Print this page
  The Sentence is one of the final acts of an administrator (single judge or magistrate), or a court (3 judges or magistrates) following (1) a verdict from a hearing, review or trial and (2) a judgment whereby their evaluation is expressed in terms of the overall matter. A Sentence is always an offer, even if not clearly expressed as such.  
     
  A Sentence is an Offer not an Order  
  Before anyone finds themselves in a court whereby they could face a judge as an administrator, or a tribunal of judges or magistrates issuing a criminal sentence, there is something you must know- a Sentence is an Offer, not an Order.  
  This fact is well known by judges and magistrates, but sadly not even fully known by most lawyers, prosecutors and members of the Bar.  
  In other words, you have the right to immediately decline the offer before the judge or magistrate bangs down their gavel to indicate the Offer has been agreed, by silence, acknowledgment and the passage of a few moments of time.  
  Technically the judge or magistrate cannot bang down their gavel until they have given their sentence as an offer. If they do bang down their gavel before completing the offer of the sentence, then they have fundamentally broken a primary rule of their job and you can instantly object with the proviso that you will appeal such a corruption of law.  
  So in most cases you will have at least a second after the judge stops speaking and before the gavel drops to state instantly “I decline your offer, your honor”.  
  If you do so, the judge or magistrate is not permitted to continue as you have not consented to the sentence, therefore you cannot be considered the holder of the liability, even if the jury has found you guilty in fact. This is a fundamental Achilles heel of the corrupt law of the Bar Guild and provides an opportunity for any man or woman to negotiate a fairer sentence, whilst remaining in honor with the law.  
  But first, how is this possible? And why if it is true that more people don’t know about it? If it is true why would the Bar deny it is true and get away with it? And why is it true? Lets start with the continued question of general ignorance of the law by most members of the Bar.  
  Just because one is a member of the Bar does not mean they even know Bar rules let alone the Law  
  Just because a person has trained as an attorney for years and is a loyal member of a Bar Guild does not mean they have any idea about the rules of the Bar, let alone the law in general. As is stated in Canon 1669 “The inferior Roman legal system is deliberately complex with volumes of texts in order to deliberately conceal, confuse and ensure knowledge of the law is excluded for all but a very few.” In other words, the first people to whom the Roman legal system lie are the lawyers, then the people.  
  It is why the modern legal system is so massively overwritten- over 60 million laws within the United States, compared to a few hundred maxims of the 12 Tablets of Roman Law that stood in the forum for 1,000 years as the basis of the law of the Roman Empire.  
  Most members of the legal professional are good people and often highly intelligent. So in order to confuse them, to entrap them into a mod of behaviour for which they probably swore they would never follow, the law must be presented as overly complex and confusing.  
  It means, one cannot possibly rely on even a law professor to provide credible rebuttal nor confirmation of the statement of claim concerning sentencing. Only the history and reasoning behind it- and anecdotal examples provide any “evidence” of the truth.  
     
  What is happening at sentencing?  
  To provide some rational and logical evidence to the truth of the claim that a Sentence is only an offer, not an order before the judge seals it through the use of the gavel, let us review what we know about the Bar Guild and the Court in financially sealing sentence and liability.  
  When a controversy is first brought to court, such as a criminal matter, the liability is held by the prosecutor until the liability can be attached to the defendant. In terms of the Court, this liability has a financial sum and once perfected will produce a bond of some financial value that will later be sold like any other bond on the bond market. The sale of bonds of people in prison is now well known and proven as fact with the issue of CUSIP numbers for such bonds and their trade in major markets.  
  So how does the prosecutor get the liability across to the defendant? Well, simply by getting the defendant to accept the liability as surety after they have accepted the “benefit” of the associated penalty, such as prison. In other words, there are two distinct items the defendant must consent of their own free will (1) the penalty listed in the judgment of the judge/magistrate as a “benefit” and (2) the surety of performance in the form of the sentence.  
  The court cannot force these onto the defendant, even if a jury has found them through a verdict guilty. Nor can a judge even impose it unilaterally upon a defendant who has already pleaded guilty through some “plea bargain”. Instead it must be the man or woman who makes their consent known for it to be legal. If it is not legal, then the value of the penalty is worthless and the court cannot lawfully process the bond, nor sell it.  
  Now in a jurisdiction where they are not seeking to make money from crime, a judge may ignore such procedures, particularly in communist and totalitarian regimes. But we are not speaking about such systems of law. In fact, even in the worst of regimes, an absence of consent by the prisoner to the sentence makes the sentence unlawful.  
     
  What does this mean in practice?  
  Anyone who has dealt with the private courts of the private Bar Guilds may well feel that even this information is limited given the preference for many members of the Bar to simply ignore even the most basic of their own rules. But this history should not be used to belittle, nor discount the significance of understand that instantly rejecting any sentence as an offer.  
  When a man or woman instantly and respectfully rejects a sentence by stating clearly “I decline and do not consent to your offer your honor”, the judge must then make a counter offer. This might go one through several offers and counter offers until the matter is resolved and the judge can then bang their gavel and seal the deal.  
  In practical terms it can make a massive difference between the initial punitive measures “offered” and the final offer.  
  But in all the information presented here, it is entirely up to the man or woman to consider and make their own choice.  
     
     
Copyright © One-Heaven.Org Ab Initio. All Rights Reserved