|From: Veronica |
|Date: 5/2/14 12:10 pm|
When it comes to Law, a Jury interprets their Common Sense in relation to the circumstances presented as evidence.
OK. That’s LAW (or Lore/Custom/Tradition)
Now, let’s consider “Legal”. There is a whole bandwagon of people, calling themselves “Habeus”, or “Karl Lenz”, or “Sarah Lioness”, or “Muffin the Mule” (John Hurst’s mate) … who plough through Statutes ... looking for loopholes.
Completely wasting their time, and everyone else’s.
Why? Because they come up with ‘interpretations’, based on what they would LIKE to see. They create an INTERPRETATION that they like.
And then they tell everyone else “Look … this is what it means! Ya-Hey!!!!”.
A favourite example being: “The Local Council must pay off all your debts” (“it says here” … meaning “this is the way I interpret what it says here”).
Completely forgetting the bleedin’ obvious: THERE WILL BE MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION. Because an ‘interpretation’ is – by definition’ – just the SUBJECTIVE way YOU decide to read it.
And some Judge can – AND WILL – read a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.
And the Judge’s interpretation … will be designed to screw you (“In the public interest”).
Which is the way they justify never conceding that money is an ILLUSION (for example). It’s simply not “in the public interest” to let the vast majority know that Truth.
Don’t be fooled by those pushing
fixated in Law.
For a “conviction” to occur, there must be
For “guilt” to occur there must be an Actis Rea (unacceptable action), and a Mens Rea (deliberate intent).
Without BOTH components, there can be no “guilt”, in Law.
Without “guilt” there can be no “conviction”, in Law.
If a “conviction” occurs, without those components proven, then the “conviction” is null & void ab initio (at the outset).
That is the beginning, middle & end of it.
Only the interpretation, placed on the event, determined by a Jury, utilising their Common Sense, can create “guilt”. It has to be proved, to the Jury, that the action was taken. The Jury has to be convinced that intent was deliberate.
Don’t need Statutes.
1. If a Statute supports The Common law, then it is IRRELEVANT (because The Common Law defines whatever is necessary)
2. If a Statute contradicts The Common Law, then the Statute is null & void ab initio – and thus IRRELEVANT.
The Bill of Rights 1689 – note a “Bill” … not an “Act/Statute”, and the Magna Carta TREATY 1215 (not “Statute”!), fully support what I’ve said above, condensed into the sentence: “THAT all Promises and Grants of Fines and Forfeitures BEFORE CONVICTION, are illegal and void”.
(Gotta have Actis Rea. Gotta have Mens Rea. Gotta have “guilt”. Gotta have “conviction”. Before it’s not simply: “illegal & void”. You cannot be convicted of refusing to pay something that was “illegal & void” at the outset … Lord Denning: “You can’t build something on nothing”)