Statute Law

Jamie Dee made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to The Law Society
This authority is not subject to FOI law, so is not legally obliged to respond (manylion).


This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan The Law Society.

Dear The Law Society,

Could please tell me in which law book and where within said book,does it state that a statute is given the force of law by the consent of the governed

Yours faithfully,

Jamie Dee

Joao Curro, The Law Society

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Dee

 

Freedom of Information Request – Our Ref: FOI/BS/719

 

Thank you for your email of today’s date requesting access to
information. I am treating your information request under the Law Society
Freedom of Information Code of Practice ("the Code"). Please find below
the response to your information request.

 

You have requested access to the following information:

 

 

    “Could please tell me in which law book and where within said

     book, does it state that a statute is given the force of law by the

     consent of the governed”

 

 

The Law Society is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act (the
FOIA) as it is not a designated authority, but has adopted its own
voluntary Code of Practice which closely reflects the FOIA. The Code may
be found at:

 

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...

The Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. Unfortunately
the Law Society does not provide legal advice.

I am sorry I am unable to assist you further on this occasion.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green – keep it on screen

[3]Sound Off For Justice

Government proposals will prevent access to justice and cost more than
they aim to save. [4]Sound Off for a better alternative.

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient then
you must not copy it, forward it, use it for any purpose, or disclose it
to another person. Instead please return it to the sender immediately and
copy your communication to [email address]. Please then
delete your copy from your system. Please also note that the author of
this e-mail is not authorised to conclude any contract on behalf of the
Law Society by e-mail.

Stay up to date by registering for the Society***s e-newsletters at
[5]www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandevents/newsletters.law

To help us improve our service, calls may be monitored or recorded for
quality and training purposes.
Thank you.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...
2. http://www.emailhosts.com/ct/ctcount.php...
3. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
4. http://soundoffforjustice.org/
5. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/newsandeven...

Dear Joao Curro,

What an evasive answer, you seriously telling me you are unable to answer this lol??

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Dee

Joao Curro, The Law Society

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Dee

    

Freedom of Information Request – Our Ref: FOI/BS/719

    

Thank you for your email.

 

Section 14.1 of the Law Society Freedom of Information Code of Practice
(link below) allow us not to disclose information if you can reasonably be
expected to find the information by other means, for example in a
publication in a library.

 

[1]http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/d...

 

Under sections 17 and 18 of the Code you have the right to have this
matter referred to the Law Society’s independent Freedom of Information
Adjudicator. Please let me know if you would like the matter referred.

 

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[2]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green – keep it on screen

 

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Joao Curro,

As I am unable to find this information in another publication or at a library can you Under sections 17 and 18 of the Code refer this to the Law Society’s independent Freedom of Information
Adjudicator.

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Dee

Bob Stanley, The Law Society

1 Atodiad

Dear Jamie Dee

Thank you for your email of 24 February to my colleague Joao Curro. I have
today referred this matter to the Law Society's independent Freedom of
Information Adjudicator and you will be hearing from him in due course.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL
t: 020 7242 1222 (x4117)
f: 020 7320 5685
[1]www.lawsociety.org.uk
Go green – keep it on screen

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

richardayre,

Dear Jamie Dee,

 

I act as the independent Freedom of Information adjudicator for the Law
Society.  My role is to determine whether, when the Law Society fails to
provide information on request, it is acting appropriately in accordance
with its Freedom of Information Code. 

 

Mr Bob Stanley at the Law Society has forwarded to me the correspondence
between you and the Society concerning a request for information which you
lodged on 13 January.  I see that you have asked for adjudication
concerning the Society’s response to you.

 

I also note that you have seen a copy of the Code.  I will write today to
the Law Society to ask it to make a written submission to me in support of
its decision.  It is for the Society to convince me that it has acted in
accordance with the Code.  You are not required to satisfy me as to why
you want the information.  However, if you want to write a submission to
me explaining why you believe the Society has not acted appropriately in
accordance with the Code you are very welcome to do so. 

 

Once I have considered the submission(s) and raised any further issues I
consider necessary I will let both you and the Society have my
adjudication. 

 

If you do want to make a submission I would be grateful to receive it no
later than Friday 9 March.  Please let me know if that deadline causes you
any difficulty, and in any case I would be grateful if you could
acknowledge receipt of this email. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Richard Ayre   

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Jamie - Statues (laws enacted by Parliament) are given authority by themselves - they do not require the consent of the 'governed', the legislation once enacted and in force is its own authority.

The democratic process is that the people elect their government by majority vote and that government then enacts whatever laws it considers necessary.

