| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Compromise of 1850 Establish California in Union Search California Constitution Text Search for Grand Jury and Common Law? California Penal Code Constitution of California 1849 Constitution of California 1879/1880 Constitution of California active web page Relevant Codes: Reference 1 Reference 2 Relevant Penal Codes: Listed in this source? Penal Code Sec 903 Penal Code Sec 911-920 Penal Code 921 (not the official source) The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. Know your standing, be the authority, realize your authority is no higher, and no lower, than any other honest, honorable, human being. If there is any challenge as to your authority, there can be instead an agreement as to our authority, whereby we agree to be honorable, honest, and we agree that we are all, everyone, under Natural Law (or God's Law = reinforcing the same concept of authority as Natural Law), as being born with as much, but no more, authority than any other honest, honorable, human being. If someone does not agree, why do they not agree? What are the many possible reasons for disagreement? 1. Someone disagrees because they place themselves under your authority. 2. Someone disagrees because they place themselves over your authority. 3. Someone disagrees and they will inform you, honestly, and honorably as to why they disagree. 4. Someone disagrees and they pretend to agree, while they are secretly disagreeing for some reason that will not be confessed. If the disagreement is specific to someone who is dishonest, and dishonorable, then how many possible secret reasons are there as to their dishonest and dishonorable reasons for disagreement? Time will tell? What laws in California concern bonding? Codes? At time: 42:40 From Carl Miller and from the reference sited are words documenting the hierarchy of dominant law in favor of common law. American Jurisprudence Volume 16 Constitutional Law Section 97 Quote 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114: “As to the construction, with reference to Common Law, an important cannon of construction is that constitutions must be construed to reference to the Common Law.” “The Common Law, so permitted destruction of the abatement of nuisances by summary proceedings and is was never supposed that a constitutional provision was intended to interfere with this established principle and although there is no common law of the United States in a sense of a national customary law as distinguished from the common law of England, adopted in the several states. In interpreting the Federal Constitution, recourse may still be had to the aid of the Common Law of England. It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood.” Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (No. 367) 3. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State whether they be local in their nature or "general," whether they be commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. And whether the law of the State shall be declared by its legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. P. 78. NOTE also in the same record is: The fallacy underlying the rule declared in Swift v. Tyson is made clear by Mr. Justice Holmes. [n23] The doctrine rests upon the assumption that there is "a transcendental body of law outside of any particular State but obligatory within it unless and until changed by statute," that federal courts have the power to use their judgment as to what the rules of common law are, and that, in the federal courts, "the parties are entitled to an independent judgment on matters of general law": and: Counsel searching for precedent and reasoning to disclose common law principles on which to guide clients and conduct litigation are, by this decision, told that, as to all of these questions, the decisions of this Court and other federal courts are no longer anywhere authoritative. That is in reference to Judiciary Act of 1789 Also in that act according to the work of David Merrill is a reference to common law? Note the question mark. I may get a searchable file, or I may try to find references to common law in the link above. Judiciary Act of 1789 .pdf Here: [size=S]EC. 9. And be it further enacted[size=, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be ]cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury. Common law is mentioned again: [size=S]EC. 11. And be it further enacted[size=, That the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State. And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of the crimes and offences cognizable therein. But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in another, in any civil action before a circuit or district court. And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ, nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favour of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in cases of foreign bills of exchange. And the circuit courts shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the district courts under the regulations and restrictions herein after provided. ] Again: [size=S]EC. 30. And be it further enacted, That the mode of proof by oral testimony and examination of witnesses in open court shall be the same in all the courts of the United States, as well in the trial of causes in equity and of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, as of actions at common law. And when the testimony of any person shall be necessary in any civil cause depending in any district in any court of the United States, who shall live at a greater distance from the place of trial than one hundred miles, or is bound on a voyage to sea, or is about to go out of the United States, or out of such district, and to a greater distance from the place of trial than as aforesaid, before the time of trial, or is ancient or very infirm, the deposition of such person may be taken [size=de beneesse][size=before any justice or judge of any of the courts of the United States, or before any chancellor, justice or judge of a supreme or superior court, mayor or chief magistrate of a city, or judge of a county court or court of common pleas of any of the United States, not being of counsel or attorney to either of the parties, or interested in the event of the cause, provided that a notification from the magistrate before whom the deposition is to be taken to the adverse party, to be present at the taking of the same, and to put interrogatories, if he think fit, be first made out and served on the adverse party or his attorney as either may be nearest, if either is within one hundred miles of the place of such caption, allowing time for their attendance after notified, not less than at the rate of one day, Sundays exclusive, for every twenty miles travel. And in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, or other cases of seizure when a libel shall be filed, in which an adverse party is not named, and depositions of persons circumstanced as aforesaid shall be taken before a claim be put in, the like notification as aforesaid shall be given to the person having the agency or possession of the property libelled at the time of the capture or seizure of the same, if known to the libellant. And every person deposing as aforesaid shall be carefully examined and cautioned, and sworn or affirmed to testify the whole truth, and shall subscribe the testimony by him or her given after the same shall be reduced to writing, which shall be done only by the magistrate taking the deposition, or by the deponent in his presence. And the depositions so taken shall be retained by such magistrate until he deliver the same with his own hand into the court for which they are taken, or shall , together with a certificate of the reasons as aforesaid of their being taken, and of the notice if any given to the adverse party, be by him the said magistrate sealed up and directed to such court, and remain under his seal until opened in court. And any person may be compelled to appear and depose as aforesaid in the same manner as to appear and testify in court. And in the trial of any cause of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction in a district court, the decree in which may be appealed from, if either party shall suggest to and satisfy the court that probably it will not be in his power to produce the witnesses there testifying before the circuit court should an appeal be had, and shall move that their testimony be taken down in writing, it shall be so done by the clerk of the court. And if an appeal be had, such testimony may be used on the trial of the same, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court which shall try the appeal, that the witnesses are then dead or gone out of the United States, or to a greater distance than as aforesaid from the place where the court is sitting, or that by reason of age, sickness, bodily infirmity or imprisonment, they are unable to travel and appear at court, but not otherwise. And unless the same shall be made to appear on the trial of any cause, with respect to witnesses whose depositions may have been taken therein, such depositions shall not be admitted or used in the cause.]Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any court of the United States from granting a dedimus potestatem to take depositions according to common usage, when it may be necessary to prevent a failure or delay of justice, which power they shall severally possess, nor to extend to depositions taken in perpetuam rei memoriam[size=, which if they relate to matters that may be cognizable in any court of the United States, a circuit court on application thereto made as a court of equity, may, according to the usages in chancery direct to be taken. ] Again: [size=S]EC. 34. And be it further enacted[size=, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply. ] [size= ] |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
From Los Angeles: NOT common law Each year prior to March 1st every Superior Court Judge may nominate two persons deemed qualified to serve as Civil Grand Jurors. Following the nominations, the selection process for grand jurors involves a random selection of prospective jury members and alternates. The Sheriff’s Department performs a background check on these individuals. In a final random selection, the members of the jury are selected. A number of alternates are also selected to serve as jurors should any of those originally chosen be unable to continue to serve. The modern word for that is State Capture. I call it Legal Crime. When the criminals take over they shut the door behind them, so as to make sure that only those among their kind (Legal Criminals) are allowed to perpetrate their types of exclusive crimes. This is very simple. Anyone claiming to be above the law (God's or Natural Law as the point at which "The Buck Stops" = Golden Rule, or "No one is above the Law") confesses their membership among the criminals in their minds, which is Mens Rea (Guilty of Mind). If those criminals act out their guilty minds in actual fact, whereby an innocent victim is injured by one of them, then all the other ones in their membership are duty bound to protect each other against any threat by any power that may expose their true color. It is not Organized Crime because words have meaning and Organized Crime is separate from any false claim of false authority. The Mob, or Organized Crime, members do not claim to be the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, so help me God, or so help me Natural Law (if you happen not to be a member of a formal religion), or so help me fellow members of the people who understand what the Law means, as the Law means that no one is above the law, and therefore anyone claiming to be above the law is in fact confessing their guilty minds. Is that not easy? How about some help from a fellow member of the people whereby the fellow member of the people offers, voluntarily, information concerning the history of trial by jury? Lysander Spooner Quote: That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are? Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom. To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,} from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. When the false authorities claim to be above the law (God's Law or Natural Law being where the POWER of LAW originates so God's Law or Natural Law is the Law of the Land when the people are not fooled into a false authority or false god by criminals hiding behind badges) they are using their guilty minds (Mens Rea) to perpetrate a crime upon the innocent among us, and that crime is to remove "Due Process of Law" from those targeted individuals who no longer have access to "Due Process of Law," because those Legal Criminals have Captured the State, or stolen the power of government, and then those Legal Criminals select at their exclusive pleasure those who will be injured by them, and those who will become them, a member of their criminal organization that hides behind false authority or the color of law. Each victim, each individual victim, removed from access to Due Process of Law, is inculpatory evidence proving the fact that a member of the Legal Crime Organization has perpetrated a crime: Actus Reus. Of course the Legal Criminals are not going to admit their guilt, and of course the fellow Legal Crime members are going to band together and protect their POWER to perpetrate crimes under the color of law. There is more help in finding when, where, and how State Capture (by criminals) of Due Process of Law occurred in between the English example of Trial by Jury explained by Lysander Spooner in his study, and NOW, when the Legal Criminals have claimed to be the exclusive employers of their version of trial by jury. Spooner: But all this "trial by the country" would be no trial at all "by the country," but only a trial by the government, if the government 'could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial. 27 But all these translations are clearly erroneous. In the first place, "nor will we pass upon him," - meaning thereby to decide upon his guilt or innocence judicially - is not a correct rendering of the words, "nec super eum ibimus." There is nothing whatever, in these latter words, that indicates judicial action or opinion at all. The words, in their common signification, describe physical action alone. And the true translation of them, as will hereafter be seen, is, "nor will we proceed against him," executively. In the second place, the rendering, "nor will we condemn him," bears little or no analogy to any common, or even uncommon, signification of the words "nec super eum mittemus." There is nothing in these latter words that indicates judicial action or decision. Their common signification, like that of the words nec super eum ibimus, describes physical action alone. "Nor will we send upon (or against) him," would be the most obvious translation, and, as we shall hereafter see, such is the true translation. But although these words describe physical action, on the part of the king, as distinguished from judicial, they nevertheless do not mean, as one of the translations has it, "nor will we commit him to prison;" for that would be a mere repetition of what had been already declared by the words "nec imprisonetur." Besides, there is nothing about prisons in the words "nec super eum mittemus;" nothing about sending him anywhere; but only about sending (something or somebody) upon him, or against him - that is, executively. Coke's rendering is, if possible, the most absurd and gratuitous of all. What is there in the words, "nec super eum mittemus," that can be made to mean "nor shall he be condemned before any other commissioner or judge whatsoever."? Clearly there is nothing. The whole rendering is a sheer fabrication. And the whole object of it is to give color for the exercise of a judicial power, by the king, or his judges, which is nowhere given them. That should plant the reader firmly on the side of God's Law or Natural Law, whereby no amount of "argument" by man upon man (deceit) can nullify the facts. The facts are that free people govern themselves throughout history, even before language became English Language, and therefore any notions of common law having once been of the people, by the people, and for the people, as an irrelevant, outdated, historical curiosity, and in Modern Times such things are of no use whatsoever, should spark an interest in asking by what authority does anyone make such a claim? Then, and again, as if never ever being able to ignore the argument, one claim of authority is competitively compared to another claim of authority, and which one resorts to deception first? Which claim of authority resorts to threats of violence upon the innocent first? Which claim of authority resorts to violence upon the innocent first? Which claim of authority never, ever, resorts to deception, threats of violence upon the innocent, or violence upon the innocent WITHOUT exception? If you have never been on a jury then you may want to try it out for yourself. Even as the Criminals have almost completely taken over voluntary government, the wisdom of "trial by the country" still