 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A number of people agree - at liberty - to form a corporation. There are no boundaries, therefore there are no jurisdictions, other than those boundaries and jurisdictions agreed to in the laws governing the voluntary corporate association. Once someone steps outside those boundaries, they volunteer - at liberty - to remove themselves from the corporation. All actions performed at liberty, all things done in a civilized manner, all things civil.
Then one corporate member invents and projects falsehoods that knowingly deceive others in the voluntary association formed in a corporate manner. That is called many names including fraud.
If that voluntary - at liberty - fraudulent action willfully - and with malice aforethought - causes intentional injury to others, then there is - in a phrase - a disturbance of the peace, an injury to the public at large. The general population of individuals who are at liberty to do something about any threat to peace, posterity, rising standards of livings, and lowering costs of livings to all, are collectively injured when anyone is injured: in theory. In theory the one injuring someone is one who can then injure someone else the same, or in a similar, way. A criminal running amok in the public domain can be seen as if a mad dog was let loose in the school playground.
These deceiving criminals in Corporate offices threaten, and injure, all. These traitors threaten and injure all, including all those who are foreign, and including all those who are domestic, including also those in or out of any corporation, any voluntary association.
When the threat is not dealt with effectively, which is proven while those injured by those criminals increase in number, then the threat itself becomes a power, which is a power to extort anything those being extorted will pay, including their lives, their children's lives, and the lives of everyone foreign as well as domestic. When that extortion racket becomes universal, those who are extorted will pay dearly, they will be made to give up on the truth that matters.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
U.S. Corporate Nation State Constitution (not a republic, not a democracy, not a federation of democratic republics)
"FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government.
This is done to prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury..."
Amendment 5 to the U.S. Nation State incorporating document of 1789
Right there in the paperwork is a voluntary path by which the volunteers can drain the swamp.
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
"Likewise though it be said here, that the King hath given and granted these Liberties, yet they must not be understood as meer Emanations of Royal Favour, or new Bounties granted, which the people could not justly challenge, or had not a Right unto before; For the Lord Cook at divers places asserts, and all Lawyers know, that this Charter is for the most part only Declaratory of the principal grounds of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, no new freedom is hereby granted, but a Restitution of such as lawfully they had before, and to free them of what had been usurped and encroached upon them by any power whatsoever; and therefore you may see this Charter often mentions Sua Jura, their Rights, and Liberats suas, their Liberties, which shews they had them before, and that the same now were Confirmed."
Care, Henry, 1646-1688.
It is not so much bottom up versus top down as it is simply good versus evil. Those who do unto others before others can do unto them first, known as might makes right, or also known as American Exceptionalism, are evil by their willful actions that intend with malice aforethought to injure innocent people. If people will defend themselves against harm being done to themselves, and those same actions that harm are what people will initiate upon others, then those people confess their evil minds in that way. Those who aggress, in ways that they would be hell bent to defend against, confess - with blood soaked hands and deceptions - their evil: a fact that matters.
If people merely point that out, then the Golden Rule applies only if people seek, ask for, want, the same accountability focused upon themselves: the finger pointers want fingers pointed at themselves.
A Grand Jury composed of an angry mob seeking to murder anyone they - collectively - don't like is no different than a Corporate Congress infested with liars who cover up for corporate mass murderers: no different in principle.
It is sad to consider the possibility that we the people are almost all evil criminals, yet it is just as emotional, in a good way, to consider the possibility that those same people might set the truth free again.