Fair, Decent. Honorable, Lawful.
Justness. A virtue which we all recognize, for which many seek yet rarely find.
Justice. So fine of a concept as to be sublime in nature. The highest of high. A state of sheer bliss upon achievement.
Are we capable of achieving it?
We live in an age of injustice. Ask anyone and they will tell you without question that "the world is not fair".
This phrase is used to pacify victims. It is meant to let them know, no, it is not right, but there is nothing that can be done.
"It is what it is" comes to mind. An overused phrase which signifies once again, that we are powerless to change things.
If that is the case, why bother? Why try? Why even give a damn?
More to the point, what is the point?
Are we to accept that our individual existences here are meaningless?
Where is the Justice in that?
So if we do not accept that our existence is meaningless, should we not be seeking justice?
We've already mentioned that we live in an age of injustice. To be a bit more specific, we live in an age of Oligarchy, ruled by the rich and powerful. It's not exactly an incubator for Justice.
While that may be the case, one could argue, that those living in this age, are incubators. That inside each and every one of us, there is Justice. That it exists in our hearts and minds.
If this is the case, and being that we all agree that Justice is a thing, it must be, then, it is on the individual to nurture and bring Justice to it's full fruition.
Therefore the individual must understand and thrive for what is just.
The very basis of which, must be, justness not only of the individual, but for the individual.
Justness for the individual would mean firstly, a full respect for the individuals rights. Likewise, justice of the individual would be a full respect of others rights.
Rights is an interesting word but sort of vague. What is a Right is a Liberty & Liberty is none other than that ever misunderstood and oft dreaded, Freedom!
Justice is in Freedom!
& so now we must ask, is it not Freedom we should seek?
Freedom. Woo boy. What a concept!
Freedom. Just a glorious notion. Speaking of the Sublime, could there be a higher achievement than Freedom?
Freedom to think, Freedom to believe, Freedom to act, Freedom to be and do and say whatever one wishes. That is Nirvana. That is Heaven.
Before saying more about how awesome Freedom is, it must be said, to some, Freedom is terrifying.
Freedom to some means that some one else is free to do as they please and that scares the bejesus out of some.
This is a misguided fear.
One's Freedom is limited by the Freedom of the Other.
Everyone has the Freedom not to be harmed.
Anyone who sets out to do harm is violating the Freedom of another.
That is where their Freedom ends.
One's Freedom ends where the Other's begins.
Do no harm.
Harm takes away one's Freedom.
It's a double edged sword.
It takes away Freedom from the harmed and in turn Freedom will be taken from the harmer.
This is the very basis of Law.
In fact, Law only exists to protect Freedom.
In the beginning, we established that Justice is Lawful. We boiled Justice down to Freedom. Now we see that Freedom is Lawful & Lawful is Freedom.
We see that Freedom only comes from Justice and Justice only comes from the Individual & thusly the Individual must be the Law.
The Law begins and ends with the Individual. Only the Individual knows when the Law is violated. The Individual who is violating the Law knows as well as the Individual who is violated.
Harming the Individual is violating the Law & the Law must be upheld. & what is the Law?
Freedom my friends.
Freedom is the Law.
Freedom is Justice.
Nurture it. Love it.
Protect it as if Life itself depends on it.
Because it does.
It absolutely does.
I cannot thank enough the man who brought NO MENS REA to my attention. Heroes come in all shapes and sizes. Often, we do not see them at first glance. Here I offer a chance to take another peek at one.
Would ya Look at this?
Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of 1) intention to commit a crime or 2) knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime. As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.
Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.
In the USA, corporate law has usurped the Common Law, though the Common Law lives on in every individual who is breathing. It is alive & well each time one of us enters any of these criminal courts which are now operating under this fraudulent and unlawful bastardization of the law.
The answer to these criminal courts is on the tongues of those who are being violated by these criminal actions.
It is as simple as declaring, with authority, “No Mens Rea!” There is no guilt of the mind, there is no guilt in the act, the only crime is the arrest and the subsequent theft of time of the wrongfully accused.
No Mens Rea cannot be ignored even by these corrupted criminal courts.
No Mens Rea is the Law.
In Memphis, THORNE PETERS, known as THE KINGPIN has spent the last decade fighting the legislation against POT by seeking arrest to take his cases to jury trial as his own lawyer.
On 4/20 - Smoker's Day on 2011, PETERS was arrested at the Shelby County Courthouse for toking POT from an apple.
For over a year, PETERS dealt POT on Facebook, posting prices and making videos that he shared onto the pages of public officials and law enforcement before being arrested on gun and drug charges...
In March of 2018, PETERS was found guilty of using a firearm during the commission of a felony.
But rather than reporting to his sentencing hearing on April 13, 2018, PETERS stood in front of the courthouse not only toking POT but also dealing it for over two hours while police officers walked by.
