Why Justice does not exist unless the Rule of Law is applied according to Golden Rule
Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (41 min 14 Mb)
Hello and thanks for reading and listening to this weeks blog and audio on Why Justice does not exist nor can ever exist within a community, a city, a state or any association of people unless the Rule of Law is applied strictly according to the Golden Rule.
Before we begin, I would like to thank all of you who took the time to read and maybe also listen to the blog last week on the subject of the Motu Proprio issued by Pope Francis on the 11th of July 2013 and why under proper Rule of Law, no one can be above the Law. That the Rule of Law is far from some complex, escoteric ideal or goal. Instead, it is a simple, immutable foundation stone of virtually every civilization up until the past few hundred years. That the Rule of Law is that no one is above the law and all are equal under the same law. In other words, the Rule of Law is the Golden Rule and the Golden Rule of Law. That’s it! It is that simple.
Further, we listed three key points of a short checklist to determine whether you currently live under a community, a city, a state or nation that is operating under the Rule of Law or not, Namely:
(1) If there are different rules for one set of society compared to the other set of society, then there is no Golden Rule, there is no Rule of Law and so any conveyance, ruling, statute, promulgation, trust, sentence is without any force or effect of law and is wholly immoral, unlawful and maintained only by force and fear; and
(2) If there is different application of rules for one group over another, then there is no Golden Rule and there is no Rule of Law and again any action done by such judges, magistrates, politicians and their business friends is without any legitimacy whatsoever; and
(3) If there are any absurd and wholly false statutes and rules that render judges or magistrates or politicians immune from the law they administer, if there are rulings that render banks or industries immune from prosecution then by such actions, the politicians who issue such false statutes destroy the golden rule and extinguish any form of Rule of Law until they are arrested, run out of office, imprisoned and/or held to account.
That is how clear and important Rule of Law is. No ifs or buts. No confusion. No vagueness. If the law is no equal, if it is not equally applied then there is no law. You are living under tyranny; you are living under the yoke of criminals, of warlords.
Unfortunately, no matter how clear such absolutely fundamental concepts are expressed, there has never been more data, more information, more noise than there is now fighting for your attention, so for those of who have taken the time to listen to last week’s audio and read the blog I want to acknowledge now the significance and importance of your time over all the other competing issues. I hope this is also the case over even the noise and sometimes deliberately confusing comments people make just about Ucadia and Frank O’Collins. So thank you again and many thanks to all of those who continue to find ways to help support the ability for the model to continue to be finished and these blogs and audios to continue.
So let us be clear, as clear as we can possibly be as to those deliberately confusing arguments that continue to be posted:
False Claim #1- That the system isn’t really broken, it’s just you are doing it all wrong
If the golden rule is not honored, if there is no equality under the law, then there is no rule of law and everything is an elaborate sham. That’s it! All the claims of secret offices on top floors, or obscure basements of court houses or other buildings, that if you walk in through certain doors, between certain hours and wear certain clothes, or fill in papers in a certain way, or speak in a certain manner, shake hands or say magic words that will be home free is at best the mind of a Harry Potter fanatic or at worst a deliberate disinfo agent. No fairness, no equality means no rule of law and the yoke of tyranny.
False Claim #2- The word person is dangerous, stop playing in their game and run to the hills
Running away never solved anything. Throwing your hands up in the air and declaring it is all fiction might feel good, but it doesn’t solve the fact that all of society if based on fictions – there is no absolute objective reality. That’s why the oldest and wisest of civilizations knew that life is a dream. Yet for some reason, people have a problem with this concept. The problem is not a single word like person, or agent, or general executor, or will and testament, it is how competent we choose to handle ourselves and the reason why we are doing things. If you are following the huge amount of information on Ucadia and genuinely support the model, then you will know one of its key and primary purpose is to help restore the Rule of Law, also known as the Golden Rule.
False Claim #3- People are getting big financial remedies from the system
If someone is able to resolve an issue honorably and honestly and go about their lives, then that is fantastic. I don’t begrudge anyone who has some genuine approach they have taken to resolving their issues based on honor, good faith, humility and not claiming something that is not theirs to claim. But it is time to call a spade a spade and accept that in a commercial world still crippled by mind virus and run by pirates, becoming a pirate doesn’t help solve the problem of restoring the Rule of Law.