works, even if the POWER of it is so effectively reduced by those Union members who have an interest in preserving their Goose that Lays the Golden Eggs. Out of 12 people you will find some who are as criminally minded as the next criminal, and their words can be exposed for what they are, and they tend to shut up after having their own words confess their true motives; while other jurors agree to avoid resort to deception, avoid resort to threats of violence upon the innocent, and avoid resort to violence upon the innocent even when the Union members are dictating lies, dictating threats of violence upon the innocent, and dictating violence upon the innocent. So...returning to the ancient customary application of trial by the people, trial for the people, and trial of the people, as the people are the source of power of good government, under any name imaginable, using any language that is current, and for now, for us, the words common law grand jury may suffice as our label we use to identify us. We are common law grand jury members, according to ancient practices of self defense, defense of the innocent, and defense against the criminals who resort to deceptive, threatening, and violent crimes under the color of law. The Union members of Color of Law, which is no different than any other Legal Fiction, such as WalMart, or Target, or even The Teamsters Union, will claim that they have captured Common Law Grand Jury Due Process. Is it? The answer is demonstrably no, and the criminals who captured voluntary government, turning voluntary government into Crime made Legal (involuntary government) DEFINE the meaning of their crimes as they perpetrate their crimes upon their innocent victims. How? Again? Due process of law requires that a judgement be made as to the presumed to be innocent accused is tried JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE whereby the randomly picked (not hand picked by those making money on the deal) jurists represent the whole country as a whole without the factor of special interests having an interest in hand picking "jurists" who have an interest in judging the case in favor of their special interest group. The special interest group in counterfeit trial by jury is called The Bar Association, and again it is no different than WalMart, Target, or The Teamsters Union, in point of fact, since they are all Legal Fictions that get their authority from themselves, or by deceit, or by threat of violence, or by violence upon the innocent. Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at WalMart? Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at Target? Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at a Teamsters Union meeting? Why would anyone expect to find Due Process of Law at a meeting of The Bar Association membership? If Due Process of Law cannot be found in those places, then where is it, an if Due Process of Law can't be found, then what would human life look like without Due Process of Law? The Ugly Truth When the beasts take over they work effectively at turning everyone else into beasts too? So...where in California has there been cases of juries assembled by the people, for the people, and of the people, such as was the process due to everyone, without exception, in Trial by Jury in England (before it was captured and corrupted by criminals who took over government)? That may not be easy, or even possible. The battle over WORDS (common law) and the capture of government by the people, of the people, and for the people, has always been a tug of war, and a big win on the side of the criminals who make their crimes legal, was The Constitution ratification battle, as it was sufficiently understood in those days that the criminals were seeking to capture trial by jury. Example: Patrick Henry smells a few rats Quote: Perhaps the same horrors may hang over my mind again. I shall be told I am continually afraid: but, sir, I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered; in other parts, absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone not sufficiently secured in criminal this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands. Right of trial by jury weakened I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. Evidence of the battle over words whereby the criminals were resorting to deception, threats of violence, and even violence to capture voluntary government (of the people, by the people, and for the people who consent, voluntarily, to due process doe to everyone without exception) and to turn voluntary government into involuntary government as the criminals claim to have all authority including the authority of giving or taking away authority at will. In other words the criminals who take over are the same criminals who claim to be Gods above men, in their actions, if not their confessions to themselves (they think they are Gods so they confess to themselves). Here: Referenced Information Hamilton, Washington, and Adams were among the co-conspirators working their word magic to capture trial by jury, to turn voluntary government by the people, for the people, and of the people into their exclusive prerogative. Note the word magic. Instead of openly confessing the want of dictatorship (crime made legal) the words chosen sound harmless: prerogative. So...if common law by the people employing due process of trial by jury by the country, with randomly selected jurists presuming an accused to be innocent did not work in Hamilton's reign as Treasury Secretary, and common law again did not work in trials by "the government" capturing grand jury proceeding so as to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams' Dictatorship, then where are any cases going to be found of common law trial by jury in California? Was the battle already lost by that time when California became a member of the Union: just before the so called Civil War? Constitution of the State of California 1849 Article I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property: and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. Sec. 3. The right of trial by jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be waved by the parties, in all civil cases, in the manner to be prescribed by law. I am not a Union Lawyer, but I've done enough homework to know what those words above mean to me. The concept of trial by jury is such that 12 people randomly picked from this country ought to afford an accused person, presumed to be innocent, of some measure of due process of law, due to anyone, due to everyone, without exception, as all it takes is one of those 12 in that trial by jury to know the difference between right and wrong. Example: 1. Right = no one is above the law and if someone claims to be above the law then there by that claim is all the evidence required to reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the offer of a claim of being above the law is a confession of a guilty mind. 2. Wrong = pay the extortion fee and don't question the payments, in other words, when the criminals with false badges demand a pound of flesh, give them two pounds. How about the modern version of the California Constitution? Modern version? The Legal Criminals have been busy in California? Quote: CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 16. Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but... That should not be a surprise. When the criminals take over they bar the door into their Union of false authority. The people who know better must help each other know better until such time as there are enough people knowing better, standing on the rock solid cause of Liberty, and then offers of help in defense of the innocent against the criminals who falsely claim authority can be powerful by reason and by common sense, whereby the word "common" means that a sufficient number of people constitute a common sense of right and wrong. 1. Reasonable? Anyone claiming to be above the law is someone confessing their guilty mind, even if they can't admit it. 2. Reasonable? Lost but not forgotten? Quote: Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. 3. Unreasonable? Every man, woman, and child for themselves, the enemies foreign and domestic are too powerful? Again, back to Trial by Jury Lysander Spooner: Quote: It is evident that the difference between the true and false translations of the words, nec super eum ibimus, nec super eum mittemus, is of the highest legal importance, inasmuch as the true translation, nor will we (the king) proceed against him, nor send (any one) against him by force of arms, represents the king only in an executive character, carrying the judgment of the peers and "the law of the land" into execution; where as the false translation, nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, gives color for the exercise of a judicial power, on the part of the king, to which the king had no right, but which, according to the true translation, belongs wholly to the jury. