 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
My aim was to borrow from Roger Roots' book:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"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. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
“Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
So...the government in America was whatever the local population (people living on an area of the planet, not on water, therefore on specific places of land specifically called America) create and maintain. The law was Indian where the Indians were, then it was a combination of Indian and English, French, and Spanish, where they were, and then it was revolutionized by two opposing methods into what it was when “private prosecutors” did what they did to create and maintain the law as described in the words of Roger Roots, and all the references (quotes, documents, records, publications) employed by Roger Roots in that book.
Private prosecutors gained access to the law process and private prosecutors prosecuted cases at law, not in an Equity Court, but at law. Law was law, Equity was not law. There at that time were clear distinctions, demarcations, differences, segregation, between what is law, and what is not law: what is equity.
My aim was to zero in on the following:
“Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.”
Civil can mean anything to anyone one moment, and then - apparently - the same individual could use the word civil to mean the opposite meaning the next moment.
Civil law could mean English (criminal) stooges working for a (criminal) Dictator finding ways to (falsify) justify the wholesale slaughter of anyone who does not cower and beg at the feet of the Emperor and his loyal servants, while enslaving all who do bow down and lick those demonic boots.
Civil law can merely mean an adaptive process by which peaceful people agree to solve any controversy of any kind, anywhere, and any time, while expending the least cost to anyone while reaching for that agreeable remedy to the disagreeable controversy at hand.
Civil law can be “enjoined” (commingled, confused, annexed, or otherwise unjustly combined) with Criminal law, as is often the case when the criminals take over, as the criminals - as a rule - make criminals out of everyone, all the time, just ask them, and recall the warnings about them: caveat emptor, and those trojan horse gifts from Greeks.
I thought to find and pass on - in context - that demarcation line between misdemeanor and felony too, but for now I forgot the reference so I will hazard the use of my own unauthorized - and often criticized - words. A felony at one time was someone understood to be at war with society, someone akin to a mad dog, someone running amok on the playground slaughtering children, the best and brightest along with those even less able to defend themselves.
The cost of dealing with people at war with society - felons - was paid for by each victim in turn as these criminals went inexorably from victim to victim, until theoretically there were no more victims, certainly not without some form of individual, or some form of organized, defense of some merit.
What is criminal law?
So...I found this book along the way, and I think it may help:
The Practice of Courts-leet, and Courts-baron, Containing Full and Exact Directions for Holding the Said Courts,... – Sir William Scroggs
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=1gjs0GnQNxoC&rdid=book-1gjs0GnQNxoC&rdot=1
Please note that my viewpoint is such that the true law is necessary, it is natural too. The counterfeit law is such that the mad dogs gain the most power the soonest as they wade through the people like a mad dog wading through all the children on the playground. They do that while they claim to own everything, everybody, and they also claim that they alone can save everyone from themselves. As absurd as that sounds, it is true, and I don't make this up, I am holding an accurate accounting of the facts that matter.
So the questions then are:
What is the true civil law?
What is the true criminal law?
What is counterfeit civil law?
What is counterfeit criminal law?
And is it a good idea to know the difference?