Peters declares that his actions prove that POT charges are unlawful. "How can it be a crime if police can ignore you in the act? They are sworn to prevent crime, not witness it.
In court, PETERS makes the case that PROHIBITION is a human rights violation. "PROHIBITION is Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Jim Crow and Gay Bashing by legislation. It's a witch trial in a kangaroo court where innocent slaves are railroaded."
PETERS believes that the court is ignoring the law to enforce legislation. "The law reads that for the act to be guilty, the mind must be guilty; "MENS REA". Since I have not committed a crime, I have no guilty mind."
PETERS also protests that legislation violates his constitutional right. "I have a right to face my accuser. Since there is no accuser, legislation is used to act like the system is the victim."
Currently, 34 states offer citizens some relief from CANNABIS PROHIBITION, but PETERS does not see this as progress. "We must never accept a system the FREEDOM of some people while enfranchising others. It is FREEDOM for ALL or BUST!"
To date, Tennessee has seen several reform bills for marijuana die in committee, so PETERS is taking the law into his own hands.
"I AM THE LAW! There is NO MENS REA. The law is based on
FREEDOM of choice, not slavery by legislation."
PETERS has yet to be indicted for dealing POT at the courthouse. He will return to court on May 30 seeking a new trial for his gun and POT conviction.
PpP . . . MAKE YOUR OWN CASE!!! Take this motion and stuff it up the assholes of the Court that is violating your Inalienable, Human and Civil Rights to toke, deal and grow CANNABIS by enforcing the unconstitutional Political Policy of PROHIBITION.
(Write in the info for your Court.)
IN THE CRIMINAL COURT OF______________________
FOR THE__________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ____________
STATE OF _______________
VS. DOCKET NO. _________
_______________________ DIV ______
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pro Se Defendant, ____________________________ moves the Court to dismiss the instant proceeding for the Possession of CANNABIS and/or Possession for Sales of CANNABIS and/or Cultivating CANNABIS being brought by the State against the Defendant in this matter. As grounds for this motion, Defendant would show the Court as follows:
1. Defendant contends the State has failed to make its prima facie case that Defendant committed a criminal act with the intent to do harm to a person, property or puppy. Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. (The act is not culpable unless the mind is also guilty.) Page 1 of your law books.
2. Defendant claims CONSENT to possess CANNABIS for personal use, as a consenting adult in a FREE country.
3. Defendant claims CONSENT to sell CANNABIS and will provide witnesses who purchased CANNABIS from Defendant to support the claim of CONSENT as a defense against liability.
4. Defendant claims CONSENT to cultivate CANNABIS/HEMP according to the laws of nature that requires use of these plants to balance the ecology by giving mankind sources of medicine, energy, textiles, fuel, food that are biodegradable and non harmful to people and the planet.
5. Defendant contends the State has presented an Attenuated, Defective Affidavit by charging Defendant with "Manufacturing" CANNABIS. CANNABIS is cultivated. Based on the language of Criminal Code T.C.A. 39-17-417, used by the State to bring said charges, there is no assertion that it is illegal to cultivate CANNABIS. Further, unlike the other substances on the Controlled Substances Act, CANNABIS is not manufactured into another product through a “control process”, but, rather, is “controlled” by an artificial criminal code unlawfully enforced by unconstitutional political policies. The onus is upon the State to articulate the “control process” that “manufactures” CANNABIS in order to lawfully proceed against Defendant.
6. Defendant contends CANNABIS fails to meet the Frye/Daubert Standard to be categorized as a drug. At Preliminary Hearing in the case of State of Tennessee v. THE KINGPIN THORNE PETERS, for Possession for Sales of CANNABIS on April 24, 2015, Division 25, Shelby County Court, Judge Rhonda Harris, presiding, supported this position by sustaining Defendant's objection to the State referring to CANNABIS as a "drug" and to Defendant as a "drug dealer". The State was admonished to refer to CANNABIS as "Marijuana"and to Defendant as a "Marijuana Dealer" on THE KINGPIN’s point that drugs don't grow on trees.
7. Defendant contends 6th Amendment Constitutional Right to face an accuser is being denied because the State cannot produce a victim. The State is in conflict with the facts of the case, by proceeding against Defendant for committing a crime while bringing charges under the artificial category of: VICTIMLESS CRIME.
8. Defendant contends 14th Amendment Constitutional Right to Equal Protection under the law is being violated by political policy, since the State and the Court offer no proscription for relief for Defendant to legally obtain CANNABIS.
9. Defendant contends Substantive Due Process (the penumbras) is being violated by the State for failing to recognize legal remedies in courts from 23 other states and growing that uphold the Constitutional guarantees of citizens that protect them from CANNABIS-related arrests and prosecutions.