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts and caveat emptor. Legal Criminals lie, they fabricate, and they distort, so as to fool their victims into blind belief in falsehood without question. Authority to punish was taken back from the Monopoly (King) and it was afforded to everyone without exception or "trial by the country," despite the imperfections of mankind there was, is, and will be wisdom in making sure that authority is NOT a privilege given to, or taken from, one person who is thereby bound to have, and hold drear, a special interest in judging in his, or her, own favor. Note: References to ancient trial by jury are made in Latin not English. So the phrase "common law" can be understood as a translation made by someone for some purpose. Reinforcing a reasonable understanding. Per legem terrae. 4 Thus interpreted, the words of John’s Charter promised a threefold security to all the freemen of England. Their persons and property were protected from the King’s arbitrary will by the rule that execution should be preceded by a judgment—by a judgment of peers—by a judgment according to the appropriate time–honoured “test,” battle, compurgation, or ordeal.5 1 Advocates of both theories can point to other parts of Magna Carta where “lex” is used in the sense they claim for it in the present passage; for its purport was, in 1215, ambiguous. In chapters 18, 36, and 38, it refers primarily to procedure, whereas chapters 9, 45, 52, 56, and 59 suggest a broader interpretation.2 1 founding apparently on these fourteenth–century statutes, makes “per legem terrae” equivalent to “by due process of law” and that again to “by indictment or presentment of good and lawful men,” thus finding the grand jury enshrined in Magna Carta. The framers of the Petition of Right2 read the same words as a prohibition, not only of imprisonment “without any cause showed” but also of proceedings under martial law, thus interpreting the aims of King John’s opponents in the light of the misdeeds of King Charles. Anachronisms such as these must be avoided. Whatever may have been the exact grievances that bulked most largely in the barons’ minds in 1215, their main contention was obvious. John was no longer to take the law into his own hands: the deliberate judgment of a competent court of law must precede any punitive measures to be taken by the King against freemen of his realm. Here is significant wording: [5]See Thayer, Evidence, 200–1, for a discussion of the phrase “lex terrae.” See also Bigelow, History of Procedure, 155 n.: “The expression ‘per legem terrae’ simply required judicial proceedings, according to the nature of the case; the duel, ordeal, or compurgation, in criminal cases; the duel, witnesses, charters, or recognition in property cases.” The words occur at least twice in Glanvill, each time apparently with the technical meaning. In II. c. 19, the penalty for a false verdict includes forfeiture by jurors of their law (“legem terrae amittentes”); while in V. c. 5, a man born a villein, though freed by his lord, cannot, to the prejudice of any stranger, wage his law (“ad aliquam legem terrae faciendam”). The stress placed on the accused’s right to the time–honoured forms of lex is well illustrated by the difficulty of substituting jury trial for ordeal. It has already been shown that the right of “standing mute,” that is, virtually, of demanding ordeal, was only abolished in 1772. See supra, p. 342. Five and a half centuries were thus allowed to pass before the criminal law was bold enough, in defiance of a fundamental principle of Magna Carta, to deprive accused men of their “law.” Note: the penalty for a false verdict includes forfeiture by jurors of their law (“legem terrae amittentes” Whose law? Back to Trial by Jury and Spooner: " Per legem terrae." One other phrase remains to be explained, viz., "per legem terrae," "by the law of the land." All writers agree that this means the common law.Thus, Sir Matthew Hale says: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terrae,as in the statute of Magna Carta,chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terrae;as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III., chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angliae,as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, "Nolurnus leqes Angliae mutari,"&c., (We will that the laws of England be not changed). Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni(the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I., cap. -, and de quo warranto,and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas,cap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III., cap. 5, (4,) and infinite more records and statutes." - 1 Hale's History of the Common Law, 128. Lex terrae = common law = law of the land? What is Hale's History of the Common Law? I can look for it but for now I want to re-link the following: Leaping ahead Some attempt was made to assimilate the remedies granted by the Court of Chancery and the common law courts. Thus under the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the common law courts were given some power to award equitable remedies and the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 gave the Chancellor the power to grant damages in addition to, or in substitution for, an injunction or a decree of specific performance. Is that an example of Capture? Does common law (power of the people as a whole, or due process due to everyone without exception) become Common Law as a dictate dictated into being by dictators at their exclusive pleasure? Back to Spooner and Trial by Jury: But whether the common law fixed the punishment of any offences, or not, is a matter of little or no practical importance at this day; because we have no idea of going back to any common law punishments of six hundred years ago, if, indeed, there were any such at that time. It is enough for us to know - and this is what is material for us know - that the jury fixed the punishments, in all cases, unless they were fixed by the common law; that Magna Carta allowed no punishments to be prescribed by statute - that is, by the legislative power - nor in any other manner by the king, or his judges, in any case whatever; and, consequently, that all statutes prescribing particular punishments for particular offences, or giving the king's judges any authority to fix punishments, were void. The only court was the court of the people, by the people, and for the people, and it worked to reduce the profitability of crime perpetrated by any criminal, any criminal inside, or outside, common law, including the so called government. [15] Lingard says, " The words, ' We will not destroy him nor will we go upon him, nor will we send upon him,' have been very differently expounded by different legal authorities. Their real meaning may be learned from John himself, who the next year promised by his letters patent,... nec super eos per vim vel per arma ibimus, nisi per legem regni nostri, vel per judicium parium suorum in curia nostra, (nor will we go upon them by force or by arms, unless by the law of our kingdom, or the judgment of their peers in our court.) Pat. 16 Johan, apud Drad. 11, app. no. 124. Wording again can trip me up. A trial by jury is not the place, it is the process. The court is the place, and there may be much to the idea that the people are not the executioners of sentences judged through due process, and if the people do not carry out sentences, then who does? My way of thinking here is such that all those who agree to voluntarily obey common law and judgments by due process (trial by jury) execute their own sentence by paying the fine. Earlier in the Essay by Spooner is a mention concerning severity of punishment being limited to Fines that do not ruin the productive capacity of a member of the people. So, in cases of those who fail to execute their own sentence, by paying the fine, there are those who then appeal to the King's judgment, or those who volunteer to become outlaws, and then there was mention in Trial by Jury of common law (peers) looking the other way if the outlaw is dispatched by other means. So...if a number of common law grand jury administrators can convince someone to do the right thing, on their own volition, then