Written by Abdun Nur
Relief, Recourse and the Peers (Jury)
Relief versus Remedy
The Axiom for an Axiological Model
Axiological in this expression meaning values, moral or aesthetic truth reasoned through rational argument. The axiom “Do not judge others lest you be judged.” Must be understood clearly to grasp the reason there is no judgement in witena-gemot terrente (the peace of the mind threatened) relief.
“Your job is not to judge. Your job is not to figure out if someone deserves something.
Your job is to lift the fallen, to restore the broken, and to heal the hurting.” ~ Heal the hurting by Joel Osteen
Love towards an unfamiliar soul is expressed as an absence of judgement. Loving a soul you do not know, means to care and help if that soul is in pain, just as you would want help if your soul suffered, a soul that causes mental distress to others souls does so because they are themselves suffering mental confusion, pain, hatred, or some conflict they cannot resolve. (This is not the case for the soulless known as psychopaths which are excluded from joining any bond of souls)
To inflict judgement means your mind is violent and fearful, you wish to punish the wrong doer, to take “revenge”. In the constructive legal system judgement is to inflict hardships onto the wrongdoer, to impose with mulct, intimidation, violence, incarceration, to take revenge and inflict a palpable punishment upon the transgressor of the corporate owners granted rights, or imposed duties, and to punish them according to corporate policy; these invented rights are revered in the minds of those holding them, as granted constructed laws, held above mercy, pity, compassion, empathy or love. In the extreme, judgement can condemn, extort, imprison, violate or render worthless the life of souls.
A judge is an angry soul, or soulless creature, who wants you to see how powerful they are.
A loving soul wants you to see how powerful YOU are; a loving soul wants to heal the hurting of the soul, to lift the fallen back upon the path of harmony; a loving soul wants to give relief to the transgressed as well as the transgressor.
To Judge Then is to be Judged
As a judge you proclaim yourself superior, even when your behaviour demonstrates it is inferior, you judge in violence and intimidation, even when those you judge may be nonviolent, you judge through inflicting fear, even when those you judge may have inflicted no fear, this means the judge would be the one inflicting unprovoked aggression, imposing spiritual violence. Then clearly a judge is a hellion inflicting a tormenting mental ordeal, and such mental distress is a powerful wrong.
A judge conspires to extort mulct, inflict punishment even when those judged may have caused no trespass or distress to another living soul; this makes the judge the thief, the kidnapper, or the tortuous jailer.
The feudal courts function upon the concept of punishing the guilty as a remedy for crimes; this is a reversal of the innate structure. Punishment is a concept claimed to instil fear to deter criminal acts, however clearly this is a false claim as criminal acts dominate across all aspects of the psychopathic global cult.
In reality the legal system does the reverse, it prevents victims of the powerful and their minions, who function upon the very doctrines of wrongful actions, from bringing the wrongdoers to account, it protects constructed legal fictions of property above a duty of care, it ignores the innate axioms of the land, using deception and manipulations to imposes fear, violence, kidnap and imprisonment on souls that have never wronged any other living soul.
Legal punishment means the act of inflicting a penalty, a disadvantage imposed upon one through an infraction of the rules (of corporate policy), this is the structure of codified legislation, subjugating rules dictated to the citizen (serf- slave); punishment then always requires a positive law system to impose.
The positive law system has no true value in resolving any injurious actions committed against an innocent, or in addressing the continuation of injurious actions in the future from the criminal. It leaves the innocent forsaken, simply a witness for the State corporation, a State controlled by parasitic criminals who seek revenue not equity. Clearly punishment of the culpable is not a solution for the mental anguish imposed upon the innocent, and achieves nothing in settling the terrente (the peace of the mind threatened), substantive relief (of mental torment) is the purpose of all who seek equity in any arbitration or Witena-gemot, determined through the arbitration of disputes, therefore punishment subverts that purpose denying the innocent equitable relief, holding all extorted.
