 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
What does Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability look like if someone were to look at it happening in real time?
If someone looks at a future time when they actually turn their (fraudulent) Federal Reserve Notes in, and in exchange they get Treasury Notes, then someone has a look at something actually happening in the future time and place: reality.
What about Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability?
An example could be an accusation made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, anyplace where Rule of Law has returned. An example could be John Doe is accused of treason. An accusation is understood by the accuser as a fact, or the accuser would not take on the Lawful Responsibility and Lawful Accountability associated with a Lawful Accusation.
Why?
It is a well known point of law that false accusations are criminal acts. Facing possible accurate accountability for being someone responsible for false accusations is called deterrence. If someone makes an accusation then someone stands on lawful principle, which is individual responsibility, and which is individual accountability; if the accusation proves to be false, then what is supposed to happen to the accuser making the false claim?
That brings up, once again, the need to actually see how due process (rule of law) actually works. If no one knows how it works, then people are without it. If there is no rule of law, then everyone is free to do whatever pleases them, to their targeted victims, no matter how immoral those injuries done by people to people are in fact. If there is rule of law then someone entertaining the idea of perpetrating a crime, an injury, upon an innocent victim is facing a future where rule of law is used to accurately account for that criminal act done to that innocent victim.
So an accuser accuses John Doe of treason, and then that accusation, which happens in time, and in place, by an individual who is the accuser, and the accusation follows lawful procedure in some way? Which way?
Is it a good idea to know the facts or not?