On Presidential Pardons (using a real case as an example! and a few other loose
ends... namely religion, terrorism, marriage and business) by
Gareth Bowen, the antichrist, or is that for history to decide...
Summary
This ones going to be a hard one to do, mainly because my logical reasoning was prompted in the pub by images/voices. spirit/halucienics /auras/insert your terms of choice[*1] if you will. please note i was not on drugs or alcahol and as usual was just drinking pepsi cola. Though I must admit moderate amounts of alchol,don't impede the receptive abilities, too much stops you listening to anything of use. In fact the thought started off reasonable enough, with marriage and wills, before turning to the more
exotic subject the right to bear arms, before the image of a rocket launcher pulled me back onto a live case - Case No: 200505209 C4.[*2] ,then once i had solved/argued that to my satisfaction. I moved onto nakedness and bridging
the gap on race and religion based on me being shown an image of turkey... so in
short we have a lot to get though, and so I apologise if my reasoning, which will
cover me taking the piss out of religion for failure to show humility to the naked
form, and which leads me to the sweeping statement that any priest/cleric who
demands that a person cover up should perhaps consider other vocations for they
failed to complete their training, and it should be also noted that i have to draw
in references to the reasoning of Muhammad and Jesus and while i can't debate with
them directtly, which is a pity as i would have kicked their asses, i can at least
build on some of the comments regarding loans, which was also prompted by the halucigencis of a business man, as
i was hitting the cash point, this prompted the thought regarding interest rates being bad
and wrong. (I told you,the thought processes and this write up was going to be convoluted. All the strands mixed up and hard to seperate
the reasoning) so your going to have stay awake as we cover their stances, and bridge
the gap, in the interests of peace, democracy and well allowing the people the freedom
to do as they please.
the first point on business, loans, and interest rates and taking
advantage of the poor. it should be noted that people should ideally be given
money to help them out, and when you subscribe interest rates on money it can lead
to abuses of the system, namely punishing the stupid with loan shark deals.
perhaps one solution is to prevent people from charging interest, which on first
glance has merit but also falls down on giving people the choice and flexibility
they require. as often people do need loans, and in some respects business can be
forgiven for wanting to charge some form of rate, like insurance to cover the failure
to pay.
now with this, point comes my bug bear, loans secured against assets. for in this
instance it matters not on a persons ability to pay the loan, as regardless of being
rich or poor, the risk is covered in the asset. therefore i find it doubtful how
anyone can distinguish a higher rate of loan over a lower one, when the price/ failure
to pay it, results in the asset, the admin/rate of work in processing the loan and
the risk is the same on both counts. ergo higher interest rates are merely punishing
those who need to be protected against the higher rates to begin with. so i sympathise
with shia law in trying to protect the weak from those abuses. however i do feel
their should be some room for banks to pay.
the idea is to help people invest in themselves to make themselves better, by allowing
them to take the risk in starting new business, people should be free to move as
will, and businesses should be allowed to choose who they employee. so any states
move to restrict the freedom of movement of workers should be reminded that
their are cases in eu law, where the state has been lost. references escape me.
but i'm sure there's one if memory serves with a French fishing boat trying not to employee
someone from another state. even rules of statue which aren't implemented and obscure eu directives, regulations are deemed illegal. you can not obscure federal eu law. this isn't to be tolerated. your all equal,
in the law, as are workers from different eu sates. So its time to get over your differences. which brings me back on topic
again.
marriage is a contract, and as such is a union based on certain
terms and conditions. as with business dealings. if you freely make a commitment
and one party fails to honour it, then they are in breach and must readdress it.
this has nothing to do with who is the richer party, the sex or anything else. it
is was their a failure and to what degree was the failure caused at either end.
so once that's established the damages are assessed and the wronged party is
compensated accordingly. if the guilt/damages fall either way or the marriage
is absolved equally. then it stands to reason that both parties take away with them
everything they brought into it, before the marriage was instantiated
anything beyond that point should be divided as a partnership based on the ratio
of what was put into it, so with that in mind perhaps i shouldn't have feared marriage.
assuming that's how it stands in a court of law...
