Servant Of The Light

Version 2 – 16^th May 2013

Part Five - Establishing a Substantive Moot of Inherent Power

Tort – Duty of Care – Outcast

1.                      Over time, in the ancient system, torts had established a specific relief attached to them; this of course has been lost, replaced with punishments and fines to benefit the corporation. Initially the relief is requested by the complainer in their original writ, but is ultimately determined by the jury, who can disregard the relief suggested by the complainer, as they are free to apply reason to form the best course for a particular case.

2.                      A tort is a ‘wrongful act’, this can also be termed an encroachment, within the idea of a moot of inherent power, a living soul can demand relief for anything they feel encroaches upon them, the only limitation upon this principle is in the ‘wite’, as the one at fault pays the ‘wite’, if you demand relief and a jury of your peers determines there was no wrong done and you acted unreasonably, you would be liable for the costs (based on time accounted and a fair ordinary rate of payment), including reimbursing the time that had been wasted by the retorter, except the cost of bringing the retorter before the court if they refused the writ, which would always be a result of their own actions.

3.     The foundations of natural equities are: NO moot or court can compel; equity can only protect. Within any equitable system the compulsive legal aspects are imposed and require consent, implied or explicit, the true protective axioms of the land are unalienable and immutable therefore are obligatory, if the axiom of the land does not protect me, it is not a true axiom and therefore does not apply to me, it is only through positive law imposition is the basis of action. It is positive law because that law compels and exists only through the active and so positive threat or force of arms, and is the ‘law’ which is the policy of the landlord upon the chattel existing upon the jurisdiction of the land as determined by the fraud of ownership, held upon the ship of citizen as an economic slave, which in truth and in fact is inequitable and therefore a felonious imposition. Freedom is not dependent on any government benefit or piece of legislation. The inherent power of the living soul is innate and a substantive reality, we are born a living soul with a nature set upon our creation. My inherent power is unalienable and immutable therefore non-negotiable. Government cannot exist in equity, and functions solely upon the imposed denial of the inherent power of a living soul.

4.                      In equity there is No collective right/s, in fact no rights exist at all, as they are a grant from a superior, and as no soul has a superior to give grant rights, claims, or privilege to in the first instance, all rights are simply fictional constructs, only the inherent power expressed as reciprocal obligations and responsibilities of the individual, these are simple axioms, balanced, and working in both directions, for example you have a duty of care for those around you, and those around you have a duty of care for you.

Duty of care

5.                      A duty of care is a simple model; you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

6.                      For example if you witness a drowning living soul and have it within your power to save them, but do not, you have failed in your natural reciprocal obligation and responsibility of a duty of care, so have committed an injury to the drowning soul, and relief can be sort.

7.                      The duty of care is a principle with a wide application, for example if I build a dwelling that is unsafe in design and construction, and then sell it without full disclosure of every fault, or a declaration that the dwelling is not safe for habitation, I have failed in my duty of care, by endangering others for my own gain, and they can seek relief.

8.                      The failure to uphold the 'Duty of Care' is either:

(1)NEGLIGENT
Which is doing something likely to injure your neighbour in circumstances when you would not reasonably be expected to know that the thing you are doing is likely to injure your neighbour, (this is not a felonious act, one may only be liable for damages in a moot),

(2)RECKLESS
Which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour and yet doing it anyway (this is a wrongful act (tort) of endangering the those around you, where if the situation demands it, one may be prevented from further action without warrant to protect the innocent. Dependent upon the relief established by the jury for a given case relief could include; all measure taken to prevent future situation that held a risk of a breach of trust and responsibility to others, full liability for all damages and wite,- in serious cases, outcast or forfeiture of life if your actions cost the life of another).

(3)INTENTIONAL
Which is to INTEND by your act or omission to injure your neighbour (this is the most serious type of felonious wrongful act (tort) which is relieved with the full support of the community to establish its resolution, dependent upon the relief established by the jury for a given case; loss of surety, irreparable violation and loss of community agreements and bonds, loss of community standing, outcast, forfeiture of life if your actions cost the life of another).

9.                      The Duty of Care is used in corporate court every day to determine the guilt or innocence of every defendant who appears before a jury. Examples will serve to clarify the point.

Example 1

(a) A soul is driving a car who has no mechanical knowledge to repair or maintain the car, this soul has had the car serviced and maintained by qualified mechanic and has the service history in the glove box of the car. This soul has done all that can be reasonably expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet in an emergency they fail to stop because it is found that their car has defective brakes.

This is an event happening which is likely to injure their neighbour yet having taken all reasonable steps to insure that what they were doing was not likely to cause injury. The soul is still responsible in a moot for the payment of damages should they injure someone as a result, but they have not behaved feloniously, relief could be established against the NEGLIGENT actions of the mechanics who serviced the car if proven.

(b) If it is found that the soul did know that the brakes were defective, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is felonious.

(c) If it is found that the man was aiming to intentionally hit someone with the car they would be tried for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour INTENTIONALLY.


Example 2

A madman is on the street shooting at people, if a reasonable, prudent, and well-intentioned soul kills the madman to prevent them from shooting anyone else, they would NOT be found guilty of a wrongful act, even if the soul had to use reasonable force to take a gun or other weapon from an innocent bystander, or to take it from a shop.

Why would the taking of the resources of another by force not a wrongful act in this situation:

For a defendant to be found guilty of a wrongful act there has to be both:
(a) an inequitable act or omission, (the 'actus reus') AND
(b) the state of mind (the 'mens rea') of the accused has to be of a felonious nature.

If a living soul can show that they upheld the Duty of Care in the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not guilty of a wrongful act.

            9.     The duty of care can be applied to understand your obligations for the safety of those around you in any situation for example.

