 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Trial by Jury
In Chapter III (Oaths of Jurors) there is mention of the work Grand used in conjunction with the word Jury.
Grand Jury <------ Free E-Book if you sign into a Google Account
What accurately distinguishes, discriminates, separates, or delineates the difference between a common law trial by jury and a common law Grand Jury?
Grand Jury Essay
I stumbled on that book while re-reading Trial by Jury (Lysander Spooner) as a reference was made in Spooner's Essay concerning an Essay on Grand Jury. The author is not precisely identified and the date of the publication leads to further confusion.
Here is a quote from the link:
Quote:
Strictly speaking there is no obscurity surrounding the origin of the "grand jury," for it was not until the 42nd year of the reign of Edward III (A. D. 1368) that the modern practice of returning a panel of twenty-four men to inquire for the county was established and this body then received the name "le graunde inquest."11 Prior to this time the accusing body was known only as an inquest or jury, and was summoned in each hundred by the bailiffs to present offences occurring in that hundred. When, therefore, this method of proceeding was en larged by the sheriff returning a panel of twenty-four knights to inquire of and present offences for the county at large, we see the inception of the grand jury of the present day. But while it is true that our grand jury was first known to England in the time of Edward the Third, it is nevertheless not true that it was an institution of Norman origin or transplanted into England by the Normans.
Footnote 11 is:
11 3 Reeves Hist. Eng. Law 133; Growth of the Grand Jury System (J. Kinghorn) 6 Law Mag. & Rev. (4th S.) 367.
THE GRAND JURY PART I ITS ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT.
Going back to the Grand Jury Essay I find:
There was also the hue and cry, which was raised when any offence was discovered and the offender was pursued until taken ; if he escaped, then the hundred in which he was in frank-pledge was liable to be amerced.17
Does that mean that a group of 100 in a "county" was held liable to PAY a fine if they do not secure their own "EXPORTS" of criminals? This is a very interesting concept (if so) applicable to the modern day ILLEGAL ALIEN boondoggle.
Thinking Breakthrough?
Does that mean that this point in history begins to define the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE?
Please consider these words n that Grand Jury Essay:
The Norman method was by appeal, (from the French appeler, to call)14 the direct individual accusation, the truth of which was determined by the wager of battle. The nambda took no cognisance of criminal pleas, and crimes, where no appellor appeared, went unpunished. The English method was designed to prevent the escape of any who had violated the law. This was sought to be accomplished first, by prevention through the system of frank pledge, by which in every tithing the inhabitants were sureties to the king for the good behavior of each other;16 and, second, by prosecution instituted by the presentment of the twelve senior thanes in every hundred or wapentake, whose duty was, according to the law of Ethelred, to accuse such persons as they found had committed any crime.18 There was also the hue and cry, which was raised when any offence was discovered and the offender was pursued until taken ; if he escaped, then the hundred in which he was in frank-pledge was liable to be amerced.17 Inasmuch as in this period all offences were regarded as of purely private concern, the offender could escape trial and punishment upon payment to the person wronged, or, if he was dead, to his next of kin, of a sum of money, varying in accordance with the enormity of the offence, and the rank of the person injured. This was known as the custom of were gild.16 If, however, the defend ant either could not or would not pay weregild, then the truth of the charges prosecuted by these methods was determined by compurgation, by the corsned or morsel of execration, or by the ordeal of fire or water.19 Where the accused failed to clear himself by compurgation, which occurred when he failed to ob tain the necessary number of persons who were willing to swear their belief in his innocence, he was obliged to purge himself by the ordeal.20
That is a big chunk of ideas offered to a modern human being.
Consider, please, how moral people in a free market may figure out a competitive way to collect their many diverse talents and improve upon the supply of justice (defense of the innocent) so as to meet the demand for it.
1.
Innocent people seek shelter from criminals.
2.
Criminals seek innocent people to perpetrate crimes upon them.
3.
Moral people (perhaps not free from sin, so not "innocent" of any "sin) organize in a competitive way to stand in between the innocent people and the criminals.
4.
Some criminals find ways to injure innocent victims despite all efforts by all moral people working to make sure that crime does not pay in their area of influence.
5.
A competition ensues as some areas (family, town, church, city, county, etc.) to see which group reduce crime internally the best (and the least expensive).
a. Expelling criminals
b. Not expelling criminals
Do you see?
An individual either takes the law into their own hands or they seek help from other people. Failing to do anything by anyone to solve the criminal problem results in the criminals being afforded the opportunity to perpetrate crimes at will.
