| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Ryan Bundy | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19th, 2018 07:44 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I see an opportunity to offer a bit of news from the past, news that may help redeem, restore, and return more parts of America to rule of law. From: The People's Panel The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941 Richard D. Younger Historical News: "THE GRAND JURY originated in England as the accusing body in the administration of criminal justice. At the Assize of Clarendon, in 1166, Henry II provided that twelve knights or twelve "good and lawful men" of every hundred and four lawful men of every vill disclose under oath the names of those in the community believed guilty of criminal offenses. Members of this inquisitorial body were obliged to present to the judge sworn accusations against all suspected offenders. Unlike petit juries, grand juries were not to pass upon guilt or innocence but were to decide only whether an individual should be brought to trial. At first all accusations originated with the members of the inquest themselves, but gradually the juries came to consider accusations made by outsiders as well. The jurors then heard only witnesses against the accused and, if they were convinced that there were grounds for trial, indicted him. They also passed upon indictments laid before them by crown prosecutors, returning a "true bill" if they found the accusation true or "no bill" if they found it false. However, the juries never lost their power to accuse on their own knowledge. This they did by making a presentment to the court. The presentment represented an accusation on the jury's own initiative while an indictment represented a charge that originated outside the membership. Under their power of presentment English grand juries could and did investigate any mater that appeared to them to involve a violation of the law." The people, through a working grand jury which is not stacked, or controlled, by the very people who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law, such as corrupt prosecutors and corrupt judges - the people themselves - have common law legal jurisdiction both civil and criminal, to investigate possible crimes, subpoena witnesses against the accused, and put alleged criminals to trial by jury according to the common law (see Bill of Rights): not Admiralty Court Plea Bargain (let's make a deal) Kangaroo Trials. More from The People's Panel: "They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places. "But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states." More News from History, and this news report is from Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia. "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." Notice the agreement between the people who nominate and the governor who commissions. What if it turns out that the governor is corrupt? That then is a statewide matter, concerning everyone in each county. The people in each county can employ a common law or "Constitutional" Sheriff, someone of the people, by the people, and for the people. The same question concerning the governor applies in each county: what if it turns out that the Sheriff in a county is corrupt? How many Constitutional (common law?) Sheriffs showed up in support of the Bundy Family during the aggressive attack upon them by imposters claiming to be the government? In a Constitutional (common law?) County, with a representative of the people in the form of a Sheriff who is duty bound to protect all the people from harm, the imposters claiming to be the government do not tread, crime does not pay in those counties. Criminals avoid areas where rule of law is based upon the facts: the truth. Where are the indictments from the grand juries in those Constitutional counties, where those Constitutional Sheriffs are employed in the necessary work of making crime pay less, and less, until criminals can no longer afford to perpetrate crimes in those places? Why are the people who murdered Lavoy Finicum insulated from official investigation and indictment, by the people? Have the outlaws made it a crime to employ rule of law in America? Are those few Constitutional (common law?) Sheriffs in those American counties preserving rare sanctuaries against harm done to innocent people by criminals, including criminals posing as the government? Can Ryan Bundy as governor of Nevada turn this lost soul America around, returning Americans to rule of law, one county at a time? Will Ryan Bundy, as Governor of Nevada, allow the people to stack their grand juries with the most discreet and honest inhabitants, commanding jurisdiction both civil and criminal, and thereby be authorized to put any law breaker, including corrupt judges, corrupt Sheriffs, corrupt Prosecutors, corrupt congressmen, corrupt senators, and a corrupt president on trial?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2018 11:01 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
In an area where criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law do so with impunity, that is where tyranny is exemplified. Where criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law avoid an accurate accounting of their crimes criminals rule their victims with impunity: even when the crime is mere libel, and even when the crime is conspiracy murder. The opposite of tyranny is exemplified in those times and places where common laws of free people are enforced by the people themselves voluntarily: each individual does so, their duty. The people demand, and they produce, trials where the whole people are represented by randomly selected jurors whose duty is to judge fact, law, and whatever the jury (the whole country represented by randomly selected individuals) determines to be a just remedy in the specific case of law breaking. The whole country, represented in the jury, must agree unanimously for any accused, presumed to be innocent, perpetrator to be found guilty in this form of lawful trial: which is eluded to in the first 10 Amendments to the 1789 Constitution for the United States of America. The law of the land, therefore, is enforced by the people themselves (individuals acting individually, constituting a total sum of individual thoughts and actions) in America, when the people decide that they have had enough tyranny: including libel.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2018 11:10 am |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
