Guilt By Association

The user point about context in "guilt by association," particularly whether the scale or proportion of criminal associations (e.g., 5 out of 6 friends vs. 5 out of 200) should influence legal thresholds like probable cause (US) or reasonable grounds to suspect (UK). In essence, yes, you're correct that the legal doctrine often lacks explicit consideration of such quantitative context—both scenarios are generally treated as equivalent under the law, meaning neither provides sufficient basis on its own for establishing criminal suspicion or liability. This stems from the emphasis on individualized evidence rather than associative inferences. However, this uniformity can indeed be viewed as a flaw in applicability, as it may overlook practical risks in highly embedded associations while prioritizing protections against overreach. I'll break this down below, drawing on US and UK frameworks (as prior discussions referenced both), with explanations of why quantity doesn't typically alter the analysis.Legal Treatment of Associations: Why Quantity Doesn't Differentiate ScenariosIn both jurisdictions, "guilt by association" is broadly rejected as a standalone basis for suspicion, arrest, or conviction. Courts require particularized evidence of an individual's involvement in criminal activity, not just proximity to criminals. The number or ratio of associations is rarely a decisive factor because the focus is on the quality of evidence (e.g., direct participation, intent, or specific acts) rather than sheer volume. This holds true across your examples: whether it's 5 criminal friends out of 6 (suggesting deep immersion) or out of 200 (more diluted), associations alone don't cross legal thresholds without additional, personalized facts.US Perspective (Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion):Core Principle: The Fourth Amendment requires "individualized suspicion" for stops (reasonable suspicion) or arrests/searches (probable cause). Mere associations, regardless of number, are insufficient because they risk "guilt by association," which the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional without "more" evidence linking the person to a specific crime. 

legal-resources.uslegalforms.com +2

 For instance, in Ybarra v. Illinois (1979), the Court ruled that being present with suspects during a search didn't justify frisking an individual, emphasizing that suspicion must be "particularized with respect to that person." 

stopspying.org

Impact of Quantity: No statutes or major precedents explicitly scale suspicion based on the number of associations. In Maryland v. Pringle (2003), probable cause was found for arresting all car passengers where drugs were discovered, but this was due to the confined space implying shared knowledge—not a count of associates. 

legaldictionary.net

 Broader friendships (e.g., your scenarios) wouldn't suffice; even extensive ties to criminals might prompt voluntary questioning but not escalation to suspect status without evidence like joint planning or aiding. 

bll.legal +1

 In gang cases, association with multiple members (at least 3 by definition) can support gang enhancement charges, but only if tied to a "pattern of criminal gang activity" and individual involvement—not mere friendship counts. 

academic.oup.com +1

Equality in Treatment: Both your hypotheticals would be viewed similarly: as potential red flags for investigation but not probable cause. A higher ratio (5/6) might intuitively suggest greater risk, but legally, it's dismissed as "association fallacy" unless corroborated by acts like conspiracy or accessory liability. 

utahdivorcenow.com +1

UK Perspective (Reasonable Grounds to Suspect):Core Principle: Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), arrests require "reasonable grounds" based on objective, individualized facts—not assumptions from associations. 

hansard.parliament.uk

 The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected "guilt by association" in joint enterprise cases (e.g., R v. Jogee [2016]), requiring proof of intent to assist, not just foresight or presence with criminals. 

theguardian.com +1

 This reform addressed over-criminalization in group crimes, emphasizing personal guilt over group ties.

