 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That case above can be thoughtfully resolved with the idea of employing common law remedies, and the idea is to round up, within that county, the aforementioned justices of the peace, or magistrates, described as "from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants."
Whose power will be to have jurisdiction both criminal and civil in Harney County.
I know how it can be argued that Oregon was not lawfully entered into the true Federal Union, but as you can see in the Timeline, these Organic Laws, knowable as common law, also knowable as due process of law, were, are, ours to command, even in Virginia well before the American Revolution.
Furthermore, here is examples of due process, found by Debra earlier, and offering a sense of reason, a sense of justification, and a sense of law and order, which pre-dates, in the first case, the Ratification of the Fraudulent Constitution of 1787, and then, in the second case, that case pre-dates the Enactment of the (criminal) Judiciary Acts of 1789, which Acts pre-date The Bill of Rights.
Case 1:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE
1 U.S. 35 (1778)
That is instructive for two reasons.
1. The Articles of Confederation clearly show the admission by the Federal Congress, that they, as individuals, are subject to the law of the land, and the same Federal Congress admits to the jurisdiction of the common law as the law of the land. At that time the only thing a Federal Court could do was explained right there in the Federal Constition. Why would that power need to be expanded at all? The answer is again found in the warning offered by the 6th President of The United States of American in Congress Assembled: legal fiction (fraud).
2. Treason is spelled out in one sentence by the Grand Jury. That places the accused on his trial, giving the accused (affording the accused) restitution, redemption, remedy, and every opportunity to prove to the whole country (in trial by the country) his innocence, and then all it takes is one individual juror to acquit the accused of all charges. What a deal huh?
Case 2:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER
1 U.S. 236 (1788)
Pennsylvania, where that case was tried, the people have already been bamboozled into Ratifying the Constitution of 1787, not without well published objections.
The importance of that case includes the reasonable explanation offered by the judge in that case.
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
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.
1. Grand Jury does not try the case (avoid double jeopardy)
2. Grand Jurors validate accusations as those Grand Jurors (magistrates, justices of the peace) work (do their duty to all the moral people) to avoid unreasonable accusations which can overload the efficiency of due process, while at the same time the people have the ability to accuse those guilty of treason, meaning those whose crimes are extremely dangerous to the public liberty: think in terms of triage.
Reminder:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/JEFFERSON/ch14.html
These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.
Appling the above, adapting the above, which is not "the above," in a narrow sense, the idea is to apply a working knowledge of how people themselves constitute their power to consent to government in real time, in real places, such as Harney County Oregon.
People look around and find no avenue in which their accusations of wrongdoing actually constitute a lawful accusation. Who should they be looking for, exactly?
They must look in the mirror.
I look in the mirror and I do not see a self-appointed Justice of the Peace, but I know of many people who are "the most discreet and honest inhabitants" I know.
Proposition:
Elect Justices of the Peace in the example county, if not your own.
Along with the effort to elect into being a Committee of Safety, which was done in Harney County Oregon, said concerned people, who are themselves governors in a sense of their own government, because they are alive, and because they are born free, and beacause innocent people in their county are being harmed by specific people who are guilty of doing harm to innocent people, whereby due process is the process to be used to accurately account for those who are found guilty of said harm that is done to named victims, whereby said people in said Safety Committee reason out the absolute necessity of constituting their own County authorities who have the authority to validate accusations in the proper manner known to, at least, Thomas Jefferson, the Organic Congress in their own records, and precedent involving treason, and other crimes.
Just because Thomas Jefferson failed at using Rule of Law to bring those guilty of "crimes against human nature itself" to account for their crimes, and stop them dead in their tracks from perpetrating their crimes any longer, just because Thomas Jefferson failed, out of ignorance, or out of self interest, or for whatever convoluted reasoning, that does not mean that we the people alive today, including you, and including me, must fail.