 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
One of the last known instances of the court attempting to coerce a grand jury occurred in 1783, in Pennsylvania. Mr. Oswald, the printer of the Independent Gazette, criticised the conduct of the Supreme Court. The justices thereof, Chief Justice McKean and Judge Bryan ordered him to be indicted for libel, but the grand jury ignored the bill. The judges severely reproved them in open court in an attempt to overawe the inquest and sent them back to reconsider the bill, but the jury refused to return an indictment.135
Note: That is before the Usurpation of 1787 (The Con Con Con Job debacle)
Notes in the reference:
135 Francis Hopkinson's Works, Vol. 1, p. 194. In Mississippi in 1902, in the case of Blau v. State, 34 So. 153, will be found an instance where the Court successfully coerced the grand jury into finding a true bill. A motion to quash was overruled. On appeal the judgment was reversed upon the ground of the improper influence exercised over the grand jury in the finding of the indictment.
My notes: Terms used "true bill" and "indictment" meaning the same thing?
Continuing in the work titled Grand Jury:
When the settlement of America was begun by Englishmen, they brought with them all the civil rights which they enjoyed in their native land, and with them came the grand jury.138
Reference notes:
136 Lesser Hist. Jury System 128. Details of the earliest use of the grand jury in the American Colonies are few and very unsatisfactory. In the New Haven colony, theocratic notions caused the inhabitants to dispense with trial by jury because no precedent for it could be found in the laws of Moses.
Fiske — Beginnings of New England 314.
In Boston in 1644, a certain Captain Keayne was tried for larceny by a jury and ac quitted: Id. 129; while in Plymouth in 1651, a grand jury presented one Holmes for holding a disorderly meeting; Id. 218.
In Pennsylvania, the early cases in which reference to a grand jury is made, have been collected by Hon. Samuel W. Pennypacker, in an address entitled Pennsylvania Colonial Cases.
The first case cited is that of the Proprietor v. Charles Pickering, and arose in August, 1683 : Pennsylvania Colonial Cases, p. 32. The case of Proprietor v. Mattson was founded upon an indictment by the grand jury charging the defendant with witchcraft: Id. p. 35.
Two presentments by the grand jury in 1685 called attention to various public evils and suggested certain public improvements: Id. p. 71- 72.
In the case of Peter and Bridgett Cock v. John Rambo, the indictment, which was found in 1685, is reproduced entire. This indictment seems to have been read to the grand jury in open court at the request of counsel for the prosecution. The finding thereon was^'Wee find this bill. John King, foreman." Id. p. 79.
In 1703, in Pennsylvania, a grand jury presented a number of individuals for various offences : Watson's Annals of Philadelphia, Vol. I, p. 308; Fiske — The Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America, Vol. II, p. 382.
Further into Grand Jury:
The institutions which they brought, naturally flourished in a land so far away from the mother country, and consequently removed from the attacks which were subsequently made by the crown upon the liberties of the people. For nearly one hundred years the colonies were allowed to exercise to the fullest extent a greater degree of civil rights than at any time had been permitted to the subject in England.
The only restraint placed upon them was by the appointment of royal governors, but even then there were no state prosecutions like those being carried on in the mother country. Free from restraints which were there placed upon them, it was most natural that the grand jury should exercise their great power in a man ner most calculated to insure the liberty and freedom of thought of the people.
In New York in 1735, an attempt was made to indict John Peter Zenger, the editor and proprietor of a news paper called the Weekly Journal, for libel because of the manner in which he held up to scorn the deeds of the royal governor, but the grand jury ignored the bill. He was then proceeded against by an information filed by the attorney general for the province, and after a trial in which he was defended by the Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, was triumphantly acquitted.187
Notes:
137 The Dutch and Quaker Colonies (John Fiske), Vol. II, pp. 290-299.
Further:
The Constitution of the United States, as adopted by the states, contained no guaranty of presentment or indictment by a grand jury, but this omission was remedied by the passing of the first ten amendments, substantially a bill of rights, of which Article V provides :
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,138 or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger;" ....
