western law (common and civil) demands that every person know the law; ignorance is no excuse. That's why there are public records of what parliament and other legislative bodies do.
3) Where law is contradictory, it's usually going to come down to policy considerations - considerations of the judge. For example, a common consideration in the law of torts (negligence, parental and employer liability etc) is whether we want to 'open the floodgates'. That is, will a decision in favour of the plaintiff lead to many more suits being filed (frivolously). Precedent just means what was the decision in previous cases. Unless there was a previous case where the contradiction was ruled on, it's useless.
4) IDK how it is in germany, cyber guy, but here in Canada Parliament can use the "notwithstanding clause" to override the Charter of Rights. And if ever it wanted, it could get rid of our Constitution (though the political price makes that a purely academic discussion), by virtue of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is, today's Parliament can always abrogate what yesterday's legislated. Tomorrow's Parliament can abrogate today's legislation. The PM legislating through Parliament means he can get out of the constitution if he feels like.
*I think that if Martial Law is declared, the Constitution is also ignored and the PM/President rules by decree.

**Birmingham** · 12-29-2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberworkspace

i like to think about weird thinks like this very much, so first of all thank you for this idea

no probs; thanks for ur feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyberworkspace

however, there is one flaw to your theory and that is, that the guy on top of the government has in fact absolutely NO power to tell you anything at all. he can't make you do anything at all. it would need someone with executive powers to do so. like the policeman around the corner

that is, why we have the segregation of powers into legislative, judicative and executive powers and they are NOT combined in one authority.

every president (at least in a civilized nation

) has to obey to the constitution which will be ruled by the supreme court. and he has no vote at all in whether your action was justified because he said so (or did not).

so, no: although it seems so, it is not, that it matters at all what someone on top tells you, unless you are ... in the military or military-like organization, which puts some of your constitutional rights aside for the time that you belong to them.

but even then chances are high, that these guys in the military will court-martial you in case you do something dumb

but whatever anyone says, who has the final say? the appeals go through the judicial system until it gets to the court at the top which is seated by selection of the main man (mr blair in the uk).

so maybe a policeman can cuff u but a judge can't - but when u resist, the judge will decide whether it vas valid to resist or not. then whatever the first judge says is irrelevant when the highest appeals judge says something else - and the highest judge in the uk is appointed by the PM - so essentially, the PM can say what he likes and have his team to back it up else be sacked and the new team will enforce things as he wishes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm-SEO

Ok, a few things to clear up:
1) The person on top is the main part of the executive. His power and that of the policeman's fall into the same category. The reason for separation is to protect the citizen from any part abusing their powers.

but the guy at the top has the final, overriding say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm-SEO

2) Western law (common and civil) demands that every person know the law; ignorance is no excuse. That's why there are public records of what parliament and other legislative bodies do.

it's not ignorance to not be aware of the several thousand new laws introduced every month in the uk. it's humane. it's certainly not ignorance for the person who has learning difficulties. nobody has an infinite learning capacity and nobody knows the whole law. are you saying everyone is therefore ignorant?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm-SEO

3) Where law is contradictory, it's usually going to come down to policy considerations - considerations of the judge. For example, a common consideration in the law of torts (negligence, parental and employer liability etc) is whether we want to 'open the floodgates'. That is, will a decision in favour of the plaintiff lead to many more suits being filed (frivolously). Precedent just means what was the decision in previous cases. Unless there was a previous case where the contradiction was ruled on, it's useless.

legal professionals use 'precendent' as a term to describe the law arising from a case, but the literal meaning of the word refers to the general overriding power of something - the highest power is that which takes precedent - such as the law arising from a case as in the typical legal professional's use of the word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm-SEO

4) IDK how it is in germany, cyber guy, but here in Canada Parliament can use the "notwithstanding clause" to override the Charter of Rights. And if ever it wanted, it could get rid of our Constitution (though the political price makes that a purely academic discussion), by virtue of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is, today's Parliament can always abrogate what yesterday's legislated. Tomorrow's Parliament can abrogate today's legislation. The PM legislating through Parliament means he can get out of the constitution if he feels like.
*I think that if Martial Law is declared, the Constitution is also ignored and the PM/President rules by decree.

that's how it works in the uk too. of course they need to be able to disregard old law as and when they feel it nolonger applies in today's changing (and faultful) society. and irrespective of the statute ruled by parliament, the highest court of appeal (house of lords in the uk) can interpret this statute however they like - literally or otherwise.

**Chris 96 WS6** · 01-03-2007, 03:48 PM

Its not the President's or the Prime Minister's job to know the law perfectly. The law is too large for any single person to have a perfect knowledge of it, that's why attorneys specialize in different kinds of law.

That's like saying 1 person can know everything about computers/internet. There's a reason there are web developers, network administrators, software engineers, hardware engineers, etc.

**Will.Spencer** · 01-03-2007, 08:34 PM

You have never heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

This is very surprising!

**Birmingham** · 01-04-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris 96 WS6

Its not the President's or the Prime Minister's job to know the law perfectly. The law is too large for any single person to have a perfect knowledge of it, that's why attorneys specialize in different kinds of law.

That's like saying 1 person can know everything about computers/internet. There's a reason there are web developers, network administrators, software engineers, hardware engineers, etc.

well if you accept that no one person can know the whole law then how can you accuse them of being guilty for not following it???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will.Spencer

You have never heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

This is very surprising!

excellent link - thanks for sharing. i've learn a lot from that alone.

they say this means "persons have presumed knowledge of the law". but if a percentage of presumptions are certain to be faulty then surely to avoid fault we should avoid presuming anything! this lawe is basically telling us to go ahead and make mistakes by making presumptions. i refuse to make presumptions based on ethics of not wanting to make mistakes. surely there is something in the law to say that i'm allowed to do this due to unreasonablenes of the alternatives :detective:

**Icheb** · 01-04-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birmingham

well if you accept that no one person can know the whole law then how can you accuse them of being guilty for not following it???

You can answer that yourself with a little bit of COMMON SENSE.

**Birmingham** · 01-05-2007, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icheb

You can answer that yourself with a little bit of COMMON SENSE.

my answer would be "with ignorance". ignorance is unreasonable and therefore such laws are probably invalid under the laws which say that only reasonable laws are valid.

**Icheb** · 01-05-2007, 01:09 PM

What has ignorance got to do with that? You asked how you can accuse someone of violating a law when he didn't know the law existed.
If you accept the fact that someone can't be guilty when he didn't know a certain law, then societies with a lot of laws (like, uhm, every country on earth) can't exist peacefully. If you can't deduce that with a bit of common sense, then I'm sorry for you.