slug.com slug.com

3 8

Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure. If you are afraid of hurting feelings, then you never say anything and things get progressively worse. As we are now witnessing. We are in a war so I don't pull punches or try to sugar coat anything. My challenge is that after over 30 years of being a cop I have heard every bullshit line before. I know how to investigate and collect evidence from both sides. I know how to decipher the information and arrive at a conclusion. It gets frustrating when others do not put in the work to do the investigation but then jump to an unsubstantiated opinion and expect others to just believe them. Then they turn hostile if I provide them with what I feel to be a plausible, evidence based, common sense position. Do the research and then you can intelligently discuss what is truth. By the way, I do not claim to be always correct, but my batting record is respectable. I enjoy it when someone wants to actually debate facts, but those discussions are very rare on social media.

jakuboj 8 Mar 16
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

There was a suggestion about more judges.

The concept of Trial by Jury, according to the common law (unwritten, ancient, law of the land, legem terrae), is to remove the power of government biased government agents whose pay check depends upon judgment in favor of funding the government with extortion payments enforced by the government upon anyone who dares to produce anything worth stealing.

Any crime perpetrated by any non-government agent is lesser by exponential degree than the same crime perpetrated by a government agent. Crimes perpetrated by government agents cause increases in crimes by non-government agents, instead of preventing crime the government agents are guilty of crime, the power to defend is instead a power to offend.

So all talk about using a criminal government to stop being so damn criminal, and instead do the job they were hired to do, is moot. Criminals, as a rule, do not obey moral rules, that is how they get into that club.

The idea behind trial by the country, or trial by jury according to the common law, is to remove the power of government agents in judgment of what is or is not a fact in a crime, what is or is not lawful, what is or is not punishable, and what is or is not a just punishment.

Just because people today have not been taught these facts that matter does not remove these facts as such, at least not outside the minds of those who ignore or are ignorant of these facts that matter.

More biased judges spending the loot stolen from productive people means more stolen loot as a matter of demonstrable fact.

Removing the dictatorial power from dictators removes the flow of loot from those who dare to produce anything worth stealing (including children) to the dictators.

An example of a good start down that trial by the country road is here:

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
December 9, 1968

Add that to this:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

0

Aah, you hurt my feelings, not. I don’t give a rats for those that can’t articulate a position.

I don't either as long as they are not spewing left wing globalist propaganda. At that point anyone who does not stomp that out is as much of a problem as the left wing nut.

1

Fact:

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852

It is a well established fact that in 1787 a group of criminals assembled to perpetrate the crime of treason upon all Americans then and now. Those criminals even signed their confession on a document called the Constitution.

The homework I've done so far leads to the obvious conclusion based upon the facts that matter in the case. I have yet to find any evidence that could lead to a different conclusion.

No one I know will dare to contend otherwise. Plenty of people have and I'm certain will attempt to shoot the messenger while counterfeiting a debate on the subject matter.

Manipulation to obtain power is a stronger desire in some people than food or sex. Wolves never act ethically over a fresh carcass.

@jakuboj

What are your thoughts on the following:

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

@Josf-Kelley you covered a lot of ground there and touched on a lot of significant issues. I'll be much briefer. I always thought that the system should be set up for the victims of crime to be compensated. It also needs a strong deterrent beyond just financial reparations. Prison must be punishment that a criminal would fear. Judges at our Supreme Court level and our Senators should all be elected. Accountability has to be part of the system.

Your final paragraph deals with a common sense policing philosophy called Community Based Policing, the Police are the Community and the Community are the Police. It has its use as does, emergency management and Proactive Policing. Best used in combination.

@jakuboj

The concept offered is merely the actual law power, so my idea here is to get someone else to deliberately discuss that law power.

If there is a criminal causing injury to innocent people, then there ought to be something that can be done effectively, expediently, efficiently, and economically to deter, discourage, and to prevent further crimes, further injuries.

If the one causing the injury is causing one small injury each month to one victim, then that can be compared to someone causing a lot more injuries, much more serious injuries, much more often, to a whole lot more people, and the greater evil appears to be gaining power each day, accelerating the rate of crime rapidly.