This provision applies solely to offences against the United States and triable in the United States Courts,139 and has reference not only to those offences which at common law were capital or infamous, but to such as might thereafter be made capital or infamous by legislation of Congress.140
It has been held not to affect prosecutions brought by means of an information filed by the United States District Attorney in cases where the offence does not constitute a capital or otherwise in famous crime.141
In this respect the Constitution of the United States assures to the citizen the same protection to his liberty which the laws of England afford to the subjects of the king.
My notes: I am copying this as I read this for the first time.
Notes:
138 See Ex Parte Wildman, 29 Fed. Cas. 1232.
139 Hurtado v. California, 11o U. S. 516; BoIIyn v. Nebraska, 176 U. S. 83; Twitchell v. Com. 7 Wall (U. S.) 321; Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; State v. Wells, 46 Iowa, 662; State v. Barnett, 3 Kan. 250; State v. Jackson, 21 La. Ann. 574; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. (N. Y.), 819; Prescott v. State, 19 Ohio, 184; State v. Shumpert, 1 S. C, 85; Pitner v. State, 23 Tex. App. 366; State v. Keyes, 8 Vt., 57; State v. Nordstrom, 7 Wash., 506; State v. Baldwin, 15 Wash., 15. The powers of local government exercised by the Cherokee Nation are local powers, not created by the Constitution, and hence are not operated upon by Amendment V thereof, requiring a presentment by a grand jury in the case of a capital or other infamous crime; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S., 376.
140 U. S. v. Brady, 3 Cr. Law Mag. 69.
141 Mackin v. U. S., 117 U. S. 328; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417.
SPECIFIC TO CALIFORNIA
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to prosecute crimes by means of indictment or prohibit them from proceeding by information. The provision "due process of law" refers only to the prosecution of offences by regular judicial proceedings.142Notes:
142 Hurtado v. California, 1 10 U. S. 516; Kalloch v. Superior Court, 56 Calif. 229; Rowan v. State, 30 Wis. 129.
The information continues:
The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to prosecute crimes by means of indictment or prohibit them from proceeding by information. The provision "due process of law" refers only to the prosecution of offences by regular judicial proceedings.142
It has, therefore, become usual both in England and the United States to proceed by information where the law gives that right, and has frequently been employed in cases where a bill has been submitted to, and ignored by, a grand jury.
That is becoming very convoluted or my ignorance is getting the better of me. Who is proceeding by information to accomplish what?
Further:
The Constitution of Pennsylvania affords a still greater protection to the liberty of the citizen. Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights provides: "No person shall for any indictable offence, be proceeded against criminally, by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, or by leave of the court for oppression or misdemeanor in office."
As all offences are indictable offences in Pennsylvania, the filing of an information has been very rarely employed, by reason of the limited class of cases to which it can be applied. The nature of this proceeding received judicial construction in an early Pennsylvania case143 decided by Mr. Justice Shippen, who delivered the following opinion :
"The present is the first in stance, that we recollect, of an application of this kind in Pennsylvania ; and on opening the case, it struck us to be within the l0th section of the ninth article of the constitution, which declares that no person shall for any indictable offense, be proceeded against criminally by information, except in cases that are not involved in the present motion. But, on consideration, it is evident that the constitution refers to informations, as a form of prosecution, to punish an offender, without the intervention of a grand jury; whereas an information, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, is applied to the mere purpose of trying a civil right and ousting the wrongful possessor of an office." ....
The battle lines between those in office and those paying for those in office appear to be expressed in too many words whereby the words are changing like a shell game. I think that it is very important to realize the gravity of the situation whenever evil people take over the power of defensive (voluntary) government, for at that point those in office use their office to make their crimes pay better and those who pay for those in office MAY be inspired to pay more, and more, and more, so as to pay less, whereby the investments intended turn out to be "providing the means by which we suffer" instead of defending the innocent against injury by willful criminals perpetrating crimes while IN OFFICE and presumably UNDER an OATH or promise to not do the crimes they perpetrate.
Informations means what? True Bills? Indictment? Presentment? Quo Warrento?
Here is a piece of paper, you have been served, you have so many days, if you do not resolve the issue yourself, on your own volition, the dogs of war will be unleashed upon you, and since this applies ONLY to those same dogs of war (office holders and oath takers) your interests in earning your way through life is no longer going to be threatened by your victims pulling your plug, paying you less, now you had better consider your fellow office holders and your fellow oath takers wrath for your discredit of their good name.
