Russell Twyce

Almost all prison inmates seem to say “I am innocent” and they are ALL telling the literal truth.  Not a single person in any rule-of-law jail is there for what they actually did (or didn’t do).  Suppose a convict is in jail for robbing a liquor store, ooops, wait a minute, that’s NOT why he’s there.  The court really didn’t care whether he held up a liquor store and threatened the life of the proprietor, he was on trial for his breaking the state’s prohibition against that action.  In other words, the person in jail was actually charged with making an anti-government statement by defying one of the government’s edicts – the one against holding up liquor stores.

But the person in jail professes that he ‘was innocent’ and I’ve supported the truth of his statement, then in the last paragraph I supposed that he did rob the liquor store AND he made an anti-government, anti-law statement with the act.  How does that say ‘INNOCENT?’  By very simple logic of what does exist in reality and what does not exist in reality.

[private_Chevron]When Herman Melville penned ‘Moby Dick, his writing the novel did NOT cause a real life while whale to slash into existence in the Atlantic ocean.  Reading Melville’s fictional novel only brings Ahab and the whale into mental existence in the reader’s imagination.  A parliament writing and enacting a law is EXACTLY the same: NOTHING comes into physical existence!  The law never came into being, only a concept was created in the deluded minds of people who believe in law.  And since a law does NOT exist, a person cannot do anything to a law by holding up a liquor store or by anything else–yet that is precisely what they are in prison for.  Every single person in every prison IS innocent of the charge they were put in jail for.  People in jails are wrongfully incarcerated because the law itself is a fiction, the law is a lie!

Now in fact, most people in jails probably did rob those liquor stores or whatever else – BUT – I can show by logic why they may not have held up a liquor store at all, had the law against it not existed.  But that will be in another post.

Does it not make more logical sense to try a person for what he/she may or may not have ACTUALLY done, instead of for what they could NEVER have done to a thing (law) that doesn’t exist?[/private_Chevron]