Someone volunteering to do something about crime might make a serious decision as to which criminal warrants the time and energy first, as a priority decision such as is manifested in the term triage.

A judge guilty of bad behavior, for example, could be allowed to continue bad behavior because he alone is the judge in power to judge what is or is not bad behavior for a judge.

How many innocent people flowing into the correctional facilities (learning a thing or two while inside), people who have injured no one, not even themselves, does it take before a warrant is warranted in this case of this judge?

Can one of the victims of this hypothetical judge set in motion the wheels of justice, or is that type of warrant old fashioned?

@Josf-Kelley Civil suits are effective but they are not as prevalent in Canada as the USA. Anytime you can take the profit out of crime you will remove incentive. Video surveillance and chip insertions would almost eliminate crime. But people need to accept the good woth the potential bad.

@jakuboj

"Video surveillance and chip insertions would almost eliminate crime. But people need to accept the good woth the potential bad."

The point that may not be easy to make is the point concerning who is in power to determine what is or is not a crime.

A criminal worthy of the name is not going to want to have a chip inserted, or even better a criminal worthy of the name would have ready a way to counterfeit the data stored or broadcast from the chip.

I was thinking more along the lines of people in government abusing their powers, infringing upon this and that right, which is a crime if words mean anything, and just exactly how many crimes these people perpetrate that aren't right there confessed on their own paperwork?

An obvious example is a crime that the Nazi's were found guilty of perpetrating, war of aggression, and what exactly was Desert Storm, or any war since Shays's Rebellion in 1787? Infringing, infringing, infringing, out in the open, no problem. Stealth for other crimes, human trafficking, drug running, "regime change," printing money out of thin air, and no one dares to do anything about it, but it is relatively important to make sure someone doesn't consume a plant or travel without authorization papers?

What is the process by which regular old Joe can lawfully file criminal charges, and have something actually done, in cases of very serious treasonous crimes? No one knows, not even the authorities?

@Josf-Kelley In Canada the average citizen has the same charge laying authority as a cop. It is referred to as laying an information. You would have to do a thorough investigation and have some strong evidence of the crime. The powers of arrest of the average citizen is the same as police as well when it comes to finding someone committing a criminal offence. You can arrest and use as much force as is necessary to make the arrest. Of course all of your actions would have to be recorded to prove you acted with reasonable force and made a lawful arrest. Police have very little extra authority other than being permitted to carry approved weapons and arresting on reasonable and probable grounds.

@jakuboj "I always thought that the system should be set up for the victims of crime to be compensated."

I am interested in how you envision such a system - I am guessing you are suggesting establishment of yet another Gov't branch of the Justice system which can only use tax money because Gov't /dept of Justice doesn't have any money of its own. It seems like you are implicitly advocating for "more" gov't - not less.

@jakuboj

"In Canada the average citizen has the same charge laying authority as a cop."

That is exactly what I thought was worth discussing. If that is true, as it is also true in America in principle, then are there any examples of that happening, so as to demonstrate that it is not simply true in principle, it is in fact true?

@Josf-Kelley Yes we have a few people attempting to lay criminal informations against Trudeau. The challenge is that our legal system is corrupt. Our judges are all appointed for life with no accountability. For this reason I do not have high hopes for these private informations.

@iThink No never more government! I am advocating for elected judges who will be held accountable for letting victims down. There is no accountability in our current system.

@jakuboj doesn't adequately answer the question

@iThink Accountability to the public is always an adequate answer.

@jakuboj then you misunderstand my question. Are you advocating for MORE judges or are you saying ALL judgships should be elected and NONE appointed. Furthermore where do you envision the financial resources will come from in order to compensate victims of crime? Tax monies I presume...that is the question.

@jakuboj
"The challenge is that our legal system is corrupt. Our judges are all appointed for life with no accountability. For this reason I do not have high hopes for these private informations."

