Mens Rea & Actus Reus · Anelia Sutton

Mens Rea & Actus Reus

Okay, from the beginning of the "lure/entrapment/kidnapping," I saw Fraudulent intent. The ELEMENTS of Mens Rea & Actus Reus were apparent in the initial CONTACT the officer made with my daughter: "To DETAIN/ARREST/Kidnap and TRAFFIC her, (the 'alleged' defendant). The ARRESTING OFFICER: 1. Committed a Crime-he intentionally lured her to the Police Station with the promise of Benevolent Funds available for pickup. Knowing there were no funds, he thought (Mens Rea-guilty mind)up the scenario when she to comes into the precinct. Once there, he says "there is no victim Compensation" you're under arrest for the M of your Son.

2. Then he proceeds to Actus Reus, meaning he intended to cause my daughter harm by using the Reid Interrogation-that uses both Coercion and Deception as part of the Reid Technique. Maximization: Through the interview, the interrogator firmly asserts the suspect’s guilt and ignores any claims of innocence. Minimization: after making it clear that claims of innocence won’t be believed, the interrogator downplays the seriousness of the offense, offering opportunities for the suspect to explain why she committed the crime...I just want to hear your side of the story.

Everyone makes mistakes. But it’s important that you man up and tell the truth.
I’m trying to help you.
But I can’t help you if you don’t talk to me. It is my opinion the ARRESTING OFFICER was in the COMMISSION of a Crime from the first moment of contact using FRAUDULENT means. And more importantly the PC/Affidavit IS NOT A SWORN ONE! (I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (28 U.S.C. 1746). Executed on (Date) (Signature) https://mande.net/media/2019/06/WYSU.13th.posters.jpg FRAUD vitiates everything it touches United States v Throckmorton 98 U.S. 61, 66, (1878)