The US Supreme Court, in Nelson v. Colorado, rendered April 19, 2018
eliminated the fabricated distinction between the two
JUST ONE YEAR AGO, In Nelson v. Colorado, April 19, 2017 (patriots day) the US Supreme Court revealed the truth. There is no difference between innocence and actual innocence. It was a distinction without a difference utilized by those who believe people are inherently guilty. There are many who are blinded by biases and prejudices (pre-judgments) they are not consciously aware of. Among them are people who presume guilt whenever those in positions of public trust choose to charge someone with a crime. In their mind that is sufficient to establish guilt. Their pre-judgement of the person so charged continues even after the person has proven their innocence!
He was innocent but his innocence was not actual
The Supreme Court for our United States finally said what was already clear to any who have engaged in an in-depth study of this question of ‘Actual Innocence’. Now we have a credible source, an authoritative voice, saying what should be obvious to any objective person of reasonable intelligence who has read our US and Texas Constitutions. That is this:
There is no valid distinction between innocence and actual innocence.
A person is either guilty, as proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or they are not. If the government cannot prove them guilty by that liberal standard then our US Constitution’s guarantee of a presumption of innocence stands. And it stands as a presumption of ‘actual innocence’ as well. Anything less deprives the person of their Constitutional Right to be presumed innocent.
The government does not have to prove ‘actual guilt’ to convict you. Only guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they cannot then the only thing left is speculation. Speculation is not evidence. It is nothing more than an opinion without any support for it. In other words it is a prejudice, a pre-judgment, a bias against another person for some other than their actual guilt for a crime they want to use as an excuse to deprive them of the same rights all humans are endowed with by their creator. Speculation of guilt is not sufficient to deprive a person of their innocence nor their “actual” innocence by imposing a presumption of guilt. Not even if the person exhibiting this prejudice has a position of employment that comes with a title and a black robe that others choose to rely upon with a trust that has been misplaced.
Speculation is not ‘probable cause’ nor does it even rise to the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’. How, then, can it justify imposing upon a person a presumption of guilt unless they can prove their ‘actual innocence’ to a prosecutor, a judge, to an Attorney General, the Legislature, or even the public at large? It’s like asking someone to prove a negative. It’s a trick. It’s a logical fallacy. It is an effort by someone biased and prejudiced to play upon the bias and prejudice of others.
When a person is charged they are presumed innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. After conviction the burden shifts. Guilt is presumed and the person convicted must now prove their innocence. So they prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt with an acquittal. Now the Attorney General tries to say you cannot have remedy for your injuries because your innocence was not actual. What are they relying upon? Unable to maintain a conviction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt the only thing left is UNreasonable doubt! So what our Attorney General is telling our Legislators and are Judges is that he is unreasonable and they should be as well! They cannot be reasoned with. How can you reason with the unreasonable? How can you overcome a doubt that is outside the boundaries of reason?
In addition to a bias or prejudice there are other motivations for attempting to deprive those of have proven their innocence of their right to be presumed innocent by asking for ‘actual innocence’. It is a fear that they will be held accountable for sending an innocent person to jail or an attempt to evade providing the person with their Right to Remedy for the wrong they suffered. That is the real reason behind the opposition to restitution for the victims of unlawful imprisonments. All ‘wrongful’ imprisonments are, as well, unlawful. The courts don’t grant relief from a conviction that is lawful. Only the President or Governor can do that by means of a pardon.
This ruling by US Supreme Court abolished another trick used to deprive victims of government malfeasance of their Right to Remedy. It matters not if the case against them was dismissed or if they were acquitted (found innocent – as in my case). Nor does it matter if the reversal of their conviction came on direct appeal (as in my case) or later after the conviction was upheld on direct appeal and upon review by the Texas Court of Appeals, thus requiring a Writ of Habeas to secure another review of the case. Equal Protection of the Law and Equal Justice under the Law demands that all of them are equally deserving of remedy for their injuries suffered at the hands of the State.