So with these points in mind, tonight, as a follow up to last week and the blog why under proper Rule of Law, no one can be above the Law, we are going to talk about yet another of the most fundamental concepts called Justice and why Justice does not exist nor can ever exist within a community, a city, a state or any association of people unless the Rule of Law is applied strictly according to the Golden Rule.
Let’s start then in a similar way to how we started last week by asking the first question of what does Justice mean?
Meaning of Justice and the Rule of Law
What do we mean by the word and concept of Justice? Like last week and the concept of Rule of Law, you may already have a strong opinion, which is excellent. For example, you might have immediately thought of some of the classic concepts of Justice from the Bible and from the court of public opinion such as:
Every man or woman given their fair day in court, or given their fair due; and/or
To be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; and/or
That people who break the law are punished and that the punishment fits the crime.
In any event, most people have some idea in their minds of what they think justice is about and many of you may subscribe to one or all of the common phrases listed here.
But is what really what Justice means? And similar to our discussion on the rule of Law, are there any fundament elements to the meaning of justice that if they do not exist, then the very concept of Justice cannot exist?
It turns out the word justice originates from 8th Century Anglaise or Old French sacred law of the Carolingians under Charles Martel. The Carolingians created the word from an older key Latin word iusus ius+us.
The word ius or ious in ancient Latin meant three things “a right granted by rule or lawful grant, the instrument or law or grant that made it and the obligations or duty attached to it”
The word –us is itself a shortened version of usus meaning “enjoyment, practice, skill, experience, usage, custom, intercourse, familiarity, benefit, advantage, need or necessity”.
So, if we look at all of this, we see that the word Justice as created by the Carolingians in the 8th Century meant simply “lawful right of use” or “lawful property rights”.
What about present day meaning of Justice? Well, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Justice as “(1) the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments; and (2) a judge and (3) the administration of law; especially the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity”. In other words, Justice has more than one element and is more than one thing, even if it is not as clear as its original meaning.
What is another example? Blacks 9th Edition defines Justice as “(1) the fair and proper administration of laws; (2) A Judge, especially of an appellate court or a court of last resort; (3) Judicial cognizance of causes or offences as jurisdiction”. Or to put it in a slightly different way, the execution of three fundamental forms of rights, being:
(1) Right to hear a matter (Jurisdiction)
(2) Right to adjudicate or arbitrate a matter (Jurist or Justice)
(3) Right for the matter to be administered fairly and properly (Jurisprudence)
This definition of Blacks, while pretty dry and technical may seem reasonable, but what about earlier definitions of Justice? After the 8th Century but before the present day. The Universal Etymological English Dictionary by N. Bailey of 1675 and the Dictionary Britannicum of 1736 defines Justice generally in precisely the same manner as “Justness, Equity, Reasonableness and Right of Law”; and “The constant giving to everyone his due and this hath for its object all laws divine and human”.
Now this is important, very important. Because it demonstrates two things: the first is that the definition of Justice certainly appeared more or less stable over a major period of change and is consistent with the original meaning of the term as first created by the Carolingians and secondly that the concept of Justice if we were to boil it down into the simplest possible terms appears to be no more complex than the “Constant Application of the Golden Rule” – that is “treating the rights of everyone equally and fairly under the same law”.
Famous example showing justice is application of Golden Rule
Before we move to make sense of the other definition that focuses Justice around “bundles of rights, laws and equity”, let’s see if there are any other definitions or documents that might shed light on the inherit nature of Justice?
Given we are talking about Justice and given the term is probably on more buildings and more pieces of paper and more revered in the United States than possibly any other nation on Earth, let’s see what the founding fathers considered the essence of Justice when they framed the Declaration of Independence in 1776?
Now, I am not going to recite the whole Declaration of Independence, even though it is an extraordinary text. Instead, I am going to read the first two paragraphs which contain most of the key concepts the founding father saw fit to endow to us. Here we go:
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Now, there is a lot in there, but looking at it from the perspective of what we discussed last week, namely that The Rule of Law is based on the fact that all are equal under the law as the Golden Rule we see that concept beautifully outlined in the first and second paragraph.
