 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Karen,
I understand that you are busy and my offer of information is almost insignificant compared to the significance of moving the Global Currency Reset in defense against currency war, trade war, world war, and a return to dark ages.
I am not attempting to impede Global Currency Reset.
If I may be of service then I serve to supply any demand for accurate accounting concerning the actual law of the land in America, so as to then inform anyone seeking that information for their individual defensive needs; and collectively the individual defensive needs add up to a power that deters collective threats of injury to those individuals by those who will resort to crime if the pay is good.
National Liberty Alliance is potentially a collective power that can move Americans back to rule of law after interregnum passes from the present into the past in America.
National Liberty Alliance is also potentially a misled collective power that can prevent Americans from moving back to rule of law after interregnum passes from the present into the past in America.
1. I see John Darash running a Christian religion based, for profit, organization where information is sold, and buyers are led to believe that they are investing in defense of liberty through common law due process. I see those people be led toward summary justice instead of common law due process.
2. John Darash continues to publish common law documents, with his signature claimed to be on those documents, while claiming that said documents are Unified United States Common Law Grand Jury documents. If John Darash is one of many grand jurors in a common law county, then John Darash would command both civil and criminal jurisdiction in that county, and that grand jury would have the power to validate accusations of wrongdoing, so as to then offer the accused (presumed to be innocent) a trial by common law jury. As a common law magistrate, justice of the peace, and grand juror on a case, said John Darash would be a representative of the people, not a representative of the county, state, or federal government: one is one thing, the other is not the same thing.
3. Contradiction is not indicative of accurate accounting of the facts in any matter: the opposite is demonstrably true.
Many people, including me, benefited while connected to, or associated with, the people (including John Darash) at National Liberty Alliance as a direct result of gaining access to information pertaining to common law due process, which is knowable as the law of the land, knowable as the common law, and knowable as legem terrae: one and the same due process. Common law, of the people, by the people, and for the people, organically, naturally, morally, from grass roots, is not, specifically not, the county, state, or federal government: one is one thing, the other is not the same thing.
Individuals who become aware of the common law constitute a potential collective power of deterrence by their collective knowledge of common law processes. The end result of trial by common law jury is a reduction in the pay rate paid to guilty criminals and paid by innocent victims. When crime no longer pays well, through application of the law of the land in America (common law), crime ends to the practical limits mankind can muster.
Contradiction:
1. The Constitution of 1787/89 was not, is not, and cannot be the same law of the land as is the common law. A common law court, or court of record, of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot be an Article III court, an Admiralty court, a Maritime court, a "Supreme" court, an Equity court, at the same time. One is one (common law) and the other is the other (summary justice), and common law, the law of the land, legem terrae, is a court of conscience, where trial by the country, through random selection (by lot, sortition) of representatives of the country are selected, which are called peers, which undergo a vetting process known as voir dire, and in between trial by the country, and any individual accuser of an alleged crime, is a grand jury made up of magistrates, or justices of the peace, and their duty is to validate accusations, write presentments, which serve the people as honest, trustworthy, judicial tribunals for that purpose of validating accusations made by any individual members of the whole people against any other individual member of the whole people whereby said people are members of that county, in that state, in that federation where the law of the land is the common law. When common law is allowed to work, crime no longer pays, the cost for perpetrating crimes is historically a fine; there are no prisons, and those refusing to abide by the law of the land are outlaws, by their own choice, and they are, again by their own choice, no longer (by their own choice) secure, defended, protected, in the law of the land sanctuary, covered by common law due process. <---not easy to communicate, but certainly true by demonstration in time and place. A "State" (which is not an individual) cannot accuse; people accuse, those who claim otherwise are promoting fraudulent versions of so called legal fiction.
2. Christian religion, relying upon The Bible as the word of God, is a unique form of religion. The common law, with trial by jury, known as the law of the land, legem terrae, trial by the country, etc., is not the same thing as the Christian religion, one is one thing, the other is something else. It is contradictory to claim one to be the other, they are separate things: hence the term separation of Church and State.
3. Finance, or equitable commerce, or trade, barter, economy, business, making a living, productive earnings, production, marketing, markets, free markets, are not subject to the law of the land, "for profit" is for individual gain (at no expense to victims by criminal means), so private individual property, consumption, control, investment, saving, is private, and no one else's business. Private is individual and the law of the land, or the state, or government, is something else: hence the contradiction of legal tender laws. A free, private, individual, with property, in liberty can choose any store of value, any exchange medium, any money, which works best for the individual, and it is up to another individual (absent criminal means) to choose the same, or offer something better: no legal tender laws, because that is a fraud perpetrated by individuals upon individuals.
Someone investing their time and energy, their private property, into preserving, protecting, upholding, maintaining, securing, defending, a document known as The Constitution of 1787/89 is involved in that endeavor privately, at their own cost. Someone claiming that said investment of private capital is a duty to be enforced by threat of cruel and unusual punishment for failing to join said investment of private capital is not - is contradictory to - individual willful choice to make said investment individually, as a free person in liberty. On the other hand, someone investing time and energy into defending innocent people from guilty people through common law due process, such as jury duty, voluntarily doing so, while also encouraging other people to volunteer for common law jury duty, because said common law jury duty is the law of the land, is not expressing contradictory information, far from it, the information is potentially leadership by example.
At the time of the forming of the true, grass roots, organic, federation in America there were religious sects, such as Quakers, who refused military service, based upon their individual application of human conscience. In the true federation, with common law as the law of the land, those people were not punished by law - they may have been injured by outlaws - but they were allowed to live and let live, in voluntary association, for mutual defense: they , the Quakers, simply chose to defend themselves without violence of any kind, including defensive violence. This is one of those factual accounts that is ignored by those whose claims of power rely upon aggressive (involuntary) violence in order to gain said collective power over individuals.
Above are my contentions concerning National Liberty Alliance as a collective power that is potentially defensive, voluntary, and mutually beneficial for all people everywhere. Contradictions, as far as I can tell, originate from the individual who is responsible, and therefore accountable, for the creation and maintenance of that for profit business venture.
If common law is to return (after interregnum) to America then, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, "the most discrete and honest" people in each common law county (where common law is the jurisdiction not summary justice usurping common law jurisdiction), said magistrates, said justices of the peace, are elected by the people in the county, and those magistrates, those justices of the peace, constitute the pool from which a common law grand jury forms. Those magistrates, those justices of the peace, those grand jury members, validate accusations. People (not the government) validate accusations by people (not the government) for voluntary mutual defense of the people (not the government) against harm done by anyone including criminals who claim to be the government. That is the function of common law grand juries: to validate accusations. That makes common law sense, and there are examples that serve the purpose of exemplifying that common sense in the federal history from 1776 to 1789, before the criminals took over with the fraudulent Constitution of 1787/89.
National Liberty Alliance, or only John Darash himself, validating accusations, based upon the facts discovered in the case, serves, at least, to inspire people to demand common law trial by jury where facts are found during said common law trial by jury.
U.S. Supreme Court RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
M'Kean, Chief Justice.
"Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. 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. 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."
If people running businesses decide to hire other people as arbitrators, judges who summarily make summary judgements, and all parties agreeing to said summary justice, then it is agreement that is governing those people in those businesses. Fabricating false agreement is a crime called fraud. Fabricating false agreements under the color of law is also a crime, those who perpetrate said crime call it government, and those perpetrating said crime call their opposition traitors, treasonous insurgents, heretics, seditious libelers, rabble, rebels, while those who offer an accurate account of said crime are those who actually constitute the pool from which common law is constituted.
Joe Kelley