9 votes

Root Cause is the Courts

Question: Is the discretion of public prosecutors undermining the judicial system?

My view is that the root cause of all the problems in society are summarized here:
www.wisegeek.org/what-does-it-mean-to-press-charges.htm

ONLY individuals claiming injury should have the power to press or drop charges. This is the most important principle worth defending.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I never said he said that

He said maybe we should move in that direction. Or, maybe it was along the lines of "I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue it", something like that. After all libertarianism is a first cousin to Anarchism. What're you afraid of?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

I might say something similar

but that is still not the same thing as endorsing it absolutely.

I know you "fake law" guys like to pretend that you have superior knowledge that no one else has.

But jeez, come on, it's pretty commonly understood that "small government" or "limited government" is close to "no government." The fact that this is such a commonly understood thing, and such a simple concept, just shows the folly of you and others who think it is super duper cutting edge wisdom, and that we should worship your pixels.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You're in love with your pixels

aren't you?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

well yes why not

my pixels are very large, and so are my attachments!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

One constant, ask for reasoning

and they give you ((crickets))!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Strict Liability "crimes"

is an invention of the same criminal men who levied war against the people of the United States and their representatives to usher in the 14th amendment corporate citizen as a means to unlawfully claim "jurisdiction" in any subject matter. These concepts where merely an extension of the corporate state the British formalized and implemented in 1600.

The civil war was their final usurpation of America into their British style control freakiness implemented as the legal fiction of corporate personhood whom could be regulated under codes as citizens. In other words they began extorting and killing people who would not contract with them. They were also able to finally remove the original 13th amendment from history with their war upon the People. With the fog of war they rewrote the history, forced children into public education to learn that history, created currency out of thin air, forced people into citizenship status for code application, invented strict liability crimes and began the long road to consolidate and usurp the very diverse banking institutions of the United States.

They made the US a corporation and then encouraged all states and municipalities to incorporate. Eventually the corporation completely usurped the entire government and now we have control freaks who engineered a highly compartmentalized mass eugenics apparatus that is ready to go online all in the name of "enforcing the law".

Some how out of all these crimes to implement this nightmare chicken believes it is somehow lawful for the courts to be doing what they are doing. Hey chicken why don't you just reveal who the criminal control freaks who demand such criminal activity to be interpreted as lawful. If people are afraid of someone because they might get in trouble from that particular man or woman then that is the control freak we need to identify. Reveal them if you interact with them. Wake up to real law chicken. Just because the crimes began long ago and expanded does not mean they are or ever were lawful.

Waking up is not like you just wake up and realize its all screwed up. Waking up is about many layers of the onion that keep getting peeled back in order to better understand the world and how we can maximize prosperity through the protections of law. Strict liability "crimes" is not lawful due to the fact that such enforcement enables one to have a valid cause of action against the enforcer breaking the law to enforce the law.

The derivations of the current claims of authority have been born of forced citizenship (slavery) cannot be applied in any lawful manner because the elements of a valid contract for such a citizenship status do not exist due to lack of proper disclosure and no mutual understanding. In fact such a contract for "citizenship" is unconscionable once one realizes that this is the chains of slavery around our necks. This is the nature fraud. One does not realize they have been defrauded until after the criminal acts against them have already occurred.

A right cannot be made from a wrong. The case law is not valid because their claims of validity are false.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

More bad reasoning

So I post something critical of strict liability crimes.

You then respond with a long rambling post which claims I support strict liability crimes. Again, you demonstrate very clearly that your thought processes are a little off.

And also, such things are rather recent inventions, tracing their roots more to 1980s "get tough on crime" political ad campaigns. The common laws relating to crimes all required both a mens rea and actus reus. Look it up in your Blacks.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

So we agree?

At least partly. I agree that ramping of strict liability occurred in the 80's but its roots go back to the 1870's.

I agree that a crime requires mens rea and the criminals alterations of that has been very recent.

The real question is do you not 'like' strict liability or do you understand it to be unlawful application of justice on its face?