The dichotomy of ‘punishment’ is ‘relief’ for the innocent and the wrongdoer, this dichotomous concept has no punishment; instead it requires full resolution for both the victim and the one who imposed the injurious actions.
When we are first created we ‘respond’ (meaning – to return like for like) to the creation, but most of those who came before our birth have learned to ‘react’ (meaning – performing the act of expressing one’s unconscious impulses or desires) to the creation, and slowly they transform the innate state of responding into the learned state of reacting.
For example, a child begins with no fear of spiders, if a harmless spider sits on their hand they respond without fear, and act with curiosity, a parent who fears spiders reacts to the spiders presence irrationally and emotionally, the child responds to the spider while the parent reacts to it, this is the same with the legal remedy of punishment as compared with substantive relief. Punishment is an irrational emotional reaction, a hatred of the criminal, a desire to see them agonize, while relief is a response that gives reasoned equitable resolution to the innocent, with little regard for the iniquitous soul who inflicted that anguish having punishment for its own sake dispensed upon them. Punishment focuses primarily on the criminal and ignores the innocent; relief focuses primarily on the innocent and ignores the criminal. Truly the criminal is another victim (excluding psychopaths) and needs an opportunity of relief for their own state of being; so the concept of substantive relief, equitably established, attempts to resolves the potential dangers of the wrongdoer and rectifies the wrong itself as far as possible.
Trial and Status
Trial from ‘tri’ meaning three and ‘al’ meaning having the form or character of, with an applied meaning of, examination before a tribunal, from a tribune, who was an official in ancient Rome, meaning head of a tribe; ‘Tribe’, is each of the three divisions of the Roman people within the Ba’alist model of control:
1) They represented the tradition of monarchy (psychopathic lineage).
2) The Senate: It represented the tradition of oligarchy (psychopathic hierarchy).
3) The Assemblies represented the democratic element of the Roman Republic. (Slave control)
Status is the basis of Roman law, status being the expression of hierarchy (the ancient tree of death), imposed upon the slave of citizen, this is ‘Tria Capita’ (The heads of the three) oivitae, libertas, and familia, i. e., citizenship, liberty, and granted family rights.
These three elements concurred to form the status or caput (the head) of the citizen; these established the qualifications of the constructed legal fiction of persons:
1) Liberty (privileges by grant of a superior), from libertas meaning freedom constrained as a privilege or a franchise.
2) Citizenship, civitas: meaning under the authority of the positive law (positive meaning positively enforced through violence or the threat of violence) of the State. According to legal dictionaries, a citizen is a member of the political body who swears allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection from the State government. (However it has been ruled time and time again in the supreme courts that the police and the government have NO DUTY to protect. And if there is no duty to protect, then there is no agreement.)
3) Family, familia. A family has four different hierarchical acceptations;
The pater-familias, his wife, his children, and other descendants subject to his paternal power.
All the agnates, a relative whose connection is traceable exclusively through males, that is to say, all the different families who would all be subject to the paternal authority of a common eminent power if he were still living. Here it has the same meaning as agnatio; A relationship through males; the male children. Especially spoken of the children of a free father and slave mother.
The slaves; those who are mancipio (slave), the power acquired over a freeman by the mancipatio (slavery); the property of the eminent power, although considered only as things (property), and without any tie of relationship.
The whole fortune or patrimony (inheritance from a male ancestor) of the eminent power.
The mancipium (the status of a man of liberty subject to the power and control of the head of a Roman family (originally the Emperor) similar to that of a slave except that he could not be abused or killed without legal cause. A living soul held owned as a form of quiritarian (a municipal (responsibility to take) law granted title) as opposed to bonitarian (an equitable title: the ability to gain full tenant control and tenant title to property while someone else owns legal title as granter of the fiction of ownership), resulting from the mancipatio (slavery).