Dogs of War = Office holders and Oath Takers
The People = The source of credit (productive capacity = anything made that is worth stealing)
In between, by custom, by trial and error, are common law grand juries.
In order to bridge the gap between the authority of the capacity of the people to make anything worth stealing and the authority of the capacity of the government office holders and oath takers to defend the innocent against criminal injury, in case the criminals take over government, are a list of bridges.
1.
The people can speak the truth without fear of being punished by anyone for speaking the truth. In other words speaking the truth is not a punishable crime.
2.
The people who will defend themselves from criminals of any color, foreign or domestic, will be armed with the arms required for that defense.
3.
4.
5.
No one will be punished by anyone unless the accused is tried by some process that is not a counterfeit version of trial by jury - punishment outside of this boundary is crime defined by criminals as they perpetrate crimes upon their presumed to be innocent victims.
So my comments are offered as a way of making things real when looking at this information.
Returning to what I consider to be a heavy work load (I hate willful deception vehemently = a weakness of mine)"
Under the same statute the court made absolute a rule for an information where the proceeding was against a justice of the peace who was charged with a misdemeanor in office in taking insufficient bail.144
But where a prosecutor appeared to be proceeding from vexatious motives, the court discharged the rule for an information.146
The grand jury of the present time is a wholly different institution from that originated by the Anglo-Saxons. The ancient institution was designed to aid the government in detecting and punishing crime; the tyranny of kings made it an instrument to defeat the government. Now it occupies the anomalous position of a public accuser, while at the same time it 1 stands as a defender of the liberty of the people.
Notes 146, 147:
146 Grand Juries 29 L. T. 21.
147 Bentham — Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Vol. II, p. 312.
More:
It remains to consider whether or not the grand jury is worthy to be retained among the institutions of a free government in this progressive age. The institution has been attacked with great vehemence by writers of acknowledged ability, both English and American, but at the same time it has been defended with equal vigor by men no less able.
That the institution and its workings are open to criticism no one will question, but that the defects which are pointed out by its critics are of such a nature as to justify its abolition cannot be so readily conceded. The attacks upon it are based principally on three grounds :
1. That it is now a useless institution.
2. Its irresponsibility.
3. Its secrecy of action.
It is well said by an English opponent of the institution,146 "ten centuries of usage give a very striking respectability to any institution; and grand juries existed before the feudal law and have survived its extinction. They are perhaps the oldest of existing institutions; but if they are to continue, they must rest on their continuing utility, not on their antiquity, for future toleration."
It is urged with great earnestness and the argument contains much merit that the system which has been in force the past three hundred years of giving a defendant a preliminary hearing before a magistrate, makes the work of the grand jury in this class of cases superfluous.147
In many instances this argument would seem to be well founded, since the finding of a true bill by the grand jury in cases returned to the district attorney by the committing magistrates would be but a ratification of the action of the magistrate, but it is not true in all cases. There are many cases of a trifling nature which are re turned by the committing magistrates and when brought before the grand jury the indictments are ignored.
In counties where the volume of business is small, it would be of little consequence if the grand jury found true bills even in these cases, but in counties where the volume of business is large, and this is particularly true of the great cities which frequently are co extensive with the boundaries of the county, it then becomes of vital importance that there should be a tribunal to sift from the great mass of cases those which are too trifling in their nature to require further prosecution.
And this is a duty which could not well devolve upon a single officer, for unless testimony was heard by him there would be no feasable way to determine which cases should be prosecuted and which should be ignored. If evidence is therefore to be heard, it is wiser that it be heard and considered by a body impartially selected from the people, than by a single officer whose training would incline him to find those grounds upon which the prosecution might be sustained.
While in ignoring bills of indictment it frequently happens that defendants are set free who undoubtedly merit punishment, it is idle to charge that this is a defect in the system or a reason why it should be abolished, for the same result is of frequent occurrence where defendants are tried before petit juries, when the evidence is heard in open court. If, when the grand jurors hear only the evidence in favor of a prosecutor, given by witnesses summoned by the district attorney, and examined by him before the grand jury, they are unable to return a true bill, how can it reasonably be asserted that a petit jury, where the entire twelve must concur, would have found the defendant guilty when the grand jury, which usually exceeds this number, are unable to muster twelve who concur in finding the bill.
