 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
NOT common law
Each year prior to March 1st every Superior Court Judge may nominate two persons deemed qualified to serve as Civil Grand Jurors. Following the nominations, the selection process for grand jurors involves a random selection of prospective jury members and alternates. The Sheriff’s Department performs a background check on these individuals. In a final random selection, the members of the jury are selected. A number of alternates are also selected to serve as jurors should any of those originally chosen be unable to continue to serve.
The modern word for that is State Capture. I call it Legal Crime. When the criminals take over they shut the door behind them, so as to make sure that only those among their kind (Legal Criminals) are allowed to perpetrate their types of exclusive crimes.
This is very simple. Anyone claiming to be above the law (God's or Natural Law as the point at which "The Buck Stops" = Golden Rule, or "No one is above the Law") confesses their membership among the criminals in their minds, which is Mens Rea (Guilty of Mind).
If those criminals act out their guilty minds in actual fact, whereby an innocent victim is injured by one of them, then all the other ones in their membership are duty bound to protect each other against any threat by any power that may expose their true color.
It is not Organized Crime because words have meaning and Organized Crime is separate from any false claim of false authority. The Mob, or Organized Crime, members do not claim to be the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, so help me God, or so help me Natural Law (if you happen not to be a member of a formal religion), or so help me fellow members of the people who understand what the Law means, as the Law means that no one is above the law, and therefore anyone claiming to be above the law is in fact confessing their guilty minds.
Is that not easy?
How about some help from a fellow member of the people whereby the fellow member of the people offers, voluntarily, information concerning the history of trial by jury?
Lysander Spooner
Quote:
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.
When the false authorities claim to be above the law (God's Law or Natural Law being where the POWER of LAW originates so God's Law or Natural Law is the Law of the Land when the people are not fooled into a false authority or false god by criminals hiding behind badges) they are using their guilty minds (Mens Rea) to perpetrate a crime upon the innocent among us, and that crime is to remove "Due Process of Law" from those targeted individuals who no longer have access to "Due Process of Law," because those Legal Criminals have Captured the State, or stolen the power of government, and then those Legal Criminals select at their exclusive pleasure those who will be injured by them, and those who will become them, a member of their criminal organization that hides behind false authority or the color of law.
Each victim, each individual victim, removed from access to Due Process of Law, is inculpatory evidence proving the fact that a member of the Legal Crime Organization has perpetrated a crime: Actus Reus.
Of course the Legal Criminals are not going to admit their guilt, and of course the fellow Legal Crime members are going to band together and protect their POWER to perpetrate crimes under the color of law.
There is more help in finding when, where, and how State Capture (by criminals) of Due Process of Law occurred in between the English example of Trial by Jury explained by Lysander Spooner in his study, and NOW, when the Legal Criminals have claimed to be the exclusive employers of their version of trial by jury.
Spooner:
But all this "trial by the country" would be no trial at all "by the country," but only a trial by the government, if the government 'could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial. 27
But all these translations are clearly erroneous. In the first place, "nor will we pass upon him," - meaning thereby to decide upon his guilt or innocence judicially - is not a correct rendering of the words, "nec super eum ibimus." There is nothing whatever, in these latter words, that indicates judicial action or opinion at all. The words, in their common signification, describe physical action alone. And the true translation of them, as will hereafter be seen, is, "nor will we proceed against him," executively.
In the second place, the rendering, "nor will we condemn him," bears little or no analogy to any common, or even uncommon, signification of the words "nec super eum mittemus." There is nothing in these latter words that indicates judicial action or decision. Their common signification, like that of the words nec super eum ibimus, describes physical action alone. "Nor will we send upon (or against) him," would be the most obvious translation, and, as we shall hereafter see, such is the true translation.
But although these words describe physical action, on the part of the king, as distinguished from judicial, they nevertheless do not mean, as one of the translations has it, "nor will we commit him to prison;" for that would be a mere repetition of what had been already declared by the words "nec imprisonetur." Besides, there is nothing about prisons in the words "nec super eum mittemus;" nothing about sending him anywhere; but only about sending (something or somebody) upon him, or against him - that is, executively.
