 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON
Falsehood:
"That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested."
Evidence:
The Debate over the Judicial Branch
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/document-collections/constitutional-debates/judiciary/
"The Agrippa letters appear to have been written by James Winthrop, who was register of probate in Middlesex when these letters were written."
http://www.constitution.org/afp/agrippa.htm
Agrippa V, Massachusetts Gazette, 11 December 1787:
"Authority is also given to the continental courts, to try all causes between a state and its own citizens. A question of property between these parties rarely occurs. But if such questions were more frequent than they are, the proper process is not to sue the state before an higher authority; but to apply to the supreme authority of the state, by way of petition. This is the universal practice of all states, and any other mode of redress destroys the sovereignty of the state over its own subjects."
That is also false, but the obvious false claim by Al Hamilton (the claim of absolute authority: not likely to be contested) is contested by James Winthrop, as a matter of fact.
The falsehood of James Winthrop appears to me to be on the subject of what is or is not a free member of a free people in liberty.
1. A subject of an all-powerful state.
2. A volunteer in a voluntary mutual defense association under the common laws of free people in liberty.
People can waffle between the two, but in time and place, there are accurately measurable transfers of power from one to another, transfers that are contestable or agreeable, such as for two examples the removal of the power to speak out against arbitrary governors in arbitrary government as Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum have their lives removed from them, along with their liberty. Agents of the all-powerful Nation-State created by the likes of the liar Al Hamilton routinely murder people to keep them from blowing the whistle, and in at least the MLK case the country, through a jury, found agents of the State guilty of that conspiracy murder.
Being subject to arbitrary government at a State level, or at a Federal level, is despotic in either case, so the non-arguable Hamilton position of a National (not federal) all-powerful judiciary is - in fact - argued (proving that Hamilton is false) by James Winthrop whose argument is that a State, not a Nation (falsely called a federation) ought to have the power to subject people to arbitrary enforcement of arbitrary decisions made by dictators in black robes or uniforms.
Missing (so far) in this non-argument that is argued (a conflict of interest, and a cause to act morally i.e. the law) is the actual law at the time, which was the common law, whereby people volunteer to be subject to the decisions made by the country (the whole people) represented by jurors in a jury trial. Those who don't volunteer don't agree with the common law, and they are by their decision outside that law.
So...these people in this non-argument that is an argument (a controversy) as to who (or which legal fiction) is given arbitrary (absolute) power, could be settled according to the existing voluntary association for mutual defense. The country (through the jury) could decide the matter in each case, every time this conflict arises.
Petitioner A, such as Al Hamilton, wants everyone in every county in every (soon to be overpowered) state to give up their rights to Legal Fiction A: an all-powerful Nation-State hid behind a federalist facade.
Petitioner B, such as James Winthrop, wants everyone in every county in his State to give up their rights to Legal Fiction B: his all-powerful Nation-State Massachusetts, the crime scene known as Shays’s Rebellion.
Falsehood was not yet ubiquitous in those days, not like today. Today almost everyone, each individual everywhere, invests into The Cult of Might Makes Right as if there wasn't any other viable, reasonable, option.
Back to James Winthrop:
"The individual is to take his trial among strangers, friendless and unsupported, without its being known whether he is habitually a good or a bad man; and consequently with one essential circumstance wanting by which to determine whether the action was performed maliciously or accidentally. All these inconveniences are avoided by the present important restriction, that the cause shall be tried by a jury of the vicinity, and tried in the county where the offence was committed. But by the proposed derangement, I can call it by no softer name, a man must be ruined to prove his innocence. This is far from being a forced construction of the proposed form. The words appear to me not intelligible, upon the idea that it is to be a system of government, unless the construction now given, both for civil and criminal processes, be admitted. I do not say that it is intended that all these changes should take place within one year, but they probably will in the course of half a dozen years, if this system is adopted. In the mean time we shall be subject to all the horrors of a divided sovereignty, not knowing whether to obey the Congress or the state. We shall find it impossible to please two masters."
Now here:
https://hammeringshield.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/federalists-v-anti-federalists-part-twelve-the-judiciary-least-dangerous-branch-or-most-repugnant/
This:
"“I suppose the supreme judicial ought to be liable to be called to account, for any misconduct, by some body of men who depend upon the people for their places; and so also should ALL great officers of the State, who are not amenable to some superior officers in the State.” It’s as if he’s trying to suggest that the Constitution should establish an elected Court Of Impeachment."
Why are private prosecutors and grand jurors erased from history?
In both the Articles of Confederation and the 1789 fraudulent Constitution are these words:
AoC
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
FC1789
"7. Judgement 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, judgement and punishment, according to law."
Pre-dating Magna Carta, every State Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the fraudulent Constitution of 1789 is due process of law by the people themselves: the common law.
"the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
"...shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law."
The criminals, as a rule, volunteer themselves to be above the law, despite the fact that the words that they claim to be their source of authority contradict that criminal, fraudulent, claim made arbitrarily.
Now here:
https://histcsac.wiscweb.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/281/2017/07/Brutus_XI.pdf
[Melancton Smith or Robert Yates or perhaps John William]
"The only causes for which they can be displaced, is, conviction of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors."
" From this court there is no appeal."
Why not? It was just stated that none of these criminals are above the common laws of free people in liberty. What is missing is the knowledge, and the will, to indict, and try, these criminals for their crimes against humanity, and do so according to very well established routines.
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
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."