LINO - Law In Name Only
RINO - Republic In Name Only
DINO - Democracy In Name Only
FINO - Federation In Name Only

I think the term is Fraud, and on that level it is Treason.

@iThink victims of crime need compensation paid 100% by the criminal. If the criminal is on welfare, deduct payments from that. We have more than enough judges, but it is a big elite club with no accountability I have always advocated for elected Supreme Court Judges, who would be assigned districts and held accountable for court decisions made in their area. Same thing with the entire Senate. No more lifetime appointments. I get the feeling your long questions have a purpose of confusing my position for an I got you moment. How about you share your thoughts on the subject? Your solution if mine is not plausible to you?

@jakuboj
I am not interested in "I got'cha" dialog. I wanted clarification on the things you advocate.
I admit I am not qualified to intelligently discuss the pros and cons of appointment vs election of "all" judges. I am sure good arguments can be made for both positions.

What I was getting at is the inescapable reality that "more" judges is really calling for "more gov't". Furthermore my question was about the source of monies for compensation of victims knowing full well that it would be a rare criminal indeed who would be capable of coming up with resources (money and property) to pay to his victims. This reality means that such compensation would have to come either directly or indirectly from the tax payer.

Even if the said criminal were living on welfare (tax payers) he nevertheless still requires said resources to have a life himself - even the meager life he knows. Therefore compensation itself comes from tax payers either directly or indirectly.
These things are the point of my question.
I might add that the call for this or that is often a tacit (if unintended) call for "more gov't".

@iThink proper use of proceeds of crime seizure legislation would provide victims with a source of compensation. Once the financial incentive for crime is removed much less motivation remains.

@jakuboj I am neither a criminologist nor a psychiatrist but I am willing to wager that much if not most criminals are not truly motivated by financial incentive. Sure they'll take your property and your wallet and your car and your cell phone and if they get any money at all from doing that it won't last very long. There are easier ways to get money. Risk of going to prison or getting shot are outweighed by the criminals desire to basically "beat the system" "fuck whitey" and to generally get a dopamine boost from the thrill of beating your ass...and raping your woman. The criminal mind does not work like yours or mine.
They ain't go no money but they got a real fun way of getting some. Top all that off with the fact that few if any common criminals have any assets at all and no real way of getting any. Either way criminals are a huge financial drain on the tax payer.
If you find a way to compensate victims of crime without either directly or obliquely taking money out of the tax payers pocket let us know. I'll be happy to hear about it myself.

@iThink how about legal aid is only available for first time offenders? Jails are scaled back on conveniences? Prisoners are forced to work and whatever is earned goes to the victim? There are many ways of doing it if your first priority isn't the law breakers. Liberal soft on crime initiatives have turned our legal system into a lawyer cash cow.

@jakuboj true that! I would LOVE to see prisoners put to work as a way to repay for their crimes but it's very unlikely that will happen. Do they still have things like chain gangs? I don't think they do and thats a damn shame IMHO

@iThink just like everything else. We need to take control away from the left wing lunatics.

@jakuboj Chain gangs in Canada !!! Canada's penal system is about Rehabilitation, to remove most prisoners out of the prison system as fast as possible

Hell, they let killers out , bloody first degree murderers, within 10 to 15 years of their sentence ....fortunately not all, just those that are forgotten by the public

i agree that there should be more accountability with the Canadian System at all levels ,

compensation to the victim should be an avenue to pursue, i believe in regards to most criminals it would be just a "lien" on their future worth, if the criminal has no assets...... most likely in most cases white collar crimes , a victim may receive more immediate compensation

the Attorney General in Ontario does a "CRIA" office Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities" so that the govt can reap some funds from the criminal matters that fall under those listed crimes. where the govt can files a Civil remedies Claim against the accused........it is my understanding that one can make a claim for compenstion

exert : All individuals or other persons who have suffered pecuniary or non-pecuniary losses (money or non money damages) as a result of the unlawful activity that was the subject of the forfeiture proceeding are entitled to make a claim for compensation

i suspect this Claim for compensation may be for govt coffers only ?

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:83976
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.