Coke's rendering is, if possible, the most absurd and gratuitous of all. What is there in the words, "nec super eum mittemus," that can be made to mean "nor shall he be condemned before any other commissioner or judge whatsoever."? Clearly there is nothing. The whole rendering is a sheer fabrication. And the whole object of it is to give color for the exercise of a judicial power, by the king, or his judges, which is nowhere given them.
That should plant the reader firmly on the side of God's Law or Natural Law, whereby no amount of "argument" by man upon man (deceit) can nullify the facts. The facts are that free people govern themselves throughout history, even before language became English Language, and therefore any notions of common law having once been of the people, by the people, and for the people, as an irrelevant, outdated, historical curiosity, and in Modern Times such things are of no use whatsoever, should spark an interest in asking by what authority does anyone make such a claim?
Then, and again, as if never ever being able to ignore the argument, one claim of authority is competitively compared to another claim of authority, and which one resorts to deception first?
Which claim of authority resorts to threats of violence upon the innocent first?
Which claim of authority resorts to violence upon the innocent first?
Which claim of authority never, ever, resorts to deception, threats of violence upon the innocent, or violence upon the innocent WITHOUT exception?
If you have never been on a jury then you may want to try it out for yourself. Even as the Criminals have almost completely taken over voluntary government, the wisdom of "trial by the country" still works, even if the POWER of it is so effectively reduced by those Union members who have an interest in preserving their Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs.
Out of 12 people you will find some who are as criminally minded as the next criminal, and their words can be exposed for what they are, and they tend to shut up after having their own words confess their true motives; while other jurors agree to avoid resort to deception, avoid resort to threats of violence upon the innocent, and avoid resort to violence upon the innocent even when the Union members are dictating lies, dictating threats of violence upon the innocent, and dictating violence upon the innocent.
So...returning to the ancient customary application of trial by the people, trial for the people, and trial of the people, as the people are the source of power of good government, under any name imaginable, using any language that is current, and for now, for us, the words common law grand jury may suffice as our label we use to identify us.
We are common law grand jury members, according to ancient practices of self defense, defense of the innocent, and defense against the criminals who resort to deceptive, threatening, and violent crimes under the color of law.
The Union members of Color of Law, which is no different than any other Legal Fiction, such as WalMart, or Target, or even The Teamsters Union, will claim that they have captured Common Law Grand Jury Due Process.
Is it?
The answer is demonstrably no, and the criminals who captured voluntary government, turning voluntary government into Crime made Legal (involuntary government) DEFINE the meaning of their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes upon their innocent victims.
How?
Again?
Due process of law requires that a judgement be made as to the presumed to be innocent accused is tried JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE whereby the randomly picked (not hand picked by those making money on the deal) jurists represent the whole country as a whole without the factor of special interests having an interest in hand picking "jurists" who have an interest in judging the case in favor of their special interest group.
The special interest group in counterfeit trial by jury is called The Bar Association, and again it is no different than WalMart, Target, or The Teamsters Union, in point of fact, since they are all Legal Fictions that get their authority from themselves, or by deceit, or by threat of violence, or by violence upon the innocent.
Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at WalMart?
Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at Target?
Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at a Teamsters Union meeting?
Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at a meeting of The Bar Association membership?
If Due Process of Law cannot be found in those places, then where is it, an if Due Process of Law can't be found, then what would human life look like without Due Process of Law?
The Ugly Truth
When the beasts take over they work effectively at turning everyone else into beasts too?
So...where in California has there been cases of juries assembled by the people, for the people, and of the people, such as was the process due to everyone, without exception, in Trial by Jury in England (before it was captured and corrupted by criminals who took over government)?
That may not be easy, or even possible.
The battle over WORDS (common law) and the capture of government by the people, of the people, and for the people, has always been a tug of war, and a big win on the side of the criminals who make their crimes legal, was The Constitution ratification battle, as it was sufficiently understood in those days that the criminals were seeking to capture trial by jury.