To charge a grand jury with failure to act in furtherance of justice, under such circumstances, is an unwarranted imputation upon the judgment of intelligent men and is only made by writers who give the subject a superficial consideration.148
That because the minority view the evidence in a different light from the majority is to say the majority have come to the wrong conclusion, is a proposition not recognized in this country. The defendant, no matter what the evidence against him may be, is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and if the prosecuting officer, with all the power he possesses within the sealed doors of the grand jury room, is unable to convince twelve out of those present, of the guilt of the defendant, he cannot well say that he could do more before the petit jury, where the defendant has the additional advantages of counsel and witnesses in his defence, and a trial judge who may be called upon to rule out incompetent and irrelevant evidence. There are undoubtedly many cases in which true bills are found where incompetent and irrelevant evidence has been given before the grand jury and formed the inducement to their action.
The fact that sometimes they indict innocent persons is to be deplored, but as an argument in favor of the abolition of the institution is without merit. The right still remains for such defendant to establish his innocence before a petit jury, where he is aided by his counsel and may have witnesses in his behalf. If, in such cases, the prosecution was by information filed by the district attorney upon the return of the committing magistrate, there would be no possible chance of the innocent defendant escaping trial. Primarily the object of the grand jury is not to protect the innocent, for all accused persons are presumed innocent until the contrary be shown, but is to accuse those persons, who, upon the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, if uncontradicted, would cause the grand jurors to believe the defendant guilty of the offence charged.149
When, therefore, the evidence is of such a nature as to justify the return of an indictment by the grand jury, it is only proper that whether innocent or guilty, the accused should be put upon his trial.
The following may be the last quote I take from this source as the information appears to confirm from which side of the fence the speaker speaks.
We have only to turn back to early English history to see how the grand jury was so used for improper purposes that the statute of 3 Henry VIII, C. 12, was enacted, giving to the judges and justices the right to reform the panels of grand jurors returned by the sheriff, and then compelling the sheriff to make return of the panel so reformed.
Fighting over who gets to be the arbitrary dictator of summary justice is a fight fought among criminals over the ready supply of victims.
Criminal A:
"Hey, you are capturing too many victims, so back off, and leave some for the rest of us."
Criminal B:
"You and what army get to tell me what to do and when?"
The point about trial by jury that is worth of pointing out, it seems to me, was the removal of human decision power out of the selection process whereby selecting jurors to try cases proceeded according to custom, because it became obvious to enough people over time that such a power was dictatorial on its face, or in fact, as demonstrated by those who seek power each time.
Rather than supply the demand for power demanded by those who seek power, rather than that whole Might makes Right scenario, the idea was to DISCONNECT the suppliers (victims) of POWER (anything produced by the honest productive people that was worth stealing) from those who demanded that POWER, and the FIX was in when the judges of who is a criminal and who is not a criminal, and who is a victim, and who is not a victim, were chosen by LOT.
Please note how this very lengthy work done by someone to inform other people somehow (so far) manages to avoid, ignore, and discredit by omission, the FIX that was IN on the Power Struggle called Might Making Right.
If sortition is ignored, it may go away?
I spoke too soon on my resolve to move onto other works since this work appears to be of a particular bend.
Nor can there be said to be any more merit in the complaint that the secrecy surrounding the grand jury is an evil which should be done away with. They deliberate in secret, but the petit jury does likewise, and no one would contend for a mo ment that a petit jury should deliberate in public.
What may be needed is a more specific reference concerning a specific common law grand jury whereby it can be accurately known how those jurists on that common law grand jury managed to be selected into those positions. Having one example can show how to repeat the process, or finding one example to be more of the same Might makes Right (Legal Crime) processing, also known as jury stacking, can show which processes ought to be set aside in favor of Liberty.
Readers who may be reading this (ha, ha, as if that happens I'd never know?) might be as surprised as I am concerning the next quote from the same source. It may be that I am suffering from fatigue, or my capacity to know things, to understand things, is weak, as the information appears to me as if the balance of power is ambiguous at times and then definite at other times.
