 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Is that true, can that statement be held to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter? Does that statement suggest that it is National Interest that is at stake, and therefore, in that name, that name of National Interest, something must be done to protect the National Interest?
At the times, and in the places (localities, meaning all law is local), where actual law power was exercised for the people, of the people, and by the people, it was, therefore, demonstrated that the interest at stake was the whole people's interest, not the National Interest.
An example is provided in the history of the process known as democracy, which is not the modern, false, claim that democracy is so-called Mob Rule. Democracy was, and is, people volunteering to be the government themselves, not people obeying, without question, whatever someone claiming to speak for the National Interest must be obeyed or else.
When the interest is the people themselves, as a whole, not a legal fiction such as a Nation with a National Interest, the government is said to be a republic: the public thing is the meaning of the Latin word respublica, from which the English word republic is derived.
In American history the local populations from all over the country formed local common law counties, common law states, which were said to be Nations, and each Nation was an experiment in democracy, the size of each Nation proved to be instructive concerning which size of which democratic republic, or nation state, was a workable size, not too big, not too small, and some Nation State governments began granting access to land because their nation state was too big for a national government, and for other reasons.
Rhode Island was not one of the nation states that were too big. Some nation states grew despotic, while other nation states accepted, protected, and provided the benefits of a sanctuary for runaway slaves, who were merely people willing and able to defend their natural born rights to live and let live, just like the veterans of the Revolutionary War.
Daniel Shays, for example, ran from a despotic turning Massachusetts to Vermont, which proves beyond reasonable doubt, that a federal voluntary association for mutual defense works to maintain experiments in democracy, which is the same thing as saying a free market of government services, to be paid for by voluntary contribution, or not. Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War veteran.
Someone profiting off of the government monopoly, or despotism, in Massachusetts could have claimed that it was a Federal issue, for their profitable monopoly was threatened by Revolutionary War veterans who thought that the Revolution has been lost in Massachusetts, and that war profiteer in Massachusetts could have also claimed that it was a federal issue that the runaway slave named Daniel Shays must be returned to slavery in Massachusetts, for the sake of the nation state Massachusetts, and for the sake of the federation of independent nation states. Someone in Massachusetts, in command of the despotic nation state in Massachusetts, would have no cause to claim that the federation was one single Nation-State, and anyone found running away from slavery in one state would be required by the National government, in the national interest, to return the runaway slave to the slavers, or else.
So...just exactly what is the current threat to liberty threatening everyone in every county in every single state in America, and why do those threats in those localities represent a National Interest? Are the slaves threatening to stop aiding and abetting the slavers who run their slave business from a foreign corporation located in the District of Columbia? Does that district actually exists, or is it too just a legal fiction?
What might one of the federalists, who was a democrat and a republican, say about legal fictions? Don't ask the slavers, the slavers would call the federalists anti-federalist, and those same slavers would call a patriot an insurgent. Well, you can listen to the slavers if you like, but they lie as a rule. If they did not lie, as a rule, their human trafficking businesses couldn't be subsidized by the slaves, the slaves would know better than to dig their own graves to hell when told to do so with a smile on their faces, or else.
I'd like to know the official facts, but that would require a trial by jury, a trial by the country, so that the people themselves, through their trial jury, can speak as one, so as to establish a fact that matters to everyone, rather than create a falsehood that matters to special interests, like slavers, who create legal fictions like National Interests.
National Interest:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The above caused an idea to develop concerning two comparative processes:
Private and Public demarcation lines, such as the explanation for the Civil (private) and Criminal (public) demarcation lines offered in Roger Roots work titled: Conviction Factory.
Is it also a Private and Public demarcation line when, and where, a local government is dependent on local powers to maintain peace through justice, and as the other localities, other counties, other states, a federation of states, and foreign states, or foreign federations of states, or world federations of states foreign to each other, and the same world federation federating federations of states foreign to each other, are - larger bodies of people are - dependent upon the capacity of the local powers to maintain peace through justice in that locality: what happens if the threats to peace through justice in the locality is beyond the capacity of the local government, and the internal threat is exported?
Roger Roots, The Conviction Factory, Chapter 4 Are Cops Constitutional, page 41:
"Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that crimnal claims ostensibly involved an interest in the public at large as well as the victim."
That statement in that book was referrence with a source: Respublica v Griffiths, 2 Dall. 112 (Pa 1790) (involving action by private individual seeking public sanction for his prosecution)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/112/
"Leave having been granted; on the motion of Serjeant, to file an information against the defendant, one of the Justices of the Peace for Chester County, it became a question, whether the information should be drawn, filed and prosecuted by the Attorney General, or by the party at whose instance it was awarded.
"The Attorney General (Bradford) objected, that it is not the duty of the Attorney General to draw and file this information. It must, indeed, be in the name of the commonwealth, and the prosecutor may make use of the name of the officer, who prosecutes for the State: But there is in England a known and established distinction, between informations filed by the Attorney General, and those filed by him at the relation of a private person, in the name of the master of the crown office. The former are always filed ex officio; and the Court will not, upon motion of the Attorney General, give him leave to file an information against any person. 3 Burr. 1812. They cannot be quashed on motion of the prosecutor. Dougl. 227. nor is the prosecutor liable for costs. But informations, at the relation of private persons, are in a great measure private suits. They are moved for and conducted, not by the officers of the Crown, but by counsel employed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is, in many cases, liable to costs. 3 Burr. 1270. 1305. The Court will not grant it where the prosecutor appears unworthy. Burr. 548. 869. And on a motion for an information for a libel, oath must be made of the falsity of the charges contained in the libel, a circumstance quite immaterial, where the prosecution is wholly on the part of the public. The prosecutor, therefore, ought to be at the expence and employ his own counsel, in this proceeding, in which he is really interested. If it be the duty of the Attorney General to file this information, it is his duty to prosecute it also.
"No informations (except those qui tam) have hitherto been filed in Pennsylvania; and it is of consequence to settle this point. No fees are provided for the duty, in the bill of fees, and the Attorney General ought not, on this occasion, to be considered as the mere drawer of an information, for which he is not to be paid, and with the future prosecution of which he has nothing to do.
"Page 2 U.S. 112, 113
"By the Court: The objection is reasonable and just. But, pro forma, the Attorney General must allow his name to be used by the prosecutor."
qui tam action
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1709
": (kwee tam) n. from Latin for "who as well," a lawsuit brought by a private citizen (popularly called a "whistle blower") against a person or company who is believed to have violated the law in the performance of a contract with the government or in violation of a government regulation, when there is a statute which provides for a penalty for such violations. Qui tam suits are brought for "the government as well as the plaintiff." In a qui tam action the plaintiff (the person bringing the suit) will be entitled to a percentage of the recovery of the penalty (which may include large amounts for breach of contract) as a reward for exposing the wrongdoing and recovering funds for the government. Sometimes the federal or state government will intervene and become a party to the suit in order to guarantee success and be part of any negotiations and conduct of the case. This type of action is generally based on significant violations which involve fraudulent or criminal acts, and not technical violations and/or errors."