Simple enough for a child to understand. Powerful enough to end corporate abuse.

Creating a Beautiful Garden for Ourselves and Future Generations

Share the Knowledge

“ReclaimTheLaw” is a free resource available to everyone worldwide, designed to reach people across many nations.

Our mission is to offer a positive, powerful, peaceful, and most importantly, practical path for humanity’s future. Together, we can cultivate a beautiful, healthy world for ourselves and future generations. WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE RESOURCES TO DO THIS, so what’s stopping us?

Our Vision

Powerful enough to change minds in a positive direction. Simple enough for a child to comprehend. Effective enough to change the world.

To grasp this concept, we must distinguish between “law” and “legislation.”

• Law is unchangeable, a fundamental truth.
• Legislation, crafted by governments, can be modified or overturned.

For legislation to be lawful, it must be an enactment of the law.

In Dr. Bonham’s Case (1610), Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice of England’s Court of Common Pleas, declared:

“When an act of parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such act to be void.”

Imagine a law that could overturn unlawful legislation. There is such a law, known as the “Duty of Care.”

The Universal Law: A Principle as Old as Life Itself

The Universal Law of social behavior is a fundamental truth that applies to any group of creatures, at any time, in any possible universe. This law is straightforward:

Creatures living together in a group do not, as a general rule, injure each other.

The Origins of the Universal Law

Just how old is this law? It dates back to the very first moments life appeared on Earth, when two or more single-celled organisms began living together. It’s a simple concept with profound implications.

If members of a group were to habitually harm each other, the group would diminish in size until only one remained, which, by definition, is no longer a group. For a group to survive, this law must be observed universally.

While it’s natural for groups to establish hierarchies, which can involve some conflict, once a pecking order is set, further conflict is minimal. This principle holds true for any group of creatures, living anywhere, at any time, in any conceivable universe.

A Divine or Logical Principle

If one believes in a Divine Architect who created the universe, this principle can be seen as a Universal and Divine Law. Any reasonable person of any faith must agree with its validity. Even without belief in a divine force, the principle remains sound based on common sense and simple logic, making it universally acceptable to atheists, anarchists, and agnostics alike.

The Duty of Care in Common Law

In today’s common law, the principle of the Duty of Care is paramount:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.”

This standard of care applies to all individuals and entities within countries that follow common law, including governments, corporations, bankers, and the legal system itself. The landmark case of Donoghue vs. Stevenson established the modern law of negligence and reinforced the Duty of Care, demonstrating the enduring flexibility and relevance of common law principles.

Together, by embracing and sharing this knowledge, we can build a peaceful, practical, and positive future for all of humanity. Let’s work together to create a beautiful, healthy world for ourselves and future generations.

Civil Law vs. Criminal Law: Understanding the Duty of Care

The Duty of Care is a universal principle of law stating:

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”

The definition of “neighbour” in the duty of care essentially encompasses anyone who could be reasonably expected to be affected by what one does or fails to do. This extends beyond physical proximity to include foreseeable consequences that could arise from one’s actions or inaction.

Failure to uphold the Duty of Care can be classified into three categories:

1. Negligence: Doing something likely to injure your neighbor in circumstances where you wouldn’t reasonably be expected to know that it could cause harm. This is not a criminal offense but may result in civil liability for damages.
2. Recklessness: Doing something you know is likely to injure your neighbor but doing it anyway. This is a criminal offense and can result in arrest, fines, imprisonment, and liability for damages.
3. Intentional Harm: Intending by your actions or omissions to injure your neighbor. This is the most serious type of criminal offense, punishable by the full weight of criminal law.

Key Elements of Criminal Liability

For a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, two elements must be present:

1. An unlawful act or omission (actus reus).
2. A criminal state of mind (mens rea).

The Duty of Care in Practice: Examples

Example 1: Driving with Defective Brakes

1. Negligence: A driver with no mechanical knowledge has had their car serviced and maintained by qualified personnel. They have taken all reasonable steps to ensure the car is safe. If stopped by the police and found to have defective brakes, the driver is responsible for civil damages if an injury occurs but has not committed a criminal act.
2. Recklessness: If the same driver knew the brakes were defective and continued driving, they could be tried in a criminal court for recklessness.
3. Intentional Harm: If the driver intended to hit someone, this would be considered intentional harm, a serious criminal offense.