We also see a key foundation towards Justice as the effective execution of the Golden Rule in the immortalized phrase “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
Here, in these incredible two paragraphs we also see an explanation of the other much older definition of justice in the concept of a “bundles of rights and laws in equality” – that we all possess certain inalienable rights through law and that these must be honored.
So the Declaration of Independence proves the fundamental and true meaning of Justice as the “constant application of the Rule of Law and Golden Rule through good faith, clean hands and due process”.
Why then are the three elements of Good Faith, Clean Hands and Due Process so fundamental to the concept of Justice, apart from just applying the rule of law? Are there other rights associated with Justice? And how did the private bar guilds and banks get away with corrupting the system? When did it start and how?
Lets start then with explain the core importance and intimate connection of the three elements of Justice to the concept of Justice itself.
The Three Elements of Justice
The Bible has quite a bit to say about Justice. But it also expresses some core concepts which are entirely consistent with the concept of the Golden Rule and Rule of Law.
GOOD FAITH – The first is Good Faith and good intention. Simply no agreement, or argument, or transaction is valid if one party approaches from the position of bad faith, malice, perfidy or some other malevolent intent. Many jurisdictions have relief for people facing malicious prosecutions and historically, the proof of bad faith, willful bias and prejudice of a judge or magistrate adjudicating a matter is sufficient on appeal for the reversal of any judgment, edict, sentence or opinion. Such is the seriousness of this behavior, that it can end an illustrious career.
It also makes sense that the law cannot be administered fairly and at the same time with prejudice. The court of public opinion is well aware of such examples of bias and increasingly active social networks are quick to act on clear examples of bias as corruption.
Yet for judges and magistrates it goes much further. As they represent the law (and in some jurisdictions are actually called “Justice”) they are required by most constitutions to take a solemn and sacred oath to uphold the law. Thus a judge or magistrate is expected by the nature of their office to act in good faith and without prejudice. That is why the first question whenever one enters a court should be “will you be hearing this matter in good faith and without prejudice your honor?” If they refuse to answer then it is not a court and there is no justice.
CLEAN HANDS – The concept of clean hands is perfectly illustrated by the teaching within the New Testament that one cannot serve two masters. This is the parable of clean hands. Simply, a judge or magistrate cannot adjudicate a matter for which they have a financial interest. In many countries there are strict rules concerning judicial financial independence. Thus, when you ask a judge “do you have any form of financial interest in these matters?” The answer should be a straight no. Any obstruction, false answers or distractions should be major concern for alarm that there is no real judge in front of you, but an imposter and no justice.
DUE PROCESS – Deliberate failure to follow due process in many jurisdictions is considered a criminal offence as obstruction to justice – a career ending offence. Therefore, the appearance of justice demands that a judge or magistrate follow their own codes and regulations of procedures. Of course, the present system has become so broken (as we have discussed for years), there are ample examples of judges and magistrates deliberately failing to follow due process.
The Issue of Jus in Justice
Now, up until now, all this background on Justice and Jus or Ius seems wonderfully idealistic – that all men are created equal, the three elements of justice and so on. But what about this word Jus or “Ius”? As we saw, the root meaning of Justice literally means “lawful property rights” and “lawful right of use”. So do we all have equal rights in honor of the word Justice?
In the Universal Etymological English Dictionary of 1675 we see only four fundamental recognitions of Jus, or forms of particular rights of law and equity, being (1) Jus Corona as the rights of the crown; and (2) Jus Curialitatis Angliae as the rights and laws called the courtesy of England; and (3) Jus Hereditatis as the rights of inheritance; and (4) Jus Patronatus as the rights or a cleric to an ecclesiastical benefice.
However by the time of the Dictionary Britannicum of 1736 we see the addition of an additional Jus or right called Jus Retractus or Jus Retrovendendi being the right of the seller or their heirs to buy back any goods or wares before any other claim. In others words, we see the beginning of the private bar guilds starting in full flight to create their own forms of rights claimed as protected under Justice.