Example:
Patrick Henry smells a few rats
Quote:
Perhaps the same horrors may hang over my mind again. I shall be told I am continually afraid: but, sir, I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered; in other parts, absolutely taken away.
How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone not sufficiently secured in criminal this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands.
Right of trial by jury weakened
I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom.
Evidence of the battle over words whereby the criminals were resorting to deception, threats of violence, and even violence to capture voluntary government (of the people, by the people, and for the people who consent, voluntarily, to due process doe to everyone without exception) and to turn voluntary government into involuntary government as the criminals claim to have all authority including the authority of giving or taking away authority at will.
In other words the criminals who take over are the same criminals who claim to be Gods above men, in their actions, if not their confessions to themselves (they think they are Gods so they confess to themselves).
Here:
Referenced Information
Hamilton, Washington, and Adams were among the co-conspirators working their word magic to capture trial by jury, to turn voluntary government by the people, for the people, and of the people into their exclusive prerogative. Note the word magic. Instead of openly confessing the want of dictatorship (crime made legal) the words chosen sound harmless: prerogative.
So...if common law by the people employing due process of trial by jury by the country, with randomly selected jurists presuming an accused to be innocent did not work in Hamilton's reign as Treasury Secretary, and common law again did not work in trials by "the government" capturing grand jury proceeding so as to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams' Dictatorship, then where are any cases going to be found of common law trial by jury in California?
Was the battle already lost by that time when California became a member of the Union: just before the so called Civil War?
Constitution of the State of California 1849
Article I.
Declaration of Rights.
Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
Sec. 3. The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waved by the parties, in all civil cases, in the manner to be prescribed by law.
I am not a Union Lawyer, but I've done enough homework to know what those words above mean to me. The concept of trial by jury is such that 12 people randomly picked from this country ought to afford an accused person, presumed to be innocent, of some measure of due process of law, due to anyone, due to everyone, without exception, as all it takes is one of those 12 in that trial by jury to know the difference between right and wrong.
Example:
1. Right = no one is above the law and if someone claims to be above the law then there by that claim is all the evidence required to reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offer of a claim of being above the law is a confession of a guilty mind.
2. Wrong = pay the extortion fee and don't question the payments, in other words, when the criminals with false badges demand a pound of flesh, give them two pounds.
How about the modern version of the California Constitution?
Modern version?
The Legal Criminals have been busy in California?
Quote:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 16.
Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but...
That should not be a surprise. When the criminals take over they bar the door into their Union of false authority. The people who know better must help each other know better until such time as there are enough people knowing better, standing on the rock solid cause of Liberty, and then offers of help in defense of the innocent against the criminals who falsely claim authority can be powerful by reason and by common sense, whereby the word "common" means that a sufficient number of people constitute a common sense of right and wrong.
1.
Reasonable?
Anyone claiming to be above the law is someone confessing their guilty mind, even if they can't admit it.
2.
Reasonable?
Lost but not forgotten?
Quote:
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
3.
Unreasonable?
Every man, woman, and child for themselves, the enemies foreign and domestic are too powerful?
Again, back to Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner:
Quote:
It is evident that the difference between the true and false translations of the words, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, is of the highest legal importance, inasmuch as the true translation, nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send (any one) against him by force of arms, represents the king only in an executive character, carrying the judgment of the peers and "the law of the land" into execution; where as the false translation, nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, gives color for the exercise of a judicial power, on the part of the king, to which the king had no right, but which, according to the true translation, belongs wholly to the jury.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts and caveat emptor.
Legal Criminals lie, they fabricate, and they distort, so as to fool their victims into blind belief in falsehood without question.
Authority to punish was taken back from the Monopoly (King) and it was afforded to everyone without exception or "trial by the country," despite the imperfections of mankind there was, is, and will be wisdom in making sure that authority is NOT a privilege given to, or taken from, one person who is thereby bound to have, and hold drear, a special interest in judging in his, or her, own favor.
Note: References to ancient trial by jury are made in Latin not English.
So the phrase "common law" can be understood as a translation made by someone for some purpose.
Reinforcing a reasonable understanding.
