Written by Abdun Nur
Terrente – Duty of Care – Outcast (Out-bonded)
Over time, in the ancient system, wrongful actions had established a specific relief attached to them; this of course has been lost, replaced with punishments and the extraction of mulct (fines) to benefit the corporation. Initially the relief is requested by the complainer in their original notification (writ), but is ultimately determined by the arbitrators, who can disregard the relief suggested by the complainer, as they are free to apply reason to form the best course for a particular case.
The modern term tort means a ‘wrongful act’, this replaced trespass which also meant a wrongful act, which in turn had replaced the true term terrente – conceptually ‘the peace of their mind threatened’, this can also be termed an encroachment.
Within the idea of a witena-gemot of inherent power, a living soul can demand relief for anything they feel encroaches upon them, the only limitation upon this principle is in the ‘wite’, as the one at fault, or responsible for refusal to appear, to rebut or give relief, pays the ‘wite’.
If you demand relief and the arbitrators gathered from your peers determines there was no wrong done, and you acted unreasonably and with intent of malice in complaining, you would be liable for the costs (based on time accounted, and a fair ordinary rate of payment), including reimbursing the time that had been wasted by the retorter, except the cost of bringing the retorter before the gemot if they refused the writ, which would always be a result of their own actions.
The foundations of natural equities are: NO witena-gemot can compel without consent, beyond the reciprocal duty of care binding all; equity can only protect. Within any equitable system the compulsive aspects are limited to the reciprocal duty of care which can be imposed and witnessed and sealed reciprocal agreement, these are the true protective axioms of the land which are unalienable and immutable therefore are obligatory, if any expression of the axioms of the land does not protect in reciprocation, proven through reason, it is not a true expression of axioms, and therefore does not apply to any soul; it’s only through positive law that imposition is the basis of action, positive law is based on violence and fear.
The basic axioms, do all you’ve agreed with witness to do, treat all others as you yourself would wish to be treated, even a small child can grasp.
Positive law compels, and exists only through the active, and positive threat of violence, so force of arms. Juristic ‘law’ is the policy of the landlord upon their chattel, existing upon the jurisdiction of the land as determined by the fraud of ownership, laws are held upon the ship of a citizen as an economic slave, which in truth and in fact is inequitable and therefore a aberrant imposition.
Freedom is not dependent on any government benefit or piece of legislation (contract – a one-sided agreement). The inherent power of the living soul is innate and a substantive reality, we are born a living soul with a nature set upon our creation. My inherent power is unalienable and immutable therefore non-negotiable. Government cannot exist in equity, and functions solely upon the imposed denial of the inherent power of a living soul.
In equity there is No collective right/s, in fact no rights exist at all, as they are a grant upon an inferior (slave) from a superior (master), existing at the whim of the granter, and as no soul has a superior to give grant of rights, claims, or privilege in the first instance, all rights are simply fictional constructs. Only the inherent power expressed as reciprocal obligations and responsibilities of the individual are indefeasible, these are simple axioms, balanced, and working in both directions, for example you have a duty of care for those around you, and those around you have a duty of care for you.
Duty of Care
Treat others as you yourself wish to be treated, is the basis of the reciprocal duty of care.
A duty of care is a simple model; you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure another soul.
For example, if you witness a living soul drowning and have it within your power to save them, but do not, you have failed in your natural reciprocal obligation and responsibility of a duty of care, so have committed an injury to the drowning soul, and relief can be sort. This is because if you were the one drowning and another stood by while they could save you, you would feel wronged, so reciprocity demands action or relief.
The duty of care is a principle with a wide application, for example, if I build a home that is unsafe in design and construction, and then sell it without full disclosure of every fault, or a declaration that the home is not safe for habitation and is bought at the buyers risk, I have failed in my duty of care, by endangering others for my own gain, and they can seek relief.
The failure to uphold the ‘Duty of Care’ is either:
Which is doing something likely to injure your neighbour in circumstances when you would not reasonably be expected to know that the thing you are doing is likely to injure your neighbour, (this is not a felonious act, one may only be liable for damages in a witena-gemot).
Which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour and yet doing it anyway; this is a wrongful act (tort) of endangerment of those around you, where if the situation demands it, one may be prevented from further action without warrant to protect the innocent. Dependent upon the relief established by the arbitrators for any given case, relief could include; all measure taken to prevent future situation that held a risk of a breach of trust and responsibility to others, full liability for all damages and wite,- in serious cases, outcast or forfeiture of life if your actions cost the life of another.
Which is to INTEND by your act or omission to injure your neighbour; this is the most serious type of felonious wrongful act (tort) which is relieved with the full support of the community to establish its resolution, dependent upon the relief established by the arbitrators for a given case; loss of surety, irreparable violation and loss of community agreements and bonds, loss of community standing, outcast, forfeiture of life if your actions cost the life of another.
The Duty of Care is used in feudal courts every day to determine the guilt or innocence of defendant who appears before the arbitrators. Examples of how the duty of care functions within the witena-gemot will serve to clarify the point.