why would there be any need for someone to execute a sentence? Would not the POWER of being able to publicly convict someone in office inspire resignation, or restitution as a means of salvaging a career that temporarily went down the wrong path? Further indictment of Coke: [25] Coke attempts to show that there is a distinction between amercements and fines - admitting that amercements must be fixed by one's peers, but, claiming that, fines may be fixed by the government. (2 Inst. 27, 8 Coke's Reports 38) But there seems to have been no ground whatever for supposing that any such distinction existed at the time of Magna Carta. If there were any such distinction in the time of Coke, it had doubtless grown up within the four centuries that had elapsed since Magna Carta, and is to be set down as one of the numberless inventions of government for getting rid of the restraints of Magna Carta, and for taking men out of the protection of their peers, and subjecting them to such punishments as the government chooses to inflict. More evidence supporting the accurate measure of usurpation by dictatorial (Legal Crime) powers: [29] I cite the above extract from Mr. Hallam solely for the sake of his authority for rendering the word vel by and; and not by any means for the purpose of indorsing the opinion he suggests, that legem terrae authorized "judgments by default or demurrer,*' without the intervention of a jury. He seems to imagine that lex terrae, the common law, at the time of Magna Carta, included everything, even to the practice of courts, that is, at this day, called by the name of Common Law; whereas much of what is now called Common Law has grown up, by usurpation, since the time of Magna Carta, in palpable violation of the authority of that charter. He says, "Certainly there are many legal procedures, besides trial by jury, through which a party's goods or person may be taken." Of course there are now many such ways, in which a party's goods or person are taken, besides by the judgment of a jury; but the question is, whether such takings are not in violation of Magna Carta. Spooner warns: As to "process of attachment for contempt," it is of course lawful for a judge, in his character of a peace officer, to issue a warrant for the arrest of a man guilty of a contempt, as he would for the arrest of any other offender, and hold him to bail, (or, in default of bail, commit him to prison,) to answer for his offence before a jury. Or he may order him into custody without a warrant when the offence is committed in the judge's presence. But there is no reason why a judge should have the power of punishing, for contempt, any more than for any other offence. And it is one of the most dangerous powers a judge can have, because it gives him absolute authority in a court of justice, and enables him to tyrannize as he pleases over parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors. If a judge have power to punish for contempt, and to determine for himself what is a contempt, the whole administration of justice (or injustice, if he choose to make it so) is in his hands. And all the rights of jurors, witnesses, counsel, and parties, are held subject to his pleasure, and can be exercised only agreeably to his will. He can of course control the entire proceedings in, and consequently the decision of, every cause, by restraining and punishing every one, whether party, counsel, witness, or juror, who presumes to offer anything contrary to his pleasure. This arbitrary power, which has been usurped and exercised by judges to punish for contempt, has undoubtedly had much to do in subduing counsel into those servile, obsequious, and cowardly habits, which so universally prevail among them, and which have not only cost so many clients their rights, but have also cost the people so many of their liberties. If any summary, punishment for contempt be ever necessary, (as it probably is not,) beyond exclusion for the time being from the court-room, (which should be done, not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the preservation of order,) the judgment for it should be given by the jury, (where the trial is before a jury,) and not by the court, for the jury, and not the court, are really the judges. For the same reason, exclusion from the court-room should be ordered only by the jury, in cases when the trial is before a jury, because they, being the real judges and triers of the cause, are entitled, if anybody, to the control of the court-room. In appeal courts, where no juries sit, it may be necessary - not as a punishment, but for self-protection, and the maintenance of order - that the court should exercise the power of excluding a person, for the time being, from the court-room; but there is no reason why they should proceed to sentence him as a criminal, without his being tried by a jury. If the people wish to have their rights respected and protected in courts of justice, it is manifestly of the last importance that they jealously guard the liberty of parties, counsel, witnesses, and jurors, against all arbitrary power on the part of the court. Back to Trial by Jury/Spooner: But it is in the administration of justice, or of law, that the freedom or subjection of a people is tested. If this administration be in accordance with the arbitrary will of the legislator - that is, if his will, as it appears in his statutes, be the highest rule of decision known to the judicial tribunals, - the government is a despotism, and the people are slaves. If, on the other hand, the rule of decision be these principles of natural equity and justice, which constitute, or at least are embodied in, the general conscience of mankind, the people are free in just so far as that conscience is enlightened. That the authority of the king was of little weight with the judicial tribunals, must necessarily be inferred from the fact already stated, that his authority over the people was but weak. If the authority of his laws had been paramount in the judicial tribunals, it would have been paramount with the people, of course; because they would have had no alternative but submission. The fact, then, that his laws were not authoritative with the people, is proof that they were not authoritative with the tribunals - in other words, that they were not, as matter of course, enforced by the tribunals. But we have additional evidence that, up to the time of Magna Carta, the laws of the king were not binding upon the judicial tribunals; and if they were not binding before that time, they certainly were not afterwards, as has already been shown from Magna Carta itself. It is manifest from all the accounts we have of the courts in which juries sat, prior to Magna Carta, such as the court-baron, the hundred court, the court-leet, and the county court, that they were mere courts of conscience, and that the juries were the judges, deciding causes according to their own notions of equity, and not according to any laws of the king, unless they thought them just. [11] The court-baron was the court for a single manor, and there was a court for every manor in the kingdom. All these courts were holden as often as once in three or five weeks; the county court once a month. The king's judges were present at none of these courts; the only officers in attendance being sheriffs, bailiff's, and stewards, merely ministerial, and not judicial, officers; doubtless incompetent, and, if not incompetent, untrustworthy, for giving the juries any reliable information in matters of law, beyond what was already known to the jurors themselves. Finding peaceful ways to agree with one another was big business? That is the concept of Free Market Government at work, whereby the quality of the service provided is ever FORCED higher in quality as free people adapt by their creative industry, offering some better way today to settle disputes than yesterday, and the same FORCE will force the costs down, as each competitor, in Liberty, offers a better, higher quality, and lower cost, service known as reasonable judgement. When the force of monopoly (Legal Crime) imposes a single authority, and no other, the obvious happens as there is no longer any force applied to the single authority forcing the SUPPLY (of government) higher in quality and lower in cost according to the consumers who DEMAND accurate, reasonable, judgement. Trial by Jury is the framework worthy of conservation, because no one individual is above any other individual, according to judgements made within that framework, and so there are many competitive COURTS open for business all across the country, each one working within the conserved framework of Liberty (Free Markets), and each one inspired to outperform each competitive COURT by their inventive, adaptive, creative, human industry. As to taxation (Trial by Jury Spooner): A statute, emphatically termed the ' Grand Assize,' enabled the defendant, if he thought proper, to abide by the testimony of the twelve good and lawful knights, chosen by four others of the vicinage, and whose oaths gave a final decision to the contested claim,."