The best and easiest possible way to understand the legal system and the related rule of law is to properly understand the concept of law. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to answer the most radical and fundamental question. What is this right? Where does it come from? I know I have been tortured for a long time with the correct understanding of this concept. I remember when George Carlin stated in his sketch that the rights did not exist, that people had invented them, as they invented the witch. I felt he knew what he was talking about, but he did not really let me go, how it can be that the rights do not exist, and everyone is screaming about them. George did not explain further what he thought about that, so I needed a lot of time until all the litter was in place. You are lucky today, because I will explain in details everything related to this word and at the end of this section will make you clear why George Carlin said the rights did not exist. Do you have the right to walk on the mountain? Do you have. Who gave you that right?

No one! How do you have that right? Do you have the right to walk around my yard? Do you have / do not have? Who gave it to you? I’m not. All rights can be put into two categories above. The mountain can walk anyone who wants. It goes without saying. You do not have to, nor can anyone give you the right to walk the mountain. The mountain does not belong to anyone, because no one has the right to the mountain, so walking the mountain is not susceptible to any right. Since the mountain is  of anyone and no one,the concept of rights in this sense does not exist, there is no point in it. In the second case things are changing. The yard that is part of this story belongs to someone. In this case to me. Since he has a master, he is the one who can determine who will and whether anyone will walk in his yard. The Lord holds all the rights to his yard and he is in this case considered a source of rights. Anyone wishing to walk around the yard has to have a walk permit, which is called our walking path in our system. The right is thus obtained with limited character, because the master may  withdraw at one time. Notice the difference between walking along a mountain. You have no right to walk along  the mountain, because no one has ever given it to you, but nobody can give it to you, so no one can ever stop it. Right is a dualistic nature. If it exists, it may be abolished. Something that is permitted to you can be forbidden. The right limits.

However, things can be observed in a different way and I will explain it to you that you would not have imagined or confused in the future. If anyone says that he has the right to walk along the mountain and that right comes from God, then God is the only one who can take it. But knowing God that when he gives something does not take it back then it is clear that it is right in that sense something that can never be seized. Who will take that right away from you? God will not, but maybe someone who speaks in God’s name will. About that later.

These rights are referred to by certain people as God’s rights, or inherited rights that nobody can ever take away from us. I’m not inclined to call it rights at all, so that you know. If you look at the rights in such a way, then the right to walk in the manor’s yard can no longer be called right because it is of limited character. What a right that somebody can take away from you when it comes to mind. This license is therefore called, and that is its most appropriate name; privilege.

Privilege is something that sounds much better, because you know very well that it is a privilege of temporary character. Now you have – now you do not have, and everyone accepts it without major problems. So if you walk a mountain you do not break anybody’s rights, because nobody on the mountain holds any rights. If you walk on my own yard, without permission, you violate my right. Therefore, the right one might call something you can do without having to deal with any consequences of your work. (This is not quite true, because there is something called karma, but we are going to get her out of this story for now).

Now, hopefully, it is clear to you that the right is entirely related to possession, ownership or the economy. If something belongs to someone, there are certain rights. Further, the absolute concept of the rule of law is based on ownership and the rights that arise from it. The difference between the master and the owner will teach you further through the book, and for now we will talk about the master.

A master like one who has all the rights over something can share them with whom he wants and so he is called the source of rights. The right that which he has assigned (permission to walk, use, etc.) is referred to as an object of law or legal affair.  Those who get these rights are called legal entities. This name is usually very often used in a legal system where only legal entities exist.

The second source of rights (the first right is obtained directly from the master) is the legal contract. An agreement between two people or a man  that someone gives or leaves a right for some value. The best example of this is a labor contract, in which a worker gives the employer the right to have it with his body and time (from about 40 hours a week) for salary at the end of the month. The employer has the right to talk about what to do, because a worker has permitted it by contract. The contract determines the interrelationships between the source, the object and the subject of the right.

The right of the master to things is still called the right of authority, for the one who is the author of things is her master. Copyright on human beings can not exist because no one is the author of a man other than the Creator, and he is not referred to as a right holder in the legal system. The contract is likely to have someone right over a living man, only if the latter has given it a contract. Therefore the rights of one man over the other derive from the contract. Any other right in which someone or something claims to possess it over a living man, and not as a result of a contract, is called slavery.

So, a man over whom someone has the right, and this has never been granted to anybody under any contract, is legally considered a slave. By logical conclusion, it is evident that today’s legal system is slave-holding, because someone (the state) has the rights over a living man, and that man does not know when and how he allows anyone to rule over him. For this reason, I always explain to people that it is not good for someone to seek their own rights, because it is a process of humiliating himself on the status of slave, which requires the slaveholder to give something to him.

If the legal system is corrupt and unnatural, contrary to the Divine Order, it is evident from the fact that within it there are rights over the living. Legal subjects hold rights over earth, over air, over water, in general over nature, but also over the people. This is in fact impossible, because there is no contract with nature, and man is not a creator of nature, so it is unknown from where the rights come, which many of them possess.

Now, we have come to the key thing that is easy to understand when you put the decisive question: “Where are you right?” Every lawyer in any legitimate system should and must answer this question. If someone claims to have some rights, he has to prove that. When I talk about legitimate systems, I’m not thinking about the Croatian legal-political system, the three legislative authority. In these more than three years since we have been constantly asking questions about the origins of their rights, we have not got yet a true or at least a logical answer, and most of the time we have not got any answer.

For example: When a policeman pauses on the road and asks you to identify yourself under the threat of confinement,i.e  seizure of freedom in the legal sense, he actually says that he holds certain rights over you. If you have any questions about whether or not he has the right to stop you, check it out and identify you, the costumed public officer will, if you have any, get the answer that he is entitled, as he is given by the law. Although you may have thought this thing was over, it is only beginning to complicate. I suppose you all know that the law in our “state” is based on the constitution, which is the legal document of the highest rank. Everything is based on it.

“The Republic of Croatia is a unique and indivisible democratic and social state. In the Republic  Croatian power derives from the people and belongs to the people as a community of free and equal citizens. The people realize  the power by electing their representatives and direct decision- making.” Constitution

Careful reading of the basic article of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia and the biggest fools is probably clear that the constitution says that the people hold all the rights and that power derives from the rights of the people  who belong to the people, but he (the people) surrenders to their representatives who elected them in the elections, or decides immediately. Everything, except for a small detail. The right here being spoken and mentioned above is the right to stop, verify, identify. Since no one, without the consent of another person, had no right to stop, search and identify other living people, it is unclear how a people could transfer that right to their representatives, when that right does not really exist. It seems that this right under the law, and transferred from the people, to which the police are called, is in full swing. Do not discuss this with the cop on the street. Even trained lawyers and politicians have no logical answer to this question. We know, we asked them!

This right is the most elaborate fabrication in the whole story. The right to collect taxes, write laws, issue work permits, construction, driving a car, use of natural resources, and many others controlled by the state are completely invented because such rights never existed in nature. Something that does not exist can not be transmitted to another.