Tomcat
Professional
- Messages
- 2,695
- Reaction score
- 1,064
- Points
- 113
If I ask a question about whether it is possible to call a person a criminal in the absence of a sentence, then from almost all those who answer I will hear the answer - it is impossible. Especially if these respondents are my colleagues, lawyers and lawyers.
And I will surprise these many, including my colleagues, that it is not only possible to call someone a criminal in certain cases, but it is also necessary to do so.
So why can I and someone else call someone a criminal in the absence of a verdict, but the majority cannot?
First of all, because, as lawyer Yuri Mikhailovich Novolodsky said, vice-president of the St. Petersburg Bar Association, president of the Baltic Bar Association named after. And Sobchak, among lawyers and jurists there is such a category of specialists, conventionally called legal experts.
I will not call my colleagues that, I will simply call them other specialists, zombie-tamed specialists in the field of law.
As an example, Yuri Mikhailovich cited experience in the consideration of legal disputes by individuals before entering a law school and after graduating. And the experience has shown that such people are better able to resolve legal disputes before entering a law school than after graduating. And they do it better for one simple reason - they have not yet been spoiled by the state and think in facts, while at the end of their studies people think more in laws and those taboos that the state introduced into their brains during their studies at the university.
That is why ordinary citizens are recruited to jury trials, and not people with knowledge in the field of law. Ordinary citizens, unlike lawyers and jurists, do not have “blindfolded” eyes and “foggy” brains.
Matthew 13:15 . For the heart of this people is hardened, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and lest they be converted, that I may heal them.
Few people know that at the Nuremberg trials, fascist criminals were not tried according to the law of a particular country, but were tried by virtue of natural law.
You see, not a single law in the world at that time was capable of fully judging the fascist rabble.
And the trial as a whole did not take place, because the organizers and accomplices of fascism never sat on the bench of war criminals.
As one of my colleagues said, the value of the Nuremberg trials lies in the fact that it officially recognized fascism as a crime against humanity.
And how can such a crime against humanity deprive anyone of the natural right to call these organizers and accomplices criminals in the absence of a verdict? No, he can not. But artificial law deprives people of such a right.
Therefore, in the framework of consideration of this issue, unlike my colleagues, I will appeal, first of all, to the natural law of mankind and the actual circumstances of the case, and only then to the law.
So, my colleagues, in contrast to my postulate, would refer to Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes thatEveryone accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed by federal law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.
I have always been interested in the logic of constructing laws and specifically legal norms that allow criminals to avoid criminal prosecution, not to mention criminal liability.
Therefore, I will divide the legal structure of the legal norm laid down by the legislator in Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation into its component parts.
First of all, this part talks about the accused.
An accused is a person who is accused by the state of committing a crime.
What should be understood by crime?
In accordance with part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian FederationA crime is a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.
As we see, the concept of crime in natural and artificial law is different.
By virtue of natural law, any socially dangerous act is recognized as a crime, and in artificial law only that which the state recognizes as criminal.
People in artificial law are deprived of making any significant decisions, under the threat of criminal liability, even the death penalty, if this conflicts with the interests of the state.
As a result of a crime committed, a criminal appears. There is a crime - there is a criminal.
A criminal is a person who has committed a crime, and is such regardless of whether the state recognizes him or not as a criminal. This is based on the factual circumstances of the case, common sense and natural law.
But the state dictates different regulations to us. Only the one designated by the state will be a criminal.
So, everyone accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed by federal law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.
The monstrous formulation, which is in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - Rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the elimination of which not a single lawyer in the status of an attorney has demanded.
Each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I specifically discarded the law, because in Russia neither the police, nor the investigators, nor the prosecutor’s office are guided by the law. Except with rare exceptions.
The accused sitting on the bunk is presumed innocent as long as his guilt is proven by the state.
You see, since he was accused, all that remains is to prove his guilt. And there’s really no need to prove it. Because the state does not simply detain anyone, much less accuse anyone.
