 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"Could Jeffrey Epstein being "suicided", be prevented?"
https://secure.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?board=17.0
Jeffrey Epstein could be effectively protected if the law power was in power in America, but it is not, and that same question works for everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Could ___fill-in-the-blank___ being "suicided," be prevented?
Put the name John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, and any name of anyone, anywhere, anytime in the crosshairs of those who wish to "suicide" someone, and what are the obvious answers for every one of them?
People are not protected in so-called "custody." The criminals run the law power. The people themselves run the law power when the law power is genuine. Solid proof of the fact that the criminals run the law power is abundant since so many people confess by their actions, and their words, that they are ignorant of this very fact: the people themselves run the law power: not the government.
If someone innocent (or guilty) is brought before the criminal versions of JUSTus, they are routinely consumed for profit, because that is how criminal versions of JUSTus work in actual reality. Criminal versions of JUSTus are working monopolies that cause the flow of power to begin flowing from a victim group - each victim in turn from birth to death - to a criminal group, and that flow of power is meticulously documented - unarguably - as a matter of fact.
Putting on a fantasy hat that wrongfully presumes that the powers-that-be (criminal), are in any way just, and in any way capable of following the law of the land: What would happen to secure the blessings of liberty for this Jeffrey Epstein (or any) alleged criminal?
The (or any) accusation of wrongdoing is passed from the accuser to someone who can then assemble an independent grand jury. If the grand jury is, in fact, independent, then the grand jurors command all jurisdiction civil and criminal in this case. They can, therefore, subpoena witnesses, including the original accuser. The grand jurors, or someone more familiar with the actual law power, can inform these accusers that they voluntarily place their liberty, life, property, and reputation on the line as an official - not kidding, and no fingers crossed - witness to a criminal act perpetrated by a named perpetrator. Lying is fraud, fraud while serving as a witness is perjury. Accusers are subject to obvious and demonstrable counterclaims of False Accusation; what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If the grand jurors find no cause (no probable cause to begin exerting the law power) they can place the accusation in the round file, and inform the witness that they have no cause to prosecute the case, but those grand jurors could inform the witnesses in the case of possible methods that the witnesses could employ in the future to ensure that probable cause is, in fact, established. The grand jurors can thereby excuse those nebulous witnesses and the grand jurors could, on their own authority, pursue the case as they see fit, if they see probable cause other than the nebulous witness testimony.
Here is where the laugh test ought to be employed. If witness after witness brings at least 10 tortured bodies to the “Grand Jury,” along with videotaped evidence recorded by the “accused” showing how those tortured bodies were tortured by the “accused,” and one of the “Grand Jurors” is the accused, then that would not be - laughably not be - an independent Grand Jury to some. To other people, I suppose, anything goes.
Since the case in question involves sufficient evidence to have already caused a Kangaroo court trial involving alleged multiple victims, and the alleged perpetrator has already placed on record a plea deal (which could have been extorted), it is likely that this case would breeze through the independent grand jury phase of a real trial according to the real law, and the presentment from a real grand jury would officially place on record the reasons why the cause moves into action mode: a jury trial by the country, according to the law of the land, which is the common law: not Equity, not Maritime, not Admiralty, not Family, not Military, or any other Summary Justice System of Plunder other than the law of the land, which is the common law.
Note: The actual common law has been counterfeited in England, and that is well documented. The actual common law involves a trial by the people, not a trial by the so-called legal fiction sovereign fake being, or fake government with a black-robed devil worshiper swinging absolute JUSTus and a little hammer.
So, there are the particulars concerning how the accused, who is free to protect himself as best he can, leading up to an offer by the people, who are represented in this case by the grand jurors, for the accused to clear his name, liberty, property, and reputation in open, public, trial by the country, with the help of the government if the government is actually a government. If the government is just another despotic criminal organization operating under a very thin color of law, then anything goes, just ask them, obey them, and don’t question their dictates or else.
If the accused refuses to appear in a trial by the country, then by the actions of the accused - confession by action - the accused willfully chooses to become an outlaw in fact. If the accused is in danger, likely to be assaulted for merely appearing in front of armed bandits (with or without badges), then clearly that alone can excuse someone from attending a dangerous situation which threatens their life, liberty, property, security, health, well-being, independence, freedom, etc.
If you go around doing onto other people that which you would fight tooth and nail to prevent having the same done to you, then it is unreasonable to expect peace in your lifetime. The real law is natural law, you get what you pay for, even if it was falsely advertised.