Comment: Hi Willl,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes! (see in situ)

Hi Willl,

If you might indulge me this last time, please consider these words below as I have considered your words above.
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

I understand completely that crime and legality have a reciprocal relationship. However, one should also note definition number 4 at the same given link:

4. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.
The point being that the legal criminals have only made their offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin legal; but that does not mean that it is no longer an offense, a serious wrongdoing, or sin as it has only become unpunishable by law, which is why legal criminals have resorted to writing law.
Hitler wrote laws, but that did not make the Nazi crimes less punishable. However, one might also note according , that those doing the punishing seemed to somewhat resort to some of those same atrocities and also overlooked Soviet purges without penalty since they were allies.

Thus with Legal Criminals in charge, justice is no longer blind, but is subjected to the Legal Criminals wielding the most power at that precise moment in time. One might then ask…what is law…if it is not just? It may be semantics, but my supposition is that it is no longer law, but crime made legal enforced by criminals made legal, and that until we acknowledge this we will continue to provide for the means by which we suffer…Jury Nullification?
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.” –Thomas Paine