The Presumption of Innocence

Three thoughts come to mind when I learn about someone falsely declared innocent of a crime in our legal system. First, the legal system is biased toward the presumption of innocence.[1]  In reaction to past abuses of the monarchical rule of law, modern civilized societies prefer, on average, to  legally declare “innocent” some truly guilty individuals (false negative) in exchange of not erring the verdict on truly innocent individuals (true positive).  I’ve addressed the applicable rules of “sensitivity and specificity,” as practiced in screening and diagnosing diseases, in another post (Spiritual Discernment).

Second, according to Master DK, the legal profession is in need of reorientation “for the purpose of world usefulness.”[2] He mentions this in the context of legislation for children, but it could be argued that the current corruption of the legal system requires a reorientation toward the TRUTH. Children must be educated to honor the truth in everything, including their own behavior. It is simply ethically wrong to claim innocence about a wrongdoing that you actually did just because you have the legal right to claim innocence until proven otherwise. Children must be taught that it is their civic duty to honor the truth of the facts, even if self-incriminatory.

Third, in the “near” future (as measured in the time frame of the spiritual Hierarchy), people won’t be able to claim innocence when they are actually guilty.  We are told,”the growth of telepathic registration and of the psychic powers such as clairvoyance and clairaudience will eventually tend to strip humanity of the privacy in which to sin”.[3] This development will revolutionize the practice of law (and medicine, which is the context of Master DK’s prophecy).

So, when I hear that the unfit-for-office but de jure president of the minority who elected him (in the irregular 2016 presidential election in the USA) has been declared innocent of obstruction of justice (a “high crime and misdemeanor”) by his conflicted Cabinet appointee, and that the special Counsel in charge of investigating the facts (and we still need to learn ALL the factual evidence discovered by the Counsel), in strict adherence to the rules of the legal system, could not find legally prosecutable evidence to charge him of colluding with a foreign power to defeat his opponent, while all public facts bear evidence to the contrary, I’m reminded of the need to reorient our legal system to honor the truth, and the responsibility of any wrongdoer to acknowledge his or her misdeed as a civic duty.

For democracy to work as intended, it must be freed from the corruption of self-interest, as in legally permissible lying. For democracy to work as needed for the externalization of the spiritual Hierarchy, the legal system needs to be reoriented toward a culture of truth, regardless of any technicality about the legal rules of evidence.

The war against the truth must end. The truth will prevail. The truth will set us free.

-JB

References

[1] The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. The trier of fact (a judge or a jury) is thus restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. The prosecution must, in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence


[2] A certain relationship or configuration of stars—of which one is the star Regulus, in Leo—will bring about a situation wherein the re-orientation of the attitude of the legal profession will take place; its functions and duties will be centralised for the purpose of world usefulness, and in this process legislation for children will assume great importance and be the motivating power. This legal step will be primarily advocated by Russia and endorsed by the United States of America. Before 2035 A.D. such legislation will be universal in its sphere of influence and control. –Esoteric Astrology by AAB-DK (p. 238)


[3] Another reason which will bring about the cessation of those practises and modes of living and desiring which account for these diseases is one little recognised as yet; it was referred to by the Christ when He spoke of the time when nothing secret would remain hidden and when all secrets would be shouted aloud from the housetops. The growth of telepathic registration and of the psychic powers such as clairvoyance and clairaudience will eventually tend to strip humanity of the privacy in which to sin. The powers whereby the Masters and the higher initiates can ascertain the psychic state and physical condition of humanity, its quality and consciousness, are already beginning to show [Page 237] themselves in advanced humanity. People will sin, commit evil deeds and satisfy inordinate desire, but they will be known to their fellowmen and nothing that they do will be carried out in secret. Some one or some group will be aware of the tendencies in the life of a man, and even of the incidents in which he satisfies some demand of his lower nature, and the fact of this possibility will act as a great deterrent—a far greater deterrent than you can imagine. Man is indeed his brother’s keeper, and the keeping will take the form of knowledge and of “boycott and sanctions”—as it is called today in reference to the penalising of nations. I would have you ponder on these two modes of treating wrong doing. They will be practically automatically applied as a matter of good taste, right feeling and helpful intention by individuals and groups to other individuals and groups, and in this way crime and the tendency to evil doing will gradually be stamped out. It will be realised that all crime is founded upon some form of disease, or upon a glandular lack or overstimulation, based in turn upon the development or the underdevelopment of some one or other of the centres. An enlightened public opinion—informed as to man’s constitution and aware of the great Law of Cause and Effect—will deal with the criminal through medical means, right environmental conditions, and the penalties of boycott and sanctions. I have no time to enlarge upon these matters, but these suggestions will give you food for thought. -Esoteric Healing by AAB-DK

Ω


 

How to Understand the End of the Mueller Investigation (Hint: You Can’t Yet)

By Benjamin Wittes

Saturday, March 23, 2019, 7:46 PM

As a general matter, declinations fall into three broad categories: factual declinations, legal declinations, and prudential declinations. These overlap to some degree, and the distinctions here are thus somewhat artificial—though I hope still useful. A declination for factual reasons could be based on a finding of actual innocence—as discussed above—or a finding that the evidence, though compelling, is not adequate for prosecution. How much of a vindication or how politically damaging such a declination is depends entirely on the factual findings, about which we know nothing.

A declination for legal reasons is also preponderantly likely here, irrespective of the facts, at least as regards Trump himself. Indeed, we always knew that the investigation would not result in Trump’s indictment while he remained in office; that was never in doubt. For all the feverish discussion of the question of whether a president can or cannot be indicted, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has a longstanding opinion on the matter that binds Mueller. There was never any chance that Mueller would defy this opinion. And there was thus never any chance either that Mueller would indict Trump while he remained in office. The result is that at least as regards the president himself, we cannot presume—as we normally would presume—that the investigation’s end means that the evidence is insufficient to bring charges. It might well mean that, and nobody should be surprised if it does. But it needn’t mean that.

There are other possibilities too. What if Mueller developed compelling evidence of presidential misconduct but that evidence does not map cleanly onto known criminal statutes? This could be the case on the collusion prong of the investigation, because knowingly and gleefully benefiting from a foreign power’s theft and disclosure of a political opponent’s emails isn’t, without more, a crime. And it could also be the case with respect to the obstruction component of the investigation, because the president has plausible arguments with respect to many of his obstructive acts that they are within his Article II powers.

There are also prudential factors that can lead to declinations—for example, the unwillingness to declassify material to bring a case. I have no reason to believe such factors are at work here. My point is simply that to say that Mueller is not recommending further charges does not tell you all that much unless you know why he’s not recommending further charges. Yes, it is possible that Mueller has concluded that the president is innocent, that there was “NO COLLUSION” and that there’s nothing to see here and we should all move on. But it’s also possible that he has concluded that the president is guilty as sin but he can’t prove this without outing a particular intelligence channel that NSA senior leadership would lie down in traffic to prevent him from discussing in court—and that even if he could blow that capability, the president can’t be indicted anyway and would have a good argument that his conduct was lawful. These scenarios are both consistent with Friday’s news.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-understand-end-mueller-investigation-hint-you-cant-yet 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s