When is the law the exact opposite of the law?
Answer: When it is policy.
To understand why requires an appreciation of what is called the de facto doctrine or doctrine of necessity. One important sense or defined meaning of the term De facto is “in fact and for the time being”.
Assume, for example, that you are the driver of a car, and that you have just come to a stop at a traffic-light-controlled intersection, and where there is a “No Left Turn” sign above the red light signal, and others elsewhere in the intersection. But before the light turns green, a police officer arrives and gets off his motorcycle and takes a position in the middle of the intersection and directs you to turn left.
The question is: Do you obey the sign and drive straight forward when the light turns green?, or do you follow the officer’s direction and turn left?
Legally, you have to turn left, even though the “No Left Turn” sign is otherwise legal / legitimate, because you are following the same authority “in fact and for the time being” as represented by the police officer.
Notwithstanding the presence of the legal “No Left Turn” sign, the driver is complying with the policy of the authority (Crown or State) as administered by its officer(s) “in fact and for the time being”, and so there is no offence; and they would in law be committing an offence if they failed to follow the instructions of the officer.
More critically, the question may be put as follows: What is the law on turning left at the intersection? Is it the law that turning left is prohibited? Or is it the law that turning left is mandatory?
Answer: There is no law at all – there is only policy in fact and for the time being.
The law is the law, except when it’s not.
Or to paraphrase the exchange in the movie The Matrix:
Do not try to determine the law. Instead, only consider the truth.
What truth?
There is no law. Then you will see that it is only yourself that bends (to the will of the state).
Now, to complete the model, assume that the real reason the police officer is standing in the middle of the intersection directing you to turn left, is because his brother-in-law has just opened a store at the new mall on the cross-street and needs customers.
That, in a nutshell, is how the whole world works. Everything that the people think is being done by law is actually policy, and it is the private policy of the administrators, and in virtually all areas where it makes a material difference it is most often the diametric opposite of what the law provides.
Whenever you go into court on almost any matter, from a speeding ticket to a failure to file income tax forms, the judge is there to ram policy down your throat while fraudulently inducing you to believe that he or she is administering the law.
And that, again in a nutshell, is how the human owners of the world’s privately-owned financial institutions have been able to capture nearly all the wealth of the world without producing anything. They do it by passing-off policy as law notwithstanding that it is the precise opposite of what the law actually states and is advancing and accommodating the very evil and frauds that the law was enacted to protect the public from.
But what powers or justifies policy?
Answer: Emergency situations.
That is why the de facto doctrine is also known as the doctrine of necessity.
I think that that is what has happened and we are still under some kind of deemed emergency situation and have been for at least twenty years, if not a century.
And it is done in layers at the local, municipal, state / provincial, federal and (by treaty) international levels. The greater the emergency – the greater the power of government to impose policy over law.
You can’t get a remedy under the law until the emergency is declared over and the policy-makers give back control. But the longer it goes on and the more egregious the behaviour under policy, the less likely they are to ever declare the emergency as over.
It appears to me that the most logical and consistent reality is that the Coronavirus-panic is a deemed emergency of sufficient magnitude to allow the entrenched-money-power to deal with the imminent collapse of the financial system by policy and not by law.
The whole system is so flagrantly criminal as to defy normal human comprehension and so the people responsible-in-fact desperately need to avoid the consequences provided by law while maintaining their stolen-wealth / ill-gotten-gains as a matter of policy.