Anyone can make representations to government, either lobbying for particular laws - or lobbying against them. It is then up to Parliament to decide if new laws are need, or if existing laws need to be changed.

If the 'governed' are deeply disatisfied with the decisions of a particular Government, or the laws it enacts, they are free to vote as they choose when next electing who they want to govern them.

In any democracy, there will always be unpopular laws and a dissatisfied portion of the population who didn't represent a sufficient majority to elect the government they wanted - it's the nature of democracy that the will of the majority decides.

This principle goes all the way back to the Athenian Model - which first introduced the concept of majority vote to elect officials and empower citizens to decide important issues.

Compared to some of the alternatives, seems like a small price to pay.

Becky

Gadawodd Laurel Bush anodiad ()

I think you will find that UK statute law consists of parliamentary bills enacted by consent of a monarch

It is still the ‘UK’ of GB&NI, and democracy does not extent nearly so far as many people seem to suppose

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Laurel - Exactly right. Legislation, once enacted, is its own 'authority' for enforcement.

Becky

Gadawodd Laurel Bush anodiad ()

Thanks Becky Bbear

It has the authority of a monarch

And, actually, what I should have said is that UK statute law consists of parliamentary bills enacted by consent of a monarch (primary legislation) plus secondary legislation, under the primary, also with the consent of a monarch

Gadawodd wayne bowett anodiad ()

Authority has to be extended. In reality nobody has authority as we are all created equal. You can either accept or not accept authority.

Gadawodd wayne bowett anodiad ()

All statutes and acts are optional. Statutes and Acts are legislation, not Law.
Statute's and Act's primary functions are to raise revenue for the Government.
The actual real Law, is based on common sense. The Public have been fooled and tricked into being governed by Corporate Law.
Lawful Rebellion will usurp Corporate Law, Peaceful change can be obtained.

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Footnote: Ultimately, it makes no difference what an individual's own view or interpretation of Law is - it comes down to choosing to act within it or choosing to act outside it.

Like any other choice, they then have to deal with the consequences of their decision - such as fines, imprisonment and difficulties finding employment.

This could be debated forever, but not on this site folks.

Becky

Gadawodd Jamie Dee anodiad ()

You seem to know an awful lot Becky about law, are you paid by the government to work for this site??

http://www.time4thetruth.info/2011/12/t4...

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Jamie - My contributions to the site are either voluntary, or as a personal user same as you.

Surprised you didn't appreciate that this site is all about information, I'm trained and experienced at gathering, interpreting and relaying information.

Everything else is just plain common sense/common knowledge (at least for me it is).

You ever want to discuss anything related to my comments or requests, feel free to email me direct anytime via my profile.

Becky

Gadawodd wayne bowett anodiad ()

Jack,

great question and great link!.... she's trained you know.
W

Gadawodd wayne bowett anodiad ()

Jack???? sorry, Jamie.....

richardayre,

Dear Jamie Dee,

 

I wrote to you by email on 25 February (copied at the end of this
message).  I have not received any acknowledgement from you.

 

I have now received a written submission from the Law Society in support
of its decision not to provide you with the information you requested.

 

The Society has advanced a different justification from the one it offered
to you at the time.  I am therefore enclosing the Society’s submission
with this email so that, if you wish, you may comment upon it or challenge
it before I adjudicate. Since this information will be new to you I am
prepared to receive any submission/comments you wish to make, provided
that I receive them no later than Thursday 22 March.  If I do not hear
from you by that time I will either adjudicate on the basis of the
information before me, or I will assume that you have withdrawn your
request for adjudication.

 

The Law Society’s submission reads:

 

The information requested by Jamie Dee may be held (if indeed it is held
anywhere) in the Law Society Library. The Law Society Library offers a
service to members of the Society only.

 

The Society’s original response to Jamie Dee (that the Society does not
provide legal advice) is correct. The Society represents solicitors in
England and Wales but does not itself provide legal advice. It would
perhaps have been helpful if the Society had explained to Jamie Dee at
this point that it was not known whether the information was held by the
Society but that if it was it would be in the Law Society Library whose
services are available only to members of the Society.

 

In response to Jamie Dee’s follow up email of 11 February the Society
replied by stating that the information was being withheld under section
14.1 of the Code. The Society accepts that this response could have led to
confusion by giving the impression that the Society held the requested
information but was withholding it because it could be obtained elsewhere.
The Society apologises for any confusion caused by its unnecessary
reliance on the section 14.1 exception.

