The Legal System
My Freedom Card is about to expire in 3 weeks and I must ask for a new one before the Holidays, because at that time the Bureaucracy will probably be slow or they might be on vacation as well, so I must apply for my new Freedom Card this week, or risk getting thrown into jail (kidnapped and thrown into a cage) for not having a Freedom Card.
I am thankful to the almighty God that I have a Freedom Card, how else would I be able to pay my taxes. I mean really, if there would be no Freedom Card, we would not have freedom, everyone would just be left alone and minded their own business, but with a Freedom Card, now you can pay your taxes, go to jail, take out a mortgage, and do many other wonderful things.
Okay joke aside, it’s not a Freedom Card, it’s a Slavery Card, but it’s literally assumed by many people that it brings freedom. You only tag prisoners and you only give ID numbers to prisoners. The fact that we have one means that we are slaves, not in Nazi Camps, but by the 21 century the entire planet is a prison planet as the Orwellian technocracy is engulfing our last remnants of freedom and turning every country simultaneously into a police state.
Pseudo-Law
Now I want to talk about this Pseudo-Law phenomena, that seems to be very widespread in the US and elsewhere and it’s very detrimental, stupid, and even dangerous to practice.
There are many people in the US that claim that if you don’t get a birth certificate then you are free. Well if it were only that easy. Well yes, if you don’t get a birth certificate for your kids then they are technically free, but you also get thrown into prison for doing that, and your kids will be confiscated and given to pedophile foster parents.
So I can’t imagine what kind of morons would advocate for this “no birth certificate” nonsense, since they have no understanding of legal theory or basic law for that matter.
First of all it only takes like 5 minutes of people’s time to read up the legal code and see that immatriculation into the Government database is mandatory, in pretty much all countries. There is no country on Earth that let’s you get away with that, for the simple reason that we are all slaves, and a slave obeys, it’s that simple.
Secondly they try to look for loopholes and weak interpretations of the law to try to justify their position. Okay, but they forget that their opinion doesn’t count. This is the funny thing about the law, your opinion doesn’t matter.
You might have feelings and opinions about the law, but at the end of the day, the court interprets it, and if you don’t obey, then you will get thrown into a cage. It’s that simple, the law is not open for interpretation by citizens, the law is a command backed by State violence.
Legal Theory
Look I am no legal expert, nor a lawyer and this is certainly not legal advice. I have good knowledge in legal theory, took 2 semesters in college, and I still remember the professor talking about legal theory and how the entire State system is justified.
Basically it boils down to the “social contract”, the Constitution and so on. So people collectively agree to be governed by a set of principles written in the Constitution and the Constitution can be changed through referendum in most EU countries.
Then the entire system of Government is built on that. So the Legislative makes new laws, the Government enforces it and the Judiciary interprets it.
Yes you heard it correctly, it’s the Judiciary that interprets the laws. Not even a private lawyer. A lawyer only gives legal advice to their clients, but it’s not definitive.
A definitive interpretation of the law is a court judgement. So even if a lawyer says that X thing is legal, and the books and previous laws justify that to a high degree, if the court judges otherwise, then it’s illegal.
This is what I am trying to tell you that the law is not an opinion, it’s a command backed by violence.
That's all it is basically a command backed by violence, not open to questioning, and if you don't obey then violence happens to you.
So you have the judges that decide whether you go to prison or not. In Europe there is no jury system, or it’s very limited in a few countries.
So Europe is a Kritarchy, not a democracy. And you have the EU which is pretty much a dictatorship, an unelected bureaucracy. Your opinion doesn’t matter.
In the Civil Law, which is based on Roman Law, but it’s bastardized heavily since Rome was a Paradise with tiny taxes compared to current Europe and they did have frequent jury trials. In the Civil Law there are no juries, and it encourages a bureaucratic dictatorship.
So Civil Law is mostly originating from the Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic, and it’s filled with totalitarian principles.