Lets have a look now at the eighteen (18) brand new concepts of Rights created out of thin air by the time of the publication of Andersons Dictionary of Law in 1893, compared to the 18th Century Dictionary Britannicum. As new “made up” corruptions of justice we have (1) Jus Accrescendi, the right of survivorship; (2) Jus ad Rem as the right to control a thing not in ones possession; (3) Jus in Rem the right to control a thing in ones custody or possession; (4) Jus Dare or Jus Dicere as the right to make the law whatever is necessary; (5) Jus Dispondendi as the right to part, sell, dispose of a thing and its alienation; (6) Jus Fiduciarum as the rights in trust; (7) Jus Gentium as the rights and laws of all nations; (8) Jus Mariti as the rights of the husband over the property of the wife; (9) Jus Personarum as the rights of persons; (10) Jus Rerum as the general rights of control over things, sometimes just written as “re”; (11) Jus Possessionis as the rights to seize, evict and hold possession; (12) Jus Postlimini as the rights of reprisal to be restored to possession of a thing as if he had never been deprived in the first place; (13) Jus Precarium as the rights to a thing held for another, for which there was no remedy except by entreaty or request; and (14) Jus Privatum as the rights of private law; (15) Jus Propritetatis as the rights of property ownership as distinct from possession; (16) Jus Representationis as the right of representation; (17) Jus Scriptum as the rights of the written law and statutes; (18) Jus Tertii as the rights of a third person.
Now before you think, hold on a second some of these rights are right which I would like to claim, think about what this whole Jus system is doing since the mid 18th Century, it is based on the false premise, the utter absurdity, the inarguable fallacy that justice permits that one set of rights, rules, laws may favor one party above another – that the law is unequal based on some rule of a game whether it be first in time, first in line, nature of birth, secret hand shakes, membership to elite secret groups, secret occult knowledge or just simply plain old organized criminal activity pretending to be a pillar of society.
So, if you think 18 brand new ways the Private Bar Guilds found was to steal, rape, thieve, seize, lie, cheat, obstruct, corrupt, destroy and hurt, then just have a look at Blacks 2nd edition in 1910 and fifty eight more Jus they created out of thin air between 1893 and 1910 for “just us”, namely: (1) Jus Abstinendi, the right of renunciation; and (2) Jus Abutendi as the right to abuse or waste property as exactly one likes; and (3) Jus Aelianum as the claimed original rights and laws of the twelve tables of Rome; and (4) Jus Aesneciae as the rights of primogeniture or inheritance rights of first born son; and (5) Jus Anglorum as the laws and customs of the West Saxons; and (6) Jus Aquaeductus as the claimed ancient rights to bring water through or from the land of another; and (7) Jus Banci as the rights of the bench to exclusively administer law; and (8) Jus Belli as the laws of nations as applied during wartime and conflict; and (9) Jus Canonicum as Canon law; and (10) Jus Civile as the laws and customs of civil law; and (11) Jus Civitatis as the rights of citizenship claimed from Rome, even Rome never used the word citizen; and (12) Jus Cloacae as the rights of sewerage or drainage; and (13) Jus Commune as the common and natural rule of right; and (14) Jus Cudendae Monetae as the claimed exclusive right to mint money; and (15) Jus Deliberandi as the claimed right a proper officer to deliberate in matters of inheritance or probate; and (16) Jus Devolutum as the right of a church to present a minister to a vacant parish; and (17) Jus Dividendi as the right of disposing of real property by will; and (18) Jus Duplicatum as a double right as in the right of possession united with the right of property; and (19) Jus Falcandi as the right of mowing or cutting; and (20) Jus Feciale as the claimed ancient law of arms or of heralds; and (21) Jus Flavianum as the claimed ancient