From the Old Mississippi to the New Mississippi

The Wrongful Conviction of Jamie and Gladys Scott

 In the State of Mississippi (USA) - On December 24, 1993, Scott County Sheriff's Department
arrested two sisters, Jamie and Gladys Scott for armed robbery, and In October of 1994,
Jamie and Gladys Scott were each sentenced to double life terms in prison. Neither sister had prior
convictions, nor arrests, nor criminal history. Three young black male confessed to the robbery,
implicated and linked Jamie and Gladys into the crime; and these men also received a light sentence of
10 months in exchange of a plea bargain. Allegedly; between $9-$11, were stolen; subsequently no one was
injured or murdered.

 How could this?

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

(To which we are still awaiting a reply)

I stated that there were two problems!

1. We don't understand the true meaning of the word money and therefore do not
know what money is.

2. The second is the law, and what the law is. I am sure that most every one has heard that
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" that statement is a confirmation that the law should be simple enough for all to understand it, and small enough for all to know it. (I believe that the number of codes, rules and regulations now number in the millions...

How could one know them all.  You can't, and this is where duplicity first Shows it's ugly head. The fact of the matter is that most of us have no idea what the truth of the law is, And because of that ignorance we have been taken advantage of on a daily basis. In a email I sent to the team representing the Scott sisters, I proposed a different way of looking at the case and the law.

 The E-mail follows:

Subject:    On Wrongful Convictions
     
From:    webmaster@geneticmemory.org    
    
Date:    Fri, May 15, 2009 8:18 pm
To:    TheWrongfulConviction@gmail.com

I heard about the problems that you are having and was touched. There is no way that this could be a lawful act but
the problem is that you are not dealing with the law as we think we know it. (when all other explanations fail the  most
implausible will be the answer) you have found yourself at that point. The only problem is that you dont know
what that most implausible item is. I am not a lawyer and if I were I could not tell you this. (for whatever reasons?)

1 All crimes are Commercial

2. A must read for any case. (free download)

From the Assata Shakur webpage I surfed to a blogtalk show at the end someone started talking about a
boycott I don't agree with this as it would hurt some of our own people. But he was correct on the money
aspect. but the wrong person. Your eyes should be on the judge.
He needs to be given a notice!
you will have to put questions to him that he can't reply to.
Like who got hurt? (it could not have been the state because there is no such person.)
Who sign the affidavit that put them in jail? (only the injured party can file that affidavit [SO WHO FILED IT?])
You can not get a lawyer to help you with this (bad things will happen to him) but a good heart can work undercover.
But he (the lawyer) has to use maxims and I dont think lawyers want you to know (or know themselves:from the way
they defend they could be working from with in a box:THE MATRIX)  about things like that.




           MAXIMS OF LAW

1. A WORKMAN IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE     (If you want to hire me pay me: added post email)

2. ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW     

3. IN COMMERCE TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN    (Truth wins: added post email)

4. TRUTH IS EXPRESSED IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT  (only the injured party can file that affidavit [SO WHO FILED IT?])

5. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT STANDS AS TRUTH IN COMMERCE. (YOU MUST MAKE AN UNREBUTTABLE AFFIDAVIT)

6. AN UNREBUTTED AFFIDAVIT BECOMES THE JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE. (YOUR GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD)     

7. IN COMMERCE FOR ANY MATTER TO BE RESOLVED IT MUST BE EXPRESSED. (IF YOU NEVER MADE AN AFFIDAVIT YOU DIDN'T EXPRESS ANYTHING)     

8. HE WHO LEAVES THE BATTLEFIELD FIRST LOSES BY DEFAULT. (WHOEVER CAN'T REPLY TO THE AFFIDAVIT)     

9.SACRIFICE IS THE MEASURE OF CREDIBILITY
(NO WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE = NO LIABILITY,
RESPONSIBILITY, AUTHORITY OR MEASURE OF CONVICTION).
A LIEN OR CLAIM CAN BE SATISFIED ONLY THROUGH REBUTTABLE BY
AFFIDAVIT POINT BY POINT, RESOLUTION BY JURY, OR PAYMENT.

(All questions to the court, judge should be in the form of an affidavit.)
FOLLOW DUE PROCESS!

3.What can you do about it?
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/comliens.shtml

There is a lot of work to be done...
Stay strong and pay close attention!!!


Peace and long life...

END OF E-MAIL

 This is the way to use the Law that no one can fight againts. We have been fighting without armor.
As it is said in the bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving planet Earth) put on the full armor of God (or the god within) which is the truth.

Because I was sending the letter to a law student I didn't go into all of the details on the subject of law because I think that if you have studied and truth is in your heart you should be able to see the truth in the words I have spoke. But for all others it would be my honor to do so, but because
the details could get very lengthy I will give a short explanation and be open to questioning.
However if you do want to question. I suggest that you should have read all the material posted before
advancing any questions. If not you may get a reply like : Please read the link All crimes are Commercial .

I must go under the assumption the we all understand that the maxiums of law can not be challenged.
And that this maximum state protects all people. Which is (I think) what we want.

The first thing we need to know is that there can be no commerce without a contract.  Whether that
contract be spoken or written. Because the government has stated in the federal regulations that all
crimes are commercial. It stands to reason that there must be a contract for there to be a crime, or someone received an injury either physically or financially. If there is no contract or injury then there is no jurisdiction. When I looked into the paperwork for the Scott case I see that the lawyer is basing his defense on whether or not the testimony that was given in court could be diffused.
This is a legal red herring and has absolutely no bearing on the case. The number one fact and
what should be the argument of the defence is who got hurt? If somebody received an injury be it physically or financially then and only then can the court obtain jurisdiction. Again I ask who got hurt?
Again I say there is a lot of work to be done right here. Where we live! Once our roads are straight
then we can build bridges that are meaningful!

To follow this post click here