PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Trump-Russia Allegations Illustrate Why People MUST be Allowed to Sue the Press

One of the principles of Natural law is that everyone must be accountable for their actions.  This includes the press.  If immunity from prosecution and/or civil suit is granted to the press, it removes any possibility of holding the individual’s in the press accountable for their actions.  The story about the alleged connections between Trump and the Russians is an excellent illustration of why individuals must be allowed to sue the press.

Before I make my case, let me make something perfectly clear: I am not a Trump supporter.  I believe there is little real difference between him and his agenda and that of the Obama Administration, and that what differences there are have less to do with where they want to take the country and more about how they plan to take us there.  Now, with that said, allow me to explain why granting the press immunity is counter to Natural Law and Liberty.

Imagine you were given immunity for anything you said or did to other people.  What would stop you from harming others — especially if it benefited you to do so?  Most of us would like to think we wouldn’t harm other people for personal benefit, so our first instinct is to dismiss my question.  But we are human, and there is not a human alive who has not — willingly — harmed another person for selfish reasons.  Now, we may not see it this way.  Or we may not realize the times we caused harm to others.  But the fact remains: every one of us has harmed others to serve ourselves, and e will do so again in the future.  So, why should we believe that people in positions of power won’t do the same, especially when they have been given great power and immunity from the consequences of their actions?

There are few people in our society who wield more power with less accountability than those in the press.  They can print or air anything they wish, then use it to destroy the lives and careers of anyone they wish and they are all but immune to any legal recourse.  If you doubt me, consider the case of Sarah Palin.  Do you remember her comment about being able to see Russia from her back door in Alaska?  Or how the press used that line to ridicule her and destroy her political career?  Well, she didn’t say that, and the press knew it.  The line actually comes from a Saturday Night Live skit in which Tina Fey played the role of Sarah Palin in a skit.  But this didn’t stop the media from reporting Fey’s words as though they were Palin’s, or from using the lie to harm Palin in tangible ways.  This is a violation of Natural Law.  It is both a lie and an act of violence against another person, and had it been between two private citizens, Palin would have been able to sue.  In some cases, the person behind the law may have even been subject to criminal prosecution.

Now we have a similar situation with the story about Donald Trump being connected to Russia.  There is no evidence of any which directly connects Trump, or any of his people, to the Russians — and the media knows this because they have reported it:

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

House Intelligence chairman says he hasn’t found evidence of Trump team’s ties to Russia

In fact, Obama even admitted there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC:

Obama Admits Gap in Russian ‘Hack’ Case

So, why is the media still reporting a lie?  Or, to put it the way President Trump likes to say, why are they printing ‘Fake News?’  Well, the answer to that one is simple: because they can!  And they can do it because Congress repealed the laws that made it illegal to print propaganda in the U.S., but has done nothing to allow injured Parties to sue the press.  Both are violations of Natural law.

Now, I anticipate that there will be many who claim the press needs immunity to stay ‘free.’  And to those people, I say:

“Then why don;t I have immunity for my actions?”

If freedom requires immunity to the law, then why are any of us held accountable to the law?  Now, this may sound absurd — but only to those lawless personas among us.  To the rest of us — to those decent, law-abiding members of society — the absurdity is that the press is immune whereas we are not.  If we are free but not immune from the law, then there is no requirement for immunity. However, if freedom requires immunity, then there can be no such thing as law: only Anarchy.  This means that those claiming the press needs to be immune to remain free are arguing for Anarchy, and that is also a violation of Natural law as they are arguing for the destruction of the Natural Contract which forms and binds all of society together.

The truth is: there is no requirement for immunity in order for the press to remain free.  All that is required is that there be no direct government influence over what the press is and isn’t allowed to print.  This is what the term ‘free press’ actually means: a press in the hands or and controlled by private citizens and not the government.  It is similar to the freedom of religion, which is why it is no coincidence that the First Amendment covers and protects both institutions from government control.  But being free does not mean one if free to harm without consequence.  If the press causes tangible harm to another person — public or private — it should be held accountable to the law in the same way as any private citizen is.  In fact, not to hold the press equally accountable to the law is a violation of the 14th Amendment (as currently interpreted and applied), as well as Natural Law.  This makes the press’s current immunity illegal under both man’s and Nature’s laws and it is why we should be allowed to sue the press when they cause harm to others.

