ziero0
6th April 2022, 09:38 AM
Courts are two dimensional entities.
Those dimensions are
1. Fact
2. Law
Facts are the province/jurisdiction of the jury.
Law is the province/jurisdiction of the justices.
Ignorance comes under both fact and law
Ignorance of a law is unexcusable unless
1. There is no duty established to obey
2. It is a Law not commonly known to all men.
Ignorance of a fact is lack of knowledge of the facts in dispute.
Ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a fact ( because there is no duty to know that foreign law).
Ignorance of a fact is never criminal. Having a lack of knowledge can't be used against you. For example you cannot be charged for not being present to eyewitness the robbery at the local convenience store last night.
Points to consider:
1. Relocating items from consideration by the justices (law) to consideration by the jury (fact). This would seem to boil down to interpretation of
(A) oaths you have made and duties owed
(B) interpretation of laws that all men should know
2. In a universe of FACTS which of these may be called upon to impress the jury to render a decision most favorable to your cause.
Juries deliberate FACTS. Bringing up obscure facts that confuse them might result in a jury that hangs themselves (aka unable to reach a decision). Maybe this is the most favorable outcome....maybe not. But the justices are making calls as to which FACTS may be considered and which may not be considered. Essentially the justices have usurped the jurisdiction of the jury (FACTS) by their control of the proceeding. They make the call as to what a FACT means.
Yet ...if they (the justices) are practicing this TYPE of Law and using a foreign language (Legalese) to do so then that Law is a foreign law and THAT IS A FACT!!!
And another FACT is that at least three judges are required. One judge does not a justice make unless the ONLY issue is the size of bail or to release on recognizance.
In the universe of fact and law the relationship of the two to the other is orthogonal and accurately described above.
Those dimensions are
1. Fact
2. Law
Facts are the province/jurisdiction of the jury.
Law is the province/jurisdiction of the justices.
Ignorance comes under both fact and law
Ignorance of a law is unexcusable unless
1. There is no duty established to obey
2. It is a Law not commonly known to all men.
Ignorance of a fact is lack of knowledge of the facts in dispute.
Ignorance of a foreign law is ignorance of a fact ( because there is no duty to know that foreign law).
Ignorance of a fact is never criminal. Having a lack of knowledge can't be used against you. For example you cannot be charged for not being present to eyewitness the robbery at the local convenience store last night.
Points to consider:
1. Relocating items from consideration by the justices (law) to consideration by the jury (fact). This would seem to boil down to interpretation of
(A) oaths you have made and duties owed
(B) interpretation of laws that all men should know
2. In a universe of FACTS which of these may be called upon to impress the jury to render a decision most favorable to your cause.
Juries deliberate FACTS. Bringing up obscure facts that confuse them might result in a jury that hangs themselves (aka unable to reach a decision). Maybe this is the most favorable outcome....maybe not. But the justices are making calls as to which FACTS may be considered and which may not be considered. Essentially the justices have usurped the jurisdiction of the jury (FACTS) by their control of the proceeding. They make the call as to what a FACT means.
Yet ...if they (the justices) are practicing this TYPE of Law and using a foreign language (Legalese) to do so then that Law is a foreign law and THAT IS A FACT!!!
And another FACT is that at least three judges are required. One judge does not a justice make unless the ONLY issue is the size of bail or to release on recognizance.
In the universe of fact and law the relationship of the two to the other is orthogonal and accurately described above.