Crime pays well, and therefore the unemployed realize that high paying jobs are available in the crime business.
County A is notoriously bad at reducing crime effectively, or individual A is similarly unwilling, or unable, to solve the criminal problem, so a criminal moves from individual A, using up individual A, moving onward to another individual.
You are in one county and the county next to your county is expelling criminals who are now wandering into your county. How is that any different from you failing to do something when you know that a criminal is perpetrating crimes upon the innocent among us in your living room; in your mirror?
A moral human being, and a reasonable human being, will obviously reach the conclusion that help, more than me, myself, and I (more than the Private solution to the criminal problem) is needed to solve the criminal problem.
At that point, at the point at which an individual human being decides to seek help is the moment when that individual creates the PUBLIC life or "government" where previously there was only PRIVATE life or "government."
A problem (crime) shared by all (innocent people) is not likely to be solved by one person acting alone.
There is then, in the mirror, at least one individual expressing an offer to have someone supply that demand: I need help solving the criminal problem - can anyone help?
If the demand (help) is more than one individual expressing an offer to have someone supply that demand (help is needed in solving the criminal problem), then the demand becomes greater in terms of power.
Here is where the obvious problem ought not be ignored. The criminals themselves counter-offer a false version of "help" offered to moral people (supplying the need for help, supplying the demand for help), whereby the counter-offer of false help is crime made legal, or an organized crime monopoly, whereby false "protection" is offered and the offer is "an offer you can't refuse."
Public, the process, the ideas turned into actions, thereby being knowable as a voluntary pledge (frank pledge) to deal with criminals internal to the group existing nearby to another group of people making the same voluntary pledge: You take care of your criminals, we take care of ours, and in that way your group won't be finding excuses to invade our group, as one group won't be creating, subsidizing, and then exporting criminals.
A private individual is not libel to have to pay the entire fine owed to one group by another group for failure to solve the local criminal problem when the creation of a PUBLIC collective POWER (which has to be funded in some accurate way) for mutual defense (solve the local crime problem AND solve the external crime problem) against enemies foreign and domestic.
Person in Group A perpetrating crimes in Group A is an individual having to pay fines in Group A as restitution for crimes in Group A. Criminal having a criminal history in Group A, moving into Group B, perpetrating crimes in Group B, according to frank pledge, constitutes a liability owed to Group B by Group A.
Does that make sense?
Is that the voluntary version of PUBLIC DEBT?
Scale that up and modernize it to the point at which the Constitutionally Limited Republics that formed a Federation under The Articles of Federation and you have France loaning POWER to help those United States defend against the criminal invaders under English (Bank of England) Despotism. If those volunteers in that voluntary Union (those 13 Constitutionally Limited Republics) won't pay back their Debts to France then France may not ever help again, and France may then lower the credit rating of those United States from creditworthy to ENEMY based upon that example of that crime of failing to pay back debts when obviously the debts can be paid back, since those Unites States were freed from the costs of suffering at the hands of the Despotic English (Bank of England).
Note: The Federalists sided with the English against the French as proven by the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The appeal materially promoted the importance of the accusing body, for unless the appellor himself suffered the injury, there was no incentive to him to risk his life or liberty in the trial by battle, when the crime could equally well be presented by the in quest.34
"Materially promoted the accusing body..."
Accusing body = those specialists hired to accurately identify the criminals and then do something affective in reducing the pay rate paid to the criminals by the victims - at least.
"...when the crime could equally well be presented by the in quest."
Here I am (perhaps wrongly) reading a meaning that looks like the point at which the Usurpation occurs, as the voluntary process becomes involuntary and typically the Usurpation concerns money. What is the precise transfer of POWER from anyone to anyone else whereby there is a material promotion (a monetary interest) that promotes the "accusing body"?
When, exactly, does the "accusing body" turn from a voluntary defensive POWER into a crime made legal POWER, as abuse occurs and the false victims use the false POWER of law to "get something for nothing"?
Back to The Grand Jury
In the time when Glanville wrote, there were two methods of instituting prosecutions, viz., by appeal at the suit of the person injured or his proper kinsman ; and the accusation by the public voice, that is, the presentment by the accusing body that the defendant was suspected of certain offences. 47
Who claims that the public has a voice?
What does that mean in that context?
Who is speaking for the public in that case?
That looks like The King raising himself up above everyone else as the supposed speaker of some supposed authority that is a nebulous entity called The Public.