laws and rights defined by Cneius Flavius; and (22) Jus Fluminum the right to the use of rivers; and (23) Jus Fodiendi as the right of digging on another’s land; and (24) Jus Futurum as a claimed future right, not yet fully vested; and (24) Jus Gladii the right of the sword and executor power of the law; and (25) Jus Habendi as the right to have or hold a thing; and (26) Jus Hauriendi as the right of drawing water; and (27) Jus Honorarum as the claimed ancient Roman laws of magistrates and judges created by edict to which only they have right; and (28) Jus Imaginis as the right to use or display pictures or statues of ancestors; and (29) Jus Immunitatis as the right and laws of immunity or exemption from the burdens of public office; and (30) Jus in Personam as the right which gives its possessor a power to oblige another person to give or procure, to do or not to do something; and (31) Jus Incognitum as the right to create secret rights or laws, unknown to the public and others; and (32) Jus Individuum as an individual or indivisible right; and (33) Jus Italicum as the claimed ancient rights and privileges of cities (as bodies politic or companies) to be exempt from obligations under their own constitution; and (34) Jus Latii as the claimed ancient rights of the Latins; and (35) Jus Latium as the claimed exclusive rights of magistrates that raised the dignity of himself and family above others; and (36) Jus Navigandi as the right of navigating or navigation; and (37) Jus Necis as the claimed lawful right to put someone to death; and (38) Jus Non Scriptum as the claimed unwritten laws; and (39) Jus Offerendi as the right for a person to take over the rights or remedies of another against a third party as if it were their own; and (40) Jus Papirianum as the claimed laws of Papirius of Rome; and (41) Jus Pascendi as the claimed right of pasturing cattle; and (42) Jus Poenitendi as the right of recission or revocation of an executor contract on failure of other party to fulfil his part; and (43) Jus Portus as the right of port or safe harbor; and (44) Jus Praesens a claimed present or vested right; and (45) Jus Praetorium as the claimed rights and discretion of the praetor (or judge) as distinct from the standing laws (or statutes); and (46) Jus Presentationis as the right of presentation; and (47) Jus Projiciendi as the right to build a projection such as balcony or gallery from ones house in the open space belonging to a neighbour; and (48) Jus Protegendi as the right by which a part of the roof or tiling of one house is made to extend over the adjoining house; and (49) Jus Publicum as the laws relating to the constitution and functions of government; and (50) Jus Quaesitum as the right to ask or recover; and (51) Jus Quiritium as the claimed ancient Roman laws and rights only applicable to patricians or noble families; and (52) Jus Recuperandi as the right of recovery of lands; and (53) Jus Singulare as a peculiar or individual rule, differing from Jus Commune or common rule of right and established for some special reason; and (54) Jus Stapulae as a right or privilege of certain towns of stopping imported merchandise and it being offered for sale in local markets; and (55) Jus Tripertitum as the claimed ancient law of wills from the time of Justinian as claiming precedence over a mans’ estate by claim of edict, civil law and constitutions; and (56) Jus Trium Liberorum as a right or privilege allowed to the parent of three or more children; and (57) Jus Utendi as the right to use property without destroying its substance; and (58) Jus Vendandi et Piscandi as the right of hunting and fishing.
Of course, there is another pathetic argument and excuse raised by apologists for the private bar guilds, for which the Blacks dictionary artfully describes by saying many of these concepts that suddenly appear are not new, their old legal concepts magically, wonderfully discovered from ancient Roman and Greek principles of law. How lucky then that these new concepts discovered, fit into neat little holes to shut the door on any real form of justice.
