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.
Read more!

Mankind, by its nature, is a beast of passions, of hate, of anger, of joy, of hope. He is a creature of habit as well, written by the past as much as the present. A creature if instinct as much as logic, of emotion as much as intellect.

He is a wonderful, confusing paradox, both hope and despair held in his hands, lost in the shadows of time. Memories of the past and imaginings of the future mix and spread within the halls of mankind.

What measures a man? By what unit, by what length, and breadth, and depth? Has a man any mass?

I do not know. I do know that from what I work.. the works and words I wrote, and write, that I measure myself. I do not know what that measure is, what works and words I have writ weigh in the scales of truth and justice.

All I know it is all I can give. Should I fall, should I fail... should I sleep that final sleep, I can rest, with few regrets, and a knowledge of what love truly is.

It is a realization of the greatness and the divine within all persons, a recognition of their sovereignty, and their rights. if there were one statement I could make on my death bed, it would be one of love. Love not just for those who care for me, but also those who hate. Love not simply for those who would set me free, but for those who would imprison me.

Love is understanding. It is compassion, it is caring and offering of hope.

For if one, such as I can learn such a thing... any man can.
Read more!

Give me liberty.. or give me death.

Read more!

The grief of a nation.

Physically, anger is part of the grief process. When we are hurt, we experience fear and stress, the 'fight or flight' syndrome. This produces direct changes in brain chemistry and electrochemical activity in the brain.

The reason it's part of the grief process is that anger is often directed inwards, or outwards, at ourselves, at society, at God. Why wasn't more done? Why couldn't I do more?

A good part of the problem today, I believe, is our nation is grieving. It is hurting, it is bleeding, it's lying by the road beaten by the government that was supposed to protect it.

And it is lashing out. It feels it cannot address the government, we feel powerless against the government, like our votes don't count, like our government hates us, and fears us, and is doing everything it can to break us, and in many ways... we are right.

That fear reaction is being used to misplace the anger, the pain. Part of the recovery process, as well, is to recognize the loss. In society's case, it cannot recognize the loss, as we've been educated out of our rights, our duties, our privileges, and all we know is we've lost *something*.

What have we really lost? The support and service of a government that was designed to support and serve. The ability to affect that government in a meaningful way. The power over the government which we granted power. The power to control our own homes, our own lives, our own thoughts.

Every day we're under assault by a propaganda machine that is designed to distract, to dishearten. It's designed to distract us from the fact our prices are rising, our wages are not, and our world continually grows emptier, more hopeless. Every moment we sit and look out and the government encroaches that much more, seeking power to protect us... but who protects us from the government now?

Our nation is in mourning. It's in shock, and the first vestiges of grief, that awareness that something has changed, and anger that nothing was done about it. It cannot do otherwise than to strike out blindly until the source of that hurt is seen. During this phase the values and morals of a person, and a nation, are questioned. Why did this happen? Why did (god|the world|our government|our governor) allow it? Why did I allow it? How did we get here?

And this creates fear. The discontinuity between belief and the loss of hope create anger, and the government focuses that anger upon a vulnerable population, one they feel nobody will stand up for.

The difference is righteous anger comes from a recognition of the wrong, and a desire to correct the wrong without damaging others... it's reparatory anger. The anger most feel lashes out. We've all seen people who have lost loved ones attacking others they love, or withdrawing from them... how much easier is it to lash out against those you've been taught to hate?

The funny thing is... when you have a person like that, that is lashing out, that is hurting themselves, the best way to stop it, if they have human feelings at all... is to simply love them. Embrace them in that love. Humans need contact. They need compassion, they need love. The illusion of a loveless and thankless world reinforces the anger, the hurt, the pain.

When I die... I in many ways hope rather than mourning, there is celebration. A celebration of life, not of an ending. A creation of new beginnings, not of bleakness. It is the path of compassion to heal, not to harm.

Our nation needs healing. It needs to embrace itself, embrace its neighbors, embrace the truths it has tried to hide. Some of those need digging out of about 70 years of garbage that have attempted to hide them, cleaned of the soil of that garbage, and brought back into the light so they can flourish. So too are the people. They cannot flourish unless they are brought to the light, brought to knowledge and truth, and shown that the power lies within them to heal and create.

The most toxic thing for a victim is to remain powerless. The best way to help them recover is show them their own power over themselves... help them move beyond being a victim, beyond even being a 'survivor of abuse' into being a person in their own right, a person that has created their own existence, and made the choices which lead them into the future.

And that is what the government fears most... self-actualized, self-responsible people that recognize the rights and privileges of others, as enough of those would make their job utterly meaningless.

That was the original police force. You had sheriffs, yes, but their job was to oversee the enforcement of the law, and to uphold the constitution in the county. Their job was to keep the county honest, and to keep the people in it from trampling the rights of others.

But do we not all have the same responsibility? Under compassion, do we not have the duty to set our fellow men free from slavery? When our hearts recognize that yearning to be free, that yearning to know who they are, is it not our responsibility to help them to realize it?

If we, in empathy, reach out to others, is that not the very goal of offender treatment? To recognize the humanity, remove the objectification, and to recognize the anger and hurt, and to do our very best to correct the very wrongs in society and ourselves that created the problems in the first place?

Is this not the path to recovery? And if so, who are they to deny us this? Who are they to say that the nation is hurting, but we have no power to heal it? And why do they wish to keep harming the people, and harming their very being?

As before, anger is a part of hurt and grief. Forgiveness (not forgetting, but forgiveness) and releasing one's self from the bonds of that anger is part of recovery from the hurt. Freeing onseself from one's own bonds, created in the situation of hurt, is just as critical. Nobody can remain a victim, or a survivor forever. It is toxic to their very soul. Self-actualized, self-reliant human beings cannot be in that mindspace.

It is a work of love to bring them beyond that.
Read more!