- 1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth, 261. "From the moment when the crown became accustomed to the 'Inquest,' a restraint was imposed upon every branch of the prerogative. The king could never be informed of his rights, but through the medium of the people. Every 'extent' by which he claimed the profits and advantages resulting from the casualties of tenure, every process by which he repressed the usurpations of the baronage, depended upon the 'good men and true' who were impaneled to 'pass' between the subject and the sovereign; and the thunder of the Exchequer at Westminster might be silenced by the honesty, the firmness, or the obstinacy, of one sturdy knight or yeoman in the distant shire. Taxation was controlled in the same manner by the voice of those who were most liable to oppression. * * A jury was impaneled to adjudge the proportion due to the sovereign; and this course was not essentially varied, even after the right of granting aids to the crown was fully acknowledged to be vested in the parliament of the realm. The people taxed themselves; and the collection of the grants was checked and controlled, and, perhaps, in many instances evaded, by these virtual representatives of the community. The principle of the jury was, therefore, not confined to its mere application as a mode of trying contested facts, whether in civil or criminal cases; and, both in its form and in its consequences, it had a very material influence upon the general constitution of the realm. * *The main-spring of the machinery of remedial justice existed in the franchise of the lower and lowest orders of the political hierarchy. Without the suffrage of the yeoman, the burgess, and the churl, the sovereign could not exercise the most important and most essential function of royalty; from them he received the power of life and death; he could not wield the sword of justice until the humblest of his subjects placed the weapon in his hand." - 1 Palgrave's Rise and Progress of the English Constitution, 274 - 7. The Principle here is at least a recognition of Natural Law (or God's Law) being a part of human nature, to know that each individual will be judged by his, or her, fellow honest people (disregarding those who obey no law whatsoever = criminals of mind, body, spirit, and action) and therefore no one single person can be "The Law" because doing so goes against Natural Law, since human beings gaining absolute power over other human beings are as likely as not going to abuse that power. Perhaps not accurately measured in history, but something that can certainly be measured accurately at this time, is the additional benefit of Free Market Forces working upon the many (non-antagonistic = non-criminal) competitors who offer their individual service of dispensing judgment in any case whereby other free people (non-criminal) demand a ruling by "the country." A jurist known to serve his own interest, time after time, as the months go by, and as many decisions are made by many competitive jurists all across the country, would gain negative feedback, and it would be generally known that the quality of that specific jurist was below average in quality, and therefore the cost of doing business with that jurist would be comparatively high compared, competitively, with an obviously higher offer by another jurist whose reputation, good standing, honestly, and sound judgment excelled by relative comparison in a free market of government services. How is that not easy to see? What are the options afforded to the many people now in this country when shopping for justice? What happened to voluntary association in Liberty were free market choices are the rule, not the exception, and NOT AGAINST THE (false) LAW? Warning Here is a potential word magic trap concerning the term Court of Record (meaning "before written language was common": Coke says, "The court of the county is no court of record, [19] and the suitors are the judges thereof." - 4 Inst.) 266. Also, "The court of the Hundred is no court of record, and the suitors be thereof judges." - 4 Inst., 267. Also, "The court-baron is a court incident to every manor, and is not of record, and the suitors be thereof judges." - 4 Inst., 268. Also, "The court of ancient demesne is in the nature of a court-baron, wherein the suitors are judges, and is no court of record." - 4 Inst., 269. Coke is one of the spin doctors, the word magicians, a Union man, a Monopoly of Law man, and so there might be fair warning here in how the Usurpation from Liberty into Despotism transpired with the Capture of common law (lex terrae) from the people (in mind, body, spirit, and action) so as to turn that power into an exclusive (monopoly) power to supply the demand for government, and to do so with a false, or counterfeit, version of government (crime made legal or involuntary association). John Millar, An Historical View of the English Government [1803] That is a work referenced in Trial by Jury (Spooner) for this (in Trial by Jury): Millar says, "Some authors have thought that jurymen were originally compurgators, called by a defendant to swear that they believed him innocent of the facts with which he was charged. . . But . . . compurgators were merely witnesses; jurymen were, in reality, judges. The former were called to confirm the oath of the party by swearing, according to their belief, that he had told the truth, (in his oath of purgation  the latter were appointed to try, by witnesses, and by all other means of proof, whether he was innocent or guilty. Juries were accustomed to ascertain the truth of facts, by the defendant's oath of purgation, together with that of his compurgators. . . Both of them (jurymen and compurgators) were obliged to swear that they would tell truth. . According to the simple idea of our forefathers, guilt or innocence was regarded as a mere matter of fact; and it was thought that no man, who knew the real circumstances of a case, could be at a loss to determine whether the culprit ought to be condemned or acquitted." - 1 Millar's Hist. View of Eng. Gov., ch. 12, p. 332 - 4. Also, "The same form of procedure, which took place in the administration of justice among the vassals of a barony, was gradually extended to the courts held in the trading towns." - Same, p. 335. Also, "The same regulation, concerning the distribution of justice by the intervention of juries, . . .were introduced into the baron courts of the king, as into those of the nobility, or such of his subjects as retained their allodial property." - Same, p. 337. Also, "This tribunal" (the aula regis, or king's court, afterwards divided into the courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer) "was properly the ordinary baron-court of the king; and, being in the same circumstances with the baron courts of the nobility, it was under the same necessity of trying causes by the intervention of a jury." - Same, vol. 2, p. 292. The reason why that is important has to do with the emergency of State courts becoming known as Exchequer. The EX CHECKER courts were the emerging POWER of Monopoly Money, or Central Banking. Note: The Modern version is The FED combined with The IRS as the criminals take over they must seize the Legal Power to Purchase. Once that Legal Power to Purchase is under the exclusive control of a single entity (Legal fiction = two parts being one Fraudulent and the other Extortive) the Legal Criminals can then cause Booms and Busts by manipulating that supply of that one money. That one money is Extorted out of the people through so called Tax Liabilities (Extortion payments) and that "need" creates the demand for that Legal Money, as the Extortion payments must be made in that one Legal Money. There is then a high demand for that one Legal Money, and everyone required to pay the Extortion fee MUST work for a number of "Dollars" (everyone producing anything worth stealing MUST pay their "fair share" of "Taxes) so the Central Bankers are thereby Capturing the economy of that population. The Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer. circa 1180 That link is heavy reading from what I consider to be a