By 2009, we see yet more rights magically being recovered from legal archeological digs and analysis with 49 new Jus “magically found” since 1910 such as (1) Jus Actionis as the claimed right of action; and (2) Jus Actus as the right of the peasant to the right of passage for a carriage or cattle; and (3) Jus Aequum as the right and law to make flexible and adapted judgments as to a particular case; and (4) Jus Agenda as the right to take action to pursue one’s rights; and (5) Jus Albanagii as the right to confiscate the goods of aliens; and (6) Jus Albinatus as the right to alien confiscation and interment; and (7) Jus Antiquum as the claimed old Roman law in its entirety; and (8) Jus Apparentiae as the right of an heir not fully vested in title allowing action on behalf of estate; and (9) Jus Aucupandi as the right of catching birds and fowling; and (10) Jus Bellum Dicendi as the right to proclaim war; and (11) Jus Capiendi as the right to take or receive property under a will; and (12) Jus Cogens as a mandatory right or law in domestic and international law which is not subject to the disposition of the parties and for which no derogation is permitted; and (13) Jus Commercii as the right to make contracts, acquire and transfer property and conduct business transactions; and (14) Jus Compascuum as the right to feed together; and (15) Jus Connubii as the right of marriage; and (16) Jus Crediti as the creditors right to a debt and rights to recover debts through legal process; and (17) Jus de non Appellando as supreme judicial power for which there is no higher grounds of appeal; and (18) Jus Dispositivum as a norm of law created by the consent of participating nations, binding only to nations that agree to be bound; and (19) Jus Distrahendi as the right to sell pledged goods upon default; and (20) Jus Divinum as Divine Law; and (21) Jus Edicendi as the right to issue edicts; and (22) Jus Ecclesiasticum as Ecclesiastical Law; and (23) Jus Exigendi as the rights of a creditor to enforce immediate payment of a debt; and (24) Jus Fetiale as the right and laws to negotiate or engage in diplomacy; and (25) Jus Incorporale as an incorporeal right (being something having no material body or form); and (26) Jus in re Aliena as an easement or right in or over the property of another; and (27) Jus in re Propria as the right of enjoyment that is incident to full ownership of the property; and (28) Jus Inter Gentes as the law amongst nations; and (29) Jus Itineris as the ancient claimed right to pass over an adjoining property on foot or horseback (such as fox hunting and gaming); and (30) Jus Liberorum as the right of children and the right of compulsory guardianship of the state over families with less than three children; and (31) Jus Liquidissimum as the right of a salvager to a reward for saving life or property imperiled at sea; and (32) Jus Naturale as Natural Law; and (33) Jus Necessitatis as the right to what is required for which no threat of legal punishment is a dissuasion; and (34) Jus Nobilus as a superior or noble right; and (35) Jus Obligationis as a right of obligation; and (36) Jus Pignoris as a creditor’s right in the property that a debtor pledges to secure a debt; and (37) Jus Possidendi as the right to possess, hold or own property; and (38) Jus Praeventionis as the claimed jurisdictional superiority of a court by virtue of it being the first court to exercise its jurisdiction in a case; and (39) Jus Provocationis as the claimed ancient Roman Right to appeal to the parliamentary body politic or highest official from the infliction of punishment by a magistrate or judge; and (40) Jus Regale as a sovereign right; and (41) Jus Regendi as a proprietary right vested in a sovereign; and (42) Jus Respondendi as the right and authority of jurists when delivering legal opinions; and (43) Jus Retentionis as the right to hold or retain a thing in custody until the delivery of something else that the person retaining the thing is entitled to; and (44) Jus Retractus as the right to repurchase property for the same price within a year; and (45) Jus Sacrum as sacred law; and (46) Jus Sanguinis as the law that the status and citizenship of the child is determined by the status of the parents; and (47) Jus Soli as the law that the status and citizenship of a child is determined by place of birth; and (48) Jus Spatiandi as the public right of way over specific land for purpose of recreation and instruction; and (49) Jus Suffragii as the right of a citizen to vote.
Another way of viewing the pyramid of Jus
Here is a key problem speaking about Rights – because there is probably no one in the truth movement that would be against the notion. In fact, the loudest people in society demanding the protection of rights often are people within the truth movement and I am sure the private bar guilds are most thankful.