And while he sits on the bunk, he is considered innocent. Just until he is proven guilty. In this case, no one is going to prove innocence.
In other words, an innocent person on a bunk is a guilty person, a criminal, with a delay in recognition as such in time.
Compare two definitions of a criminal: one created by the state, and the second created by natural law. As they say, feel and experience the difference. And try to correlate this difference, for example, with the case on Leninsky Prospekt.
According to natural law, if there is a crime, there is a criminal. These are the laws of existence. They are unshakable. They prevent the state from abusing these natural rights.
That is why the state came up with artificial law. Artificial law allows you to manipulate a person and his consciousness.
For example, a crime exists by virtue of natural law, but artificial law allows us to say that there is no crime.
For example, a man was killed, and the investigator, a sovereign’s man, says that he himself committed suicide: he hanged himself, jumped out of a window, from a bridge, poisoned himself, stabbed himself in the heart five times, and each such blow was subsequently qualified by a forensic medical expert like deadly.
That is why not every criminal becomes an accused, but almost every accused becomes a criminal.
Most carders actually have to be searched for and their involvement in the carding established. And here everything is relatively in order with the norms of the law.
But tell me, dear colleagues, what to do with the fact that there are direct witnesses to the crime committed and, even more than that, these crimes were filmed on video cameras and the recordings from these video cameras did not disappear, as in the case on Leninsky Prospekt?
Who and what prevents the criminal from being called a criminal in these cases?
Right. The state is preventing us from doing this.
And you yourself agree with this, because you are already zombified and cut off from natural law. And someone understands all this, but is afraid to tell the truth. Because the state does not tolerate interference in its affairs.
As an example, I can cite the assassination of President Robert Kennedy by US intelligence services. This crime could not be hidden due to the fact that it was committed in front of thousands of people. And there were naive people who decided to act as witnesses in this case and tell the police about how the president was actually killed.
According to currently available information, the US intelligence services have admitted to killing more than 100 witnesses to this murder, including police and CIA officers.
In the case of Leninsky Prospekt, we know so far about the death of one person who decided to seek the truth.
By virtue of natural law, it is enough to point at someone and say that he is a criminal for legal proceedings to begin against him.
Due to artificial law, this is impossible. Even if you witnessed a crime. Even if video cameras recorded the crime on film or a memory card.
Only the state decides for all of us, mere mortals, whether to recognize a crime as a crime and a criminal as a criminal.
Only the state decides whether to prosecute the criminal and, even if an investigation into the crime is started, who to appoint as the criminal - the criminal or the first person who comes to hand, as, for example, in the Chikatilo case.
Thus, Chikatilo, a Soviet serial killer, maniac, rapist, pedophile and cannibal, was detained by the police almost immediately after committing his first crime - the murder with particular cruelty of a 9-year-old girl. But he was released as a law enforcement officer.
As it turned out, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation excluded this first crime of his from the charges for one purpose, to exclude any participation of the state in the affairs of the maniac.
For the first crime, the previously convicted 29-year-old Alexander Kravchenko was taken to slaughter instead and shot. Kravchenko was later found not guilty by the court.
I would point out that no one was held accountable in the Chikatilo case. No.
In my articles published on Pravoruba, I cited specific cases in which there is a crime and there are criminals due to natural law, but there are none due to the artificial law of Russia. Moreover, in the case of the murder of the husband of our colleague from Togliatti, Oksana Vladimirovna Novoseltseva, I initially told her that no one would look for the criminals. Time has shown and proven the prophecy of my statement.
This year, she and hundreds of Togliatti residents again fell for the information published in the information center of the Russian Investigative Committee: The Chairman of the Russian Investigative Committee ordered a report on the arguments set out in the critical comments of residents of the Samara region (critical comments published on social networks).
Remember, I published articles on the case of the Voronezh maniac on Pravorube? So, in this case there are so many criminals by virtue of natural law, and not a single one by virtue of artificial law. You ask, how can this be?