Per legem terrae. 4 Thus interpreted, the words of John’s Charter promised a threefold security to all the freemen of England. Their persons and property were protected from the King’s arbitrary will by the rule that execution should be preceded by a judgment—by a judgment of peers—by a judgment according to the appropriate time–honoured “test,” battle, compurgation, or ordeal.5
1 Advocates of both theories can point to other parts of Magna Carta where “lex” is used in the sense they claim for it in the present passage; for its purport was, in 1215, ambiguous. In chapters 18, 36, and 38, it refers primarily to procedure, whereas chapters 9, 45, 52, 56, and 59 suggest a broader interpretation.2
1 founding apparently on these fourteenth–century statutes, makes “per legem terrae” equivalent to “by due process of law” and that again to “by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men,” thus finding the grand jury enshrined in Magna Carta. The framers of the Petition of Right2 read the same words as a prohibition, not only of imprisonment “without any cause showed” but also of proceedings under martial law, thus interpreting the aims of King John’s opponents in the light of the misdeeds of King Charles.
Anachronisms such as these must be avoided. Whatever may have been the exact grievances that bulked most largely in the barons’ minds in 1215, their main contention was obvious. John was no longer to take the law into his own hands: the deliberate judgment of a competent court of law must precede any punitive measures to be taken by the King against freemen of his realm.
Here is significant wording:
[5]See Thayer, Evidence, 200–1, for a discussion of the phrase “lex terrae.” See also Bigelow, History of Procedure, 155 n.: “The expression ‘per legem terrae’ simply required judicial proceedings, according to the nature of the case; the duel, ordeal, or compurgation, in criminal cases; the duel, witnesses, charters, or recognition in property cases.” The words occur at least twice in Glanvill, each time apparently with the technical meaning. In II. c. 19, the penalty for a false verdict includes forfeiture by jurors of their law (“legem terrae amittentes”); while in V. c. 5, a man born a villein, though freed by his lord, cannot, to the prejudice of any stranger, wage his law (“ad aliquam legem terrae faciendam”). The stress placed on the accused’s right to the time–honoured forms of lex is well illustrated by the difficulty of substituting jury trial for ordeal. It has already been shown that the right of “standing mute,” that is, virtually, of demanding ordeal, was only abolished in 1772. See supra, p. 342. Five and a half centuries were thus allowed to pass before the criminal law was bold enough, in defiance of a fundamental principle of Magna Carta, to deprive accused men of their “law.”
Note:
the penalty for a false verdict includes forfeiture by jurors of their law (“legem terrae amittentes”
Whose law?
Back to Trial by Jury and Spooner:
" Per legem terrae."
One other phrase remains to be explained, viz., "per legem terrae," "by the law of the land."
All writers agree that this means the common law.Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says:
"The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128.
Lex terrae = common law = law of the land?
What is Hale's History of the Common Law?
I can look for it but for now I want to re-link the following:
Leaping ahead
Some attempt was made to assimilate the remedies granted by the Court of Chancery and the common law courts. Thus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the common law courts were given some power to award equitable remedies and the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the Chancellor the power to grant damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or a decree of specific performance.
Is that an example of Capture? Does common law (power of the people as a whole, or due process due to everyone without exception) become Common Law as a dictate dictated into being by dictators at their exclusive pleasure?
Back to Spooner and Trial by Jury:
But whether the common law fixed the punishment of any offences, or not, is a matter of little or no practical importance at this day; because we have no idea of going back to any common law punishments of six hundred years ago, if, indeed, there were any such at that time. It is enough for us to know - and this is what is material for us know - that the jury fixed the punishments, in all cases, unless they were fixed by the common law; that Magna Carta allowed no punishments to be prescribed by statute - that is, by the legislative power - nor in any other manner by the king, or his judges, in any case whatever; and, consequently, that all statutes prescribing particular punishments for particular offences, or giving the king's judges any authority to fix punishments, were void.
The only court was the court of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it worked to reduce the profitability of crime perpetrated by any criminal, any criminal inside, or outside, common law, including the so called government.