Example 2: Reasonable Force in Extreme Situations

Consider two people walking along a street, one with a gun (licensed) and the other an expert in Kung Fu. If a third person starts shooting people, it would be lawful for the licensed gun owner to use their gun to stop the shooter. If the shooter is the gun owner’s twin and they cannot bring themselves to act, it would be lawful for the Kung Fu expert to use reasonable force to disarm the twin and stop the shooting by shooting the third person.

In ordinary circumstances, stealing a gun and shooting a third person would lead to multiple serious charges and a lengthy prison sentence. However, reasonable, prudent, well-intentioned behaviour, such as in the example above, is not criminal.

Legal Precedents and Environmental Activism

The principle that reasonable, prudent, well-intentioned behavior is not criminal is exemplified in cases like the Ploughshares Women. These women damaged combat aircraft to prevent their use in subjugating native peoples. Despite the serious nature of their actions, they were found not guilty after demonstrating that they had taken all reasonable steps to protest peacefully beforehand.

Similarly, many eco-activists arrested for criminal damage to genetically modified crops have been acquitted. Their actions were deemed reasonable and well-intentioned in the context of preventing unnecessary environmental destruction.

Conclusion

For a defendant to be convicted of a crime, there must be both an unlawful act or omission and a criminal state of mind. Upholding the Duty of Care can protect individuals from criminal liability, as reasonable, prudent, and well-intentioned behavior is not considered criminal.

The Duty of Care Applied to Governmental Responsibility

Successive governments have knowingly acted (by passing unlawful acts of parliament, which are supposed to be enactments of the law) to allow “unnecessary and unreasonable environmental damage and destruction.” They have also knowingly failed to control it, which they ought to have done according to law. The global threat posed by such damage is widely acknowledged to be as serious as a threat of world war.

Therefore, it appears that these governments are manifestly reckless and criminal in their duty of care for the global environment.

The Government’s Duty to the People

The government is elected and paid by the people to enact the law and serve their best interests. Thus, the government is the servant of the people, and the people are the masters of the government.

It is unlawful for a master to employ a servant to commit a reckless act (the “vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant”). Therefore, if the government is reckless in its duty of care for the environment, it is unlawful for the people to pay taxes to the government as long as it continues this recklessness.

Our Intention

Our intention is not to persuade people to withhold their taxes, as this would hardly be seen as reasonable, prudent, and well-intentioned. Instead, we aim to inform the people of the facts in order to exert as much political pressure as possible on our governments to cease their evident recklessness.

The Government’s Responsibility

The only way the government can cease this environmental recklessness is to provide:

All reasonably available resources for green research and development.

Anything less would be an omission that is reasonably foreseeable as likely to cause further physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual injury to the people, who are the neighbors of the reckless government.

What Are “All Reasonably Available Resources”?

When asked, most people will agree that the threat of “unnecessary and unreasonable environmental damage and destruction” is of a similar magnitude to a threat of world war. Therefore, we assert that the resources reasonably available to fight such a threat are of a similar magnitude to those that would be made available if we were to face a world war.

In other words, according to law, we should declare a global “state of emergency” to mobilize our collective technologies and resources to create a beautiful & healthy environment, to remedy this most serious, real, and present threat to our well-being and security.

Mobilizing for a Healthier Future

We cannot have a healthy economy when our workforce suffers from the effects of an unreasonably unhealthy environment. Declaring a state of emergency for the environment would involve combining competitive and cooperative free enterprises, directed and financed towards using all our splendid resources and technologies, to create a beautiful world for ourselves and future generations.

“The health of the people is the highest law.” — Cicero, in the “Twelve Tables of Roman Law.

Understanding Lawful Excuse under the UK Criminal Damage Act

Section 1 of the UK Criminal Damage Act states:

“If you damage or destroy another person’s property without a lawful excuse, you commit the crime of criminal damage.”

This raises an important question: What constitutes a lawful excuse to damage or destroy another person’s property?

What is a Lawful Excuse?

A lawful excuse is a justification for actions that would otherwise be considered illegal. For example, imagine a house is on fire, and you break down the front door to rescue someone inside. While breaking down a door is typically illegal, in this scenario, it is a lawful act because it is necessary to save a life.

However, the response must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Using a bulldozer to knock down the house in an effort to rescue someone would be unreasonable, disproportionate, and unlawful, as it would likely endanger the person inside.