When the pater-familias (sui juris someone possessing full social and civil granted rights from a superior) sold a male descendant, the paternal power was succeeded by the mancipium; meaning the power acquired by the purchaser over the ‘person’ (a person is a constructed legal fiction) whom he held in mancipio, and whose condition was assimilated to that of a slave. On the emancipation from the mancipium, he fell back into the paternal power, which was not entirely exhausted until he had been sold three times by the pater-familias; this is the root of a trial.
If the agents of a corporation fills a cargo container ship with barrels of deadly toxic waste, sails into international waters and dumps their cargo over the side, which is the common practice in the psychopathic model we now endure of society; the remedy, if any is imposed at all, is a fine, which is seen as punishment for the actions of the criminal entity, while the criminals owning the corporation, see this as a running cost of their dumping business.
A tax deductible fine is the remedy of the legal system; in contrast substantive relief is very different. Legal remedy penalizes the guilty, that if complained against by a victim, considered only a witness, the criminally accused must be selected for prosecution by the corporate entities agents, for their corrupt justice to be dispensed.
Substantive Relief of Environmental Polluters
Substantive relief resolves the tortious situation equitably upon the demand of any and every innocent wronged or complainer.
The living souls responsible for the premeditated dumping of poisonous toxic waste into the ocean are held directly accountable to all the souls around them, as they are causing distress within the natural environment, they have failed in their innate binding custodial duty with the Earth, which all are reciprocally bound to, because it is a shared environment. No fiction of corporation exists or can be recognised as evident to deflect their accountability substantively.
The relief would be to recover every barrel from the deep ocean, or to fund the cost of other souls in their retrieval, and safe disposal, this establishes relief and gives resolution. Having broken their duty of care to all those around them, all binds of surety would be exposed to becoming void upon full relief being satisfied, that dissolution is at the discretion of the bound-soul they hold in surety. All positions of trust within the community would be held beyond the reach of such contemptuous souls indefinitely; they could no longer bear true witness, stand new sureties, or be or become an Aldormonn (Alderman).
If their combined resources were not enough to satisfy the relief, even with the aid of their sureties, then they would have to pay the surplus they generated through the fruits of their labours, until the costs were repaid in full. In normal circumstances the tools and equipment of a trade are protected from seizure to pay relief, however if the purpose of those tools and equipment is solely to act inequitably and has no other purpose for the holder than to commit tortious acts, and not in the pursuit of true and honest trade, those tools and equipment could reasonably be seized and sold to go toward the costs of relief.
However presently the system gives these psychopaths protection to act with impunity, and so to achieve this end would require more imaginative methods.
Both those holding shares, as well as every individual employed in any capacity for that corporate entity of legal fiction, would be accountable, proportionately to their gains, from the wrongful acts committed.
Two funds would be generated on the platform once arbitration of the wrong was determined. The first would be a fund to cover the costs of the wite, the second would be to cover the cost of the relief, in this case the clean up of the pollution, this would allow any bondsman in the bond to donate resources, the first fund for the wite would be a gift that may not be recovered, the second fund for relief would be an advance that should be recovered.
The wite would be open after a period had passed allowing the wrong doers to establish the relief required through the arbitration of the wrong. After this period the fund would pay any rex establishing the detailed determinations, to achieve relief the arbitrators of the wrong had stipulated, this could be for example to target all comprehensively reference culpable individuals of the corporation used to mask their conduct, who would all be notified at the establishment of the relief of their obligations to honour their inherent duty of care. If any individual failed to establish the relief they were now obligated to, then the rex would for example cause them financial loss, and in return, as long as they only caused loss to the individual, they would receive in wite 10% in the value of that loss from the fund.
This additional loss would continue endlessly until each individual established their portion of relief demanded. Anyone could be a rex, they simply take a unique reference code from the platform, then provide proof of their claim from the wite at a later date. This would have the effect of discouraging individuals from working for criminal corporate fictions, making them liable directly, it would also discourage individuals from buying shares in such corporations, and would make the psychopaths running such corporations from continuing to act with impunity.
