“Not Guilty” – Do you know what you’re actually saying when uttering these words?
Many do not think twice when pleading “Not Guilty” in a court. However, do you truly understand what this means and the impact it has on the matter at hand?
The mere fact that a “defendant” is attending court is an admission of guilt as an unresolved controversy exists and the accuser eg the plaintiff believes a wrong exists and requires resolution or compensation from the defendant. Hence, by the act of turning up, the defendant is already guilty.
First of all, what is “court”? Simply put, you’re already in court when interacting with the opposite party…you’re there to make law/contract. Hence, the first court appearance has already been held with the opposite party and the reason for a Court appearance in a State/Federal Court is to adjudicate on the controversy created by the defendant according to the plaintiff.
Pleading not Guilty. Where does the word “guilty” come from? From Canon Law here
The word Guilty originates from 14th Century English / Dutch gilde, from 13th Century Venetian / Italian gilda meaning “guild, payment (in gold), debt or fine owed to the guild”. The word gilda itself derived from 8th Century Khazarian / Magyar languages kulta meaning “gold”. In the Finnish language today, kulta still means “gold” and Kilta means “guild”.
Now what does Not Guilty mean:
When a non-Guild member of the Private Bar Guild is present in one (1) of the Guild buildings dealing with the primary business of the Bar being organized global profit from crime (jobs), the Private Bar Guild members seek to force either a plea of “Guilty” or “Not – Guilty”:
(i) a plea of “Guilty” in a building controlled by the Private Bar Guild is equivalent to saying “I will pay” and tacit consent of liability for a debt or fine owed to the Guild and is consent to the lawful detainment of the flesh of the accused as surety until the debt or fine is paid; or
(ii) a plea of “Not – Guilty” in a building controlled by the Private Bar Guild is equivalent to saying “I refuse to pay” with the presumption of liability for a debt or fine owed to the Guild but belligerent refusal to pay therefore permitting the lawful detainment of the flesh of the accused as surety until the debt or fine is paid.
By pleading Not Guilty, what is being said thus becomes:
I am guilty of the charge [as I’m here as the defendant] but I’m refusing to pay or resolve the controversy with the plaintiff.
….thus, creating further controversy that gives the adjudicator jurisdiction!
It is then a matter for the Adjudicator to determine how much the defendant must pay based on evidence. Of course, like the casino, some defendants must win in order to keep up the stream of clientèle otherwise the casino would go broke.
Therefore, the controversy needs to be resolved before the appearance with an adjudicator (as many articles on this site suggest).
An example. This example shows an alternative way to engage with an opposite party in court by giving notice of a private side remedy making all parties whole.
So you’re going to argue your case. Do you know why they welcome this approach?