But there is one more objection I need to address before I rest my case.  People will no doubt argue that the press needs to be immune from prosecution when they harm others who are actually guilty.  Suppose the press exposes a corrupt government official, or a corrupt billionaire.  Couldn’t either of these two people then sue the press for what they claim is tangible harm?  NO!  Yous see, under Natural Law, a person who is in the wrong cannot be harmed by someone who is in the right.  If the press prints the truth about a corrupt official or businessman, and that official or businessman looses everything as a result, there is no harm to that person because that person was — themselves — a harm in the first place.  By abusing their position, power and/or wealth, they are the one who is doing the harm to society.  In such a case, the press is actually righting the wrong of the official or businessman.  Therefore, the press need only concern itself with making sure that it only prints the truth, and that it can support the truth of any claim it prints.  If the press does so, it is immune, not because the law exempts it, but because it has caused no tangible harm.  However, if the press were to print false or even unsubstantiated accusations against our official or businessman, and they are harmed as a result, then our official or businessman would have a right to sue the press.  The added beauty of this system is that it not only holds people accountable for their actions, but it causes people to give pause — just as the law is supposed to do.  The law is supposed to presume innocence and, in a case where there is reasonable doubt, give the benefit of that doubt to the accused.  If the press could be sued for their actions, then they would be wise to presume innocence, as well, and where there is lack of evidence, chose not to print a story for fear that it could end up costing them and not the person they attack.

This is Natural Law, and the press is not immune…except in a corrupt and lawless society.

17 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Trump-Russia Allegations Illustrate Why People MUST be Allowed to Sue the Press

  1. Sorry, Black, we must correct the glaring error in the headline;

    Natural means everything that is OPPOSED to that which is legal; it is antecedent to, and exists in a contradistinct and superior jurisdiction to man-made rules;

    Maxim – The order of things is confounded if every one preserve not his jurisdiction. 4 Inst. Proem.

    LEGAL is law-of-the-sea: commerce between legal fictions; having no parity with the tangible;

    Natural is real and tangible relating to law of the land; we have been indoctrinated to believe the law-of-the-sea has ANY jurisdiction on the land; it does not;

    I was Jefferson who said: “The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body — working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall render powerless the checks of one branch over the other and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”


    ¶¶ THE GENERALL Epiftle of Iude. 11 Wo vnto them, for they haue gone in the way of Kain, and ranne greedily after the errour of Balaam, for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. [KJV 1611]

    A word to the wise is sufficient; in peace

    1. I mean no disrespect, but your comment reads as… Well, disjointed. You seem to have more than one concept confused with another, and to have ascribed mutually exclusive jurisdictions where not necessarily exists.

      Natural Law is that Universal Law which remains in force even where there is no civil society. When civil society is formed, if it is to be a just society, its laws must be made in agreement with Natural Law. If a society creates a law which contradicts Natural law, then it is not a law at all, but the rule of force, which is otherwise known as tyranny.

      As to the law of the sea: there is nothing that states it must be contrary to Natural law. It is just another way of stating ‘international law,’ or ‘law where there is no government,’and if it is created in agreement with Natural Law, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

      The point I think you are trying to make (and failed to make???) is that man-made laws must be in agreement with Natural law or they are not law at all. If this is your point, I have made the same one on this blog — many times. Otherwise, I apologize, but I simply cannot make sense out of your comment. It contains what appear to be too many contradictory thoughts.

      1. Black, for us it is much simpler than that; before imperial rules came onto African tribal lands there was no personhood;

        the imperial rules you speak about only apply to “persons” under law-of-the-sea; before law-of-the-sea we had no personhood;

        Ask yourself, where is a natural law court where one man can hold another man accountable for doing harm or causing loss without using personhood? There is none; Blackstone himself admitted that England had no fiction until the Norman invasion when the papal clergy brought the civil law; law-of-the-sea;

        This is where we have all gone wrong; now, we are a simple African; before the age of discovery, an age of tyranny, there was no cult of personality; and, it came onto the land deceitfully and fraudulently; we now live in a cult of personality where everyone hides behind masks of personhood, both personal and corporate; How are we going to pierce the corporate veil, if we refuse to remove the mask?

        Yes, with legalese one can make endless arguments that will override a simple one; but, the bottom line is:
        we are talking about real things on the one hand; and, imaginary things on the other hand;

        In plain speak, in order to sue one must put on the imaginary mask of personhood; now, what is so natural about that?