[15] Lingard says, " The words, ' We will not destroy him nor will we go upon him, nor will we send upon him,' have been very differently expounded by different legal authorities. Their real meaning may be learned from John himself, who the next year promised by his letters patent,... nec super eos per vim vel per arma ibimus, nisi per legem regni nostri, vel per judicium parium suorum in curia nostra, (nor will we go upon them by force or by arms, unless by the law of our kingdom, or the judgment of their peers in our court.) Pat. 16 Johan, apud Drad. 11, app. no. 124.
Wording again can trip me up. A trial by jury is not the place, it is the process. The court is the place, and there may be much to the idea that the people are not the executioners of sentences judged through due process, and if the people do not carry out sentences, then who does?
My way of thinking here is such that all those who agree to voluntarily obey common law and judgments by due process (trial by jury) execute their own sentence by paying the fine. Earlier in the Essay by Spooner is a mention concerning severity of punishment being limited to Fines that do not ruin the productive capacity of a member of the people.
So, in cases of those who fail to execute their own sentence, by paying the fine, there are those who then appeal to the King's judgment, or those who volunteer to become outlaws, and then there was mention in Trial by Jury of common law (peers) looking the other way if the outlaw is dispatched by other means.
So...if a number of common law grand jury administrators can convince someone to do the right thing, on their own volition, then why would there be any need for someone to execute a sentence?
Would not the POWER of being able to publicly convict someone in office inspire resignation, or restitution as a means of salvaging a career that temporarily went down the wrong path?
Further indictment of Coke:
[25] Coke attempts to show that there is a distinction between amercements and fines - admitting that amercements must be fixed by one's peers, but, claiming that, fines may be fixed by the government. (2 Inst. 27, 8 Coke's Reports 38) But there seems to have been no ground whatever for supposing that any such distinction existed at the time of Magna Carta. If there were any such distinction in the time of Coke, it had doubtless grown up within the four centuries that had elapsed since Magna Carta, and is to be set down as one of the numberless inventions of government for getting rid of the restraints of Magna Carta, and for taking men out of the protection of their peers, and subjecting them to such punishments as the government chooses to inflict.
More evidence supporting the accurate measure of usurpation by dictatorial (Legal Crime) powers:
[29] I cite the above extract from Mr. Hallam solely for the sake of his authority for rendering the word vel by and; and not by any means for the purpose of indorsing the opinion he suggests, that legem terrae authorized "judgments by default or demurrer,*' without the intervention of a jury. He seems to imagine that lex terrae, the common law, at the time of Magna Carta, included everything, even to the practice of courts, that is, at this day, called by the name of Common Law; whereas much of what is now called Common Law has grown up, by usurpation, since the time of Magna Carta, in palpable violation of the authority of that charter. He says, "Certainly there are many legal procedures, besides trial by jury, through which a party's goods or person may be taken." Of course there are now many such ways, in which a party's goods or person are taken, besides by the judgment of a jury; but the question is, whether such takings are not in violation of Magna Carta.
Spooner warns:
As to "process of attachment for contempt," it is of course lawful for a judge, in his character of a peace officer, to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man guilty of a contempt, as he would for the arrest of any other offender, and hold him to bail, (or, in default of bail, commit him to prison,) to answer for his offence before a jury. Or he may order him into custody without a warrant when the offence is committed in the judge's presence.
But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing, for contempt, any more than for any other offence. And it is one of the most dangerous powers a judge can have, because it gives him absolute authority in a court of justice, and enables him to tyrannize as he pleases over parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors. If a judge have power to punish for contempt, and to determine for himself what is a contempt, the whole administration of justice (or injustice, if he choose to make it so) is in his hands. And all the rights of jurors, witnesses, counsel, and parties, are held subject to his pleasure, and can be exercised only agreeably to his will. He can of course control the entire proceedings in, and consequently the decision of, every cause, by restraining and punishing every one, whether party, counsel, witness, or juror, who presumes to offer anything contrary to his pleasure.
This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly had much to do in subduing counsel into those servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits, which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties.