What do you make of the next quote in context of my own comments above (I read this next quote for the first time, ever, and that reading occurred after I wrote the above comments):
Chief Justice Shaw,180 of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a charge to a grand jury in 1832, admirably set forth the conservative view of this institution.
"In a free and popular government," he said, "it is of the utmost importance to the peace and harmony of society, not only that the administration of justice and the punishment of crimes should in fact be impartial, but that it should be so conducted as to inspire a general confidence, and that it will and must be so. To accomplish this, nothing could be better contrived than a selection of a body, considerably numerous, by lot, from amongst those, who previously and without regard to time, person, or occasion, have been selected from among their fellow citizens, as persons deemed worthy of this high trust by their moral worth, and general respectability of character. And although under peculiar states of excitement, and in particular instances, in making this original selection, party spirit, or sectarian zeal may exert their influence, yet it can hardly be expected that this will happen so frequently or so extensively, as seriously to affect the character or influence the deliberations of grand juries. Should this ever occur, to an extent sufficient to weaken the confidence now reposed in their entire impartiality, and thus destroy or impair the utility of this noble institution, it would be an event, than which none should be more earnestly deprecated by every lover of impartial justice, and every friend of free government.
"Were the important function of accusation placed in the hands of any individual officer, however elevated, it would be difficult to avoid the suspicion of partiality or favoritism, a disposition to screen the guilty or persecute the innocent. But the grand jury, by the mode of its selection, by its number and character, and the temporary exercise of its powers, is placed beyond the reach or the suspicion of fear or favor of being overawed by power or seduced by persuasion."
Who could have said it better? I'm done for the night.
After a night of digesting this information it occurs to me this morning that there will always be changes in POWER along these lines recording here in this work whereby the Might makes Right (Legal Crime) people gain the upper hand as a function of deceit, threat, and violence upon the innocent, and then the POWER swings back to the people who work to apply the opposite concept which is expressible as The Golden Rule or Liberty.
So who is employing which POWER at any time in any case whatsoever?
1.
Involuntary Association
Might makes Right or Legal Crime or Power gained by people over people through the utilization of deceit, threat, and violence targeted innocent people.
2.
Voluntary Association
Liberty, or The Golden Rule, or No human being is above this voluntary LAW, whereby everyone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and if there are any exceptions to the Rule of Law, then those exceptions ARE criminals by that POWER of exception.
The volume of words flowing forth from writer to reader in the work titled Grand Jury paints a picture of the POWER struggle swinging from those who claim to be Excepted (Legal Criminals), such as Kings were known to do, with their claims of Divine Right, as that POWER then swung back into the hands of all the people without exception, whereby no one was legally able to commit crimes with impunity, let alone BE the POWER OF LAW themselves, as Criminals Issue what they call Summary Justice (Just us, or just me, above everyone else, supposedly).
Where things are confused, precisely where things are confused, involves the spaces between all the targeted victims ears, those places in each human brain, and possibly even those places in each human hear and soul, whereby the LIES take hold and the victims are led to Believe in such nonsense as False Authority in any form, such as The Divine Right of Kings, or the Absolute Authority of anyone over anyone else ever - NOT INCLUDING GOD (in other words the subject of GOD existing is an entirely different subject).
Again, the confusion occurs within the human beings who are adversely affected by the LIES, as may be the case when a fellow human being effectively deceives other human beings into a false belief that a human being is a GOD, and a human being is thereby EXCEPTIONAL, and a human being making these false claims is in any way ABOVE the LAW, by their ability, their POWER, to confuse, befuddle, deceive, and render powerless their targeted victims.
Those claims of EXCEPTIONALISM made by EXCEPTIONAL human beings whereby it is their RIGHT to perpetrate any crime, because they do it, are easy to see, easy to spot, and easy to know, and easy to understand, throughout history, and here, for your consideration are two examples:
The first example comes from my copy of The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli:
(From the Introduction in my copy):
Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.
That type of message is the accurate identification of the POWER that is used by Legal Criminals as Legal Criminals take over the POWER of defensive government (voluntary government), as the criminals realize that the only way their way of life can exist is by overpowering the POWER held by their targeted victims whereby their targeted victims combine into an effective, voluntary, defensive POWER.
