 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Source:
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/failure-to-appear?id=65856...
That is a message that flows through media. That is evidence of an ongoing media campaign. The message is expressed as:
"As I have pointed out, the Grand Jury clause of the US Constitution has NOT been incorporated, which means that states are free to determine in their laws and constitution how to deal with the grand jury."
Here is another example of a similar, or agreeable, or coincidently familiar, message at another source:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/comment/2722#comment-2722
The message is offered as:
"The Fifth Amendment's right to be charged with an infamous crime only after indictment by a grand jury applies only in federal courts and is not applicable to the States, either as an element of due process or as a direct command of the Fourteenth Amendment."
A pivotal time for people in America concerning these claims is recorded in words here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/
A second source of information that can be added to that source of information concerning these claims of what is or is not true law is here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/
Grand Jury presentments were used by people formed into defensive associations known as states as part of a federation whereby states are independent entities formed by independent people because the people no longer believe that they are subjects subjected to rule by dictators and tyrants despite the very high cost of that decision to disconnect that connection between dictators and subjects.
In the RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE case the date for that example of people forming a Grand Jury so as to hold someone and put someone on his trial by jury according to the common law, the federation was organically formed by people elected by some means into a Continental Congress, or federal government power, which then produced a Declaration of Independence, and a Constitution known as The Articles of Confederation. People also formed an independent Republic, or State, known as Pennsylvania, whereby those people in that State elected representatives, by some means, and those representatives created a Pennsylvania Constitution.
The date on that RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE case is "September Sessions, 1778" and the significance of that date is significant because that date predates the Ratification of the second United States Constitution of 1787.
There was no Constitution of 1787 in Pennsylvania, or anywhere on the Planet Earth, 9 years earlier in September of 1778.
Going back then to the latest Media campaign from two sources are these words:
1.
"As I have pointed out, the Grand Jury clause of the US Constitution has NOT been incorporated, which means that states are free to determine in their laws and constitution how to deal with the grand jury."
2.
"The Fifth Amendment's right to be charged with an infamous crime only after indictment by a grand jury applies only in federal courts and is not applicable to the States, either as an element of due process or as a direct command of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Those are words written by people now as people now are running their version of a media campaign whereby there are claims being made as to what is true law and what is false law in point of fact.
Now compare first the words written by someone in 1788, in Pennsylvania, at the time when Pennsylvania had already Ratified the 1787 Constitution, however, and this is important, the time of these words offered in print is before the first session of the altered, progressive, communistic, monopolistic, criminal Congress of the incorporated United States, and therefore these words appear in print before the criminal Congress set aside trial by jury with their so called Judiciary Act of 1789.
So...compare the words offered today by people running their version of a media campaign with the words offered to people in Pennsylvania in 1788:
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER
1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Quote:______________________
It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never
Page 1 U.S. 236, 237
arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.
__________________________________________
Now again the words from another viewpoint expressed as they exist where they exist in time and place:
1.
"As I have pointed out, the Grand Jury clause of the US Constitution has NOT been incorporated, which means that states are free to determine in their laws and constitution how to deal with the grand jury."
2.
"The Fifth Amendment's right to be charged with an infamous crime only after indictment by a grand jury applies only in federal courts and is not applicable to the States, either as an element of due process or as a direct command of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Now compare those words offered above, in time and place, with the words taken from the time of 1778 and the place of Pennsylvania.
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE, 1 U.S. 35 (1778)
Quote:______________________________
This was an indictment for High Treason, which was set forth in the following words:
'The Jurors for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, upon their oaths and affirmations, do present, That Abraham Carlisle, late of the city of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, carpenter; being an inhabitant of and belonging to and residing within the State of Pennsylvania, and under the protection of its laws, and owing allegiance to the same State, as a false traitor against the same, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, the fidelity which to the same State he owed wholly withdrawing, and with all his might intending the peace and tranquillity of this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to disturb, and war and rebellion against the same to raise and move, and the government and independency thereof, as by law established, to subvert, and to raise again and restore the government and tyranny of the king of Great Britain within the same Commonwealth: On the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, and at divers days and times, as well before as after, at the city of Philadelphia, in the county aforesaid, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously take a commission or commissions from the king of Great Britain, and then and there, with force and arms did falsely and treacherously also take a commission or commissions from general Sir William Howe, then and there acting under the said king of Great Britain, and under the authority of the same king, to wit, a commission to watch over and guard the gates of the city of Philadelphia, by the said Sir William Howe, erected and set up for the purpose of keeping and maintaing the possession of the said city, and of shutting and excluding the faithful and liege inhabitants and subjects of this State and of the United States from the said city: And then and there also maliciously and traiterously, with a great multitude of traitors and rebels, against the said Commonwealth, (whose names are as yet unkown to the jurors) being armed and arrayed in a hostile manner, with force and arms did falsely and traiterously assemble and join himself against this Commonwealth, and then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traiterously, and in a warlike and hostile manner, array and
Respublica v. Carlisle 1 U.S. 35 (1778)
dispole himself against this Commonwealth; and then and there, in pursuance and execution of such his wicked and traiterous intentions and purposes aforesaid, did falsely and traiterously prepare, order, wage and levy a public and cruel war against this Commonwealth; then and there committing and perpetrating a miserable and cruel slaughter of and amongst the faithful and liege inhabitants thereof; and then and there did, with force and arms, falsely and traiterously aid and assist the king of Great Britian, being an enemy at open war against this State, by joining his armies, to wit, his army under the command of general Sir William Howe, then actually invading this State; and then and there maliciously and traiterously, (with divers other Traitors to the jurors aforesaid unknown,) with force and arms, did combine, plot and conspire to betray this State and the United States of America into the hands and power of the king of Great Britian, being a foreign enemy to this State and to the United States of America, at open war against the same; and then and there did, with force and arms, maliciously and traiterously give and send intelligence to the same enemies for that purpose, against the duty of his allegiance, against the form of the act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'
_________________________________________________
The enemies of true law do not offer to their victims an effective means by which the victims can defend themselves against the enemies of true law, that is an absurd idea if that is your idea that you believe in your heart, your mind, and in your soul to be true.
The enemies of true law offer instead a false version of true law in the hope that you will be misdirected by that false version of true law because at that point you become your own worst enemy as you are then inspired to work harder and harder to send the surplus power you produce, including your first born children, to the enemies of true law in the vain attempt to defend yourself against them.
That was said before, so you can credit those who said that before, and you can set aside any notions of blaming me for the bad news.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
"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."
http://www.usdebtclock.org/