If any summary, punishment for contempt be ever necessary, (as it probably is not,) beyond exclusion for the time being from the court-room, (which should be done, not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the preservation of order,) the judgment for it should be given by the jury, (where the trial is before a jury,) and not by the court, for the jury, and not the court, are really the judges. For the same reason, exclusion from the court-room should be ordered only by the jury, in cases when the trial is before a jury, because they, being the real judges and triers of the cause, are entitled, if anybody, to the control of the court-room. In appeal courts, where no juries sit, it may be necessary - not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the maintenance of order - that the court should exercise the power of excluding a person, for the time being, from the court-room; but there is no reason why they should proceed to sentence him as a criminal, without his being tried by a jury.
If the people wish to have their rights respected and protected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the last importance that they jealously guard the liberty of parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors, against all arbitrary power on the part of the court.
Back to Trial by Jury/Spooner:
But it is in the administration of justice, or of law, that the freedom or subjection of a people is tested. If this administration be in accordance with the arbitrary will of the legislator - that is, if his will, as it appears in his statutes, be the highest rule of decision known to the judicial tribunals, - the government is a despotism, and the people are slaves. If, on the other hand, the rule of decision be these principles of natural equity and justice, which constitute, or at least are embodied in, the general conscience of mankind, the people are free in just so far as that conscience is enlightened.
That the authority of the king was of little weight with the judicial tribunals, must necessarily be inferred from the fact already stated, that his authority over the people was but weak. If the authority of his laws had been paramount in the judicial tribunals, it would have been paramount with the people, of course; because they would have had no alternative but submission.
The fact, then, that his laws were not authoritative with the people, is proof that they were not authoritative with the tribunals - in other words, that they were not, as matter of course, enforced by the tribunals.
But we have additional evidence that, up to the time of Magna Carta, the laws of the king were not binding upon the judicial tribunals; and if they were not binding before that time, they certainly were not afterwards, as has already been shown from Magna Carta itself. It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to Magna Carta, such as the court-baron, the hundred court, the court-leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just.
[11] The court-baron was the court for a single manor, and there was a court for every manor in the kingdom. All these courts were holden as often as once in three or five weeks; the county court once a month. The king's judges were present at none of these courts; the only officers in attendance being sheriffs, bailiff's, and stewards, merely ministerial, and not judicial, officers; doubtless incompetent, and, if not incompetent, untrustworthy, for giving the juries any reliable information in matters of law, beyond what was already known to the jurors themselves.
Finding peaceful ways to agree with one another was big business? That is the concept of Free Market Government at work, whereby the quality of the service provided is ever FORCED higher in quality as free people adapt by their creative industry, offering some better way today to settle disputes than yesterday, and the same FORCE will force the costs down, as each competitor, in Liberty, offers a better, higher quality, and lower cost, service known as reasonable judgement.
When the force of monopoly (Legal Crime) imposes a single authority, and no other, the obvious happens as there is no longer any force applied to the single authority forcing the SUPPLY (of government) higher in quality and lower in cost according to the consumers who DEMAND accurate, reasonable, judgement.
Trial by Jury is the framework worthy of conservation, because no one individual is above any other individual, according to judgements made within that framework, and so there are many competitive COURTS open for business all across the country, each one working within the conserved framework of Liberty (Free Markets), and each one inspired to outperform each competitive COURT by their inventive, adaptive, creative, human industry.
As to taxation (Trial by Jury Spooner):
A statute, emphatically termed the ' Grand Assize,' enabled the defendant, if he thought proper, to abide by the testimony of the twelve good and lawful knights, chosen by four others of the vicinage, and whose oaths gave a final decision to the contested claim,."- 1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, 261.
"From the moment when the crown became accustomed to the 'Inquest,' a restraint was imposed upon every branch of the prerogative. The king could never be informed of his rights, but through the medium of the people. Every 'extent' by which he claimed the profits and advantages resulting from the casualties of tenure, every process by which he repressed the usurpations of the baronage, depended upon the 'good men and true' who were impaneled to 'pass' between the subject and the sovereign; and the thunder of the Exchequer at Westminster might be silenced by the honesty, the firmness, or the obstinacy, of one sturdy knight or yeoman in the distant shire.