(a) A soul is driving a car, but has no mechanical knowledge to repair or maintain the car, this soul has had the car serviced and maintained by a declared qualified mechanic, and has the service history in the glove box of the car. This soul has done all that can be reasonably expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet in an emergency they fail to stop because it is found that their car has defective brakes.
This is an event happening, which is likely to injure another soul, even after having taken all reasonable steps to ensure that what they were doing was not likely to cause injury. The soul who did the maintenance on the vehicle is responsible in a witena-gemot for the payment of damages should they injure someone as a result or cause damage to the property of the driver or others, while the driver has not behaved feloniously, the mechanic has, relief could be established against the NEGLIGENT actions of the mechanics who serviced the car, if proven.
(b) If it is found that the soul did know that the brakes were defective, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is felonious.
(c) If it is found that the man was aiming to intentionally hit someone with the car they would be tried for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour INTENTIONALLY.
(a) A madman is on the street shooting at people, if a reasonable, prudent, and well-intentioned soul kills the madman to prevent them from shooting anyone else, they would NOT be found guilty of a wrongful act, even if the soul had to use reasonable force to take a gun or other weapon from an innocent bystander, or to take it from a shop.
Why would the taking of the resources of another by force not a wrongful act in this situation:
For a defendant to be found responsible for a wrongful act there has to be both:
(1) An inequitable act or omission, (the ‘actus reus’)
(2) The state of mind (the ‘mens rea’) of the accused has to be of a wrongful intention and nature.
If a living soul can show that they upheld the Duty of Care in the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not guilty of a wrongful act.
The duty of care can be applied to understand your obligations for the safety of those around you in any situation, for example:
Endangering others in any activity that demands a skill and knowledge base to master, like traveling through the operation of a car on a common use road, or operating a plane over a populated area, competence must be gained before that activity can be undertaken without danger to others, based upon your equitable duty of care to protect those around you.
However ‘Licensing’ of those traveling or trading or in any action cannot be required of free souls, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an unalienable reciprocal obligation and responsibility, namely who is above me to grant me permission. A license is required by public trustees who are performing a corporate service and is not applicable to any living soul who acts substantively, the highway traffic act does not apply to me as I am not involved in commerce for the government, I can perform that function if I’m employed by the govern mental Mafia, using their fiction of a valid driver’s license.
Every soul’s actions must be in equity, and every soul holds full accountability so liability, and all are bound by the two axioms of the land to establish a duty of care, for which all are reciprocally responsible.
If you travel after drinking heavily, but operate your vehicle without incident or demonstrating dangerous road use, you have committed no objective wrongful act, as you have caused no injury to another tangible being, however you have failed in your duty of care for those around you, this can be recorded and used in respect to the risk you pose potentially against any subsequent related wrongful actions connected to that attitude of disregarding the incumbent duty of care.
Additionally if a car (insurance) assurance need bond is formed (as detailed here), to join such a bond, you pre-emptively agree to a behave in a certain way, as a reciprocal agreement. The bondsmen in the need bond are sharing the risk of the costs of accidents, this means certain behaviour, like driving drunk, is not acceptable to the shared risk the other bondsmen give reciprocally.
Within such a bond the relief of any wrongful actions is detailed in the bond, therefore you agree to such relief at the outset.
If you drank heavily and caused the death of another, the relief would be viewed as premeditated murder, as you drank with the intention of driving while severely impaired in your ability to drive safely, from your own self inflicted drunkenness, this utter disregard for your duty of care makes the act premeditated, and leaves you fully accountable for your actions.
Theft is the handling of another’s resources, with an intention of stealing, against the will of the equitable possessor. The relief is firstly, the item must be returned without damage, if damaged must be recompensed, if lost must be paid as a minimum of its replacement value, and further to compensate the victim in time and trouble endured from their actions, if they have no resource and no surety, to do so they must labour giving over the excess fruits of the labours until the debt is paid.
In ancient systems of arbitration of dispute a proven thief was required to pay twice as much as was stolen, as this meant the victim was not likely to take matters into their own hands and act violently against the thief, as the settlement was generous and to their advantage. Blood-feud generates a great many wrongs and arbitration resolves this violent possibility.
(Cato The Elder: De Re Rustica Cato- De Officiis) writes: “For our ancestors considered, and so ordained in their arbitration, that, while the thief should be cast in double damages, the usurer should make four-fold restitution. From this we may judge how much less desirable a soul they esteemed the banker than the thief.” Cato was asked about the best ways to make income and he gave various answers. Then he was asked: “How about making profit by lending money?” Cato replied: “How about murder?”
Secondly a proven thief can hold no position of responsibility or sole guardianship within the community, and cannot stand attestant, nor verify any agreement for another, as they have proved themselves dishonest; this prohibition would remain until the consensus of the local community granted forgiveness through a prolonged change in behaviour.
The best relief for changing thoughtless or deceptive behaviour is from an honest care and concern for the culpable soul; this can be achieved through positive peer pressure.