Key Principle: Reasonable and Proportionate Response

For an act to be considered lawful, especially in situations involving perceived threats, the response must meet two criteria:

1. Reasonableness: The action taken should be sensible and appropriate given the circumstances.
2. Proportionality: The severity of the action should be in line with the seriousness of the threat.

Practical Application

1. Fire Rescue Example:
   • Lawful: Breaking down the door to rescue someone from a burning house.
   • Unlawful: Using a bulldozer, which could cause more harm.
2. Environmental Activism:
   • Lawful Excuse: Taking reasonable actions to prevent severe environmental damage could be considered lawful if they are proportionate to the threat. For instance, minor property damage to stop a greater harm might be justified.
   • Unlawful Actions: Actions that cause significant damage without clear, immediate justification or that are disproportionate to the environmental threat would not be considered lawful.

Conclusion

A lawful excuse under the Criminal Damage Act depends on the context and the nature of the perceived threat. Actions taken must be reasonable and proportionate to the situation to be considered lawful. This principle ensures that while the law protects property rights, it also allows for necessary actions to prevent greater harm or protect lives.

Lawful Rebellion: Child’s Play?

Is “Parliamentary Sovereignty” Unconstitutional?

The doctrine of the “Divine Right of Kings” asserted that the king was God’s representative on Earth. Over time, the abuse of this power led to discontent, and the king’s ministers eventually overruled him, forming the first Parliament. This move effectively ended the Divine Right of Kings, aiming to curb the monarch’s absolute power.

Given this historical context, it seems contradictory for Parliament to now assume a similar absolute authority, which could be termed a “Divine Right of Parliament.” This is particularly evident in the enactment of laws like the Public Order Act, the Criminal Justice Act, and the Anti-Terrorist Act, which seem to give Parliament unchecked legislative power and restrict citizens’ rights to protest unless explicitly permitted by the government.

The Right to Reasonable Force

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act states:

“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.”

This provision underscores that every individual has the right to prevent crime using reasonable force. It belongs to everyone, reinforcing the idea that citizens can act against unjust laws and governmental actions.

Common Law Control

A landmark case, Dr. Bonham’s Case, established that:

“When an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such Act to be void.”

This principle maintains that laws which are unreasonable or impractical can be declared void by common law, ensuring that legislative power is not absolute and must adhere to reason and justice.

The Unconstitutionality of Parliamentary Sovereignty

The original creation of Parliament was to prevent the abuse of power by monarchs. If Parliament now enacts laws that grant itself unrestricted power and limits citizens’ rights to oppose such laws, it contradicts its foundational purpose. This overreach can be seen as unconstitutional, as it mirrors the absolute authority Parliament was designed to dismantle.

Conclusion

Lawful rebellion is grounded in the principle that both individuals and the collective public have the right to resist and rectify unjust governance. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty becomes unconstitutional if it mirrors the absolute authority it was intended to abolish. The right to use reasonable force to prevent crime and the common law’s ability to void unreasonable laws are essential checks against governmental overreach, ensuring that power remains balanced and just.

Duty of the Police: The Law Is On Our Side

The Role and Oath of Police Officers

Every police officer is sworn to an oath that encompasses their core responsibilities: “Without fear or favour, malice or ill-will, to protect life and property and to uphold the law.” This duty is fundamental to their role and guides their actions.

To understand this better, consider asking any police officer these two questions:

1. “What would you do if you saw a threat to life or property?”
   • The typical response would be: “I would do my best to prevent that threat, and if I couldn’t deal with it by myself, I would call for assistance.”
2. “What would you do if you saw a breach of the law?”
   • The likely answer would be: “I would do my best to prevent that breach of the law, and if I couldn’t deal with it by myself, I would call for assistance.”

Environmental Threats as Serious as War

Most people, including police officers, recognize that environmental damage and destruction pose a “real and present threat to life and property”. This threat is arguably as serious as the threat of war, a fact that is becoming increasingly clear to the global population.

In terms of law, millions of people go to work every day knowing that their jobs are contributing to environmental harm. This widespread damage impacts not only the individuals and their families but also their neighbors, escalating to a threat level comparable to that of war.

Addressing Criminal Environmental Damage

Given this context, it can be argued that the most serious threats to life and property and the most severe breaches of the law are due to criminal environmental damage and destruction. Therefore:

1. Every professional police officer must become an active environmental campaigner to fulfill their primary duty of protecting life and property.
2. Every reasonable, prudent, well-intentioned environmental campaigner is effectively upholding the core oath and function of police officers.