 

The fact is that the Society does not know whether the information
requested is held and this should have been made clear in the original
response of 13 January. The request was originally seen by the Society as
a request for legal advice but the Society’s submission is that the
information requested is not ‘held’ by the Society in the sense that it
can be accessed and made available to a person making a request under the
Code. The Society therefore withdraws its reliance upon section 14.1 of
the Code and instead submits that the information is not held in such a
way that it can be made available under the Code.

 

 

The email I sent you on 25 February reads:

 

I act as the independent Freedom of Information adjudicator for the Law
Society.  My role is to determine whether, when the Law Society fails to
provide information on request, it is acting appropriately in accordance
with its Freedom of Information Code. 

 

Mr Bob Stanley at the Law Society has forwarded to me the correspondence
between you and the Society concerning a request for information which you
lodged on 13 January.  I see that you have asked for adjudication
concerning the Society’s response to you.

 

I also note that you have seen a copy of the Code.  I will write today to
the Law Society to ask it to make a written submission to me in support of
its decision.  It is for the Society to convince me that it has acted in
accordance with the Code.  You are not required to satisfy me as to why
you want the information.  However, if you want to write a submission to
me explaining why you believe the Society has not acted appropriately in
accordance with the Code you are very welcome to do so. 

 

Once I have considered the submission(s) and raised any further issues I
consider necessary I will let both you and the Society have my
adjudication. 

 

If you do want to make a submission I would be grateful to receive it no
later than Friday 9 March.  Please let me know if that deadline causes you
any difficulty, and in any case I would be grateful if you could
acknowledge receipt of this email. 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Richard Ayre

 

 

 

Dear richard ayre,

I can not find the information I requested anywhere, I have tried solicitors too and they are unable to find out.

You would think at the very least the law society would be willing to help?

Why wont they?

Yours sincerely,

Jamie Dee

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Jamie - Really sorry if this seems like just restating the obvious, but it's not a case of they don't know, it's a case of it doesn't exist.

The two concepts of 'Statute Law'' and 'Consent of the Governed' are totally separate in the UK - although there is some obvious connection in the context that Legislation is adopted by Parliament (with the consent of the Monarch), Parliament being made up of those elected by a pre-determined majority of 'the Governed' (meaning the electorate).

Even the 'original' Athenian Model for democratic decision making (flawed as it was in some areas) recognised that the majority vote decided and therefore underpinned subsequent implementation.

I really struggle to understand what is so hard to accept about this.

Becky

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Footnote: You don't seem to have made a counter submission to the Law Society, or met the deadline for doing so the reviewer offered you?

Gadawodd Laurel Bush anodiad ()

Why suppose that 'a statute is given the force of law by the consent of the governed'?

Is it a quote from some authority?

See also, however, requests at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de... and http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de... about authority re UN conventions

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Laurel - The phrase is a quote from the US Declaration of Independence 1776.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

I think Jamie may have picked it up from one of David Icke's online postings and missed that there is no UK equivalent quote (Magna Carta retains the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings'). The philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) also used the same phrase when advocating 'lawful rebellion against tyrany' and this was probably the source on which the 1776 DOI drew.

Becky

richardayre,

1 Atodiad

Please find attached a copy of my adjudication in the case recently
referred to me. 

 

I would be grateful if Mr Stanley could arrange for publication of the
adjudication on the Society’s website in the usual way,

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Richard Ayre

Dear richardayre,

It was obvious your answer would be in their favour.

Its a disgrace that the law society WONT furnish me with the information.

What are they/you hiding.

Well we both know the answer to that dont we hey

Thanks for your help..or lack of it.

Jamie Dee

Gadawodd Paul anodiad ()

Neque leges neque senatus consulta ita scribi possunt ut omnis casus qui quandoque in sediriunt comprehennatur; sed sufficit ea quae plaerumque accidunt connineri.

Neither laws nor acts of a legislature can be so written as to include all actual or possible cases; it is sufficient if they provide for those things which frequently or ordinarily may happen.

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

I guess sometimes you just have to shake your head, smile and walk away.

Verbum proditor animi.

Becky

Gadawodd Jamie Dee anodiad ()

Becky we find your profile pictures on Google images your a fraud!

Gadawodd Becky Bbear anodiad ()

Jamie - How sweet, your interest in me is kind of flattering, shame I'm not into guys.

If you want to save yourself some time, my current picture is from twitter (no, it's not actually me - I just liked it).

Would you like to make a request for the next one?

I'm going to be around quite a while, helping out whenever I can with common sense and hopefully accurate information.

XOXO - ;D

Gadawodd A. Clerk (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Becky Bbear. Don't they have hobbies in the USA?
You need to get yourself a life.