The friends and family of the thief systematically confront the thief, individually throughout a day, expressing to them every good thing they have ever witnessed them doing, and the pride they held for them, and the hope they will realise their true nature and fill them once more with pride in the future, through relating how proud they have been of them in their good conduct within the community, however small that maybe, and demonstrate to the thief how valued and essentially good they truly are, through a combination of realisation of their innate honesty and shaming them through the positive not the negative, showing them how they have let themselves down. This method of reform can be applied to any wrong that would have reasonable benefits for relief.
To be outcast is to be put outside of the protection or aid of the Gemot, you are effectively extorted. Ex-tort – means as a relief to place outside of the protection of torts the modern term for wrongful actions, ex-terrente, to be outcast from the community exiled, banished, driven out. This term can also be used alternatively for an individual, who acts as an extorter; to obtain money or other valuable things either by compulsion, by actual force of motives applied to the ‘will’, and often more overpowering and irresistible than physical force, taking what is not due, or before the time when it is due, attempting to force their victim to believe they are outside of the protection of tort relief or unable to demand that protection.
To be extorted or outcast is a process by which a retorter who demonstrates contempt of the natural equities of those around them to such a degree their action are judged irreparable by any process of relief, so they are declared outcast, it amounts to conviction through attainder (without recourse).
Attainder differs from verdict, in that it is after determination of relief, so upon attainder a soul becomes outcast, once relief is first satisfied in full to the wronged soul, whereas verdict itself is upon the finding of culpability, but before determination of relief is manifest. The only way to quash attainder is upon some point of recourse at appeal, if any new evidence can be presented to refute or challenge the old.
Attainder, being the loss of the protection of the axioms of the land from those around you. That loss is a result of reciprocation, as you treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, you demonstrate you treat others dichotomously to the way those around you act, you are unable to act reciprocally towards others.
This can result in three ways, by confession or evidence of proven actions that leave no other option except out-casting from the common unity. This is determined through the relief of arbitration, without recourse, as an outcome of arbitration. A process of out-casting determined from contempt for those around you as a repeated refusal to act in equity, building as a cumulative and clear impediment to equitable community over time.
Most actions are limited within a certain reasonable period for a victim to seek relief as adjudicated by the arbitrators, except for truly malicious and malignant actions (any wrongful action so heinous the only relief that could end the dispute would be death, mutilation and or forfeiture of lands and goods held by the culpable party) where for example the victim is murdered and cannot seek relief themselves, a wrongful action that would have no limit on seeking relief, or where permanent consequences remain evident that may still be given relief.
When a soul is murdered it’s as if all souls were murdered in equity, as all souls are connected, all are fractally manifest from a single consciousness, to murder one soul separates the murderer from all others, and as all souls are equally wronged by the murderers action, all and any soul can seek relief for themselves from the danger the murderer festers of further acts of violence, and seek to establish relief for the dependents and loved ones robbed of the company and efforts of the murder victim.
In the ancient past the victim’s family had three options; the first two were to either await payment or to sell the murderer into slavery. A third possibility was that they would kill the murderer, but even then the monetary possibilities may have discouraged capital punishment in some cases. In certain cases, though, where the killer and victim were relatives, capital punishment could not be carried out as it would make the executioner commit fingal or “kin-slaying”. In a second situation the murderer could also be killed. That is, if the murderer was at large and the relief had not been paid, the victim’s family responsible to launch a blood feud.
The forfeiture of life of the tort-feasor in the event of proof of guilt of murder at the discretion of the family wronged; the murderer has stolen the life of the victim, under the axioms of the land, the thief must return what was stolen in kind, as it is substantive relief, so the life of the murderer is in the hands of the friends and relatives of the victim, or in the case of the victim having no direct family, the unity of all souls holds the verdict of the arbitrators.
No soul can be asked to murder another soul, no matter the need, instead the murderer must murder themselves. To achieve this, the murderer is held in solitary confinement, no other souls can give company to a corpse, it must be allowed to rot in isolation, but means should always be available to the murderer to end their own life quickly and painlessly, at any time.
If the murderer is ever released, and the murderer takes another life, then the victims kith and kin would have an equitable complaint against those responsible for the release of the murderer; as any soul who spares the guilty punishes the innocent, in other words if relief is not established then history may repeat itself.
Additionally the murderer’s holdings in full would be forfeit to the family of the victim/s in substantive settlement; if the resources required and demanded in relief to protect the dependents of the victim were beyond the resources of the culpable, then they would be secured through the surety bonds held by the murderer, if indeed any bond was held by the murderer.
Holding captive a soul who represents a physical danger to another or the individuals of the community within equitable confinement, this established not for the sake of punishment, but for their detention under guard, until relief is established.
Modern technology allows tracking and monitoring instead of confinement as a long term option, as confinement is expensive and beyond isolating a wrong doer, creates a burden.
Kidnapping and holding another soul captive, is only acceptable if that soul is a clear physical danger to another or others, and relief of that danger should be established as quickly as possible and the soul set at liberty but restricted.