So the criminals know that they have to corrupt the rule of law, the criminals know that they have to corrupt Liberty, the criminals know that they have to corrupt free market government power, the criminals know that they have to corrupt the defensive POWER of their victims, and failing to corrupt Liberty (Rule of Law/Golden Rule/Voluntary Defensive Association/Free Market Government/Trial by Jury based upon sortition/etc.) removes their POWER to perpetrate crimes with impunity.
Here is item two:
The Crimes and Punishment of I.G. Farben
The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap.
Even the moans of the doomed became a work incentive, exhorting the remaining inmates to greater effort.” Conditions were such that sickness was a pervasive fact of life among the inhabitants of Monowitz. The hospital wards built by I.G. were so inadequate that even the S.S. suggested additional wards be built. I.G. refused because of the cost
This is a warning from me to you, anyone reading this, which to me is rare, or non-existent, but in case someone is reading this, this warning, the issue of Slavery is at (or near) the heart of this POWER struggle.
For there to be a slave there has to be an aggressor, a criminal, a slaver, a capturer, and a destroyer of Liberty. They, the criminals, know their business, and their business is to feed upon the innocent. These inhuman beings exist among us, and they remain hidden so long as their ability to deceive us remains a POWER they command. They can turn a moral person into an immoral one, and then they can turn two moral people into immoral people, and then four people can be turned from moral to immoral, and that POWER is an exponential growth POWER, just as a lie grows into two lies, and then four lies, each new lie required a dozen lies to cover up the first, so is the fate of human kind as deception spreads out from the source to all the ancillary end points, each in turn, each infected individual connecting to the root of deception, and each in turn thereby infecting another, and another, and another, until no one can see the root cause of all their trouble, and everyone is at each other's throat in a wild orgy of lies, threats, and violence.
It is so damn simple once it is seen. Voluntary association is LIBERTY, and the moment someone claims to raise themselves above that clear understanding of how easy it is to exist in peace and harmony, as soon as someone claims EXCEPTION, impunity, RIGHT to deceive the innocent, RIGHT to threaten the innocent, and RIGHT to destroy, enslave, consume, the innocent, with impunity, is the moment someone confesses their Guilty Mind, which may be followed by criminal act.
The Legal Criminals are knowable at the start, let alone after the fact of torturing and murdering millions.
They walk among us, and they hide behind their minions who have been deceived into a false belief that authority exists in the form of a human being, on exceptional human being, a false leader among false human beings.
That warning should not confuse Christians who believe in Jesus as the Son of God, because any study of the actual words attributed to Jesus should, quickly, reinforce the warnings offered by any human being offering these same warnings.
No man is God. When a man claims to be God while they deceive, torture, and mass murder innocent people, the proof of the claim being false is in the blood being spilled for want of what?
If only someone warned me?
In context, or back down to earth as the case may be, the warning here is along the lines of accurately identifying (judging) friend from foe, False Gods from God, innocent victims from criminals, false authority from authority, and it starts in the mirror.
So many are duped, this has to be the case, it is unreasonable to assume that I, me, the one in the mirror, knows, and all of the accountability is accurately accountable to everyone else, me being the only exception, and all reasons for all horrible crime is squarely placed onto all other people, other than me.
Example:
If anyone sends one 100th (penny) of 1 Federal Reserve Note to the Internal Revenue Service, then that person IS GUILTY in mind, body, and spirit of aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support, to the worst group of human beings ever to disgrace, and discredit, the goodness of the human species.
Look in the mirror if you have paid the extortion fee, if you are paying the extortion fee, and if you will pay the extortion fee, in Federal Reserve Fraud Notes, to the Internal Revenue Extortion Service, and KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person staring back IS that precise amount of CRIME made LEGAL.
You are duped into the mire of falsehood by the exact measure of how much you keep funding the rapid increase in lies, threats, and violence that is NOW consuming so many innocent lives all around this small planet.
From that point of understand of BEING precisely that much of the problem myself, as I look in the mirror, there can be then a place to stand firmly on the principle of responsibility, accurate accountability, and move to find other people who have reached this end point, at the end of this rope.
From that point other people can be found who have arrive at that point too. From that point such things (processes) as Trial by Jury based upon Sortiion (by lot) shine like the light from a Light House in a storm of trouble as one of many highly competitive solutions to the Crime made Legal problem.
