The Bottom Line:

NO ‘man’ claims the ‘man’, Jerry DeLemus did cause harm, injury or loss to his fellow man. Click Here to read one version of the story .

I write this for those that believe the ‘man’ Jerry DeLemus, “Must have done “something wrong” to be in the clink.”  as stated HERE on Facebook, that folks may get a glimpse of the relative ignorance of the typical Jury in regards to what the difference is between ‘LEGAL’ and “lawful” .. and how such general Public ignorance might lead [a] man of high caliber like I’ve known Jerry to be, to take a Plea Deal despite knowing full well he’s caused NO HARM to his fellow man.

First we must understand the definition of the word “wrong”; Click HERE 

Thus, for [a] ‘man’ to do “wrong” [s]he must cause harm, injury or loss to another ‘man’; there simply are No Lawful Exceptions because ‘man’ has the right to cross examine his/her accuser unless said accuser did die in said wrongful act, in which case 2 or more witnesses to the act, must verify a claim in open court and suffer cross examination. Either way, only [a] ‘man’ can lay claim against another ‘man’ because governments have no “rights” upon which to stand against THEIR creator; ‘man’.

Governments are the creation of ‘man’ . . . thus, governments (State, United States or otherwise) can only legitimately be the injured party in a case where a “Person” (created by Statute) is the defendant. Man cannot be held to account by his creation, any more than God can be held to account by man.

Whereas the issue is and always will be about what is “Lawful” DESPITE whether it is “Legal” or not, the supposed “crime” itself is, and always will be of secondary importance because ALL Codes and Statutes are “legal” and are but the mere opinions of a group of persons in power at any given moment. Watch this clip to further understand.

It matters not if a Code be in support of growing “Marijuana”, which is just a name given to a seed bearing herb which is categorized as food in the Bible, or against selling raw milk, both of which have been ‘lawful’ since time began. It could be a Statute creating a new IRS ‘legal’ loophole, or something as simple as a new City Ordinance about the appearance of Your land (property). It could be a Code about collecting water from your roof top or a Statute about how much water your toilet can flush. The Legal creations of governments (Codes) can only be lawfully enforced against the creations of said government’s Person. Follow this link to better understand WHAT a person is.

To Illustrate:

The same “Public (law) Policy” enforcement AGENT that, contrary to the Castle Doctrine, legally arrested a ‘man’ 10 years ago for ‘Privately’ growing pot in his own home in Colorado, now has to protect that same man’s right to grow that same pot.

The act of growing this seed bearing herb has and will always be “lawful” because doing so does not cause harm, injury or loss to ‘man’ .. but that will never stop Persons that think THEY know better than the common man from being arrogant enough to inflict their opinions of Well Doing and Wrong Doing upon their fellow ‘man’ .. nor .. will it ever be enough to stop said Persons from using lethal force to secure their Public Opinions/Policy. 

Is this NOT contrary to the Oath Jerry took as a Marine?

Jerry-DeLemus-Facebook-800x430

It certainly is all contrary to what is clearly laid out as the purpose of government in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, which states “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 ….”, and, whereas Jerry is [a] ‘man’ whose Rights/Property said government is duty bound to secure, then

‘i’, [a] ‘man’, must ask the following questions;  

If the government’s only true legitimate purpose is to “secure these rights” .. then what is the name of the man or woman on whose behalf the United States government does claim to act? Whose (man or woman) Rights do THEY claim to be securing?

Who (not what) is Jerry’s accuser?

What’s his/her name? (Mr? Mrs? Captain America?)

When will Jerry’s accuser be called to account to verify his/her claim against Jerry in open court before God and man?

When will Jerry be allowed to exercise his right to cross examine this man or woman that says he does wrong?

Does Jerry’s accuser even exist?

. . . or is this accuser just an artificial creation (Person) of ‘man’?

Who swore a claim out against Jerry?

Did Jerry do “wrong” to another man or did he only disagree with some Government Person’s opinions?

. . . Or could it be that Jerry is simply being warehoused as a “”victim”” of government extortion?

Did this artificial Person called “Government” falsely claim to have authority over ‘man’ and threaten said ‘man’ with harm, injury and loss if said ‘man’ did deny said false authority?

After all, this Person called Government threatened Jerry with 9 (nine) other charges IF he did NOT take “the Deal”.

Is that NOT the definition of extortion?

Is THAT why said man did accept a “plea deal”?

Is this why Jerry was denied the Right to face his accuser? . . to face the [wo]man that says “Jerry did me wrong”?

. . . and what about damages?

If Jerry is truly guilty of “wrongdoing”, then what [wo]man lays claim against Jerry for personal damages?

Would it be wise for a man in Jerry’s position to rescind his plea and to require his accuser to appear forthwith or to forever hold his Peace/piece?

If there in fact be no accuser, why should said man not be forthwith restored and made whole that he may move on with his life without further harassment from said Person?

The aforementioned questions are why knowing the difference between “lawful” and ‘Legal’ should be required knowledge to graduate High school — that we may again have Informed Jurists to protect us from this type of abuse of power.

To understand more about the importance of this;

  1. See “legalese” HERE and realise ‘man’ cannot be held to answer to a CODE that is written in a foreign language. 
  2. See Idiot HERE and realise [a] common (private) man is in fact an idiot to “legalese” and to all Codes written in said language and as such, ‘man’ is not liable for any infractions thereof. 
  3. See the title page of any “LAW” dictionary to verify that it is in fact a dictionary of ‘terms’ and NOT and dictionary of words.

Compare these Title pages from Black’s Law and from Webster’s dictionaries. 

Also See NH RSA 21:2 Common Usage. – Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language; but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.

and … “Part the First – Article 38” , of the New~Hampshire Bill of Rights, which states;

Article 38: A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the constitution, and a constant adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, frugality, and all the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and good government; the people ought, therefore, to have a particular regard to all those principles in the choice of their officers and representatives, and they have a right to require of their lawgivers and magistrates, an exact and constant observance of them, in the formation and execution of the laws necessary for the good administration of government. – June 2, 1784

In light of Article 38,

it’s obvious that this Legalese Language is intended for the INTERNAL administration of government and NOT for the controlling of man.  

Advertisements