(c) https://zachsitnik.pravorub.ru/personal/101164.html
And I will surprise these many, including my colleagues, that it is not only possible to call someone a criminal in certain cases, but it is also necessary to do so.
So why can I and someone else call someone a criminal in the absence of a verdict, but the majority cannot?
First of all, because, as lawyer Yuri Mikhailovich Novolodsky said, vice-president of the St. Petersburg Bar Association, president of the Baltic Bar Association named after. And Sobchak, among lawyers and jurists there is such a category of specialists, conventionally called legal experts.
I will not call my colleagues that, I will simply call them other specialists, zombie-tamed specialists in the field of law.
As an example, Yuri Mikhailovich cited experience in the consideration of legal disputes by individuals before entering a law school and after graduating. And the experience has shown that such people are better able to resolve legal disputes before entering a law school than after graduating. And they do it better for one simple reason - they have not yet been spoiled by the state and think in facts, while at the end of their studies people think more in laws and those taboos that the state introduced into their brains during their studies at the university.
That is why ordinary citizens are recruited to jury trials, and not people with knowledge in the field of law. Ordinary citizens, unlike lawyers and jurists, do not have “blindfolded” eyes and “foggy” brains.
Matthew 13:15 . For the heart of this people is hardened, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and lest they be converted, that I may heal them.
Few people know that at the Nuremberg trials, fascist criminals were not tried according to the law of a particular country, but were tried by virtue of natural law.
You see, not a single law in the world at that time was capable of fully judging the fascist rabble.
And the trial as a whole did not take place, because the organizers and accomplices of fascism never sat on the bench of war criminals.
As one of my colleagues said, the value of the Nuremberg trials lies in the fact that it officially recognized fascism as a crime against humanity.
And how can such a crime against humanity deprive anyone of the natural right to call these organizers and accomplices criminals in the absence of a verdict? No, he can not. But artificial law deprives people of such a right.
Therefore, in the framework of consideration of this issue, unlike my colleagues, I will appeal, first of all, to the natural law of mankind and the actual circumstances of the case, and only then to the law.
So, my colleagues, in contrast to my postulate, would refer to Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes thatEveryone accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed by federal law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.
I have always been interested in the logic of constructing laws and specifically legal norms that allow criminals to avoid criminal prosecution, not to mention criminal liability.
Therefore, I will divide the legal structure of the legal norm laid down by the legislator in Part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation into its component parts.
First of all, this part talks about the accused.
An accused is a person who is accused by the state of committing a crime.
What should be understood by crime?
In accordance with part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian FederationA crime is a socially dangerous act committed guilty of guilt, prohibited by this Code under threat of punishment.
As we see, the concept of crime in natural and artificial law is different.
By virtue of natural law, any socially dangerous act is recognized as a crime, and in artificial law only that which the state recognizes as criminal.
People in artificial law are deprived of making any significant decisions, under the threat of criminal liability, even the death penalty, if this conflicts with the interests of the state.
As a result of a crime committed, a criminal appears. There is a crime - there is a criminal.
A criminal is a person who has committed a crime, and is such regardless of whether the state recognizes him or not as a criminal. This is based on the factual circumstances of the case, common sense and natural law.
But the state dictates different regulations to us. Only the one designated by the state will be a criminal.
So, everyone accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in the manner prescribed by federal law and established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.
The monstrous formulation, which is in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - Rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the elimination of which not a single lawyer in the status of an attorney has demanded.
Each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I specifically discarded the law, because in Russia neither the police, nor the investigators, nor the prosecutor’s office are guided by the law. Except with rare exceptions.
The accused sitting on the bunk is presumed innocent as long as his guilt is proven by the state.
You see, since he was accused, all that remains is to prove his guilt. And there’s really no need to prove it. Because the state does not simply detain anyone, much less accuse anyone.
And while he sits on the bunk, he is considered innocent. Just until he is proven guilty. In this case, no one is going to prove innocence.