I think that's when my thoughts jumped to promissory notes, and what the price of
gold was, we shall skip that prompting. needless to say, that and pc world please
take note. it doesn't matter what it's written down on. if your making a contract,
a check could be written on the side of a cow for all we care. as long as you honour
your word, image isn't important. i was once issued a voucher in one branch of pc
world, and they didn't have the proper paperwork so they printed the discount on
some cardboard. another store refused it, on the basis a bank manager would laugh
at him. needless to say the bloke in question was a prick, and was perhaps
lucky he was dealing with a child and not a lawyer. that storey was resolved in
the original store, but not without wasted, effort on my part. anyway that
is not the main point under discussion
this is, the right for a person to bare arms
|
the state has the same rights and freedoms as an individual no more and less. They
do not gain more or less protection under the law. So with this i herby suggest that individuals can bring suit against states, as well as companies and/or individuals
and likewise the state/company or individual will be judged in the same way with
the same fundamental basic rights - freedoms, liberties, and beliefs - and protections as any democratic state would
claim for itself.
If a state is responsible for crimes against individuals they shall be held accountable and suffer punative damages for any abuses just as an insurance or comerical
company would for a breach against the public, and the executive, directors or the individuals
responsible could also be held liable for prison as well financial compensation.
Just as it is illegal for a bloke in the street to solicit someone in a crime
against another individual, the scales involved make no difference, the crime is
the same regardless of the motive. Of course the same high standard of proof would
be demanded if we trying the usa for terrorist crimes as if we would be trying a
school kid for stealing a bike.
How this would work with the increased case load is this, A website devoted to publicising
complaints and litigation in progress. Individuals and or states
instead of raising duplicate complaints could join the class action.
the number of people in an organisation/state would be summed up for adding priority
to the case, as well as taking account the seriousness and proof of the allegation.
so a states recognised for what it is a legal entity, representing a group of people,
who choose to work together for a common aim. members will be judged accordingly.
Numbers and size do not matter, a crime against humanity is a crime regardless
of if your Hitler, commanding thousands of mobs, or the moron in the local
pub. you have the same right and responsibility to leave people to live the lives
as they choose, as well as the same rights and responsibility to protect weaker
parties from bullies.
protecting someone from a bully, does not then extend to taking the victim home,
abusing and using their resources and keeping them chained in a celler under lock
and key... it mealy extends to blocking and removing the perpetrator of a crime...
if there is no threat, there can be no presumption of a crime.
For example saying if x happened, then i'd do y means no assult
has been committed because, they qualified it. while if its obvious you can't be
hurt, such as in the case of minors demonstrating, their is no action. you can not
presume to justify acts' on the probability something could/would happen if there
is no proof. that is the law, and that applies to everyone. who should be
left to make up their own mind on how they live.
this is an attempt to end the wars, and
give people the freedom they deserve as individuals, without anyone trying to dictate morals, the freedom of information
reigns supreme. Let your skills and your credibility build be what wins in the
free market. you all have a responsibility to use your abilities to help one
another, not to destroy. the world is not enough for
any group to dictate control over any other man/women or child... so with that i give you the six of
cups, pleasure in balance and liberty reigns supreme.
Now please act responsibly, the time has come for you all to grow up, and be children once again. Now stop resorting to slave/fear/guilt and chidlish bullying tactics in settling your issues
- and please note mr pope. that includes trying to selfishly hide knowledge from those who are just as entitled to it, pride has no place in this world neither
does shame or arrogance the world does not belong to one person, it belongs
to everyone. ergo work with it, not against it. please,think of the children, think
of the future, think of love.... and more importantly think of freedom!
That is all for now, by supreme, executive order of the antichrist as we take the new world order to its logical
conclusion, I suppose this older piece on opt in government
is relevent as well, as it is clear geographic borders are becoming less relevant,
in the modern world. free movement of workers, trade, and skills.
|
|
states and governments would be judged on the international scene based on the judgments of their own courts. so if they justif the death penelty, or the cutting of limbs. they themselves would be held privy to that in any punishment dealt out by the international courts. it is called judgment by your own standards.
so given a hypothetical example. if the british government sort it justified to breach privacy and raid homes without cause, and then use weapon knowledge as basis for terorist crimes. then it logically follows that they wouldnt mind opening up their weapon silos, to inspection teams from say iran, russia and china.
in order to assertain there was no such threat
to world peace. If on the other hand say the british government objected to such invasion without cause. then it would be hard to see how they can argue the opposite stance with its citizens. failure to rectify the imbalance would be open to punative damages in the millions, and in my mind i would see that payable in this example. by the writting off of say a bulk of third world debt.
to readdress the wrong, for freedom swings both ways, and courts and states should be held to a high standard.
Ergo practice what you preach! and with that, woe betide any government who fails to sign a protocol on sending debtors to prision. for if that government. were unable to pay such a debt, then the exeutive would be liable for prision.