Returning back to the work in progress, the study of Grand Jury as offered in the lengthy essay linked above, and quoted above, the POWER to decide who decides was understood to be a POWER that should not be commanded by an individual human being, and the obvious workable solution was to give up that POWER to decide who decides with the competitive invention, production, and use of Sortition.
In other words, it is like saying to each other, yes, yes, yes, we free people agree on the issue of how POWER corrupts each of us, so we must find a way to avoid the mistake of giving up POWER whereby a human being has the POWER to OVERPOWER another human being, because that process whereby one human being gains the POWER to OVERPOWER another human being tends to corrupt that human being who has that POWER. So the answer is to never be a criminal ourselves. No one is rightfully, legally, more POWERFUL, by law, than anyone else, ever.
But the obvious problem still exists, whereby some people continue to perpetrate crimes, and so there must be a POWER to defend the innocent against those who continue to perpetrate crimes, so how can we find among ourselves those who will be less corrupted, while POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals, in defense of the innocent, is temporarily GIVEN to a human being?
Obviously, if you have read the essay on the history of the Grand Jury, there has been an invention, and the invention has been produced in fact, and the invention is a process, and the process has been maintained for centuries, whereby the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals, in defense of the innocent, is temporarily GIVEN to more than ONE human being. The numbers of human beings that temporarily command the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals range from 4 to 24 or as much as 100, depending upon which case in which place in which time in human history.
The obvious reasoning for temporarily GIVING the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals to more than ONE person was, is, and can be the reason that human beings are imperfect, and therefore more than one human being divides the POWER of imperfection, rendering the imperfection less POWERFUL. I know that may sound confusing, but there is evidence proving the fact, that human beings are basically good, despite their imperfections, so the concept of dividing the POWER of OVERPOWERING the criminals (moral use of defensive power) from ONE DICTATOR who has all that POWER into more than ONE DICTATOR who has only a portion of that POWER works in a way that can be reasonably, logically, proven over time.
Example:
The wisdom of crowds and the Jar Experiment
You may not have time, inclination, or clearness of mind at the moment to read, and understand the information offered in that link, and you may then be unable to apply that understanding to the present concern of dividing the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals among many, not ONE, human being who is GIVEN that POWER.
I can explain in words the principle behind the dividing of POWER.
If you elect one person out the whole number of human beings and that one person is GIVEN the POWER to decide if it is a crime for a person to cook babies while they are alive and then eat those cooked babies, then there is a mathematical possibility, or ODDS, that you could find the ONE person in a million who IS a person who cooks babies while they are alive and this person eats babies, so that ONE "judge" may actually acquit his fellow cannibal.
So the POWER to OVERPOWER the baby eater is then GIVEN to a fellow baby eater, and so, in that case, the wisdom of crowds is not working well, since that crowd is comprised of, is constituted by, the population of baby eaters. What are the mathematical chances of randomly picking, among the whole population, the only other baby eater when the rest of the local community is reaching for the goal of reducing the number of babies being eaten in their community?
In ruder times the Dad or Mom finding the baby eater cooking their baby may not be composed at that time of catching the baby eater red handed, to consider tried and true methods of OVERPOWERING the criminals, such as trial by jury based upon sortiton, and the Dad or the Mom, might use the POWER they have at the moment to deal with the baby eater with summary justice, dictatorial powers, whereby the Dad, or the Mom, executes punishment on the spot. Who, naturally, would do otherwise, such as which Dad, or which Mom, naturally, would stand by idle, and just watch a baby eater cook their baby?
The wisdom of crowds is based, in part, on the concept of natural law, whereby most of the parents do not cook their babies alive and eat them.
Back to Grand Jury:
In some of the Western States the grand jury has either been abolished, or the constitution has been altered to permit this to be done.161 In California, where the district attorney files an information in all cases of felony and misdemeanor, the statutes make provision for a grand jury and confer upon it greater inquisitorial power than has ever been conceded to it in those states which proceed with it according to the common law.192
What does that mean?