Government Responsibility

Our government professes a commitment to law and order. To truly honor this commitment, it must prioritize environmental protection. When jobs are created that benefit the environment instead of harming it, not only will societal well-being improve, but crime rates will likely decrease as a result.

Conclusion

The oath of the police and the responsibilities it entails align perfectly with the goals of environmental campaigners. By recognizing environmental damage as a severe threat to life and property, police officers and citizens alike can unite in a common cause. This alignment ensures that the law remains on our side, promoting a healthier, safer world for all.

Citizens’ Arrest: Your Right and Responsibility

Understanding Citizens’ Arrest

A citizens’ arrest is a powerful tool that allows any individual to take action when they reasonably believe that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. This right empowers citizens to act in defense of law and order, supplementing the efforts of law enforcement.

Legal Basis and Use of Force

When making a citizens’ arrest, you are entitled to use the same amount of force that a police officer would be authorized to use in similar circumstances. This means you can apply reasonable force to detain the suspect, ensuring the safety of all parties involved and preventing the commission of the crime.

Steps for Making a Citizens’ Arrest

1. Assess the Situation:
   • Ensure that your belief about the crime is reasonable and based on observable facts or reliable information.
2. Approach Safely:
   • Make sure you are not putting yourself or others in unnecessary danger. Approach the situation with caution.
3. Inform the Suspect:
   • Clearly state to the suspect that you are making a citizens’ arrest and explain the reason for the arrest.
4. Detain the Suspect:
   • Use only the necessary amount of force required to prevent the suspect from escaping or committing further harm.
5. Seek Law Enforcement Assistance:
   • As soon as possible, take the arrested person to the nearest police officer or law enforcement authority.
6. Report the Crime:
   • Provide the officer with a detailed account of the crime and the circumstances that led to the arrest. Request a “Crime Reference Number” from the officer for your records.

Key Considerations

• Reasonableness of Force:
  • The force used must be proportionate to the threat posed. Excessive force can lead to legal repercussions against you.
• Prompt Handover:
  • Hand over the suspect to law enforcement at the earliest opportunity to ensure the legality of your actions and the proper processing of the suspect.
• Documentation:
  • Obtaining a “Crime Reference Number” helps ensure that your actions are formally recorded and acknowledged by law enforcement.

Conclusion

Citizens’ arrests are a vital part of community policing, enabling individuals to actively participate in maintaining law and order. By understanding the legal framework and procedures, you can responsibly and effectively contribute to the safety of your community. Remember, always prioritize safety and act within the bounds of the law.

Enforceable Contracts

An enforceable contract is a legally binding agreement that establishes and governs the rights and duties of the parties involved. Such contracts are upheld by law due to their compliance with legal requirements. Typically, these agreements involve the exchange of goods, services, money, or promises thereof. In cases of breach, the law provides the injured party with remedies such as damages or contract cancellation.

Unenforceable Contracts

Contrastingly, unenforceable contracts are agreements that lack legal standing and cannot be upheld in a court of law. This could be due to various factors, including the agreement’s illegality or failure to meet legal standards.

Example 1: Criminal Damage Act 1971, Section 1(2)

Aggravated Criminal Damage:

“Damage or destroy ANY property with intent to endanger life, or knowing that life would be endangered.”

Aggravated criminal damage is among the most severe criminal offenses, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Consider this in the context of environmental damage:

• Common Property: Our shared environment, the Earth.
• Damage and Destruction: The ongoing harm to our planet.
• Endangering Life: The direct threat to human life through environmental degradation.
• Knowing Acts: The deliberate or negligent actions that contribute to this damage.

When entities damage the environment, endangering lives knowingly, they are effectively committing aggravated criminal damage. Such actions, although often not prosecuted to the fullest extent, highlight the severe consequences and legal implications of environmental negligence and destruction.

Conclusion

Understanding the distinctions between enforceable and unenforceable contracts is crucial. Enforceable contracts protect and formalize exchanges, ensuring legal recourse in case of breaches. Unenforceable agreements, particularly those involving illegal acts like aggravated criminal damage, underscore the importance of legality and responsibility in all agreements. Our collective responsibility includes safeguarding the environment, recognizing it as our shared property, and addressing its damage with the seriousness it warrants.