Machiavellian viewpoint. After suffering through the beginning (looking for a reference to the emergence of Exchequer Courts) I found this: The system of private law, being formed in good measure by<83> long usage, was necessarily different in different districts; and the customs which prevailed in the more considerable had obtained a currency in the smaller states of the Heptarchy. A huge part of the word magic employed by those who willfully deceive is the confusion of the terms Public and Private. Back to Trial by Jury (Spooner): The fact that, in that dark age, so many of the principles of natural equity, as those then embraced in the Common Law, should have been so uniformly recognized and enforced by juries, as to have become established by general consent as "the law of the land;" and the further fact that this "law of the land" was held so sacred that even the king could not lawfully infringe or alter it, but was required to swear to maintain it, are beautiful and impressive illustrations of the troth that men's minds, even in the comparative infancy of other knowledge, have clear and coincident ideas of the elementary principles, and the paramount obligation, of justice. The same facts also prove that the common mind, and the general, or, perhaps, rather, the universal conscience, as developed in the untrammeled judgments of juries, may be safely relied upon for the preservation of individual rights in civil society; and that there is no necessity or excuse for that deluge of arbitrary legislation, with which the present age is overwhelmed, under the pretext that unless laws be made, the law will not be known; a pretext, by the way, almost universally used for overturning, instead of establishing, the principles of justice. The Mirror of Justices That is a reference in Trial by Jury here: The Mirror of Justices, (written within a century after Magna Carta,) in the chapter on the abuses of the Common law, says: "It is abuse to use the words, to their knowledge, in their oaths, to make the jurors speak upon thoughts, since the chief words of their oaths be that they speak the truth." - p. 249. That speaks of more word magic. The concept that all is belief and nothing is factual may be at work in that usurpation by word magic. The example might be that a person is aware of an injury to an innocent person having been done by a specific person caught red handed. "So, to the best of your knowledge, was it the defendant sitting in that seat there who punched the plaintiff in the nose?" "No, you are playing with words, as sure as the defended is sitting in that seat now that same individual is the one who punched the plaintiff in the nose." History of Common Law in England by Matthew Hale |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Returning to: Trial by Jury In Chapter III (Oaths of Jurors) there is mention of the work Grand used in conjunction with the word Jury. Grand Jury <------ Free E-Book if you sign into a Google Account What accurately distinguishes, discriminates, separates, or delineates the difference between a common law trial by jury and a common law Grand Jury? Grand Jury Essay I stumbled on that book while re-reading Trial by Jury (Lysander Spooner) as a reference was made in Spooner's Essay concerning an Essay on Grand Jury. The author is not precisely identified and the date of the publication leads to further confusion. Here is a quote from the link: Quote: Strictly speaking there is no obscurity surrounding the origin of the "grand jury," for it was not until the 42nd year of the reign of Edward III (A. D. 1368) that the modern practice of returning a panel of twenty-four men to inquire for the county was established and this body then received the name "le graunde inquest."11 Prior to this time the accusing body was known only as an inquest or jury, and was summoned in each hundred by the bailiffs to present offences occurring in that hundred. When, therefore, this method of proceeding was en larged by the sheriff returning a panel of twenty-four knights to inquire of and present offences for the county at large, we see the inception of the grand jury of the present day. But while it is true that our grand jury was first known to England in the time of Edward the Third, it is nevertheless not true that it was an institution of Norman origin or transplanted into England by the Normans. Footnote 11 is: 11 3 Reeves Hist. Eng. Law 133; Growth of the Grand Jury System (J. Kinghorn) 6 Law Mag. & Rev. (4th S.) 367. THE GRAND JURY PART I ITS ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT. Going back to the Grand Jury Essay I find: There was also the hue and cry, which was raised when any offence was discovered and the offender was pursued until taken ; if he escaped, then the hundred in which he was in frank-pledge was liable to be amerced.17 Does that mean that a group of 100 in a "county" was held liable to PAY a fine if they do not secure their own "EXPORTS" of criminals? This is a very interesting concept (if so) applicable to the modern day ILLEGAL ALIEN boondoggle. Thinking Breakthrough? Does that mean that this point in history begins to define the distinctions between PUBLIC and PRIVATE? Please consider these words n that Grand Jury Essay: The Norman method was by appeal, (from the French appeler, to call)14 the direct individual accusation, the truth of which was determined by the wager of battle. The nambda took no cognisance of criminal pleas, and crimes, where no appellor appeared, went unpunished. The English method was designed to prevent the escape of any who had violated the law. This was sought to be accomplished first, by prevention through the system of frank pledge, by which in every tithing the inhabitants were sureties to the king for the good behavior of each other;16 and, second, by prosecution instituted by the presentment of the twelve senior thanes in every hundred or wapentake, whose duty was, according to the law of Ethelred, to accuse such persons as they found had committed any crime.18 There was also the hue and cry, which was raised when any offence was discovered and the offender was pursued until taken ; if he escaped, then the hundred in which he was in frank-pledge was liable to be amerced.17 Inasmuch as in this period all offences were regarded as of purely private concern, the offender could escape trial and punishment upon payment to the person wronged, or, if he was dead, to his next of kin, of a sum of money, varying in accordance with the enormity of the offence, and the rank of the person injured. This was known as the custom of were gild.16 If, however, the defend ant either could not or would not pay weregild, then the truth of the charges prosecuted by these methods was determined by compurgation, by the corsned or morsel of execration, or by the ordeal of fire or water.19 Where the accused failed to clear himself by compurgation, which occurred when he failed to ob tain the necessary number of persons who were willing to swear their belief in his innocence, he was obliged to purge himself by the ordeal.20 That is a big chunk of ideas offered to a modern human being. Consider, please, how moral people in a free market may figure out a competitive way to collect their many diverse talents and improve upon the supply of justice (defense of the innocent) so as to meet the demand for it. 1. Innocent people seek shelter from criminals. 2. Criminals seek innocent people to perpetrate crimes upon them. 3. Moral people (perhaps not free from sin, so not "innocent" of any "sin) organize in a competitive way to stand in between the innocent people and the criminals. 4. Some criminals find ways to injure innocent victims despite all efforts by all moral people working to make sure that crime does not pay in their area of influence. 