 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779
PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson
"The British occupation of Philadelphia was the seminal event of the War for Independence in Pennsylvania. Following Washington's defeat at Brandywine Creek, the British army entered Philadelphia on September 26, 1777. The Continental Congress and the Pennsylvania state government had already fled the city, and Washington would eventually withdraw his army to Valley Forge for the winter. Historians estimate that about one-third of Philadelphia's population, some 12,000 people, had fled the city in advance of the invasion.
The state government, in exile in Lancaster, soon began hearing reports of Pennsylvanians who were actively aiding or joining the British army. In March 1778, the Assembly, with assistance from Chief Justice McKean, passed a law entitled "An Act for the attainder of divers traitors." The law named twelve prominent individuals who had sided with the British and required them to appear for trial by April 20, 1778. If they failed to appear, they would be deemed "convicted and attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." The Act also authorized the Supreme Executive Council to issue additional proclamations naming persons who had joined the British army. Any such persons who failed to appear for trial would also be attainted of high treason. Although such conditional bills of attainder would soon be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania did not seek primarily to hang people without trials, but to seize promptly the abandoned estates of loyalists who had fled to the British. The law accordingly set forth various procedures for seizing the estates of those persons who failed to report for trial."
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 is "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed".
Here again is evidence of the opposing viewpoints as:
1. Might Makes Right (criminal power)
2. Golden Rule (law power)
This is clearly the case in this case of extreme conflict.
Demand obedience to falsehood without question, is on one side.
On the other side is an offer extended as a method of returning to voluntary association for mutual defense in cases where someone is suspected of, or even found guilty of, joining the aggressive, criminal, gang.
It takes 2 witnesses (or false accusers) to set the ball rolling, and those in power actually allow the ball to get rolling, rather than those in power ignoring the information brought to the cognizance of those in power.
Who is in power on either side?
On the criminal side the criminals are in power, and they do whatever pleases them with impunity.
On the other side everyone is in power, and everyone has the power of veto, in any case, so long as the individual in power has not volunteered to give up their power in any number of ways. An example is found in a jury trial whereby a prosecutor (private individual not government agent) and a defendant (again not a corporate agent, an actual individual living person) ask a potential juror questions such as:
1. Are you currently guilt of the same crime alleged against the defendant?
2. In your opinion is it perfectly reasonable for you to do harm to innocent people simply because you can get away with it?
3. Is it reasonable for you to pay an extortion fee, as an investment, so as to empower a criminal gang with the means to protect you from other criminal gangs, while knowing that there are many peaceful alternatives such as due process of law?
4. Is mass murder of innocent people morally acceptable to you, so long as you are a member of the murdering gang of course?
5. Is it morally acceptable to you to enslave by any means not limited to extortion, torture, and mass murder, a group of innocent people - not your group of course - whose subsequent forced labor can increase your standard of living and lower your cost of living?
Those are just 5 questions that could alert those intending to apply due process of law to a possible need to exclude some people for the vital job called jury duty, which includes both Grand and Petty jury duty?
In other words; confessed criminals do not make a jury lawful, the opposite can be reasonably expected.
Criminals may very well want to convict other criminals, and send other criminals to the gallows, or worse, because that is their nature, they want to eliminate the competition as there are only so many innocent victims in the pile. Criminal may very well want to avoid convicting other criminals, and this is also easy to reason out, because criminals need fellow criminals, in their gang, when crime because organized.
Example:
Mob Boss A (King George III, George Washington, or Lucky Luciano) is on a Grand Jury to accept accusations against Mob Boss B.
According to my understanding the Mob Boss on the Grand Jury will ignore accusations against his fellow members of his gang, and the same Mob Boss will pass on to the Trial Jury all accusations against members (except perhaps double agents) of a rival criminal gang.
What about a criminal cartel? The answer is clear, the members of a cartel will help each other avoid accurate accountability (to the public) concerning their nefarious activities, but any rival gang, and rival gang members, not joining the cartel is fair game. Think in terms of "honor" among thieves.