Example 2: Rape
In the present feudal court system the rapist is very difficult to convict, due to myths perpetuated by the corporate media that allow rape to be underplayed, this means globally it is estimated only 6%, likely less, of rapists are ‘punished’ and no rape victim ever sees relief, in the UK in 1985 there was a 24 per cent conviction rate in rape trials. By 2003 it had fallen to 5 per cent:
Myth: Rape and sexual assault are about sexual attraction and gratification.
Truth: Rape and sexual assault are all about control and domination.
Myth: A healthy person can resist being raped or sexually assaulted.
Truth: According to the Centres for Disease Control, 1 out of every 6 adult women has been a victim of rape, and approximately 92,700 men are raped in the U.S. each year. Healthy and strong people are raped every day. Rape victims are doctors, lawyers, nurses, military personnel, cooks, accountants, students—anyone and everyone could be vulnerable to rape or sexual assault.
Myth: When it comes to sex, men can be provoked to “a point of no return.”
Truth: Men are physically able to stop at any point during sexual activity. Rape is not an act of impulsive, uncontrollable passion; it is a premeditated act of violence. Research shows that 50% of rapes are planned.
Myth: If a woman goes to her date’s room on the first date, it implies she is willing to have sex.
Truth: Nothing is ever implied. Date rapes comprise 50 to 75% of all reported rapes. The best way to prevent a bad situation is to communicate. If things get hot and heavy and you’re not sure what the other person wants, just ask. Some people feel talking may ruin “the mood.” But doing something without consent is rape—and that’s a real mood killer!
Myth: Rape is usually violent and involves a stranger.
Truth: Actually around 73% of all rapes and 90% of rapes on college campuses are committed by someone the victim knows. Many rapes involve force or the threat of force, but some rapes are committed when the victim is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or even asleep! Sex against someone’s will is rape under any circumstances.
Myth: When a woman dresses provocatively, she’s asking for trouble.
Truth: Rapists look for easy, vulnerable targets. Thinking that women provoke attacks against them by the way they dress transfers blame from the perpetrator to the victim. Research shows that this particular myth helps others feel better because they think that rape couldn’t happen to them.
Myth: It’s not really rape when a woman changes her mind in the middle of a sexual activity.
Truth: A woman can change her mind at any time. Say you want to stop, say no or simply say you’ve changed your mind. A respectful partner does not want to do something that you don’t want to do.
Myth: Only attractive women are raped.
Truth: Anyone can be raped. Children, the elderly and people with physical and mental disabilities are easy targets of rape because of their vulnerability. Men, gay and straight alike, can and do get raped. Rape is not about passion or uncontrollable lust. It’s about control over another person and it’s an opportunistic act of violence. Heterosexual men are responsible for the majority of all rapes.
Myth: Anyone who is drunk or high and being a flirt gets what they deserve.
Truth: Being drunk or high is risky behaviour that could have many dangerous consequences. Rape is just one of them. People who are “loaded” are also less likely to use protection and more likely to have sex or be coerced into having sex with someone they don’t know. The bottom line: regardless of a person’s behaviour, no one deserves to be raped. Furthermore, people who commit crimes while “under the influence” are still responsible for their actions.
Myth: Women fantasize about being raped.
Truth: Some women have sexual fantasies about having aggressive sex with a stranger or being “forced” into performing certain sexual acts, but they can stop the fantasy when it becomes too frightening. During a real rape, the victim is powerless to stop anything.
Myth: If a person doesn’t fight back, she or he wasn’t really raped.
Truth: Rape can be life threatening, particularly when a rapist uses a weapon or force to accomplish penetration. Submission is not the same as cooperation. Whatever a person does to survive is the appropriate action.
Myth: There are a lot of false rape reports.
Truth: The false report rate for rape is similar to other false felony reports. The FBI estimates that about 2% of reported rapes are false.
Myth: Most people report rape or sexual assault to the police.