        Do you comprehend where we are coming from? From a customary law perspective? In peace

        1. I understand what you are saying, and that is why I keep trying to tell you that you do not understand Natural Law — at least, not the way I am using it. I suspect you see it more the way Hobbes did, but Hobbs was wrong. His ideas lead to tyranny. I would advise that you read John Locke. His work is even more valuable than that of Blackstone.

      2. Maybe you can assist us; we have spent a few years trying to get into the mind of the Anglo-Saxon to know why exactly we must use the person; to us it is truly a mystery; we find it explained, but we cannot find its origins or purpose;

        We find at least 10 verses in the Bible that talks against the ‘person of man’; [see On Person of Man on our Bible page; here is one:

        Jude. 16 These are murmurers and complainers, walking after their own lusts, and their mouth speaks great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage. [KJV 1611]

        Would appreciate your input on this from a Western perspective; thank you; in peace

        1. OK, this I can help with. But you have to learn some history. You have been told that the Anglo-Saxon is the source of Natural Law theory — BUT HE’S NOT! The Anglo-Saxon, or the people who came to be known as Anglo-Saxons, trace their heritage back to a Near East people. Today, we think of them as Jews, but they aren’t exactly Jews. They came from the Hebrew race, but they are descendant from the ten Northern Tribes, or ‘Lost Tribes.’ This is why, when Jefferson studied the Anglo-Saxon legal system, he found they were almost identical to the laws governing ancient Israel. It is because they were derived from or passed down from ancient Israel. And it is why the American Revolution lead to only the second ‘Free’ nation in human history (Israel under King David being the first).

          As to your mention of ‘the person’ in Scripture. I think you are miss-understanding what the Bible is discussing in those passages. EVERYTHING in the Bible teaches that the individual (‘the person’) is individually responsible for his or her actions. But the Bible also says God is no respecter of ‘persons.’ What that means is that God does not see one man or woman as more valuable than any other. The person you and I think of as ‘the best’ is equal to the person we think is ‘the worst’ — at least in God’s eyes. Also, God does not follow human reasoning. A person can decide he knows what is right and wrong all the person wants, but God’s Laws stand forever. If the person decided that something God says is wrong is actually right, that person has not made it right. He has only decided to believe in and live according to a lie.

          I would ask that you read Romans 1 and 2. Paul covers the origin of Natural Law in those chapters. That is where John Locke got his notion of Natural Law. In fact, Locke wrote a treatise on the Book of Romans, explaining and expanding on each line in that book one at a time.

          Let me know if any of this helps.

          1. Yeah I get that.
            Just letting the true “season” of this broth bubble to the surface…… a friendly reminder to those reading here.

            “Yes, with legalese one can make endless arguments that will override a simple one; but, the bottom line is:
            we are talking about real things on the one hand; and, imaginary things on the other hand;
            In plain speak, in order to sue one must put on the imaginary mask of personhood; now, what is so natural about that?
            Do you comprehend where we are coming from? From a customary law perspective? In peace”

            (1) You get where this is going right ? The “imaginary mask of personhood”…….he/she/it is after deconstructing the foundations of the West and of Christianity to impose the Collective and crush the individual. Calling the very notion of personhood a fiction.

            (2) you know of course that as with islam……commies ( collectivists) want the very opposite of peace……peace as submissiom. Or in this case peace by subsuming the person ( soul) into the collective and ultimately denying God.

            (3) their usage of scripture is deceptive.

            I’ve been to their site ( his ) site and it is pretty clear.

          2. Don,

            I know. I even recognized (and pointed out) their misunderstanding (i.e. abuse) of Scripture. But, in correcting their objection, it shows those reading along who can still be reached where, how and why UZA is wrong. This is the best that can be done without resorting to force. And the moment we try to force people to understand the nature of Natural Law, we become the enemy of Natural Law. I’ve done that in the past and regret it. I’m trying to do it the correct way going forward, which is why I answer UZA: in hope that he/she may actually learn their own mistake, but more for those reading along — in hope that we can help them avoid making UZA’s mistake all together.

            Does that make sense?

          3. Yup. It does indeed. As I know you know all this… comments are meant for the reader as well. I don’t mind playing the heavy at all …. ;- ).

        1. You support Trump, that makes you the one aiding and abetting a traitor. It becomes clearer everyday that Putin controlled what WikiLeaks released, that Trump got the GOP to drop strong language in defense of the Ukraine from their platform. What is wrong with you people?

