 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The trial by battle was in force upon appeals properly brought, but the exceptions which might be taken to the appeal were becoming more numerous. The right of the appellee to decline battle and put himself upon the country is not men tioned by Glanville, nor does there seem to be a recorded in stance of it until the early years of King John's reign.
Now, I went to this Grand Jury link from the work of Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury. I've been in this source for more than a day now. What is becoming clear is the idea that people in this time period were apt to settle questions of who is, and who is not, a criminal by violent means (ordeal) and people were moving toward less violent means. The term "upon the country" is now being used as a possible reference to the process known as Trial by Jury which includes the factor of sortition or "random selection" so as to remove the factor of "special interest" that always occurs when the outcome of a judgment (to release the dogs of war) will transfer any wealth/profit/advantage/money/power to the judge who makes that decision.
The problem of decision makers (jurists not judges in judgements made by "the country") having a conflict of interest (a jurist stands to gain by his power of judgment) is not solved by this employment of this random selection or sortition.
The problem of hand picking jurists by some supposed authority is solved by this process of random selection of who is or who is not authoritatively representing the interests of the people, or the country, as a whole.
When any member of the people are given the power to select the jurists who will then have the power to judge guilt or innocent (and thereby release the dogs of war upon the defendant if the defendant refuses to agree to the decision) that member of the people who is given that power will have a bias, an interest, and that goes without saying, so that POWER to select (hand pick or stack) a jury is nullified, removed, and no longer a power that is up for grabs, to be given, or taken away, with the invention, use, and maintenance of the process by which jurists are randomly selected (sortition).
A free people will remain free so long as they realize this POWER, and as soon as free people ignore this POWER this POWER will be taken by the criminals.
The criminals will, as a rule, take the power to select (stack) the "deciders" of who is guilty and who is innocent of perpetrating any crime upon the innocent among us, and that is the point at which the criminals take over, at that precise point whereby the criminals gain that POWER to decide who does the deciding.
The criminals then decide that there can be only one money, and then the criminals make sure that no one challenges that authority to enforce one money.
Note: Reference to another work as Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England