 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Here:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol1/approaches/
This:
On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
End of Quote
Before that are pieces of the puzzle that are offered by Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury and then references to Trial by Jury by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, but for now the above establishes the law of the land at the time the organic (grass roots) formation of American (expressly not British) government was formed.
In the same reference linked above is the following (Elliot's Debates: Congressional Records):
This:
That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by
allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:
End of Quote
I am skipping past the important facts concerning Slavery and the treatment of pacifists such as Quakers: which can be referenced later, along with Lysander Spooner and Thomas Jefferson.
Before the American Revolution (return to rule of law, not usurpation of law) a system known as summary justice was in force so as to fraudulently extort wealth from Americans (and all Colonies of the criminal British) and in so doing enslave Americans. Those Courts claims (usurpation) absolute authority over any fact, including moral questions asking for facts.
2 Examples, proof beyond reasonable doubt, if there ever was a true application of the common law due process (the law of the land) which was trial by the country, is the following:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/35/
Note the date: Respublica v. Abraham Carlisle
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
September Sessions, 1778
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/1/236/
Note the very important distinction between Grand Jury jurisdiction (responsibility) and Petty Jury jurisdiction (responsibility), and keep in mind, please, that trial by jury according to the common law was the working method of removing individual power of deciding what is or is not a fact in a lawful matter (this is known as dictatorship when taking to the logical extreme: individual decision power over law) and instead of dictatorship of an individual the whole country (as in trial by the country) is represented by the petty jurors and their decisions must be unanimous and without unanimity (of the whole country) the presumed to be innocent accused is acquitted by whoever is present in the jury to represent the whole country on the side of acquittal in that case.
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Respublica v. Shaffer
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788:
Here:
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.
End of Quote
The first major usurpation that occurred in America was the usurpation that occurred in Massachusetts whereby that usurpation was claimed (by the victors of the usurpation) to be Shays's Rebellion.
Explained in fewest words possible (in my opinion) here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QSwmvMr9cY
From this work in book form:
https://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701
In other words (fewer words yet, but not as much detail used to help convince someone unaware, or ignorant, but smart enough, or willing enough, to see the facts as they exist in the matter) the people in Massachusetts allowed the usurpation in Massachusetts to happen in their countries courts, and when the criminals took over they took over by taking over the courts, by removing, nullifying, or ignoring common law jurisdiction, and placing above common law jurisdiction the criminals place their summary justice courts.
Example:
http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44539282.pdf
I won't quote from that, not now, but there is a very important history lesson offered by the accused in the Appendix.
An explanation offered by the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled Richard Henry Lee is found here:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp41-43B
This:
The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .
End of Quote
Now please understand the situation in Massachusetts at the time of the events that are now falsely known as Shays's Rebellion in our false government run school systems, even if said events were mentioned at all to posterity.
The people in Massachusetts failed to take the steps that were failed to be taken before the Revolutionary War and these same steps are our failures now.
Those having too much propensity to resort to violence do so, and they inspire others to do so, too quickly. In Massachusetts (and later in Pennsylvania after the usurpation of 1789) the people failed to maintain their own people's courts, as exemplified in the Respublica cases referenced above, and instead of employing common law due process, in any case (including false debt cases), and instead of maintaining the law of the land, the Solution agreed upon by the people (representing the rebels is the American Revolution, the Massachusetts rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion) was to ask the usurpers to judge their own actions according to the authority stolen by the usurpers, to go through the common law process of petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
What do the criminals who take over government always do when asked of they (the criminals) will stop being criminals?
The criminals, with almost no exceptions, attack the messengers, censor, and crush those who question the criminal authority.
What was missing in the Revolution that started in 1775, in Massachusetts in 1787, in Pennsylvania in 1794, and now, is understandable from the following context:
From here:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp
QUOTE:
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
End of Quote
At the time of the effort to return to rule of law (Rebellion so called) in Massachusetts in 1787 the Federation was a Federation as explained in the First Congress by the representatives forming the First Congress of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, which was an authority UNDER rule of law: common law adapted by Americans.
Also in the First Congress is this:
QUOTE:
Congress proceeded, the same day, to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported, and laid on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson.
End of Quote
Also from Thomas Jefferson is this:
https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0
QUOTE:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce:[11] and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
End Quote
Much more is understandable with the information concerning the Rebel (so called) forces in the South in battle with the aggressors (British) concerning the Slave population.
The inculpatory evidence proving (beyond reasonable doubt) the criminal elements (individual criminals perpetrating a crime known as conspiracy treason) infiltrating the process of reforming rule of law, due process, trial by the country, known as the common law, is right there in the Congressional record confessed by Thomas Jefferson himself.
During the usurpation are the following notes offered in the actual historical record:
http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14/mode/2up
Here:
One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
End of Quote
Explained here:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp03
QUOTE:
There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.
End of Quote
Soon after the Massachusetts effort to return to rule of law (failed in part for failing to maintain common law court jurisdiction) the self (false) labelled "Federalist Party" seized the crisis as another opportunity to criminally usurp common law, so as to place summary justice above the common law, so as then to subsidize slave labor by taxing the slaves, which was everyone, including the criminals themselves, because Rule by Criminal Means (deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence) enslaves everyone, which is a lesson offered by Christians following their religion.
http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=1102&forum_id=24
QUOTE:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
End of Quote
That is enough for now, to answer the question with information offered and sourced above:
The question again:
"My opinion is that existing evidence proves (beyond reasonable doubt) that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was a criminal act: a counterfeit version of law." [me quoted by David Merrill]
QUOTE:
This stirs my curiosity. Before I make any assumptions...
What are you saying?
End of Quote
It is not a coincidence (in my opinion) that the Judiciary ACT of 1789 was entered into the process of usurpation (a criminal ACT) before Amending the criminal (usurpation) Constitution of 1789 with the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was, is, a record to set the record straight, to return to rule of law, and to turn away from Rule by Criminal Means.
Independent Corroboration:
A.
http://unionstatesassembly.info/index.html
B.
http://freedomforallseasons.org/ConstitutionalRelatedReports/Constitution%20-%20George%20Washington%20Jailer%20And%20Tax%20Collector..htm
C.
https://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912/ref=pd_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TMN41NCBVN7D2ANPYXWD
D.
https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037
E.
http://sicknesshope.com/node/2033
F.
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/bonding-code.htm
G.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Thomas-Jefferson-Notes-On-The-State-Of-Virginia.pdf
H.
http://www.robgagnon.net/JeffersonOnJudicialTyranny.htm
I.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffvir.asp
QUOTE:
The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. 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.
End of Quote
Summary Answer Attempt:
The worst criminals are the worst because they do the most damage. Had rule of law worked as intended, a magistrate in a county would have all lawful power required to set in motion an accusation against a George Washington type criminal, or a Alexander Hamilton type criminal, or a George Bush type criminal, or a Hilary Clinton type criminal, meaning one of the worst criminals because failure to hold them to an accurate accounting (trial by the country) enables them to continue their evil work, no different then failing to hold a local con man to an accurate accounting, the range of destruction from local con man to treasonous conspirator is obvious with the body count of tortured dead people, and the number of slaves enslaved by the criminal in any case.