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Well

Yes I agree with that. Who wouldn't unless,they are a Republican running for office? Edit: When I am critical of something, by definition I do not like it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

But do you understand it to be unlawful application of justice

without an accuser alleging actual injury?

This is the only question that really matters.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

the problem with this question

is how you define terms.

I'm going to take a wild swing at "phreedom-speak" and guess that you believe that "unlawful" means "stuff that phreedom the internet poster doesn't think would be wonderful in his imagined version of utopia." Under that standard, it would be unlawful.

Fortunately or unfortunately, we do not live in your imagined utopia.

Under the laws as they exist, and as a conventional, i.e., accepted definition of unlawful, you're absolutely not correct. We are talking about the way things are here, not the way you imagine them to be ideally. There is no requirement under our current laws, or the laws they were derived from, that a criminal act have "an accuser alleging actual injury." Sorry to tell it like it is!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I am asking for YOUR understanding

Regardless of all the brainwashing. What is YOUR own inherent natural understanding?

Your not getting the innate power of coming to a rational reasonable conclusion of self-evident fact in the face of mountains of crime being committed in the name serving "justice". As soon as your natural understanding is that such activities are unlawful application of justice then you have reasons to reject the current criminal interpretations on their face regardless of the hissy the tyrants may have.

You responses to self-evident remind me of King George's response to the Declaration of Independence. The King did not recognize "self-evident" as a rational claim in law. But his bs didn't matter because he was faced with real law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

phreedom to English translation needed

I get it that you have an idea of utopia, and you have the idea that your concept of how everything would work is in your mind ideal and perfect. And I get that you believe that idea represents somehow "law" and you therefore think that when you discuss "lawful" or "unlawful" we are all talking about whether something meets with your personal approval.

The problem is, no one else thinks that way. Law by definition cannot be purely subjective. In order to be fair and just it has to be known and knowable, and reasonably consistent. You have to be able to go somewhere, look it up, and figure it out from that. The inner workings of your utopian fantasy mind are not any of these things, and do not comport with my or anyone else's definition of law. That you think they are the ideal of law or lawfulness may in fact signal you need a good trip to the psychotherapist.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It is simple

No law can violate any other law.

Use this as your standard for reviewing law then you will see why pretty much all case law supports what I am saying. You will notice that right now the current system predominately gains consent of the governed through the understanding that as a defendant "you are your accuser". Once you realize this and you say to yourself well this consent is not required by me. How does the case law get interpreted when one realizes they can simply deny that they are accusing themselves of anything and drop all charges if that is the claim on the record?

The interpretations of most case law predominately collapse into irrelevancy due to the fact that most never knew the courts are/were operating this way. If you know that no law can violate any other law then the result is that the only lawful application of justice requires consent of the governed identified through the accuser. All other claims of consent cannot ever proven by the court if one does not operate under their identified personhood capacity.

This is what happens when one humbles themselves before the logic of law and simply seeks a non-conflicting path through the maze of law. Any other attempt to justify a competing rational will always fail and the man/woman attempting to justify the unjustifiable can simply be Columboed over and over until the human breaks down into submission from exposure of the irrationality of their own position. Their ego needs to protect its own image of importance. If they begin conflicting their own rational repeatedly in front of others then the ego will begin to realize it does not appear intelligent any more to its peers and then breakdown of bs can begin. The law has an logic to it and real law even governs the biochemical motor function of the human body in a very specific way. Understanding real law enables one access to the protections of ALL laws, Divine, Natural, Common, Organic and any other applicable law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

you're just babbling incoherently

you think your fantasy world run the way you want it = "the law"

and therefore other laws that actually exist, if they violate it "are not the law"

so you therefore conclude that what is real is not real.

Good. Got it. Knock yourself out. I suppose this kind of reasoning is why "all" judges/courts/lawyers/lawsuits/prosecutions/interactions with police/policemen/policemwomen/policedogs/etc. are "always" violating your "laws" in your "mind."

Let us know how that works out. Please post in detail about your next police interaction. It will be invaluable to social scientists and psychotherapists.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

You are endorsing unlawful acts and tyranny

if you violate the law that lawful powers of government are derived from consent of the governed.