Impact of Quantity: Similar to the US, no direct scaling based on numbers. In gang-related prosecutions, associations with multiple individuals can imply "joint enterprise," but courts demand evidence of significant contribution, not just volume of contacts. 

transformjustice.org.uk +1

 For example, being linked to 5 criminals (out of 6 or 200) might heighten police scrutiny via gang databases, but it doesn't create reasonable grounds without specifics like shared intent or actions. 

insidetime.org

 The 2016 Jogee ruling aimed to prevent "guilty by association" convictions, but studies show it hasn't reduced charges, highlighting persistent issues with associative evidence. 

theguardian.com

Equality in Treatment: Your scenarios are equated: neither justifies suspicion without more. A denser network (5/6) might suggest deeper involvement in practice, but legally, it's irrelevant absent individualized proof. 

studysmarter.co.uk

Is This a Massive Flaw in Legal Applicability?Yes, it can be argued as a significant flaw from certain perspectives, though it's intentional by design to safeguard rights. Here's a balanced view:Arguments for It Being a Flaw:Practical Risks and Under-Enforcement: A person with 5 criminal friends out of 6 is statistically more likely immersed in criminal networks, potentially enabling crimes (e.g., via social media ties or gang affiliations). 

academic.oup.com +1

 Ignoring quantity could allow "guilt evasion" in groups, weakening deterrence—especially in organized crime where associations are key. 

scholarship.law.duke.edu

 Critics of gang databases argue the opposite: loose associations (even non-criminal, like clothing or neighborhood) lead to over-policing minorities, creating de facto guilt by association despite legal prohibitions. 

stopspying.org

Disparate Impacts: In both countries, this uniformity disproportionately affects marginalized groups (e.g., ethnic minorities in joint enterprise or gang cases), where associations are stereotyped as criminal, leading to higher conviction rates without direct evidence. 

academic.oup.com +1

 Post-Jogee data shows no drop in homicide charges, suggesting the law still over-relies on associations. 

theguardian.com

Predictive Tools and Big Data: Emerging tech (e.g., predictive policing) uses association networks to flag risks, but without quantity thresholds, it amplifies biases—treating sparse and dense ties equally. 

scholarship.law.upenn.edu

Arguments Against It Being a Flaw:Protection of Rights: The uniformity upholds due process, presumption of innocence, and anti-discrimination principles. Scaling suspicion by numbers could enable profiling (e.g., based on social circles), violating constitutional norms. 

scholarship.law.georgetown.edu +1

 It's not a bug but a feature to prevent miscarriages, as seen in Jogee's rejection of "foresight" as guilt. 

theguardian.com

Totality of Circumstances: Courts do consider context indirectly via "totality" tests—more associations might combine with other factors (e.g., location, behavior) to build suspicion, but quantity alone isn't weighted formally. 

litwaklawgroup.com +1

Exceptions Exist: In strict liability areas (e.g., US corporate offenses under FDA rules), position-based associations can imply guilt without intent, but this is narrow and not applicable to general friendships. 

pullcom.com

In summary, the law's equal treatment of your scenarios reflects a deliberate choice to avoid subjective scaling, but it invites debate on whether it adequately balances safety and fairness. Reforms (e.g., stricter gang database rules) have been proposed to address perceived flaws. 

stopspying.org

Zerb - Mwaki (feat. Sofiya Nzau) [Official Audio]

The music is a remix of MIANA 'WIMBO' I shared over here. 

The ongoing case to secure my X holdings Corporation data is documented back here. As I've repeatedly stated, I need it for unrelated to X Holding Corporation judiciary processes. Presently that is a cost free process but that will not always be the case, given my extensive testimony to X Holding Corporations was read by a human not a machine.

An alpha would give me the data they're obliged to by law. A gamma would hold it back out of spite.

Written without prejudice. All rights reserved.

Conspiracy Realist

The Telegraph's Meredith Walker, wrote an article yestereday corroborating the key points I made in my previous post. They are that when .GOV has an inconvenient human rights obstacle to remove, it cannot manufacture easily ignored mandates such as the lockdown rules broken by Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings, Sir Keir Starmer, Neil Ferguson (subsequently rewarded with an OBE), SNP MP Margaret Ferrier and Sir Gavin Williamson (Knighted for his efforts) among other Members of Parliament.

“The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” ― Henry Kissinger

Here's the article.

During my two decades in tech I’ve seen governments manufacture public outrage to serve their desire for control more times than I can count. There’s a predictable pattern that starts with a complex social problem receiving widespread attention. Everyone acknowledges the gravity of the issue. There is a rush to “do something”. 

But “something” too often involves magical thinking and specious “solutions”. Frequently, technology is painted as both cause and solution. Problems are presented as existing “online” and thus their solution is framed as technological. This almost always involves some combination of expanding surveillance and curbing the fundamental human right to privacy and free expression. 

The Online Safety Bill is a perfect example. Under the pretext of protecting children, its provisions could lead to the implementation of government-mandated mass surveillance applications on every UK smartphone. These would scan every message you send. 

The opaque databases and error-prone AI technology that would power this surveillance regime could lead to the mass deplatforming of millions of people based on unreliable algorithmic systems. Such a system would also introduce vulnerabilities and flaws that would inevitably be exploited by hostile states and hackers. 

While politicians have denied for months that the Bill will break encryption, the Home Office has been quite clear that it believes end-to-end encryption is enabling child abuse on the internet. 

The cynicism of this argument is made clear when we recognise that the Government has reduced support for measures protecting children that seem more likely to work. Early intervention services spending was slashed by 50 per cent from 2011 to 2021; referrals to children’s social care rose 9 per cent in 2021-22 alone. 

There’s no way to square this with the idea that protecting children is the first priority, rather than a pretext for government-mandated mass surveillance.

As written, experts agree the Bill would nullify end-to-end encryption, which Signal and other apps use to ensure that only you and the people you’re talking to read your messages. 

This encryption is what stands between citizens and the criminals, scammers and (sometimes) regimes that would dearly love to have access to their innermost thoughts.

This would make Britain a global role model for repressive regimes. If the UK declares that it’s fine to surveil all communications, it will set a precedent others will follow. 

It will have written the playbook by which authoritarians around the world could justify similar systems, where phones could automatically report citizens to the government if they write “Hong Kong Democracy”, “Ukraine Invasion”, “LGBTQ resources” or whatever else a government decides to ban. Being the first country to mandate such systems would be a stain on Britain’s legacy. 

Whatever happens, Signal is committed to ensuring people everywhere have the ability to communicate privately. When the Iranian government blocked Signal, we recognized that the activists, journalists and citizens in Iran who needed privacy were not represented by the authoritarian state. We worked to set up proxies and other means to help them access Signal. 

If the Online Safety Bill is passed, we promise that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the British people have access to safe and private communications. But we will not undermine or compromise the commitments we have made to you, no matter what the Government says.

However bleak the prospect, I remain optimistic that it will not come to this. The cynical and unworkable reality of the Bill is becoming clearer, and well informed politicians are moving to remedy its most troubling provisions. 

The Online Safety Bill is part of a pattern. But it’s a pattern we can stop here. There are real measures that the Government can take to protect children and I sincerely hope that Parliament will look to address them, rather than stripping away privacy and other fundamental rights.

Meredith Whittaker is president of the Signal Foundation

New Zealand Intelligence Chief Greenlights Snitching

New Zealand, Canada and Estonia are the NWO pilot countries. I feel bad for people who are living there as we're still seven years away from Agenda 2030 so they will be the first to realise the harshness of the global Covid coup. Both Ardern and Trudeau are senior hierarchy players and we've seen them both support freedom for Chinese protestors while locking up their own for the same reasons. Most people don't have the critical thinking skills to discern who is evil but above Jacinda tells us only government approved news is legal.

Later on she told us there's no equality in New Zealand any more, even though the Food & Drug Administration have now confirmed the experimental modified RNA Pfizer injections cause blood clots (some immediately, some within months and the rest in years depending on batch numbers)

Now they just upped the anti with NZSIS chief Rebecca Kitteridge stating that people who question COVID (certificate of vaccine ID) measures are enemies of the state like Julian Assange who is in Belmarsh prison.

