7.14 Corruption of Law
Article 327 - Sanity
Under Roman Law, mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) is considered by the Courts as a necessary element of a crime. In contrast, when one is declare “insane” for a particular time and place by a Roman Court then in that moment mens rea cannot be fully established. All jurisdictions of Roman Law therefore require a sanity evaluation prior to the formal commencement of the body of any hearing or trial as to the question of whether or not the accused is “insane”, usually at the moment of the plea.
While all Roman Courts are required to establish a sanity evaluation prior to formally commencing a case, there are three (3) fundamental facts that would normally render any form of sanity evaluation null and void in any forum other than a session of the Private Bar Guild:
(i) There is no uniform clinical definition of insanity in Western Law, therefore the judge or magistrate is free to choose from a number of presumed definitions. If unchallenged, it is presumed a clear definition exists; and
(ii) There are no uniform clinical method by which a court may undertake a sanity evaluation objectively. Instead, the simplest and crudest method is simply the phrase “do you understand?” If unchallenged, it is presumed the court possesses a uniform and proven clinical method by which to deduce sanity or insanity; and
(iii) There exist no uniform specific professional qualifications defined by which a member of the private Bar Guild has the ability to make a determination of sanity or insanity against an accused. If unchallenged, it is presumed the judge or magistrate is qualified to make determinations concerning the mind of the accused and the question of sanity or insanity.
A Roman Court overcomes the fatal flaws in the subjective legal concept of sanity through a number of key presumptions that if unchallenged, stand including: pseudo-medical jurisdiction, custody of accused person, presumption of guilt, legitimate medical condition, expert medical consensus and persistent medical condition:
(i) Pseudo-medical jurisdiction is the presumption that as the Justices’ Clerk is an agent of the Clerk of the Magistrates, who is also the Clerk to the Guardians and usually the Town Clerk, the Court retains jurisdiction over the mental health of both the poor and “insane” as “wards” and therefore entitled to determine insanity; and
(ii) Custody of accused person is the presumption that as the Clerk to the Guardians and Town Clerk is usually the Registrar of the Court of Record, all persons on the birth, marriage and death rolls are technically “in custody”. Therefore, it is presumed that anyone claiming use of the name can be forcibly examined for “insanity”; and
(iii) Presumption of guilt is the presumption the accused is guilty before being declared innocent as conduct is presumed criminal before the conclusion of the trial / hearing as the existence of guilt is fundamental to any determination of sanity or insanity; and
(iv) Legitimate medical condition is the presumption that any claimed mental disease or defect is according to psychology standards presumed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV and soon V), a publication by the American Psychiatric Association that no longer is based on clinical data, statistical tests, but the options and debate of a handful of self appointed experts who “vote” on what is or is not a mental disorder; and
(v) Expert medical consensus is the presumption that only a qualified psychologist is capable of determining whether an accused is suffering from a “mental disease or defect” through a psychiatric evaluation ordered by the court; and
(vi) Persistent medical condition is the presumption that the condition of insanity is persistent enough to impair both the hearing of the case as well as the alleged offence. As a defense against competent Pro Se accused, Roman Courts have succeeded in obtaining “expert advice” that an accused is incapable of presenting themselves but were “sane” at the time of the alleged offence, thus depriving men and women of the right of a fair trial or hearing.