Truth: The truth is that rape and sexual assault are two of the most under reported crimes in our society. Estimates show that between 50–90% of rapes go unreported. Factoring unreported rapes together with the odds of an arrest being made and the chances of getting a felony conviction, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. In other words: 15 of 16 rapists walk free. (http://well.wvu.edu/articles/rape_myths_and_facts)
Even if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does go to court (in 2002, the CPS prosecuted only 14 per cent of cases reported to the police, and only 5% of those resulted in a conviction, so 0.7% of reported cases saw conviction), the feudal court always places the victim at a disadvantage. In the feudal courts the rape victim is just a witness and rarely kept in the loop, sometimes not meeting their lawyer until the day of the case. The victim is thus unprepared for what is likely to be a very harrowing experience. In contrast, the defendant’s barrister will have been thoroughly briefed and the accused will have been well prepared and rehearsed – and will know that, despite recent laws forbidding mention of the victim’s sexual history, the maladministration of many judges let things slide in the courtroom.
The barrister will use the victim’s medical history to slip in the fact that she’s had an abortion, or many sexual partners, and the judge doesn’t notice, or doesn’t care.
Cross-examination is another problem: in a group-rape case the victim will be cross-examined by each defence lawyer for each defendant. Often, the prospect of reliving such trauma over and over again is too much for witnesses to bear, and sometimes they will simply pull out of the case.
Can you blame them?
Would you want to relive your rape just to watch your rapist walk free?
When convicted a rapist in Britain, standing under the UK corporations agents, is generally given a prison sentence of an average of 8 years, however commonly a “release on license would occur after 15 months”, the victim has no relief.
The Substantive Relief of Rape:
In the case of rape the victim is traumatised by the violence imposed upon them, so should not endure further trauma in a Witena-gemot, a specially trained counsellor could work with the victim listening to them and helping them to come to terms with the attack and to ease their mental torment, and stands as their voice in the Witena-gemot, and continues to work with them after the Witena-gemot has established relief. Initially in cases where hospitalisation is not required, the rape victim is examined within a safe and sympathetic environment, the victim is carefully and considerately examined by a medically trained woman where samples, photographs etc. are collected and a counsellor is introduced to the victim.
This trained counsellor stands in place of the traumatised rape victim within the Witena-gemot, they have heard everything the victim has endured, and have studied the difference between the physical and mental trauma received by child rape victims and adult ones, or the rape by a group or an individual, or the rape of a man or a woman, etc., how to interpret any mental trauma evidence, and understands where a victim’s statement is weak and likely to be attacked or rebutted by any retorter, etc.
Counselling is aided through an environment of safety and security, the victim’s life history in the year before and after the trauma has a huge bearing on how easily they deal with the trauma, along with the nature of the traumatic event, whether there was more than a single event, the potential for secondary trauma from people close to the survivor, the support, or lack of support of family and friends, and the social and political context the survivor lives in.
So the soul’s ability to cope with the trauma and its effects are part of a complex interaction of people, situations and events. In other words the “ecology” of the victim’s experience comes from the interaction between the soul, the event and the environment, rape is very common in the isolation of the hierarchical model of control, this would be much more difficult in a true community, and within community real support would be everywhere, although I write about community, it has been almost expunged from the Earth presently, so except for the odd expression people have never been exposed to it.
The cost of both the victim’s time in counselling, court, hospital and all expenses incurred, the rapist must pay, once the culpability of the rapist is determined by the arbitration of their peers. Additionally the cost of the wite and the compensation the peers (jury) determine should be awarded to the victim for the anguish, pain, and long term trauma they have had to endure all must be paid by the rapist.
The rapist presents a clear danger to those around them, this must be neutralised; at no point can the rapist be left free to traumatise another soul. The arbitrators may decide a tracking device be in-bedded deeply within the rapist to monitor their activities, and they may further demand the rapist is medically castrated to prevent them from impregnating any future victims, and to be made chemically impotent (Erectile dysfunction).