Taxation was controlled in the same manner by the voice of those who were most liable to oppression. * * A jury was impaneled to adjudge the proportion due to the sovereign; and this course was not essentially varied, even after the right of granting aids to the crown was fully acknowledged to be vested in the parliament of the realm. The people taxed themselves; and the collection of the grants was checked and controlled, and, perhaps, in many instances evaded, by these virtual representatives of the community.
The principle of the jury was, therefore, not confined to its mere application as a mode of trying contested facts, whether in civil or criminal cases; and, both in its form and in its consequences, it had a very material influence upon the general constitution of the realm. * *The main-spring of the machinery of remedial justice existed in the franchise of the lower and lowest orders of the political hierarchy. Without the suffrage of the yeoman, the burgess, and the churl, the sovereign could not exercise the most important and most essential function of royalty; from them he received the power of life and death; he could not wield the sword of justice until the humblest of his subjects placed the weapon in his hand." - 1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Constitution, 274 - 7.
The Principle here is at least a recognition of Natural Law (or God's Law) being a part of human nature, to know that each individual will be judged by his, or her, fellow honest people (disregarding those who obey no law whatsoever = criminals of mind, body, spirit, and action) and therefore no one single person can be "The Law" because doing so goes against Natural Law, since human beings gaining absolute power over other human beings are as likely as not going to abuse that power.
Perhaps not accurately measured in history, but something that can certainly be measured accurately at this time, is the additional benefit of Free Market Forces working upon the many (non-antagonistic = non-criminal) competitors who offer their individual service of dispensing judgment in any case whereby other free people (non-criminal) demand a ruling by "the country."
A jurist known to serve his own interest, time after time, as the months go by, and as many decisions are made by many competitive jurists all across the country, would gain negative feedback, and it would be generally known that the quality of that specific jurist was below average in quality, and therefore the cost of doing business with that jurist would be comparatively high compared, competitively, with an obviously higher offer by another jurist whose reputation, good standing, honestly, and sound judgment excelled by relative comparison in a free market of government services.
How is that not easy to see?
What are the options afforded to the many people now in this country when shopping for justice?
What happened to voluntary association in Liberty were free market choices are the rule, not the exception, and NOT AGAINST THE (false) LAW?
Warning
Here is a potential word magic trap concerning the term Court of Record (meaning "before written language was common":
Coke says,
"The court of the county is no court of record, [19] and the suitors are the judges thereof." - 4 Inst.) 266.
Also, "The court of the Hundred is no court of record, and the suitors be thereof judges." - 4 Inst., 267.
Also, "The court-baron is a court incident to every manor, and is not of record, and the suitors be thereof judges." - 4 Inst., 268.
Also, "The court of ancient demesne is in the nature of a court-baron, wherein the suitors are judges, and is no court of record." - 4 Inst., 269.
Coke is one of the spin doctors, the word magicians, a Union man, a Monopoly of Law man, and so there might be fair warning here in how the Usurpation from Liberty into Despotism transpired with the Capture of common law (lex terrae) from the people (in mind, body, spirit, and action) so as to turn that power into an exclusive (monopoly) power to supply the demand for government, and to do so with a false, or counterfeit, version of government (crime made legal or involuntary association).
John Millar, An Historical View of the English Government [1803]
That is a work referenced in Trial by Jury (Spooner) for this (in Trial by Jury):
Millar says,
"Some authors have thought that jurymen were originally compurgators, called by a defendant to swear that they believed him innocent of the facts with which he was charged. . . But . . . compurgators were merely witnesses; jurymen were, in reality, judges. The former were called to confirm the oath of the party by swearing, according to their belief, that he had told the truth, (in his oath of purgation
the latter were appointed to try, by witnesses, and by all other means of proof, whether he was innocent or guilty. Juries were accustomed to ascertain the truth of facts, by the defendant's oath of purgation, together with that of his compurgators. . . Both of them (jurymen and compurgators) were obliged to swear that they would tell truth. .
