THE BASIS FOR TAKING TRUMP S CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT WHETHER HIS HUSH MONEY ENJOYS IMMUNITY AS PREZ
CLEARLY HIS HUSH MONEY WERE PERSONAL AND UNOFFICIAL ACTS WHICH DO NOT ENJOY IMMUNITY
IT IS IN THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POLICE STATE AND THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION AS DISCUSSED BY UK JUDGE JONATHAN SUMPTION
https://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/privatelaw/Freshfields_Lecture_2020_Government_by_Decree.pdf
THIS IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE NAZI TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE AND THE USA
CRIMINALIZING EVERYDAY BEHAVIOUR OR MINOR THINGS CAUSING NO HARM TO ANYONE LIKE TRUMP S BUOK KEEPING ENTRIES CAUSING NO LOSS TO ANY PERSN OR HIS BUSINESS OR A SHAREHOLDER AND A POLITICAL VIEW OF A RACE TO INFRINGE ON BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS IS A POLICE STATE
MUST FILE CHARGES AGAINST BRAGG, MERCHAN AND JAMES FOR TRYING TO CONVICT HIM AND IMPRISON HIM WITH NO LEGAL AUTHORITY
CLAIM THAT TRUMP ALTERED BOOK KEEPING RECORDS TO INFLUENCE ELECTION IS SPECULATIVE AND ABSURD
THE 34 BOOK KEEPING RECORDS ARE HERE AND RELATE TO A MERE 130 K OF TRUMP S OWN MONEY GIVEN TO A CONSENTING ADULT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS UNDER VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS WHICH ALSO SEEM APPROPRIATE
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts
WHAT IS THE CRIME?
EVEN IF TRUMP HAD A BOOK KEEPING ENTRY HUSH MONEY FOR PORN STAR THAT IS NOT A CRIME
TO RECORD THAT MONEY UNDER VARIOUS OTHER BOOK KEEPING ENTRIES IS NOT A CRIME
MORE SOON
On 27 October 2020 Lord Sumption delivered the 2020 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Government by decree - Covid-19 and the Constitution".
The 34 felony offences for a book keeping entries, with no harm shown to any person or business, is an attempt to make administrative rules, not the criminal code and the Constitition, the legal authority for depriving people of their basic human rights and is the characteristic of a police state..
It is an attempt to sideline the Constitution, this time using judges and prosecutors who have turned minor, perhaps even none existent, administrative issues which may not merit even the lightest civil penalties, into criminal offences and so justify violating human rights.
This is being done mendaciously and maliciously.
Alvin Bragg,Merchan and James know the difference between offences which they have the legal authority to prosecute and administrative rules which they do not have the legal authority to prosecute.
Human rights are protected by the Constitution. For the government to infringe on them, it must have demonstrable legal authority.
The legal authority to infringe on the rights of a person to liberty, freedom, freedom of speech must be shown to be clearly present for judges and prosecutors to sentence someone to felonies and prison.
Specifically, a person must be shown to have harmed someone or some business substantially to justify depriving them of their basic liberty. Criminal offences are about social harms.
Where no harm has been shown, there is no crime. There is at most an administrative offence.
An alleged offences agaisnt book keeping rules, a administrative issue, where no harm to any one is shown, and also not to the Trump s own business or stake holders, does not consitute the legal authority to convict someone of 34 criminal felonies and sentence them to prison.
The attempt to turn administrative, bureaucratic issues into criminal offences characterises the police state.
The police overrides Constitution, Congress and human rights.
Jonathan Sumption in his Lecture entitled "Government by decree - Covid-19 and the Constitution" identifies the way rules issued by mere ministerial decree and without a basis in the law were used to impose restrictions on rights and turn the UK into a police state.
Biden, Harris used the same approach, the bureucratic framework of OHSA to try impose the covid jab mandates on Americans, and bypass and disregard the right of people to refuse a dangerous and uncontrolled experiment which flows from the rights guranteeed to people under the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment