~ The police 'sting' ~
Wilful entrapment ~ sex with minors ~ police perversity - God's Law
The wilful and pre-meditated entrapment by a police officer that leads another person into a position of danger with the intent to cause them harm, be it mental, emotional or physical trauma or loss or suffering is an activity that of itself is deemed to be the actions of a pervert who has gone 'astray' morally and in need of correction.
Any adult masquerading as a minor, be they a citizen or a police officer that communicates via email or other means with another adult for the purpose of entrapping them and leading them into a dangerous situation for the sole purpose of being able to cause them 'harm' using rules in a book is an immoral person of no conscience who themselves have been misled by vain and arrogant politicians who enabled the bad deed by tabling it and enshrining it as 'law.' Politicians have set an immoral code of conduct precedent due to their own ignorance and vindictive nature.
The police operators are themselves transgressing the 'law' as they set out with THE INTENT to cause harm using deception. They use the emotional state of their victim by enticing and 'exciting' desire in them as they mislead, inveigle and 'tempt.'
There is a difference between the INTENT and the DEED
The questions at hand are:
The State enforcers need to consider: "Are their above actions of a moral nature?" If they believe so then they are wrong, for if you believe that another is 'wayward' or on the wrong track then simply do as is asked of you by God and help them back onto the right track. If you are so ignorant that you defy God and decide to follow rules of men that 'license' you to 'attack' the other, then it is you who is wayward and our God will certainly take you to task ahead and your belly will be full of dread.
The State officials need to ask themselves: "What is the sworn duty (role) of the police personnel. Is it to guide people away from danger or, is it their 'job' to use the 'underage' to entrap citizens as they use lies & deception & guile to mislead and then lead people into danger?"
And what of the 'minor'? If police believe that the 'laws & rules' of politicians applicable to sexual conduct with a minor as 'reasonable,' then the reasonable and moral and honourable course of action would be for the police to solely 'find' the minors that are ignorantly or foolishly operating outside the rules of adults and guide them back to a better and safer way and, - - -
If a person (adult) is found to be seeking to entice a child to have sexual contact with them then this person needs to be apprehended and counselled as to how they can control their emotions and thoughts that are misleading them. This way all concerned remain within the 'bounds' of God's Command.
Note 1: The intent of the police to cause harm is proven as harm caused once they make an arrest or issue a charge against a person they entrapped. Why is this so? Because by this punitive action their victim immediately suffers mental and emotional trauma and may ahead be held hostage by enforcement agencies in a jail and, their life and livelihood and morality is 'destroyed' as they are publicly labelled as being a 'molester of children' and ahead they made be abused, ostracized or disadvantaged by other ignorant members of the public.
None of the police seeing that they place their own soul within the precepts of the punitive aspect of God's: "As you did sow so shall ye reap" Law and ahead, those complicit to all the suffering imposed are by God forced to suffer the same.
The role of the serving police has changed from its original 'intent' to serve the community and protect them by upholding the peace of the land, to one of misleading them and leading them into danger for the sole purpose of causing harm. Police should REMOVE the danger, not 'endanger.'
Any magistrate backing persecution by entrapment is guilty of complicity in the eyes of moral men and God.
Note 2: If government agents provide what appears to be a favourable opportunity for the person to commit a crime then the 'agency' is guilty of entrapment for in fact setting a trap and enticing someone into entering into IT for the sole purpose of causing 'harm' and, when a person instils fear in another and causes them harm, this activity is of itself a TERRORIST Act within the Terrorist Act 2005.
Punitive police action against a person they deceived for the purpose of punishment places the police officers within the scope of the Terrorist Act 2005
This'terrorist attack' is proven within the Act because:
It follows that all 'complicit' to the above activities are guilty within the Australian Terrorist Act 2005
Terrorismis - - - and, - - - it includes instilling fear or terror through the use of intimidation, threat, coercion, or aggressive punitive or destructive action.
The 'entrapment' that took place should serve as anabsolute legal defense* (see note 3 below) if you can prove that you only committed the 'indicted' offense because the police lured you into doing so. This means that if you successfully establish that you were entrapped, the criminal charges against you must be dismissed because of a variety of reasons being:
1 - The alleged crime was committed against an
'adult' posing as a minor.
The 'intent' to rob a shop cannot be construed as having been found in the act of robbing a shop. The 'intent' to meet a person reported to be underage is not a criminal act if the person to be 'met' was in fact 'of age.' If a person meets another who is 'under age' for any reason they have not committed a crime until they factually 'control' or cause harm.
Note 3: absolute legal defense* - In any court of man if insanity exists as it often does then the magistrate judging you may be totally irrational, unreasonable and vindictive due to his 'nature' on the day, and he will ignore your 'pleas' of innocence and punish you.
In this 'case' you will simply need to accept that his mind was overridden by the punitive 'hand' of God, and your punishment though having nothing to do with the case at hand is 'justice' being meted out by God via the magistrate for some other infringement of God's "Peace, love & mercy" Command that took place at some prior time in eternal time.
Note 4 : The use of the 2005 terrorist Act to punish others is of itself a contravention of God's extend only: "Peace & love & mercy & compassion & forgive thine enemy" Command and places the one using said 'Act' into the very dangerous 'quadrant' of the punitive aspect of God's: "As you sow so shall ye reap on an 'eye for an eye' or 'equal' basis" Law.
God's Law: Those that use the 'laws or acts or rules' of man to carry out any 'conduct' that is seen by God to be a criminal offence because IT is a contravention of His "Peace & love & Mercy & compassion & forgive" Command, place themselves into the jurisdiction of His Dark retributive and punitive forces, and great becomes their travail ahead. Foolish indeed are men who believe that a badge of 'office' or a mandate or a wage exonerates them from the application of God's LAW.
Note 5 : Let it be clearly understood by YOU the individual, be you a 'common' citizen or one employed by any government enforcement agency that, - - - IF you are involved in the apprehension, persecution or prosecution of anyone who was punished solely due to their INTENT to commit a crime, then you are a person deemed by God to have committed a crime by your proven DEED and, you will be punished within the precepts of His immutable "eye for an eye - as you did sow so shall ye reap" LAW.
Note 6 : Let it be clearly understood by YOU the individual, be you a 'common' citizen or one employed by any government enforcement agency that, - - - IF you are involved in the apprehension, persecution or prosecution of anyone who was punished due to their criminal DEED, then you are a person deemed by God to have committed a crime by your proven DEED and, you will be punished within the precepts of His immutable "eye for an eye - as you did sow so shall ye reap" LAW because, you have defied and contravened His Command:
Note 7 : Let it be clearly understood by YOU the individual, be you a 'common' citizen or one employed by any government enforcement agency that, - - - IF you find the justification to enter the home of another person uninvited because you believe that they have something therein that will prove that they are GUILTY of some crime, and you also then take some of their property as 'proof,' then you are GUILTY in the eyes of God for trespass and stealing and causing the other loss, harm, mental or emotional or physical duress and, it is YOU that is PROVEN as criminally GUILTY in His eyes and ahead in this or the after life will suffer the SAME loss or injury etc., on an EQUAL basis.
LINK - 2 The entrapment of Schapelle Corby
Let it be clearly understood,
The 'Administration of
God's prerogative only.