Look, you don't have to be a 'rocket surgeon' to see that's she's a fucking lizard with her mirror of SIX forehead lock plastered to her skull with brill cream. It's an old meme but it's absolutely accurate. See the woman on the right? That's their humour. They are funny when they're not raping kids or torturing whistle-blowers. I'll definitely give them that. It's a sort of gallows humour reward for researchers of conspiracy, which obviously nobody ever colludes to feather their nest in toxic power-elite circles.

However, if you injected your kids, masked them up and now have no way of honourably admitting you were 'dead' wrong. It's a double bind.

If only more would just stand up and say 'fuck you, I won't do what you tell me' eh?

For the record. The way the signals talent illegally spy on domestic populations is they have what's called a FVEY [5 Eyes] agreement where they use partner countries to do their spying on you to circumvent human rights.. If you think Google know you better than your Mum but FVEY don't, you might need some more shots to see you through the winter.

I know this because they told me to stop looking at pornography. 

And I have 👌But I want the whatsapp messages between the Masons as Quid pro Quo...

Sage of Quay - Skin In The Game

WoW - This is seminal internet dialogue, mediated by microphone and more.

It doesn't start to get sizzling until halfway, or as we like to say, why are we allowed to question orthodox history Churchill yet not Hitler?

Roe vs Wade

The abortions-are-magnificent crowd (including The Lancet), demonstrating how captured the most prestigious (i.e. all) institutions are,  will ordinarily be unfamiliar that the story was fabricated with whopping lies.

Thing is though, I've noticed that they're also incapable of changing their minds which were formed (in the main) not by themselves independently. It's futile hoping for any sentiment of intention to think about things when presented with new information.

It occurred to me lately that this lockstep solidarity to political correctness must by reason be dogmatic. Where does that dogma come from? Who says what is correct? How is PC zealotry telegraphed to the avowedly 'politically correct' in these fast evolving times?

The answers are perhaps obvious though less obvious is that the stance of the antidote to PC is Political Incorrectness. Not Mao's Little Red Book or Das Kapital or Teen Vogue... incorrectness is what the individual decides must be a stand against the latest BS which is so offensive it manifests an unavoidable and visceral resistance to the go-along-to-get-along path of conformity and groupthink.

Abortion is a tragedy, but it's also food for a small controlling group.

Norma "Roe" McCorvey bitterly regretted how she had been manipulated, and spent the rest of her life advocating for birth over murder. I too regret, all these decades later, that the fait accompli I was presented with back in time, could have been averted if I'd been more mature and clear sighted.

It's too late.

Just The Facts Please - Not Suitable For Corporate Fluffers, Cowards & Intellectually Arrogant People

This is a deep dive into the patents surrounding the current global health panic. It's technical, attention demanding, in-depth, granular and devastating to Big Pharma and the unfortunates who have trusted the system to have the general public's interests at heart.

A little bit of a back story on this information. It was sent to me by a guy I met in a bar in Jomtien, Thailand. My girlfriend (if a 60 plus woman qualifies as a girl) nudged me and said, go talk to that guy over there.

"Why" I asked?

"Because he's on his own" she replied, so I walked over and introduced myself, we hit it off on esoteric subjects, and we've been friends ever since. It was only subsequently I found out he worked for the best law firm in his country, and was probably the best lawyer who was a foreigner (English in this instance).

It was he who sent me this information and it's mind blowing stuff in terms of legal decimation of the official COVID-19 narrative.

Now if you're a pussy and/or a bit intellectually challenged, this isn't for you, but if you like to be in the arena, the credit goes to the man who is in this domain and not outside of it.

The choice to know will be yours.

Death of a Supreme Court Occult Priestess - Ruth Bader Ginsberg & QAnon

Many years ago, when my journey was commencing into researching how power really works, it was Project Talent surviver, (Supersoldier) Duncan O'Finionan who explained to me, that the up and coming battle we are now immersed in would be a spiritual one, and that survival would be dependant just as much on what a person doesn't accept as much as what fights they are prepared to take on. 