The same applies to Petty (trial) jurors. If individual A is a fellow gang member, then the prosecutor is going to want that fellow gang member on the jury. If both prosecutor and defendant are members of the same gang, then the idea begins to explain itself. Why would the prosecutor and the defendant, if they were on the same side, want the whole country of people to decide how the defendant, if found guilty, can be returned into lawful society after having volunteered to depart from it?
If they are on the same side, the criminal side, why would one gang member rat out another gang member, and place his fellow gang member at the feet of the public's moral compass?
"Definition
Latin for "from a thing done afterward."
Overview
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Now here this: What kind of mind assumes these types of thoughts? Is it a mind that says anything not unauthorized is perfectly acceptable behavior, or only things authorized is acceptable behavior? Is it a mind that assumes to invent the right and wrong of behavior by decree?
I think the answer is yes.
That type of mind requires an external authority, a God, to permit, or not permit, behavior, before, during, or after the behavior in question becomes a fact of the matter.
Everyone bound by that type of thinking is subject to the higher power's will. Everyone bound by that type of thinking is looking for their Boss whenever an action is contemplated, so as to gain permission to perform the act in question.
That type of thinking absolves everyone except the ultimate Boss of accountability. The Boss made me do it.
The member of the Cult of Might Makes Right is allowed to do anything at all, so long as the Boss hasn't yet placed that specific action on the list of crimes. So...how many crimes will have to be listed? How many victims are needed, before the list is complete? Each criminals has to get caught, tortured into a confession, brought before the Boss, and thumbs are up, or down, in that case, and then the Boss orders subordinates to add to the list, and do so or else.
An example may be:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Martin Luther King Jr. was given a death sentence for peaceful assembly and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, by the government. That was proven to the representatives of the country in a trial by jury case. The Boss issued the death sentence, and that execution was performed by the subjects subjected to that decree.
Where is the law? If you ask the Boss, the Boss would probably not answer honestly, but if the Boss did answer honestly then the Boss would inform those questioning the boss that the Boss is the Boss, don't question the Boss, or suffer obvious, demonstrated, consequences.
Martin Luther King Jr. was merely questioning the Boss, see what happened to him?
So, what really are those things called Statutes?
What, what are you talking about?
Written orders to be obeyed without question are precisely what they are, and Statutes, on the other hand, are suggestions to fellow peaceful members of voluntary associations, for their benefit, whenever they may be doubt concerning what is, or is not, acceptable behavior.
Acceptable to whom?
If the Boss does not except your behavior, with or without a Statute telling you in advance, you may get summarily dead.
If, on the other hand, the whole country is asked for a unanimous opinion in any specific case, then there are examples of specific cases where the whole country unanimously says no, such as murder, that is not acceptable, and here is your fine, pay it if you want to return inside the law, after having stepped outside the law, and the fine isn't supposed to ruin the outlaw as the outlaw works to get back inside the law. (that can be shown in the literature, which includes the statutes)
The most obvious check on what is or is not acceptable behavior is for the emerging criminals to merely ask their targeted victims for permission (not extorted "permission") to go ahead with whatever is a questionable, on the fence, act performed by someone upon someone else.
A case in point is a number of people operating a business whereby there are byproducts, or wastes, such as radioactive isotopes, or deadly poisons, are in need of disposal. Do the operators of the business, in charge of disposing the deadly poisons, take the deadly poisons home, to bury in their own back yards? Do the same operators of the business, in charge of disposing the increasing piles of poisons, go to the people down the river of water that may serve as a dumping point, to ask those people for permission to dump all that poison in that river?
Will the operators of the business look instead at the pile of statutes and find a way to argue their profitable decision to the Boss, and perhaps pay a larger extortion fee to the Boss, as insurance against loss for dumping the increasing piles of poisons into the river upstream from the targeted victims?