Indeed any government which supports lengthy days in prision without trial, should also face the same fateon the international scene.if a warrent was issued for their arrests by a majority vote of the world leaders.it is with this form of law,that the individual is granted the samerights and protections as government. for i assure you, executives would be wise to implement the freedoms and rights that good law demands, else they run the risk of being on the recieving end, of their own hypocrisy...
it also follows that anyone supporting or voting such an action would also be liable
before the courts, as well as being liable for the punishment if the statewas found
guilty. unless they had taken the necessarysteps before hand to absolve themselves,
or precent the action. this way those outspoken minorities who objected by voting
against any action, would in turn absolve themselves fromthe concequences of any
such action by the courts. this is reinforcing the shared, collective responsibility
the people have when it comes to demonstrasting good scence with democracy. You
either approve your government, or you do not. |
the American constitution has it, and it often a hotly debated subject, unfortunately
as much as we might like to, it remains core to democracy, and you can't get rid
of it, and this is why. a person has the right to protect themselves, they have
the right and freedom to choose, learn and experiment as they like. therefore
there is no fault to a person owning, or experimenting with weaponry. even knowing
how to build something is not a crime. children love to play with toys and
often come together as groups to learn and play. take for example china, russia
and the states. both will often take great pleasure in powering themselves up with
nukes, and this can often have legitimate uses say in space exploration, and perhaps
to a lesser extent mining. (not nukes i hasten to add) so while there is much
to be said for experimentation and well the power from being able to make load bangs,
tends to reassure children, as we grow older we are less phased by such knee jerk
reactions, as we come to understand that words, and not bangs are more powerful.
therefore we tend to find that as we grow up we will devote more time to the art
of brinkmanship in argument, then the ooh and ahh that fireworks bring
to young children, though beyond the ability to poke fun at immature governments
who favour shock and aww tactics over polite respect, reason and intelect. we had
better focus to the case in hand.
your right to defend yourself, and the right to learn to defend yourself is applicable
and the same if your one, or many people. however while you have the right
to own, and build weapons you don't have the right to threaten, as at that point
you are committing a crime of assault so brandishing say a gun or a sword in
public just makes you look like an arse, as does parading weapons for show through
the streets does. if people know about it in advance, and you are learning
how to use them, and it is obvious no one could mistake it for threatening behaviour
that that is again covered.
Perhaps it should also be noted,that if a person solicits another to comit a crime/assult on their belhalf, they are also guilty of a crime. i see no reason why this principle sundely deserves immunity if a group of people becomes many.
ergo if a portion of a population in company or a democracy say vote in a body who resort to fear tactics or voilence against an individual or a group of individuals inthe form of a state. then those people, if they fail to take steps to change the government, or their point of view. are automatically guilty of the said offense. therefore any voter who didn't protest and try and try and counter the body commiting the offense. would be liable under the law, and have brought said offenses on themselves.
in which case it should be ovserved and encouraged that regardless of if you are one or many. you should be able to bring charges against the perpetrator. in the interest of peace, justic and human rights. we can not tolerate bigger groups of people, trying to bully smaller groups, for no one is above the law, and that has remainded common for centuries, if not time immorial.
i think this is where i got shown the rocket launcher example, and the military
got drawn in. if you want to blow something up then fine, as long as it causes no
damage or nuisance to people. so firing a rocket launcher which causes or puts
someone else's life or property in danger makes you liable, as does causing a noise
nucence, in fact this counts doubly for the military, and one should also consider
when looking at the bigger bangs damage to the environment and the amount of damages
in liability owed by making such lasting bangs, including the experimentation of
such weapons.
as i said, when it comes to states and weapons their rights and their liabilities
are the same as the individual. so it would be wrong to give the benefit of the
doubt to one and not the other. so back to the law. if a person knows how to make
something which could arguably be used to hurt someone, that in itself is not a
crime. even a company, state or person owning such devices can't in itself be classed
as a crime. you see our advancement relies much on this right as does the more reasoned
approach of choosing not to do it, like my preferred approach would be to learn how
to seduce, and make love which is much more satisfying as the only good
bang, is the one which goes off, in a partner orgasming in pleasure, but i digress
or not as we shall come on to the subject of love soon enough...
but first i have to finish the statement on weapons, and learning or knowing how
to work them. if you have a weapon, it is still up to those who are alleging a prosecution
that a crime has been committed and the principles and the burden of proof required
apply equally to states as they do individuals. this is the future of wars. bigger companies/organsations/parties
companies can not have one law for themselves, while the smaller companies
are treated and abused, if anything they must be held to a higher standard, then the rest of us. While
the smaller of the two are given the benefit of the doubt. as it takes less for a bigger organisation to use scare tactics, duress when it comes to threatening behaviour.
