 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
If choosing the term "talking heads" is an example of your intention not offend, then I'm wondering what terms you would choose when you are intending to offend.
The words quoted are words I wrote, and my name is not Joe Kelly.
Privilege has been understood as a gift from a sovereign (powerful) individual (or group) to the underprivileged (powerless) individuals or groups; especially in the context of so-called government actions.
Case in point:
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution. (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men." Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory.
When the people govern themselves they - the whole people, not a privileged segment of the whole - constitute the judge, jury, and executioner: not a privileged segment of the population taking government power by fraud, extortion, and aggressive violence.
As in the official record of the first Congress of the United States (13 at the time) of America:
14th of October, 1774:
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
We the people consent to or do not consent to whatever any government, anywhere, anytime, claims as right, true, lawful, legal, justified, or whatnot.
We are the privileged, because we say so, peacefully, in our jury trials.
The case in point is the case where the government perpetrated numerous crimes against the Bundy family and many others, and that case included a so-called judge stating on the record that a so-called prosecutor withheld evidence.
Before continuing with this answer to the comment by Jom Boyer, about talking heads, here is another talking head:
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." George Mason against the Con Job Constitution of 1787
So there is a crime in front of God and everyone confessed as a crime by a so-called "District Judge."
Which crime?
"The Supreme Court held that the suppression of favorable evidence violated Brady's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 69
69. Id. at 86. The Due Process Clause states that "[n]o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV."
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias
On the statutes that these "privileged" people claim to be their source of authority (under oath no less, and bonded) they are confessing to their crimes in open, public, proceedings under the color of law: i.e. treason.
What do these "privileged" people also claim?
"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").
"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").
Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence, Lisa M. Kurcias
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3689&context=flr
So I can talk my head off, but where is my equal protection under the law that these criminals claim to be their source of authority? They can assume guilt upon anyone they target, anywhere, anytime, and they don't even need a reason. They kidnap innocent people, torture them into submission, take everything worth taking from them, including their lives, and during the process that is supposedly in place to accurately identify those who are guilty of crimes, they - the criminals - claim that they are immune from that process. They not only do this out in the open, but they also do this on their own official records.
The talking head George Mason, who refused to sign the bogus Constitution of 1787, was correct. So was Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, and many other's who knew that rat smell when those rats stole the good name of the American government.
Another talking head:
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine
November 15, 1802
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."
Equal protection, or equal footing, or equitable, fair, impartial, actions by people for people - the law of the land - is the Revolutionary idea, but that idea is only revolutionary in places and times when the norm is blind obedience to the dictates of a criminal organization operating under the color of law.
The Patriots against the con job of 1787 knew the criminals were going after our common law trial by jury, and that is why they insisted upon a Bill of Rights.
Back to Jim Boyer:
"I often here this sort of sentiment from talking heads being careful no to offend. But, I don’t understand the perception that representatives on the right are trying to take rights or privilege from anyone."
If access to trial by the country, which is trial by jury, which is the method by which the people consent to or do not consent to anything any government claims to have the authority to do - if our trial by jury process - does not apply to a privileged class that can openly commit kidnapping, torture, extortion, murder, mass murder, and worse crimes, then I think my point is valid, even if some listening heads don't get it: yet.
I will admit error here when someone on the so-called right indicts one of these criminals, like "Judge" Navarro, or why not those Clinton monsters, or how about the author of the Patriot Act? When those on the so-called right stop doing almost the same cover-up of criminals running government job as the so-called left, then there will be criminals in government on trial, according to the common laws of free people, and the whole country will be the judge of fact, law, and remedy, through their jury.