According to the simple idea of our forefathers, guilt or innocence was regarded as a mere matter of fact; and it was thought that no man, who knew the real circumstances of a case, could be at a loss to determine whether the culprit ought to be condemned or acquitted." - 1 Millar's Hist. View of Eng. Gov., ch. 12, p. 332 - 4.
Also, "The same form of procedure, which took place in the administration of justice among the vassals of a barony, was gradually extended to the courts held in the trading towns." - Same, p. 335.
Also, "The same regulation, concerning the distribution of justice by the intervention of juries, . . .were introduced into the baron courts of the king, as into those of the nobility, or such of his subjects as retained their allodial property." - Same, p. 337.
Also, "This tribunal" (the aula regis, or king's court, afterwards divided into the courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer) "was properly the ordinary baron-court of the king; and, being in the same circumstances with the baron courts of the nobility, it was under the same necessity of trying causes by the intervention of a jury." - Same, vol. 2, p. 292.
The reason why that is important has to do with the emergency of State courts becoming known as Exchequer. The EX CHECKER courts were the emerging POWER of Monopoly Money, or Central Banking.
Note: The Modern version is The FED combined with The IRS as the criminals take over they must seize the Legal Power to Purchase. Once that Legal Power to Purchase is under the exclusive control of a single entity (Legal fiction = two parts being one Fraudulent and the other Extortive) the Legal Criminals can then cause Booms and Busts by manipulating that supply of that one money. That one money is Extorted out of the people through so called Tax Liabilities (Extortion payments) and that "need" creates the demand for that Legal Money, as the Extortion payments must be made in that one Legal Money. There is then a high demand for that one Legal Money, and everyone required to pay the Extortion fee MUST work for a number of "Dollars" (everyone producing anything worth stealing MUST pay their "fair share" of "Taxes) so the Central Bankers are thereby Capturing the economy of that population.
The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180
That link is heavy reading from what I consider to be a Machiavellian viewpoint. After suffering through the beginning (looking for a reference to the emergence of Exchequer Courts) I found this:
The system of private law, being formed in good measure by<83> long usage, was necessarily different in different districts; and the customs which prevailed in the more considerable had obtained a currency in the smaller states of the Heptarchy.
A huge part of the word magic employed by those who willfully deceive is the confusion of the terms Public and Private.
Back to Trial by Jury (Spooner):
The fact that, in that dark age, so many of the principles of natural equity, as those then embraced in the Common Law, should have been so uniformly recognized and enforced by juries, as to have become established by general consent as "the law of the land;" and the further fact that this "law of the land" was held so sacred that even the king could not lawfully infringe or alter it, but was required to swear to maintain it, are beautiful and impressive illustrations of the troth that men's minds, even in the comparative infancy of other knowledge, have clear and coincident ideas of the elementary principles, and the paramount obligation, of justice.
The same facts also prove that the common mind, and the general, or, perhaps, rather, the universal conscience, as developed in the untrammeled judgments of juries, may be safely relied upon for the preservation of individual rights in civil society; and that there is no necessity or excuse for that deluge of arbitrary legislation, with which the present age is overwhelmed, under the pretext that unless laws be made, the law will not be known; a pretext, by the way, almost universally used for overturning, instead of establishing, the principles of justice.
The Mirror of Justices
That is a reference in Trial by Jury here:
The Mirror of Justices, (written within a century after Magna Carta,) in the chapter on the abuses of the Common law, says:
"It is abuse to use the words, to their knowledge, in their oaths, to make the jurors speak upon thoughts, since the chief words of their oaths be that they speak the truth." - p. 249.
That speaks of more word magic. The concept that all is belief and nothing is factual may be at work in that usurpation by word magic. The example might be that a person is aware of an injury to an innocent person having been done by a specific person caught red handed.
"So, to the best of your knowledge, was it the defendant sitting in that seat there who punched the plaintiff in the nose?"
"No, you are playing with words, as sure as the defended is sitting in that seat now that same individual is the one who punched the plaintiff in the nose."
History of Common Law in England by Matthew Hale