so in this case, anyone judging someone must have proof before they act unreasonably,
this is not the time to over react, bullying and panic can and should not be tolerated
in this world, if this was any other case, such as a common example given
in a law book. of a Childs bike.[*3] so in this case, when we find ourselves
with someone owning mealy notes on how to build a weapon, and not even owning or
even firing such a weapon. and this perhaps shows comparisons with Iraq.
how anyone can show beyond reasonable doubt that a risk or a crime had been committed
escapes me.
the only one conclusion, is that given a legitimate reason for owning such knowledge.
one can only be left with mere hypothesises and conjecture. and the moment any court,
business or government starts acting on hypothesis and conjecture acting on the
grounds that something could happen, not that it did. we end up realising a huge
host of trouble, and sleepless nights not jus ton ourselves but on the world in
its entirety
Thereby, as no causal link has been established in this case. I would overturn this judgment
and let the person go, till such time something could be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. something governments should look at when seeking to invade other states,
as for states which continue to strive to make childish bangs, we should look
to assess the liability and the environmental impact, and act accordingly. This is
one world which we should be free to enjoy, and there by there should be no restriction on
the movement of any individual. unless it can be proven that they are indeed a threat,
at which point appropriate steps, which fall within the law should be taken.
it should be noted, if two individuals decided to have a dual, or states for that
matter, and they did so out of their own free will, then that is their choice. just
as two people consenting to a fist fight, have no cause of complaint, under the law.
however if one party was abused, and or forced into it, then there would be a case
in law, for us to intervene.(by us, that would be who ever is tasked with upholding
the law in such circumstances)
anyway, back to overturning judgments based on fear. we can't afford to act on fear,
and it is understandable hows some people react in panic, and fear to those
who are different, how the initial reaction is to tighten up and worry when faced
with a concept, culture or idea that they don't fully understand. this fear,
and this problem rests with you, if you fear something, then it is up to you to
change your perspective towards it.
you cant insist someone cover up, if you fear nudeness then do something about it.
we should all be free to express ourselves any way we should. so if that expression
doesn't invade your personal space, then so much the better. and i fear that i have
to address the Islam issue, and well religion in its entirety. Different cultures
are used to different standards of dress, however in this world we are free to go
as we will. that is our fundermental right, to move unhindered and unmolested accross the world. I am an island. you are not allowed to touch me, without my permission, and more importantly my thoughts, ideas and culture are my own. therefore you will respect my freedom of choice.
you can choose to embrace those differences, or look away. that is our choice, and our freedom, nothing else matters. it matters not if you are one, or sixty million people looking for a new home. no man/or government has juristriction to tie me down on religion, thought or belief.
we are each our own state. individuals matter more, in the new world order. There by if you have issue with
another states way of doing things, tough its their choice. no state and no individual
should expect another state or individual to conform to their wishes.
instead it is left up to the individual to decide the amount of respect due. we come together out of need and companionship, and love, not fear
with that anything goes when it comes to words, brinkmanship is in the tongue,
you decide on the level of political correctness, you choose the amount of love, to offer and give. you choose what resources to trade, and give in return for others.
You choose weather to build or destroy with words alone, anyone moving past words,
and into violence comits a crime against humanity. if you fear nudity then it is your right, to
pass a cutting remark, perhaps leer suggestively or dismiss them as being fat, however if you move past that and take advantage your crossing the line.
We should not fear words, ideas and oppinion are all we have. Do not be surprised however if you pass a cutting remark, if the recipient comes back with another remark, much more
cutting and hurtful. You invited it. Women learn after all. I say this after visiting Marmaris, when undo
attention is often called upon themselves by those who dress in a different style. that is there choice, and that is their right. dress or lack of it, is a freedom of expression, which stands alongside speech. that in itself is not an invite to anything other then an action in dress, or speech.
in my personal
view, it shold be noted that if a person feels threatened, then an assault has been
committed. so threats should not be tolerated, the civilised world has no place for it. yet we shouldn't feel threatened by compliments either. attractiveness and or cleverness is nothing to be ashanmed of, and grovelling is well just humiliating for the person/state/government in question. though perhaps in some situations its the most sensible move to make.
respect, where respect is due. Nakedness wears off after awhile. sunburn or the cold for one prohibits all but the most die hard person of maintaining that outlook. however
if you continue to make an issue of it, your just as likely to prolong the agony.