In other words, an innocent person on a bunk is a guilty person, a criminal, with a delay in recognition as such in time.
Compare two definitions of a criminal: one created by the state, and the second created by natural law. As they say, feel and experience the difference. And try to correlate this difference, for example, with the case on Leninsky Prospekt.
According to natural law, if there is a crime, there is a criminal. These are the laws of existence. They are unshakable. They prevent the state from abusing these natural rights.
That is why the state came up with artificial law. Artificial law allows you to manipulate a person and his consciousness.
For example, a crime exists by virtue of natural law, but artificial law allows us to say that there is no crime.
For example, a man was killed, and the investigator, a sovereign’s man, says that he himself committed suicide: he hanged himself, jumped out of a window, from a bridge, poisoned himself, stabbed himself in the heart five times, and each such blow was subsequently qualified by a forensic medical expert like deadly.
That is why not every criminal becomes an accused, but almost every accused becomes a criminal.
Most carders actually have to be searched for and their involvement in the carding established. And here everything is relatively in order with the norms of the law.
But tell me, dear colleagues, what to do with the fact that there are direct witnesses to the crime committed and, even more than that, these crimes were filmed on video cameras and the recordings from these video cameras did not disappear, as in the case on Leninsky Prospekt?
Who and what prevents the criminal from being called a criminal in these cases?
Right. The state is preventing us from doing this.
And you yourself agree with this, because you are already zombified and cut off from natural law. And someone understands all this, but is afraid to tell the truth. Because the state does not tolerate interference in its affairs.
As an example, I can cite the assassination of President Robert Kennedy by US intelligence services. This crime could not be hidden due to the fact that it was committed in front of thousands of people. And there were naive people who decided to act as witnesses in this case and tell the police about how the president was actually killed.
According to currently available information, the US intelligence services have admitted to killing more than 100 witnesses to this murder, including police and CIA officers.
In the case of Leninsky Prospekt, we know so far about the death of one person who decided to seek the truth.
By virtue of natural law, it is enough to point at someone and say that he is a criminal for legal proceedings to begin against him.
Due to artificial law, this is impossible. Even if you witnessed a crime. Even if video cameras recorded the crime on film or a memory card.
Only the state decides for all of us, mere mortals, whether to recognize a crime as a crime and a criminal as a criminal.
Only the state decides whether to prosecute the criminal and, even if an investigation into the crime is started, who to appoint as the criminal - the criminal or the first person who comes to hand, as, for example, in the Chikatilo case.
Thus, Chikatilo, a Soviet serial killer, maniac, rapist, pedophile and cannibal, was detained by the police almost immediately after committing his first crime - the murder with particular cruelty of a 9-year-old girl. But he was released as a law enforcement officer.
As it turned out, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation excluded this first crime of his from the charges for one purpose, to exclude any participation of the state in the affairs of the maniac.
For the first crime, the previously convicted 29-year-old Alexander Kravchenko was taken to slaughter instead and shot. Kravchenko was later found not guilty by the court.
I would point out that no one was held accountable in the Chikatilo case. No.
In my articles published on Pravoruba, I cited specific cases in which there is a crime and there are criminals due to natural law, but there are none due to the artificial law of Russia. Moreover, in the case of the murder of the husband of our colleague from Togliatti, Oksana Vladimirovna Novoseltseva, I initially told her that no one would look for the criminals. Time has shown and proven the prophecy of my statement.
This year, she and hundreds of Togliatti residents again fell for the information published in the information center of the Russian Investigative Committee: The Chairman of the Russian Investigative Committee ordered a report on the arguments set out in the critical comments of residents of the Samara region (critical comments published on social networks).
Remember, I published articles on the case of the Voronezh maniac on Pravorube? So, in this case there are so many criminals by virtue of natural law, and not a single one by virtue of artificial law. You ask, how can this be?
(c) https://zachsitnik.pravorub.ru/personal/101164.html