It is claimed by the pseudoscience of psychiatry that rapists can be cured with chemical castration and therapy, however 1 in 5 goes on to rape again, and it maybe others just become better at choosing their victims to avoid prosecution. In the case of child rapists the solutions must be powerful, the arbitrators may decide to terminate the rapist pedophiles life, or to place the rapists life into the hands of the victims family, if the family of the child victim choose to end the paedophile rapists life the Witena-gemot will organise the execution as speedily as possible, ideally within the same day or hour, if they decide to spare the life of the paedophile rapist, the arbitrators may decide the rapist will end their days chemically or physically castrated confined in isolation at the expense of those souls they hold in bind of surety, or upon the charity of donations to maintain their worthless life. A cheap method of safely holding of a dangerous predator is to chemically induced coma, which allows an affordable method of containing the threat until they die naturally. Relief is determined by the peers in arbitration and is limited only by their imagination.
Relief that Serves both the Victim and the Victimiser
It may be argued relief for some is completely different to relief for others, dependent upon situation. For example consider a soul who is very rich, and to pay the relief is nothing to them, they would simply consider the payment of relief the cost of ‘doing business’, so continue to abuse others, the peers (jury) gives relief substantively, this mean they can dictate in what substantive form the culpable party must give relief. The basis of wealth is labour, they can then only accept the direct physical labour, in a menial task, or unpopular task, like cleaning sewage tanks for example, of the culpable party in settlement, forcing them to be fully immersed in that relief.
Appeal or Recourse
An appeal is a complaint to a superior court of an injustice done or an error committed by an inferior court, whose judgement or decision the superior court is called upon to correct or reverse. This can only be possible within a hierarchical court structure; however substantively there is no higher dwelling of moral and ethical principles determining honourable behaviour through equity than a substantive Witena-gemot of inherent power; there is no superior to seek appeal, and reason alone proves beyond any doubt, every feudal court is inferior to it.
The distinction between an appeal and a writ of error is that an appeal is a process of civil law origin, and removes the cause entirely, subjecting the facts (facts may not be true but are the elements which are agreed by all parties in dispute to be true), as well as the law (corporate policy within feudal boundaries), to a review and reversal; but a writ of error is a common law origin, and it removes nothing for re-examination but the law. Both civil and common law are positive law constructs, built upon legal fictions.
A fact is not the same as a truth, a fact is whatever is agreed upon, a truth is true even if no one agrees, a fact can be based solely upon opinion, which means it may not be the truth but your own supposition, emotional or cogitative dissonance, or investment. This definition of what a fact is, is based on the practical reality in its application within the court model, clearly the facts of a case are sometimes later proven false, but at the time the facts were agreed upon as true by all concerned.
To address maladministration or unjust verdicts all need some recourse, this allows a soul to seek a course of action to resolve a miscarriage of the Witena-gemot if they can show that the administrators acted in opposition to even-handedness, impartiality, and true equity, this would be very difficult to do, as the administrators and rex function only to present information, only if information was with held for the corruption of truth would maladministration be established. for example false evidence. Recourse is demanded upon the presentation of substantive evidence; it also allows a verdict to be re-examined upon the presentation of new evidence that outwardly refutes the existing conclusion.
The Peers (Jury)
The peers (jury) are brought together from volunteers within the community that are not connected with the dispute or directly related to the complainer or the retorter. Twenty three (23) volunteers in good standing and over eighteen (18) years of age, who are literate, numerate and ratiocinate, are randomly selected and three alternate peers (jurors) are also selected, this group of twenty six (26) is then divided in to three roughly equal groups. Three foremen are then randomly selected one to speak for each group.
The peers (jurors) are given an explanation of what a peer (juror) is required to do, and a written explanation for them to keep.
The peer (juror) must consider the evidence, affidavits and witness statements, and determine if the complainer is justified in their dispute, have they been wronged physically, emotionally or financially.
The peer (juror) has to bear in mind the two basic principles of dispute, has the retorter done all they agreed to do, or has the retorter intentionally encroached upon the inherent power (reciprocal duty of care) of the complainer and caused mental distress, when these two principals have been examined is the retorter at fault or are both parties equally at fault, or both equally blameless.