 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Or...the power of criminal deception under the color of law reaches absolute power VERSUS the power of defense by the victims reaching infinity.
That I think is the warning offered by Julian Assange.
I stand by my earlier assessment concerning ignorance of common law, due process, law of the land, accurate accounting of specific criminals perpetrating specific crimes in specific places involving specific victims suffering specific injuries caused by the specific criminal acts perpetrated by the perpetrators or:
Accurate Reports of Actionable, Defensive, Knowledge.
Case in point:
People running Google (decision makers), where Google has "demonetized" specific sources of information, based upon a decision to censor that specific information. That Libel causes injury to specific, innocent, people, and those injured are able to hold the perpetrators to an accurate accounting in an official manner.
How is that case, which is not tried, any different than Julian Assange suing a Fake News Reporter, whereby said Fake News Reporter is thereby inspired to "retract" the Fake News Report?
Principally the cases are the same:
1. Deception used by deceiver, or deceivers, to cause injury to targeted victim, or victims.
2. Process by which deceiver, or deceivers, are held accountable for the deception.
3. Deception is officially accounted for as deception.
4. Deception, once accounted for as such - officially - is no longer able to deceive: rendered powerless.
The problem I see is that the case is a so called "civil" case instead of the case reported accurately - officially -as a criminal case. People at Google could easily be found guilty of specific crimes, if the people were in control of their minds, and the people were thereby in control of knowledge, and the people where thereby in control of government: due process.
In a criminal case the plaintiff, or petitioner, or whatever word designates the injured, or representative of the injured, individual (or individuals), is offering the accused (defendant) their trial by jury (according to the common law) so as to determine the facts, the law, and any means by which the defendant (if found guilty) can redeem themselves - to go from outlaw status back to sanctuary status - and restore the damage done to the victim: if possible.
Before all that can sink into the mind, those suffering mind control, and those suffering brain washing, and those suffering "manufactured consent," and those suffering "false advertising," and those suffering "Fake News," and those suffering injury done to them by deceivers, would have to be those who effectively defend against all that deception done to them. The mind control has to end, and the independent mind of the individuals considering this Accurate Report of Actionable Information, has to start thinking for themselves.
If that happens - if the individual thinks for themselves -and the individual regains control of their mind, the concept of principle can be applied to these 2 examples.
People at Google accused of criminal deception - even treasonable criminal deception - versus - mind controlled victims.
New Reporters accused of Libel versus Julian Assange plaintiff.
The "law suit" that involved Julian Assange and the "retraction" of the Fake News Story by the criminals who produced, and published, the Fake News Story that caused injury to Julian Assange, could have been a criminal process, a trial by jury according to the common law, where the defendant - who was found guilty in the real case - was proven guilty to the whole country (represented by a common law jury), and transcripts of the trial would be made public.
What would the whole country, through that jury, judge as a just remedy in that case? What would the whole country, unanimously, through that jury, determine to be a just cause of action charged to the guilty perpetrator? What would the perpetrator be facing as judgment, for that perpetrator to redeem himself, herself, or themselves, so as to then afford those perpetrators their ability to return back to lawful society?
What would the whole country, through that jury, judge as a just restitution for the victim, or victims, in that case?
Brain washing tells individuals who are brain washed that a devil worshiping, black robe wearing, child molesting, baby eater, MUST determine the sentence? Only those sociopaths are "entitled" with the power of moral, accurate, judgement, in any case?
Brain washing tells individuals who are injured by brain washing that a sociopath, psychopath, or sycophant MUST decide if the crime is worthy of prosecuting in the first place?
Brain washing tells individuals that there is no such thing as insurance bonding that binds individuals whose actions can likely cause injury to millions of people, and therefore insurance bonding is completely forgotten as a key component in making sure that sociopaths, psychopaths, and other criminals are prevented from holding powerful positions that afford those criminal individuals that ability to control, and injure, millions of people?
I can ask can't I?