Law is Neither Obeyed Disobeyed Nor Broken

LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN
No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.
All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, unaccomplished, and, has not yet intentionally transpired.
That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…"(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."
Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.
J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.
The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.
The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinoza's dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..