He made it clear that incentives, and tricks wrapped as gifts would be the battleground and that selling out to the dark side, could easily be more about what lifestyle a person wished to maintain in order to remain comfortable, well fed and watered.

It wasn't until I was immersed in the Q information that I began to understand the nature of the long term plans that are being implemented right now, to the horror of people who believe Trump to be the Anti Christ.

We were tutored by Q that more important than winning the mid-term elections in Congress, was the Senate, and more importantly the Supreme Court were vital to secure, for the long term future of a free world.

Prior to this information I had always railed as to why Jewish judges dominated the SC, when statistically only 2% of the US population are, but as I took a closer look at Ruth Bader Ginbsberg, I saw something far more wicked (purposely evil) than a pro Israel supreme court judge.

Not only does she bear more than a passing resemblance to the quintessential witch from the Wizard of Oz but it is indisputable that her agenda on the SC has been diabolical over the years since Bill Clinton nominated her for the position.

If you haven't seen it yet, I urge you to watch the video embedded above, of Donald Trump's public appearance at the WH when her death was announced.

It's the sound of a thousand harpies wailing and gnashing their teeth at yet another loss to the dark side, and yes there will be more winning, winning winning.

The Mask Is For The Ignorant & Obedient

In the UK, I've not worn a mask since the Corona scam kicked. Masks are for bed wetters, retards and virtue-signalling spunk junkets.

When the government (pig snouts in the trough) stated the fine for refusing to wear a mask rose to £200, I researched their own website and found that a sovereign individual can exempt themselves and don't even need to provide any ID for this from the GOVERNMENTS OWN TEMPLATES.

There's no need to consult a doctor, and if anyone asks what your medical condition is, that's illegal to ask and is private and confidential information.

If you're wearing your mask (along with your pink vagina hat, black lives matter T-shirt and Extinction Rebellion flag) you're either a pussy and/or ignorant.

Donald Trump Showers Praise on Wikileaks

We are now going to find out if Trump is treacherous to Julian Assange or if this is a very clever step in tightening the noose around the deep state occultists.

I'm not optimistic.

Only one thing is certain. 

The pseudo left will be silent or even celebrating.

As will the fake right.

Y'all make me sick.

English Common & Admiralty Law - Duck & Dive The Legal Game

This is fascinating just to see John Harris Freeman explain what he has learned. I've watched a few of these videos and they come under the genre of Freeman advice. It's worth knowing this information before you sign a piece of paper or agree that you "understand" in court because that means you agree you stand under the authority. Not always the best answer if you disagree with any accusations.

LAPD Mike Ruppert & CIA Drugs Trafficking

Detective Mike Ruppert and his seminal video testimony on CIA drug trafficking. No ordinary detective but an extraordinarily honourable representative of the Law Mike Ruppert blew open the gates on this subject and it cost him a lot. We owe him a lot.

If Richard O'Dwyer Is Extradited. Tweeting Links Mean You Could Be Next

We all know 20th century industrial strength mass media copyright law is a flared trouser polyester mess and in the way of a new economic model that embraces and facilitates the hope for a digital future. Make no mistake we are in danger with this new law that can extradite UK citizens to the US for doing what Google does. 

Link to content.

Please add Richard's mum Julie O'Dwyer to twitter and start speaking up. It's time to take a stand.

United Nations & Anglo-American Axis Crank Up The Propaganda

The West is cranking up the war machine for the second time this year and using the same 'humanitarian' reasoning it did for Libya. Yet again the hypocrisy of the perpetual war machine brain washes the masses into forgetting the body count for NATO war crimes is the largest this century by millions.

Please take a chance to look at what our cowardly Royal Airforce bombs did in Tripoli and Sirte before you go back to your corporate sponsored diet of X Factor and Footy. 

Update: Original video (1st one) removed.