You have already been challenged to provide proof of consent of the governed when courts claim the People of the State of X is the plaintiff. This is a lie and un-provable. You are the one who is insane because you cannot prove this fact but yet support such a lie as valid and correct. Why the double standard for evidence? Why can't you or any other man claiming to be part of the courts prove the claim you present as fact according to rules of evidence? You base the entire claim upon this presumption that is not provable4 in fact without an accuser who is a member of the governed facing the accused with their accusations in a court of law. This is the only lawful path ad your insanity is that you have a double standard for valid evidence. I am completely consistent here because I have thoroughly examined every possible logical claim of where the claim can be proven and the accuser is the only way that can be proven as fact.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

doing no such thing

again, consent of the governed means, sovereignty, jointly held by the people, expresses its "consent" by electing representatives. We have a "representative republic." It was not and never was intended to be what you imagine.

Not only do you imagine something that has no relation to the Constitution or the actual government of our country, but I personally don't even agree that they are good ideas.

It's just you mentally masturbating about how the world isn't the way you want it to be. so you call everyone else a criminal. You;re a kook. In common parlance, that is. I assume you have your own personal dictionary meaning for that, too.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The intent in law is clear

and was based on a long history of common law. You want to say it is completely off base but yet cannot even play your own game of rules of evidence to prove your claims. You have absolutely NO EVIDENCE. I have all the evidence in law itself. No where in the Constitution does congress have the ability to legislate law for the People. No where do codes claim applicability to the people. There is no co-existing sovereignty, there is a contract with very specific limited bound duties that apply to the men who fill the capacity.

Criminal control freaks may falsely claim that our entire Constitution is not exactly what it says but that does make them correct based on factual evidence. Even a supreme court case ruling can be tossed to the curb if that ruling is not congruent within all valid law. This is what it means to be a nation of laws not a nation of men. If you accept other men's claims with no facts to back up those claims then you are living as a nation of men. If you humble yourself before law and seek to maintain congruency to the point where there is no magic exceptions for anyone and no law is ever violated in the process of justice then you are living as a nation of laws.

I've already calculated the natural law aspects of all of this and I am fully aware that all that needs to be done is for people to end their own fears and challenge the perjuries of the claims of the state and court. The laws of nature will kick in and the criminals claiming to be courts are toast. This message and sound logic will be spread to everyone via art, music, debate, technology and more. My band and an army of artists are coalescing our creative efforts into this expression with a laser like focus of demonstrating the lies and lack of proof of the claims of our "courts" and demonstrating what scenario would actually provide proper obvious proof of claims of Consent of the Governed. We will use art and music to spread this truth wide and far and your criminal buddies will soon feel the heat of the people demanding justice. In fact knowing how the psychos like to attack the music and art scene means that their tyranny is exactly what will destroy them. They bring us in over false claims and they lose all time.

Nearly everyone I know is totally pissed off to the max and the logic of what consent of the governed actually means is spreading like wildfire. Let your buddies know to expect a tsunami of the people Columboing them into infinity beginning now.

A little lesson on accelerating exponential growth rates in natural law:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ray_kurzweil_on_how_technology_will...

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

you babbled me to death

and I stopped reading at the first highly inaccurate, babbleful paragraph.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Finally, I have been

preaching this for years.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya

I know what you mean

The worst part of the whole thing is that this IS the law right now.

If we were to simply uphold our laws this is exactly the resulting standard for a valid cause of action derived from consent of the governed. The government needs to remain impartial to enable our jury process to provide proper justice. Right now it is the government who accuses you the government who prosecutes you the government who judges you and it is the government who you pay for remedy. We cannot ever have proper justice with such a corrupted process that claims as law that lawful (just) powers of government are derived from consent of the governed.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Exactly

The jibber jabbers got all frumbered, isn't that what we've all been crank casing? I dishwasher! Pancreas the riverboat!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Corrupt courts will impose if we consent to their jurisdiction

Do not consent! Learn about the People's Common Law Grand Jury, where the only rule is 'Do no harm'. No injury/damage, no crime.

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/pages/registration.html

Ah

Blubber!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein