[GJM] more on the mortgage...... taken from [http://www.ecotort.gn.apc.org]

[EcoTort]

    THE GOLD-SMITHS' CON-TRICK

Many years ago, the only way to transport wealth was to place it in a 
strong-box and guard it while moving it from one castle to another. As 
time went on the risk of it being robbed grew to such an extent that one 
day, somebody, somewhere in a castle, who owed a debt to somebody else 
in another castle, had the bright idea of writing a letter to the person 
who was to receive the gold. The letter would have been roughly as 
follows:-

/Dear Friend,    /

/In view of the continued and increasing activities of the thieves & 
pirates who are stealing our cash, I am writing to you to suggest that I 
keep the gold here for safety, and that I write you a note promising 
that the gold is now yours; after all, the risk of a single person with 
such a note being stopped by these reprobates is much less than if we 
were to have a large and heavily guarded convoy carrying a big box full 
of gold bullion. I will have to charge you a small amount to pay my 
guards to keep the thieves out.    If you are in agreement with me on 
this matter then please write back and let me know.
   Yours etc.
      H.M.Blackguard. Esq. /

   In due course the friend wrote back saying that (s)he was in 
agreement and that (s)he was looking forward to receiving the note.

Well, the person who had written the note had now paid the debt (on 
paper) but they still had the gold! This person also owed a similar 
amount of gold to another friend in another castle so (s)he wrote 
another letter promising the same gold to the second friend who also 
agreed that it was a good idea, not knowing that the gold was already 
promised to someone else.

The person writing the notes had now doubled their material wealth by 
doing absolutely no work whatsoever! This is how the first bank was formed.

Since then, the banks have increased their wealth in this way so that 
more than 90% of the money in the world is now VIRTUAL MONEY, (ie. it is 
milli-volts of electricity in a computer), it is of NO CONSEQUENCE, 
therefore there is NO ECONOMIC REASON WHY WE CANNOT BE TOTALLY 
ENVIRONMENT-FRIENDLY AND FEED EVERYONE ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW!, (and, 
of course, the banks also charge huge amounts of interest on any loans 
of this virtual money which they are gracious enough to grant to the 
working person (subject, of course to status)

 

*THE DUTY OF CARE*


There is a law of social behaviour which must always apply, to any group 
of creatures, at any time; in the past, and in the present, and in the 
future; in any place, in any possible universe.

 This law is simply that any creatures living together in a group do 
not, as a general rule, injure each other.(If the members of any group 
were to injure each other as a general rule then that group would be 
reduced in size until there was only one creature left, which is not a 
group. It is quite natural in many groups for members to establish a 
pecking-order and during this process some injury may be done, but once 
the pecking-order has been established and each group member knows hir 
place, very little further conflict is seen.)

This law may be applied to any group of creatures, living at any time, 
in any place; anywhere, in any conceivable universe: therefore; it is a 
Divine Principle Of Law. (that is if we are to believe in a Divine 
Architect of any race, creed, colour or gender who created the cosmos,) 
Even if we do not believe in a Divinity of any kind, the principle still 
holds good according to both common-sense and simple logic, and 
therefore applies to any religion, even including atheists.

   In British Law today there is the *"Duty of Care" *which says that:

*"YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS WHICH YOU CAN 
REASONABLY FORESEE WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR ." ***

   The Duty of Care is applied to all persons in this country, including 
Parliament (the only exception being the Queen in person).

*ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO U.U.E.P.&D. (UN-NECESSARY OR 
UNREASONABLE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION & DAMAGE), ARE NOT ONLY LIKELY TO 
INJURE THE NEIGHBOURS OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE; THEY ARE 
ALREADY INJURING ALL OF US, ON A MASSIVE SCALE, PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY, 
MENTALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY! ***


      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 
criminal offence, one may only be liable for damages in a civil court),
or

*(2)RECKLESS
*which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour 
and yet doing it anyway (which IS a criminal offence where one may be 
arrested, and fined or imprisoned and be liable for damages),
or

*(3)INTENTIONAL
*which is to intend by your act or omission to injure your neighbour 
(this is the most serious type of criminal offence which is generally 
punished with the full weight of the criminal law ).

Not only is the Duty of Care arguably a Divine Principle of Law, it is 
also used in legal practice today to create precedent or new law. If you 
can show that your behaviour is "reasonable, prudent and 
well-intentioned" in the circumstances which you find yourself in, then 
you are not generally guilty of any crime even if you have broken a 
particular statute or statutes.

For instance, there are times when it may be seen as "reasonable, 
prudent and well-intentioned" to disregard a particular law "in order to 
serve a greater interest." Therefore we may argue that the Duty of Care 
is both the most fundamental and underlying principle of British law and 
also that it will over-ride any previous precedents or statutes in 
certain circumstances.

*Indeed we may argue that the Duty of Care is the Law! *

* *


     


    THE DUTY OF CARE - EXAMPLES

The Duty of Care is used in court every day to determine the guilt or 
innocence of every defendant who appears in the dock. Two examples will 
serve to clarify the point.

 1).

(a). A person is driving a car who has no mechanical knowlege, this 
person has had the car serviced and maintained by qualified personnel 
and has the service history in the glove box of the car. The tax, MoT 
and insurance are all up to date. This person has done all that can be 
REASONABLY expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet when stopped by 
the police in a routine road check, it is found that they have defective 
brakes. This is doing something 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 person is still 
responsible in a civil court for the payment of damages should they 
injure someone as a result, but they have NOT behaved CRIMINALLY.

(b). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of 
road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, 
this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person KNEW that 
the brakes were defective. This time the person will very likely be 
tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure 
their neighbour KNOWINGLY, if it is found that the person DID KNOW that 
the brakes were defective, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is CRIMINAL.

(c). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of 
road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, 
this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person was AIMING 
TO HIT someone. This time the person will very likely be tried in a 
criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their 
neighbour INTENTIONALLY, if it is found that the person DID INTEND TO 
HIT SOMEONE WITH THE CAR then this is obviously a SERIOUSLY CRIMINAL matter.

It may be seen from the above that not only does there have to be an 
unlawful ACT (the 'actus reus') COMMITTED (i.e. driving the car with 
defective brakes); for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, the 
MENTAL STATE (the 'mens rea') OF THE ACCUSED PERSON HAS ALSO TO BE OF A 
CRIMINAL NATURE.

 

(2). The other example is rather heavy, but it does prove the point:

In the case of Micheal Ryan, who you may remember shot around 30 people 
at Hungerford a few years ago, and then shot himself (rest his soul!); 
if a REASONABLE, PRUDENT, and WELL-INTENTIONED person had been present 
and had shot him, (to prevent him from shooting anyone else), they would 
NOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME, even if the person had had to use 
REASONABLE FORCE to take a gun from someone else or from a shop. In 
ordinary circumstances, a person who stole a gun, and then shot someone 
with it would (almost certainly) be found guilty of assault, battery, 
theft of a firearm, unlawful posession and use of a firearm, and murder, 
and would receive a heavy gaol sentance (around 30 years).

It is therefore apparent that:-

(1). From the first example: For a defendant to be convicted of crime 
there has to be both:

            (a) an unlawful act or omission, (the 'actus reus') AND

(b) the state of mind (the 'mens rea') of the accused has to be of a 
criminal nature,

 

(2). And from the second example that:

_Reasonable, Prudent Well-Intentioned Behaviour is not 
criminal_,           (notwithstanding any acts of parliament, previous 
case law, or common law).

Or to put it another way, if a person can show that they upheld the Duty 
Of Care In the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not 
guilty of a crime.

 

There have been many cases which are relevant on the eco front, the most 
dramatic of which was that of the Ploughshares women who recently broke 
into British Aerospace and damaged combat aircraft which were to be 
exported to the Indonesian Government in order to subjugate the natives 
who were (and still are!) trying to resist the encroachment of western 
hotel complexes (etc etc) on the forest which is their home. Normally, 
to break into British Aerospace and damage combat aircraft would, I 
believe, be a treasonable offence which is still punnishable by death. 
However, when it was found that prior to this action the women had taken 
all REASONABLE steps to make their point known (they wrote petitions and 
staged peaceful demonstrations etc), and it was realised that the matter 
was genuinely felt to be of sufficient urgence to justify such an 
action, the women (after serving seversl months remanded in custody) 
were found NOT GUILTY of any crime.

Another case in point is that many thousands of eco-activists have been 
arrested under the Criminal Justice And Public Order Acts, yet only a 
very few have been found guilty of any crime.

This is because it is unarguably the case that in the face of the threat 
due to UUEP&D being of a similar magnitude to the threat that a war 
would pose, it is REASONAVLE, PRUDENT AND WELL-INTENTIONED to take 
NonViolentDirectAction.

 

*THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT *


Ten or twenty years ago most of us were very much less aware of the 
damage we were then doing to the Earth. Many of us were quite willing 
under those circumstances to agree to a mortgage contract binding us to 
work for many years in order to own a home for our family.

Now that it has come to our attention that our employment is causing so 
much harm to the Earth we find ourselves returning from work to be 
confronted by our children saying things like: "Daddy I hate you, you're 
destroying the Earth and I'm the one who's got to live here for the rest 
of my life!"

In an ideal world we would have taken more care to find a more 
environmentally friendly job in the first place (if indeed there was one 
available), yet it is hardly reasonable in the face of our parents, our 
teachers, and the many other pressures upon us at the time that we could 
see how we were being so misled into the situation we presently find 
ourselves in.

If we do not continue in this *reckless* employment, there being little 
or no employment available which does no UUEP&D, we cannot pay the 
mortgage, and our family and ourselves will be made homeless.

The situation is that having agreed to work for thirty years or so in a 
job which would improve our standard of living and that of our family, 
we now find ourselves being unduly influenced or coerced by the mortgage 
contract (or the rent agreement) knowingly (i.e. CRIMINALLY) to cause 
Un-necessary and Unreasonable Environmental Pollution and Damage to the 
planet earth upon which our neighbours, our families, and we ourselves 
have to live.

In *Contract Law *it states quite plainly that */"Any contract which 
unduly influences or coerces a person to commit a CRIME is a void 
contract and as such is unenforceable!!" /*

*/You Can't Have A Legally Binding Contract Which Forces A Person To 
Commit A Crime!/*

   This is to say that when enough of us get together and make enough 
reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned noise about this issue then the 
money-lenders will not be able to repossess our houses when we refuse to 
destroy the Earth in order to 'pay' for them.

Enough of us must get together and lobby our MP's, our solicitors, our 
mortgage companies and bank managers; buttonhole our friends, our 
acquaintances and our relatives. -If we are to become effective against 
those who would force us to destroy our precious planet we must form 
groups and protest.

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://globaljusticemovement.net/pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070729/0d986c54/attachment-0001.html