So in a Civil Law jurisdiction you pretty much have 3 layers:
- Local Court
- Court of Appeals
- Supreme Court
So yes basically 3 judges decide whether something is legal or not. In a Supreme Court hearing they usually have 2-3 judges so make it 5. And of course the new addition is the EU Court which can override member state Supreme Courts, and it does so very oftenly, and being pro-EU.
So in a political case, you bet the prosecutor won’t drop the case and it will go to the highest levels. So if you contest taxes or the birth certificate, you bet the prosecution will go all the way.
And if you think the judges will rule against the State, then you are a moron. The judge is the State.
In fact the EU Court sometimes rules for even more tyranny, since it’s EU sponsored, so of course nobody will bite the hand that feeds them. They will side with the EU in most cases.
In many cases like with tariffs or EU regulations, even if the local Supreme Court found a law or regulation to be unconstitutional, the EU Court overruled it, and made the company pay it anyway.
Juries
Juries only exist, by their normal extent in Common Law countries. So it may look like Common Law is more fair, but not so fast.
A jury based system is definitely giving more freedom since then the people have an actual say in the law, not just via 2nd hand representatives, but directly. A step closer to direct democracy.
In fact the Roman Republic and Athens had widespread Jury trials, not just with 12 jurors but with hundreds of them. Now that is real Democracy.
The Roman Republic was probably the best country that has ever existed in the history of mankind, since it had the most amount of freedom both social and economic.
The Civil Law is a bastardization of original Roman Republican Law, mostly written by tyrant late Emperors in the late Roman Empire, and teased by totalitarian Germans later on.
So you basically have 12 jurors who’s opinion now does matter when interpreting the law. And there is this concept of Jury Nullification which could judge the law itself and render tyrannical laws obsolete.
The problem is that the 12 person jury system in the US or other places is compromized as well.
- If you have a tax trial, then they just put there 12 welfare whores with 20 kids each and say to them that this person tried to cheat you and steal the food from your children’s mouth.
- If you have a drug trial, then they put there 12 parents who’s 13 year old kids died from drug overdose and say to them that this person is the cause why your kids died from drug overdose.
So this is how the jury system is compromized, by filling it up with emotionally unstable people who can’t judge based on factual evidence and only rely on their emotions and feelings.
So of course the welfare whores with 20 kids will convict a tax dodger and of course the grieving parents will convict the drug dealer.
In fact I might dare to say that in these cases a judge trial is much better.
You see if the case is not political, then you have much better chances with a judge in my opinion, because he at least is factual, of course the fact will be skewed towards an authoritarian perspective, but at least factual.
It seems to me that juries are always extremists. So either it will be a libertarian who will always acquit a drug dealer or a grieving parent who will always convict him (mostly the latter). So the facts hardly matter for a jury in most cases.
In fact judges, at least in Europe, tend to give fines, community service or suspended sentences now more often than jail.
So if you were caught with drugs, you might get a few months of community service with a judge. But if it were an extremist jury you might get the death penalty, because you fit the stereotype of the thug gangster that they saw on TV.
In fact juries are now screened for the CSI effect, to make sure they are not overly influenced by the propaganda TV movies and shows.
Freedom
So neither the judge nor the current jury system is good, at least not in it’s current form. Let’s go back to how it was in ancient times, hundreds of juries. So that they don’t get compromized by emotional nonsense.
Let your community judge you, by your character, and not some bureaucrats:
In fact, not just the judiciary, but the entire State should be like this. The community should make the laws, and the community should judge the lawbreakers as well, not bureaucrats.
This is the antithesis of this globalist NWO technocracy, but it is also the true freedom that was lost since Rome become an empire.
Disclaimer: The information provided on this page or blog post is not legal advice, it is just my opinion.
Sources:
- https://pixabay.com
- Ingsoc logo by Nirwrath (Made in Inkscape 0.48.4.1) GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