Note:
161 See Constitutions of Colorado, 1876, Art. II, Sec. 23; Illinois, 1870, Art. II, Sec. 8; Indiana, 1851, Art. VII, Sec. 17; Nebraska, 1875, Art. I, Sec. 10. See Thompson & Merriam on Juries, Sec. 471-2. In Michigan, How. Ann. St., Sec. 9554, dispenses with grand juries unless summoned by the order of the judge. See People v. Reigel, 78 N. W., 1017. As to Montana, see State v. King, 24 Pac., 265. Grand Juries abolished in Kansas by Act of Feb. 12, 1864, Sec. 7, and see Rice v. State, 3 Kan.
141. In Minnesota the people, by a large majority vote, have adopted a constitutional amendment abolishing the grand jury. The Literary Digest, Vol. 30, p. 50• 162 See Grand Juries in the United States, 7 Law Journal, 729. Penal Code Calif., Sec. 915-929. The Constitution of California, Art. 1, Sec. 8, provides: "Offences heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county."
First checking the modern day California Constitution here:
Article I
SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.
That is all there is between Section 7.5 and Section 9 on that Web site.
KEEP in mind the concept of NOT accepting the false notion that a Legal Fiction such as The State of California is in any way the source of authority.
Also: The date of publication for the work Grand Jury is 1903
How about a Google search for California Constitution Article I Section 8?
California Constitution Passed at the Twenty-Third Session of the Legislature, 1880.
SEC.8. Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination commitment by a Magistrate,or by indictment,with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.
How about Penal Code Calif., Sec. 915-929?
915
| 915. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the presiding officer may not require disclosure of information claimed to be privileged under this division or attorney work product under subdivision (a) of Section 2018.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to rule on the claim of privilege; provided, however, that in any hearing conducted pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1524 of the Penal Code in which a claim of privilege is made and the court determines that there is no other feasible means to rule on the validity of the claim other than to require disclosure, the court shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (b). (b) When a court is ruling on a claim of privilege under Article 9 (commencing with Section 1040) of Chapter 4 (official information and identity of informer) or under Section 1060 (trade secret) or under subdivision (b) of Section 2018.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure (attorney work product) and is unable to do so without requiring disclosure of the information claimed to be privileged, the court may require the person from whom disclosure is sought or the person authorized to claim the privilege, or both, to disclose the information in chambers out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and any other persons as the person authorized to claim the privilege is willing to have present. If the judge determines that the information is privileged, neither the judge nor any other person may ever disclose, without the consent of a person authorized to permit disclosure, what was disclosed in the course of the proceedings in chambers. |
925-933.6
925. The grand jury shall...
Back to 904
| 904. Every superior court, whenever in its opinion the public interest so requires, shall make and file with the jury commissioner an order directing a grand jury to be drawn. The order shall designate the number of grand jurors to be drawn, which may not be less than 29 nor more than 40 in counties having a population exceeding four million and not less than 25 nor more than 30 in other counties. |
Note: The supposed law does not yet make the formation of a grand jury by volunteers among the people (as tradition in ancient history offers) a crime.
How about an index?
What?
| 4. The rule of the common law, that penal statutes are to be strictly construed, has no application to this Code. All its provisions are to be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice. |
Can that be so constructed as to be even more difficult to understand?
How about a better index?
Official
PENAL CODE SECTION 681-691
682. Every public offense must be prosecuted by indictment or information, except:
1. Where proceedings are had for the removal of civil officers of the state;
2. Offenses arising in the militia when in actual service, and in the land and naval forces in the time of war, or which the state may keep, with the consent of Congress, in time of peace;
3. Misdemeanors and infractions;
4. A felony to which the defendant has pleaded guilty to the complaint before a magistrate, where permitted by law.
What is the authority by which anyone creates an "indictment" or "information"?
What is the answer according to those who currently run the so called "government" which could be called the popular (manufactured consent) government or could be called whatever anyone may want to call it, and I call it Crime made Legal or Legal Crime; what do they say, any one of them in that so called government, anyone claiming the authority to answer the question lawfully, factually, without error, without failure to answer the question authoritatively, which means accurately, who, by what authority, has the power to create an "indictment" or "information" in the context of that California Penal Code?
| 689. No person can be convicted of a public offense unless by verdict of a jury, accepted and recorded by the court, by a finding of the court in a case where a jury has been waived, or by a plea of guilty. |
California Penal Code Grand Jury Proceedings
I am taking a break.