       10.     Endangering others in any activity that demands a skill and knowledge base to master, like driving a car on a common use road, or flying a plane over a populated area, competence must be gained before that activity can be undertaken without danger to others, based upon your equitable duty of care to protect those around you, however ‘Licensing’ of drivers cannot be required of free souls, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an unalienable reciprocal obligation and responsibility, namely who is above me to grant me permission, the license is required by public trustees who are performing a corporate service and is not applicable to me, the highway traffic act does not apply to me as I am not involved in commerce for the government, I can perform that function if I have a valid driver’s license (as the government is granted the benefit of using the roads and must apply for permission of each individual of each local community and so they are licensed, the license they grant themselves upon those they subjugate is not equitable), but unless specifically performing that function I need no license and am not bound by any regulation of traffic acts to drive upon any road, for my actions in equity I hold full liability, and I am bound by the axioms of the land to establish a duty of care, for which I am responsible.

       11.     Another example: If you drive after drinking heavily, but drive without incident or demonstrating dangerous road use, you have committed no objective tort (wrongful act), as you have caused no injury to another tangible being, however you have failed in your duty of care for those around you, this can be recorded and used in respect to the risk you pose potentially against any subsequent related tort. Additionally the assurance cooperative, if you are a member, would be informed, and all the surety bonded-souls in reciprocal agreement with you, of your reckless actions.

       12.     If you drank heavily and caused the death of another, the relief would be viewed as premeditated murder, as you drank with the intention of driving while severely impaired in your ability to drive safely, from your own self inflicted drunkenness, this utter disregard for your duty of care makes the act premeditated, and leaves you fully accountable for your actions.

Theft

       13.     Theft is the handling of another’s resources, with an intention of stealing, against the will of the equitable possessor. The relief is firstly, the item must be returned without damage, if damaged must be recompensed, if lost must be paid as a minimum of its replacement value, and further to compensate the victim in time and trouble suffered from their actions, if they have no resource and no surety, to do so they must labour giving over the excess fruits of the labours until the debt is paid; secondly they can hold no position of responsibility or sole guardianship within the community, and cannot stand attestant, nor verify any agreement for another, as they have proved themselves dishonest, this prohibition would remain until the consensus of the local community granted forgiveness through a prolonged change in conduct.

       14.     The best relief for changing thoughtless or deceptive behaviour is from an honest care and concern for the culpable soul; this can be achieved through positive peer pressure. The friends and family of the thief systematically confront the thief, individually throughout a day, expressing to them every good thing they have ever witnessed them doing, and the pride they held for them, and the hope they will realise their true nature and fill them once more with pride in the future, through relating how proud they have been of them in their good conduct within the community, however small that maybe, and demonstrate to the thief how valued and essentially good they truly are, through a combination of realisation of their innate honesty and shaming them through the positive not the negative, showing them how they have let themselves down. This method of reform can be applied to any wrong that would have reasonable benefits for relief.

Outcast

       15.     To be outcast is to be put outside of the protection or aid of the moot or court, you are effectively extorted. Ex-tort – means as a relief to place outside of the protection of torts, to be outcast from the community exiled, banished, driven out. This term can also be used alternatively for an individual, who acts as an extorter; to obtain money or other valuable things either by compulsion, by actual force of motives applied to the ‘will’, and often more overpowering and irresistible than physical force, taking what is not due, or before the time when it is due, attempting to force their victim to believe they are outside of the protection of torts or unable to demand there protection.

       16.     To be extorted or outcast is a process by which a retorter who demonstrates contempt of the natural equities of those around them to such a degree their action are judged irreparable by any process of relief, so they are declared outcast, it amounts to conviction through attainder (without recourse).

       17.     Attainder differs from conviction, in that it is after judgement of relief, so upon attainder a soul becomes outcast, once relief is first satisfied in full to the victim, whereas conviction itself is upon the verdict of culpability, but before judgement of relief is pronounced. The only way to quash attainder is upon some point of recourse at appeal, if any new evidence can be presented to refute or challenge the old.

       18.     Attainder, being the loss of the protection of the axioms of the land from those around you, can result in three ways, by confession proven of actions that substantiate that loss, by verdict without recourse as a result by a jury of your peers or by process of out-casting determined from contempt for those around you as a repeated refusal to act in equity, building as a cumulative and clear impediment to equitable community over time.

       19.     Most actions are limited within a certain reasonable period for a victim to seek relief as adjudicated by the jury, except for felonies (any crime punishable by death or mutilation and forfeiture of lands and goods) where for example the victim is murdered and cannot seek relief themselves, a crime that would have no limit.

Murderers

         20.     The forfeiture of life of the tort-feasor in the event of proof of guilt of murder at the discretion of the family wronged; the murderer has stolen the life of the victim, under the axioms of the land, the thief must return what was stolen in kind, as it is substantive relief, so the life of the murderer is in the hands of the friends and relatives of the victim, or in the case of the victim having no family the verdict of the jury, executed by the court rex.

         21.     The family upon jury verdict of murder have a choice, they can extinguish the life of the murderer; they can maintain the life in captivity at their own exclusive cost; they can release the life, if they release the life and the murderer takes another life in the murderers life time, that victims kith and kin would have an equitable complaint against the family who released the murderer; as any man or woman who spares the guilty punishes the innocent.

         22.     Additionally the murderer’s holdings in full would be forfeit to the family of the victim/s in substantive settlement; if the resources required and demanded in relief to protect the dependents of the victim were beyond the resources of the convicted, then they would be secured through the surety bonds held by the murderer, if indeed any bond was held by the murderer.

Imprisonment

         23.     Holding captive a man or woman who represents a physical danger to another or the individuals of the community within equitable confinement, this established not for the sake of punishment, but for their detention under guard, until relief is established.

Part Six: Remedy, Recourse