or get a fat naked women dancing before you. perhaps not what you wanted.
beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes its better not to look,
at what your getting beforehand. and at others, it matters not, for
beauty only skin deep, and well when push comes to shove, its what you feel that's
important. unwanted attention, such as attention, is a crime. words are not. if
you want to go naked in the streets then that is your right. in fact children have
no issue with nakedness and any priest or cleric who does, should be reminded
that they should feel no shame in being in the sight of nudity. children and adults
only fear it because they have been conditioned and inflicted with the fears of
tthe adults around them. these people prefer to inflict other people with their
fears, so they don't have to answer to them.
so with that, i strongly urge that any priest/cleric, monk, state, or individual who
fears nudity and being exposed to it, needs to address their own psychological need.
you do not have the right to demand someone should cover up, if anything they are
showing you more respect, by appearing, open and undefended with no shields to protect
them. so those who appear dressed, and hidden are showing a discourtesy for you have
something to hide, and the question is what do you fear, can you not embrace me
openly, in love, for that is the ultimate openness why strive for barriers
when we can have so much more together.
of course the choice is yours, just don't insist on it. you dress to an audience
out of choice, the audience doesn't demand the state of dress, for that is your
state, and your choice, your jurisdiction not mine. i shall just enjoy the show,
but be warned, if you ever threaten, then i reserve the right to defend. it has
been noted that women can get very good at kickboxing, so respect least your remarks
lead to you being beaten up, i hear the courts tend to look on that as an invite.
so with all that, i see no difference between the individual and the state, government
is not what it is, there is only arrogance and pride,and well humility shows. can
you appear nude before someone, and not bet an eyelid. i can.
can you stand nude before someone, and say address the nation, defences and open.
knowing your place, and being sure of your words, and knowing you speak the truth,
just and free. or do you need to hide, behind your words, and behind your lies.
government is changing, and the world is changing. so come together and accept your
differences for who you are.
so with that, i perhaps should draw reference to that i like my women strong, others
do not. that's not a criticism mealy an observation that i am at time lazy, and would
simply like to let others do all the hard work. a yes, a nod, and perhaps an in depth
lecture on the basic principles of the freedom of choice, so with that all being
said and one, i give you the wank for freedom campaign. for the new world order
starts here today. With you. change your state
of mind, not other people! and with that, am i leading the pople yet? your move...
Notes/Bibliography
[*1] I'm getting annoyed at the increasing dismissal as psychosis of higher states of consciousness and blaming it on other courses. the sad fact is in my view. that this is a normal state of consciousness which we relax into, when we become able to adapt.
and seeing things, very often corresponds to real word scenarios, either going on around you (at a distance) or alternatively prompting your thoughts to take the next step. so if anyone is mentally ill it would be those who suppress it and/or struggle with it.
of course this is not proven, and it takes many years, to adjust and or instances to rule out coincidences and adjust to the value it brings. in short it's a shock to the nervous system when you first experience the excess information, five senses are bad enough formost people to get their heads around. let alone more.
of course, you perhaps need alot of discipline to regurgitate and breakdown these experiences into useful information, perspective matters, more examples and techniques to develop this can be found on my psychic course notes. Its not the be all and end all, and what works for me, might not work for others, but hopefully people will wake up, and adjust to these developments. Preferably sooner rather then later, it's nothing new. In the meantime patience and learning to write down your experiences will be a great help in helping you clarify the details of what's really going on. Hindsight being 20-20, as well as learning curves and all that. the irony is once you get used to the extra senses. you tend to find yourself breaking the blocks down quicker. in fact, loosing it would be akin to trying to pluck out one of your eyes. you get used to increased perspective, indeed those who fail to have it, and regretably come across as slow, destructive and well anoying. for they fail to focus on growth accordingly.
therefore muddles, and i hesitate to use the term, have a lot to answer for. when it comes to fear, surpression and the refusal to allow others to open up, fear is nothing to be ashamed of, and perhaps in time. those people, will embrace change rather then squander it.
[*2] I briefly had free access to one of the internet law databases, and the transcript which prompted my reasoning/justification of the pardon was
this one. Heard by THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION),ON APPEAL FROM The Honourable Mr Justice Fulford. Sitting at The Central Criminal Court T20040020, sitting on 15th march 2007.
[*3] learning legal rules 6th edition. James Holland and Julian Webb p106.proving a
crime has been committed. We see there are many plausible explanations, to avoid hastily
jumping to the wrong conclusion.