10. Defendant contends under the Full Faith & Credit Clause, courts must respect rulings by other courts that do not enforce an unconstitutional CANNABIS Prohibition against citizens.
11. Defendant contends the State is violating First Amendment Right to exercise religious freedom. CANNABIS is recognized as a Holy Sacrament of the Church, and is used in religious practices in multiple faiths in the worship of various Gods and spirits around the world, with citing going back over 5000 years in multiple religious texts. The First Amendment of The Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
12. Defendant contends CORPUS DELICTI cannot be provided by the State in any CANNABIS case, as there is no Constitutional evidence to offer proof that a crime has even been committed.
13. Defendant claims the State cannot articulate QUO WARRANTO to prove they have the authority by law to inflict criminal codes on citizens based on political policies outside the Constitution.
14. Defendant contends the unconstitutional Prohibition being enforced by the courts against the use, sales and cultivation of CANNABIS, frustrates the administration of justice and hinders the search for truth. See: Witch Trials; Slavery; Comstock Law; The Mann Act; The Volstead Act; Anti-Miscegenation.
Defendant offers these on-point landmark historical cases of the Constitutional guarantees of a citizen(s) being violated by a political policy enforced by the courts as if it was a law, only to be overruled, reversed and overturned as immoral, ignorant and evil . . . as it will be when history reviews the unlawfully unconstitutional enforcement of CANNABIS Prohibition in this era.
Blackstone’s Ratio, “Commentaries on the Laws of England”, (1765) “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”
* Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
* Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (1931)
* Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, KS, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
* Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956)
* Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
* Griswold v. Connecticut, U.S. 479 (1965)
* Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
* Timothy Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
* Stanley v. Georgia, 395 U.S. 557 (1969)
People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (1973)
* Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)
* Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988)
* Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
* Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)
* "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error." U.S. Supreme Court, in: American Communications Association v. Douds 339 U.S. 382 (1950)
In reliance on the above-delineated constitutional statutory guarantees, Defendant hereby moves the instant case be immediately dismissed, expunged, with all associated costs assessed against the State of ________________.
* Your next recourse is to file a MOTION FOR A CLAYTON HEARING to have the case dismissed in the “furtherance of justice.” People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 208 (1973)
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 210.40 grants the defendant (or the prosecutor or the court) the power to apply for relief:
“First, it directs the court to find, under the general concept of the "furtherance of justice" stated in its provisions, that the "dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstance clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in an injustice."
This describes every manner of POT bust. See link below . . .
MOTION FOR CLAYTON HEARING . . . https://www.facebook.com/notes/thorne-peters/motion-for-clayton-hearing/900079273405752?pnref=lhc
Imagine the name back in the day.
But how did this get started & why would these forgotten men haunt a region just as well forgotten?
Ladies & gentlemen, allow me to welcome you to Jackson County Indiana.
Renos had been in Indiana since 1813. That year, James Reno moved his family, including son Wilkinson, from the Salt River area of Kentucky to Jackson County. They settled on a farm near Rockford, just north of present-day Seymour.
In 1835 Wilkinson took a wife, Julia Ann, and began raising a family on the 1,200-acre property. In 1837 his first son, Frank, was born, followed by John in 1838, Simeon (‘Sim’) in 1843, Clinton in 1847, William in 1848 and finally a daughter, Laura, in 1851.
(This history I believe to be accurate. I have read it elsewhere and I then borrowed it from these good folks at http://www.historynet.com/reno-gangs-reign-of-terror.htm )
This story I am writing is aimed at clearing the record, though this has been extensively researched, as to the guilt and innocent of all involved.
I am doing this in due recognition of rekindling the wrath of those involved in this story.
At the end of the civil war, which was anything but civil and should be more accurately described as ethnic cleansing, was fomented by the same forces which are still fomenting war today.
For simplicity, we'll say, the European bankers. We could just as easily blame the Queen of England, whom interestingly enough, will weigh in on this debate in short order.
So the US is going through some major turmoil at this time.
Things aren't exactly "booming".
But one thing was always booming.
The war industry.
Europeans at this time owned the world's banks.
The world banks, being banks, had only one thing on their minds.
That's what banks do.
So from here on out, I will blame this tragedy on the banks.
So the banks decided that a unified US would be an unstoppable powerhouse.
The US was on track to become, the most prosperous nation in the pitiful history of man.
Man, as it turns out, is an animal species of mammal known as Human.
Well, Humans, working together for a common cause are a an enemy of banks.
SO a massive nation of Humans living in the current day US would be terribly harmful to their bottom lines.
Therefore, the Bank, the Top Bank, as banks tend to order themselves like Humans do, much to our folly.
So the Bank declared war on the Humans.
The civil war was simply a battle in this war, which we will come to see, is raging today.
The Renos then were victims of this very war.
I will demonstrate that and I will demonstrate that this injustice is still resonating in this southern Indiana county to this very day.