The attempt to create a distinction has been used by those who want to abolish our right to a presumption of innocence and replace it with a presumption of guilt. They imposed upon those who, like myself, proved our innocence a presumption of guilt even when the facts, and the law, and the courts, show to any reasonably objective person they are innocent!
Unfortunately people are not always consciously aware of their bias and prejudice. So they easily succumb to these mind tricks. This is particularly true if the person perpetrating the mind trick is someone with a title or a position that causes others to presume they are a credible source – ie; have greater knowledge and/or more ability to reason. They also succumb to the bias and prejudice held by, and advanced by, those who hold a title or position that others presume are held only by those who are honest and have integrity. This allows prosecutors, and government attorneys who are defending the reputation of prosecutors in the course of defending the State in an action against it for wrongful imprisonment, as well as others such as biased and prejudiced Judges to trick the public at large and even to trick those who represent us in the Legislature into accepting what is factually, logically, scientifically, impossible.
The right to compensation is an inherent, inalienable, right. It is a HUMAN RIGHT secured by any who read, and are willing to HONOR, our US and Texas Constitution. This right is even more broadly recognized. Both within our boarders and beyond it has become recognized and established in International Law!
The other trick the enemies of our Constitutions and Laws, enemies of the Rule of Law, have tried to use to deprive me of my Right to Remedy is to assert there is some kind of time limit. Their game has been to obstruct justice with the hope that if they do so for a long enough period of time I will either die or others will join them in saying ‘sorry, it’s now too late’.
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS! How can their be? Human Rights do not come from Humans operating under some title individually or even collectively. Human Rights come from God or, if you prefer the words used by Thomas Jefferson and those who established our organic law of 1776, “the laws of nature and nature’s God”. They are inherent. They are inalienable. In other words, a ‘Statute’ created by a legislative body cannot alienate you from that right.
If you were a victim of Nazi Germany you have a claim for compensation even if you did not bring your claim until today over 70 years after that regime was replaced. Likewise – the attempt to prevent someone from collecting remedy from the State (the government) for an unlawful imprisonment is a statutory law that is contrary to our US and Texas constitutions, as well as International law, and are therefore invalid, illegitimate, and void ab initio. All “wrongful” imprisonments are unlawful because the one common denominator for ALL reversals of a conviction enabling a person to claim “wrongful” imprisonment is that the imprisonment was unlawful even though, at the time it began, it may have appeared lawful with what was known at that time.
Statutes of limitations are applicable only to a government’s ability to prosecute for the imposition of criminal penalties. They are, as the name implies, created by statute and, therefore, are inferior, subservient to, and overruled by the Laws of our Constitution and other higher law. Therefore they can only limit when a government can bring an action (a prosecution) against a real human person. It has been a long standing practice because old evidence and old memories are unreliable. That is the origin and purpose for a statute of limitations. The attempts to bring it from criminal jurisprudence into civil jurisprudence to protect any government is an attack on human rights and attempt to deprive people of them.
My claim against the government (aka, the State of Texas) is as valid today as it was when the government first engaged in it’s unlawful actions against me. My Final Judgment is as much a legal obligation today as it was when the conviction was reversed with an order of appeal. That reversal established my Right to Remedy. What has followed was some necessary due process of law to determine the amount along with a lot of Obstruction of Justice by those opposed to our Constitutions and Laws.
As is carved in stone on the Texas Archives Building, government is instituted for the benefit of the people. I am one of the people. Government is for my benefit. It is not for the benefit of those who are employed, by election or hire, into the entity. Because of the tendency for government actors to be self serving rather than public serving the republican system of government was created. It divided government into three divisions. The idea behind this is that if one division is refusing to do it’s duty to benefit the people, by providing them with the protection, privileges, and immunities of the Law, then they can turn to one or both of the other two divisions for redress of the situation.
But some in government try to use this division of powers against the people. They use it as a means to deprive the people of the benefits that are due them. They do this by trying to shuffle them back and forth between the divisions.