People who are inspired to become tyrants with words often do so for some rewards of some kind. In places where rule of law is enforced by the people themselves (the law of the land), instead of rule by criminals under the color of law, the leadership exemplifies the methods by which peace is maintained even in difficult circumstances. People can see an examples of effective defense against aggression, and then people know that they too have that power. That is the opposite of criminal leadership under the color of law, where the criminal leadership murders people from a kill list, and does so with impunity. People suffering tyranny have those criminal examples to copy, if they choose that path voluntarily.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2018 11:28 am |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The law of the land, since the start of American independence from British Tyranny, is the common law, with trial by jury, which is trial by the country, which works as the palladium of liberty, when the people are the government themselves. Failing this knowledge is a path, but it is a path built upon a false foundation. Any number of otherwise moral people agreeing to bond themselves to a clearly knowable deception, doing so out of ignorance, will lead those people on that failed path.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Mar 20th, 2018 04:09 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
It would be helpful to have a link to Craig Mueller's opinion on conflicts concerning land stewardship (ownership is a contentious word), so as to have an idea as to what Ryan Bundy considers to be "spot on." I found 3 sources concerning the original grass-roots, organic, peaceful, conflict resolution process concerning land stewardship so far in my very limited study. The first source is from Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Example: "The mode of acquiring lands, in the earliest times of our settlement, was by petition to the general assembly. If the lands prayed for were already cleared of the Indian title, and the assembly thought the prayer reasonable, they passed the property by their vote to the petitioner. But if they had not yet been ceded by the Indians, it was necessary that the petitioner should previously purchase their right. This purchase the assembly verified, by enquiries of the Indian proprietors; and being satisfied of its reality and fairness, proceeded further to examine the reasonableness of the petition, and its consistence with policy; and, according to the result, either granted or rejected the petition. The company also sometimes, though very rarely, granted lands, independently of the general assembly. As the colony increased, and individual applications for land multiplied, it was found to give too much occupation to the general assembly to enquire into and execute the grant in every special case. They therefore thought it better to establish general rules, according to which all grants should be made, and to leave to the governor the execution of them, under these rules." The second source is from the congressional record concerning an offer to the German mercenary troops who were at that time rioting in the blood of the innocent in America. The idea was to offer the enemy sanctuary in liberty, allow the enemy to own land on the promise that they would not only improve the land, but they would also defend it, out of natural self preservation forces. The third, and potentially most useful source is "American Nightmare: How Government Undermines the Dream of Homeownership," which includes examples: "At the time of the Revolution, Virginia offered actual settlers 400 acres and North Carolina offered 640 acres "at the merest nominal price." Settlers in Main could also get 100 acres merely for clearing 16 within four years. Within tree years, Virginia settlers were required to build a house, plant one acre, and keep stock for one year, or they would lose the land." and: "In 1785, Congress asked a minimum of 1$ an acre in cash for blocks of at least 640 acres. The lands were to be sold at auction, but only after lands had been surveyed. Surveys were slower than anticipated, and only about 1.5 million acres were sold to private parties, mostly speculators, under this system." The "law of the land" (legem terrae) which is the common law (which is adaptive) is very specific concerning how to settle land disputes, or any dispute, as the whole country, through their trials by jury (trial by the country), establishes consent, or no consent, to any claim of law whatsoever, including lawful claims of land stewardship. People trained like well trained dogs to salivate at the ringing of a bell, or the hamming down of a gavel, are subjects of tyranny/dictatorship, which is in the words of Lysander Spooner: stupid and servile. The people, as a whole, always have the power to consent to, or not consent to, any supposed law, including supposed laws governing land stewardship.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:18 am | |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Ryan Bundy | Top |