You see, while they have magically created all kinds of equal rights for people, the private bar guilds have also created a staggering number of unequal rights “just for us”, or “just us”. A way of looking at it is by aggregating these rights according to the strata of society, with most people at the bottom as wage and debt slaves and the bar and professional classes above:
Jus Divinum Jus Canonicum, Jus Ecclesiasticum, Jus Devolutum
Jus Corona, Jus Curialitatis Angliae, Jus Patronatus, Jus Anglorum, Jus Cudendae Monetae, Jus Edicendi, Jus Regale, Jus Regendi
Jus Aelianum, Jus Aesneciae, Jus Feciale, Jus Italicum, Jus Latii, Jus Quiritium, Jus Singulare, Jus Nobilus
Jus Belli, Jus Bellum Dicendi, Jus Civile, Jus Gentium, Jus Incognitum, Jus Publicum, Jus Scriptum, Jus Stapulae, Jus Albanagii, Jus Albinatus, Jus Cogens, Jus Dispositivum, Jus Inter Gentes, Jus Naturale
Jus ad Rem, Jus in Rem, Jus Aequum, Jus Banci, Jus de non Appellando, Jus Dicere, Jus Dispondendi, Jus Rerum, Jus Precarium, Jus Deliberandi, Jus Flavianum, Jus Gladii, Jus Habendi, Jus Honorarum, Jus Immunitatis, Jus in Personam, Jus Latium, Jus Necis, Jus Non Scriptum, Jus Papirianum, Jus Praetorium, Jus Tripertitum, Jus Antiquum, Jus Praeventionis, Jus Respondendi, Jus Retentionis
Jus Abutendi, Jus Aquaeductus, Jus Postlimini, Jus Retractus, Jus Propritetatis, Jus Cloacae, Jus Dividendi, Jus Fodiendi, Jus Futurum, Jus Pascendi, Jus Portus, Jus Praesens, Jus Projiciendi, Jus Protegendi, Jus Quaesitum, Jus Recuperandi, Jus Utendi, Jus Commercii, Jus Distrahendi, Jus Exigendi, Jus in re Aliena, Jus in re Propria, Jus Pignoris, Jus Retractus
Jus Fiduciarum, Jus Possessionis, Jus Privatum, Jus Offerendi, Jus Presentationis, Jus Fetiale, Jus Liquidissimum
ALL PEOPLE/COMMON LAW RIGHTS
Jus Actionis, Jus Actus, Jus Agenda, Jus Apparentiae, Jus Aucupandi, Jus Capiendi, Jus Compascuum, Jus Connubii, Jus Crediti, Jus Possidendi, Jus Abstinendi, Jus Accrescendi, Jus Hereditatis, Jus Mariti, Jus Personarum, Jus Representationis, Jus Tertii, Jus Abstinendi, Jus Civitatis, Jus Commune, Jus Fluminum, Jus Hauriendi, Jus Imaginis, Jus Individuum, Jus Navigandi, Jus Poenitendi, Jus Vendandi et Piscandi,Jus Incorporale, Jus Itineris, Jus Liberorum, Jus Necessitatis, Jus Obligationis, Jus Provocationis, Jus Sanguinis, Jus Soli, Jus Spatiandi, Jus Suffragii
Now by this pyramid of power, yes there are lots of common law rights that are potentially attractive. But, hopefully as people approach this rationally and sensibly you can see that virtually every single common law right can be usurped by the rights the courts have granted themselves through their artful creation of new words, false history and concepts through dictionaries, case law and other forms within their control.
The point being that this model of rights clearly indicates that people are not being treated equally and fairly under the law, therefore there is no justice. If a right is not available to all and is only exclusively to some by its nature, there is no justice.
Just because it is written and claimed, does not make it Justice
Just because it is written in a dictionary or a piece of legislation when it comes to the principles and foundations of law, does not make it so. A fraud is a fraud, no matter when it was committed. A corruption of law is still a corruption of law, even if was perpetrated hundreds of years before this time.
The golden rule means no one is above the law. As we said if this is not followed, then there is no rule of law. As we also saw, the private bar guilds and bankers are even so arrogant as to create themselves the right to immunity. Unbelievable!
Tonight, as we have also said, to there to be true justice, there must be the constant application of the golden rule to equal rights, not exclusive rights for some. As is overwhelmingly clear that is not how they have corrupted the foundations of our societies and there is no justice.
The only reason they continue to get away with it, is because we remain addicted to those few rights they give us and do not hold them account to insane claims they can do whatever they want and still call it justice.
At some point, at some time the veil will be lifted and the public will be under no illusion that there is presently no justice in places such as the United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand and many other nations. When that happens, maybe, hopefully we can see reform to the law and restoration of rule of law.
So thank you for reading and listening and until next week, please be safe and well. Cheers Frank