          1. Wikileaks has said it is not getting its information from Russia. A U.S. official has met with the head of Wikileaks and he reported that he believes this is true: Wikileaks’ source is not Russia.

            In Wikileaks latest dump, one of the documents shows that the CIA has been hacking people in a way that FALSELY leaders back to Russia. So far, all of Wikileaks leaks have proven accurate.

            This means that the “evidence” of Russian hacking of the U.S. political system is most likely the work of the CIA. At the very least, it means an HONEST person cannot attack anyone right now as there is no way to know if Russia is actually involved, or if this is all the CIA’s doing.

            As to the accusations of Trump committing treason: I know Gregg, and I know he defended Obama when Obama was giving military weapons and sending our military forces to fight for Al Qaeda and ISIS. The evidence for this is in the public record. There was a Major General who testified before Congress BEFORE Obama helped the Libyan rebels. The general was with military intelligence and he said the rebels were allied with Al Qaeda. Therefore, when Obama armed them, he gave aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States. The Constitution defines that as treason, but Gregg defended him. And this is just ONE of Obama’s many acts of treason.

            Nor did I hear Gregg Cobb object when Hillary Clinton sold 20% of the U.S. uranium supply to the Russians in return for a HUGE donation to the Clinton Foundation, which has been shown to be nothing more than a conduit for Hillary and her husband, Bill, to sell access to U.S. policy.

            Finally, there are all the other known connections between Democrat politicians and Russia. So, if what we KNOW Trump has done is treason, then Gregg Cobb should be attacking the majority of his Party leadership, as we KNOW they have done the exact same thing as Trump — which is talk with the Russian ambassador in the scope of performing their duties!!!

            As usual, Cobb is just making unfounded or disingenuous attacks against those with whom he disagrees. This is pure hypocrisy on his part, and it is one of the reasons this country is in so much trouble: because no one is bothering to be honest about anything.

          2. You just spent an hour composing an attack on my person, but I already knew that you were dishonest.
            But enough bullshit. You sound as if we might agree that a special prosecutor is called for. The commission proposal would result in partisan infighting is my take. Turn a bulldog like Ken Start loose on this case. Yes, I think Start himself would be perfect, I feel that he is more interested in pursuing the truth than an agenda.

          3. No, I DO NOT AGREE! This is all a witch hunt trumped up on fake news. You cannot see treason when it is real, so you do not see it here. All you see is a chance to subvert this nation’s political processes. And that is a character that deserves to be attacked. That is because you have repeatedly proven — through your own words — that you do not care about nor can you recognize the truth. All you care about is your personal agenda (which happens to be whatever the Democrat Party tells you it is at the time).

            Gregg, I’ve known you now for what, ten years now? But most of our conversations have been on The Rio Norte Line, not here. The RNL is a political blog, and some of the RNL readers have found their way here, and those people may know your history. But many of my readers do not know you, or your history. That means they do not know that you do not care about the truth. Sometimes, it may appear as though you do, but that is a deception. You only follow truth as long as it agrees with you. As soon as you encounter anything contrary to your agenda, you ignore or dismiss it and attack anyone who tries to explain or defend the truth. You have consistently defended the Democrat Party and opposed the Republican Party. Your party decides your position, as the GOP decides what many Republicans believe. I left the GOP for this very reason: because I realized it was as corrupt as the Democrat Party. I have had many heated exchanges and even lost friends over my decision. You know this, but the majority of readers on this blog may not. Just as they probably don’t know that you never objected to:

            — Obama’s Treason with Al Qaeda or ISIS or Iran.
            — Obama’s repeated violations of U.S. law
            — Hillary’s corruption with Russia and Benghazi
            — Attorney General Holder breaking the law in Fast and Furious
            — Loretta Lynch’s improper meeting with Bill Clinton
            — The use of the IRS to attack Obama’s political enemies
            — Obama’s attack on the media (spying, threats and prosecutions)
            — The Obama Administrations close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization the FBI says IS a terrorist front

            There are many more such examples, Gregg, but none of it would matter. You simply cannot see the truth because you refuse to see it. There’s nothing I can do about that, but I can do something about you bringing your deceptions to this blog. That is why this ends here — now. This is my blog, and while I do allow differing opinions (the blogs record proves that), I do NOT allow disingenuous individuals to mess up the discussion. Therefore, any further comments by you on this particular thread will be deleted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s