Questions that must be answered.

In a reading of the law and of the constitution I must ask the following questions.

1:) At what point do offenders fulfill their onus to society.
a:) What are the measurements?
b:) what are the historic precedents?
c:) Why is the onus stated by the court insufficient repayment for the crime against society?
d:) If the crime is against society (as defined under criminal code) where does the victim enter into the evaluation of the insufficiency of the court-judged criminal remedy of that onus?
c:) Are these even possible?
2:) By what authority, be it law, or divine intent, is that onus created and defined?
3:) By what power and authority do you make law that is against the very constitution upon which your power and authority is founded?
4:) How are any of these laws serving to make children safer?
5:) If the rights and privileges and immunities and freedoms of the citizens of the United States are not rights, priviliges, or immunities, and subject to withdrawal by writ, has not the federal government revoked its authorization for the very powers it wields?

I ask these questions because they are direct legal questions. For every crime, every criminal act, it is a wrong done against society. Civil wrongs are done against individuals, under contractual obligation (including the contract of civil behavior).

Civil laws are created to work within the areas of individual agreements, not between the works of societies. They also recognize inheritance, escrow, estate, contract, and tort law. Civil laws cannot work attainder, nor can they work imprisonment, nor can they work ex post facto, as laws of contract, they must work with full, knowing, agreement between individuals, and entities.

So.. as the imposition of such an act must be attainder, as it must be criminal, else it could not limit rights and privileges by imposition, as it cannot be created nor imposed upon any society or any person without their consent...


At what point do offenders fulfill their debt, their onus to society? Such a debt is a temporal debt, a debt delimited in time, a debt of finite measure that cannot extend beyond the scope of the judgment of law.

Should that judgment be that of life imprisonment, so be it. that is well and good, it is a finite span... but it must be decided upon by a jury, with full disclosure of both the fact, and the law, full measure of the consequences of the law, and full ability by that jury to nullify the law via the ancient right.

The historic precedents are many and varied, from the trials of Throckmorton, to Bushell, to Zenger. Both positive, and negative, the right to juristic nullification cannot be denied, nor the inability of the government to work double jeopardy, nor the inability of the government to legislate a punishment. Taints, by their nature, must have an end. Punishments, by nature, must have a finishing point. Even life is a finishing point.

The scales of justice weigh both mercy, and retribution. They weigh both justice and compassion. With either side out of balance, the scales are not just.

The measurement of punishment is one of time.. it is moments trapped away from the society you have wronged. It is an imprisonment that is a punishment, not for punishment. It is not, like Sysiphus, one of torture. Ideally, the punishment includes both separation, as a form of retribution, lost time in one's life, for reflection, as well as the principles of mercy and compassion allowing for some form of education and redemption.

Thus has it been, for years. In many cases, prior to 1900, criminals were issued a firearm, twenty to fourty dollars, and told to make good on their lives. Many did. Those that didn't generally ended up hung eventually, or shot.

It must be stated that any punishment that has no set end... is torture. Any punishment that changes without warning, without agreement, without judicial and juristic review... can be said to be nothing but slavery.

Any judgment beyond that made by both the judge, and the jury, is by tradition, and by law, unconstitutional. It is the end to that onus against society. All rights were restored at that end... even if the end were death.

It is the purpose of the jury to see to it that the laws are just, that the enforcement is just, as well as to try the fact of law, the process and the law itself.

Can one pay the debt to society? The measure of the debt is what is placed by judge and jury. It is placed upon the offender against society with the sole power within the country to do so.. that of the legal process, the warrant, the investigation, the trial.

Criminal law is not about victims... society is the victim. Society has recognized that a part has been hurt, and has excluded the one that has harmed it. According to tradition, and law, and even in some cases state constitutions, that is the end to it.

So why do people claim that the court judgment is insufficient, that the process of the jury is too merciful? Why is it needful to have legislation to determine minimum sentences? Why is it needful to increase sentences to life, by writ of attainder?

These are instruments of subjugation, and naught else. They are instruments of control. The onus against the offender is defined by the judge, and jury, and can be defined by no other, for none other sees the offender, or the offense, or the victim more clearly. This is why we set up judges, juries. It is why the ancient right was recognized, as the judge and jury were the final arbiters of the law.

There is no power within the constitution to make laws against the constitution. There never could be. Such powers are granted by the people, and subject to the revocation of the people. Such powers are based on the recognition of the rights of the people, and the subservience of the government to the will of the people, by their representatives.

Those rights cannot be taken away from any class, for any reason. This, again, is the part of the constitutional republic, not a place of full democracy, which can legislate away the rights by the will of the people, but a limited democracy which was founded in those very rights.

They talk of safety, of protection... how if it keeps one child safer, it is worth it. But does it do so? Does it manage to maintain the rules of society, does it manage to make them more responsible? Does it manage to keep any single person who intends to harm them under control?

It cannot... so long as men have the capability to be cruel and vile, to be violent and vicious, there can be no protection. In the jail cells one must watch the other prisoners, and the guards. In the gulags, your neighbor can turn you in for an extra crust of bread.

There can be no government founded that tears up its own foundation to create something else. Those powers were vested with the understanding that commitant rights would be respected... via the denial of those rights, via the denial of those privileges, and the denial of those immunities, the government has forsaken its own power, and must be reminded of those whom it serves.

For that is the purpose of a republic... to serve the people, the least and the greatest equally, the most hated and the most loved. All are, and must be the same under the eyes of the law, else the republic becomes a tyranny.

We the people... are the rulers, and arbiters of our government. If you like not how the poll is working, change the pollsters. If you do not like how your state is working, change those in charge in your state, and the Federal government will follow.

If you spread the truth in who you are, in what the facts are, spread far and wide on the wings of the voice and on the radio and television and internet... it cannot be stopped. It gains momentum forever, echoes forever, and cannot be defeated by lies.

Would that I had more power to pseak.. more power to fight. I have learned to love. Not simple physical, crass love.. but love for humanity, for their potential, even for their failings. Love, compassion,a nd understanding are the things which I speak. They are also that which I do my best to live.

And when I die... and die I shall, for such measures are met by all men, I will die free, for that love. It does not matter what course they may take with my body, they can no longer touch my spirit, that spark of the divine which all men hold. The mind is the ultimate property of a man... and if my speech, my words, and my thoughts are illegal, then let me be a criminal for expressing love and compassion to others.

I would rather die in that state... than live in a world where compassion and rights cannot exist.