5. A competition ensues as some areas (family, town, church, city, county, etc.) to see which group reduce crime internally the best (and the least expensive). a. Expelling criminals b. Not expelling criminals Do you see? An individual either takes the law into their own hands or they seek help from other people. Failing to do anything by anyone to solve the criminal problem results in the criminals being afforded the opportunity to perpetrate crimes at will. Crime pays well, and therefore the unemployed realize that high paying jobs are available in the crime business. County A is notoriously bad at reducing crime effectively, or individual A is similarly unwilling, or unable, to solve the criminal problem, so a criminal moves from individual A, using up individual A, moving onward to another individual. You are in one county and the county next to your county is expelling criminals who are now wandering into your county. How is that any different from you failing to do something when you know that a criminal is perpetrating crimes upon the innocent among us in your living room; in your mirror? A moral human being, and a reasonable human being, will obviously reach the conclusion that help, more than me, myself, and I (more than the Private solution to the criminal problem) is needed to solve the criminal problem. At that point, at the point at which an individual human being decides to seek help is the moment when that individual creates the PUBLIC life or "government" where previously there was only PRIVATE life or "government." A problem (crime) shared by all (innocent people) is not likely to be solved by one person acting alone. There is then, in the mirror, at least one individual expressing an offer to have someone supply that demand: I need help solving the criminal problem - can anyone help? If the demand (help) is more than one individual expressing an offer to have someone supply that demand (help is needed in solving the criminal problem), then the demand becomes greater in terms of power. Here is where the obvious problem ought not be ignored. The criminals themselves counter-offer a false version of "help" offered to moral people (supplying the need for help, supplying the demand for help), whereby the counter-offer of false help is crime made legal, or an organized crime monopoly, whereby false "protection" is offered and the offer is "an offer you can't refuse." Public, the process, the ideas turned into actions, thereby being knowable as a voluntary pledge (frank pledge) to deal with criminals internal to the group existing nearby to another group of people making the same voluntary pledge: You take care of your criminals, we take care of ours, and in that way your group won't be finding excuses to invade our group, as one group won't be creating, subsidizing, and then exporting criminals. A private individual is not libel to have to pay the entire fine owed to one group by another group for failure to solve the local criminal problem when the creation of a PUBLIC collective POWER (which has to be funded in some accurate way) for mutual defense (solve the local crime problem AND solve the external crime problem) against enemies foreign and domestic. Person in Group A perpetrating crimes in Group A is an individual having to pay fines in Group A as restitution for crimes in Group A. Criminal having a criminal history in Group A, moving into Group B, perpetrating crimes in Group B, according to frank pledge, constitutes a liability owed to Group B by Group A. Does that make sense? Is that the voluntary version of PUBLIC DEBT? Scale that up and modernize it to the point at which the Constitutionally Limited Republics that formed a Federation under The Articles of Federation and you have France loaning POWER to help those United States defend against the criminal invaders under English (Bank of England) Despotism. If those volunteers in that voluntary Union (those 13 Constitutionally Limited Republics) won't pay back their Debts to France then France may not ever help again, and France may then lower the credit rating of those United States from creditworthy to ENEMY based upon that example of that crime of failing to pay back debts when obviously the debts can be paid back, since those Unites States were freed from the costs of suffering at the hands of the Despotic English (Bank of England). Note: The Federalists sided with the English against the French as proven by the Alien and Sedition Acts. The appeal materially promoted the importance of the accusing body, for unless the appellor himself suffered the injury, there was no incentive to him to risk his life or liberty in the trial by battle, when the crime could equally well be presented by the in quest.34 "Materially promoted the accusing body..." Accusing body = those specialists hired to accurately identify the criminals and then do something affective in reducing the pay rate paid to the criminals by the victims - at least. "...when the crime could equally well be presented by the in quest." Here I am (perhaps wrongly) reading a meaning that looks like the point at which the Usurpation occurs, as the voluntary process becomes involuntary and typically the Usurpation concerns money. What is the precise transfer of POWER from anyone to anyone else whereby there is a material promotion (a monetary interest) that promotes the "accusing body"? When, exactly, does the "accusing body" turn from a voluntary defensive POWER into a crime made legal POWER, as abuse occurs and the false victims use the false POWER of law to "get something for nothing"? Back to The Grand Jury In the time when Glanville wrote, there were two methods of instituting prosecutions, viz., by appeal at the suit of the person injured or his proper kinsman ; and the accusation by the public voice, that is, the presentment by the accusing body that the defendant was suspected of certain offences. 47 Who claims that the public has a voice? What does that mean in that context? Who is speaking for the public in that case? That looks like The King raising himself up above everyone else as the supposed speaker of some supposed authority that is a nebulous entity called The Public. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Breakthrough thinking?Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal. That is back at this source: The Grand Jury I don't know if anyone is reading this, how could I? I do think it is vitally important to the human species to understand the messages offered in these historical records. My reading of all this information is forming competitive challenges in my mind and I am working at meeting those challenges, such as might occur in a question an answer session. Question: What is the difference between maintaining peaceful coexistence and instead a willful choice is made by someone to resort to violence (which also, then, invents the concept of "threat of violence" as a method of control used by one person upon another person)? Answer: The difference is such that maintaining peace requires an effective method by which the choice to resort to violence is no longer profitable in the mind of anyone contemplating such a choice. Question: What does the above Q and A session have to do with the quote? "Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal." Answer: At some point those who gain authority are faced with a decision to unleash the dogs of war, and those decisions are then compared competitively by other people who gain authority into the similar situations. Keep in mind the following: Authority is only competitive when it is agreed upon as being authority, and when it is false authority is when deception, threat of violence, and violence is required in order for it to be "authority"? In other words, keep in mind the concept of who willfully "throws the first stone." and once that fact is discovered by anyone, then anyone knows who has willfully decided to end Liberty, end Peace, in that situation. Who willfully decides to "let loose the dogs of war" against someone who does not deserve, in any way, such punishment? In other words, true authority cannot be a criminal who perpetrates crimes upon innocent people for fun and profit, because that is the definition of crime, so that would be a true authority of crime demonstrated by a criminal in fact. True authority of defense of Liberty, or true authority of defense of the innocent, over time, has become an understanding determined by human beings as a POWER that is external to human beings because humans are prone to so much error. If true authority of defense of Liberty (defense of the innocent) is external to human beings because of human error, then those human beings who realize this fact earn, by that realization, a measure of true authority. I will not cast the first stone, we say, because I have, at least, recognized that true authority cannot be invented by, produced by, and maintained by human beings, because human beings are so very obviously prone to human error. What then is the next logical, reasonable, step? So...so much confusion over words, and a call back to simpler meanings may help. Victim, as far as victim is concerned, is a victim. Victim, as far as victim is concerned, knows who is causing injury to victim. Victim is then looking for help in defense against criminal, or victim takes matters into his own hands, and victim solves the criminal problem in his or her own way. How does that work, over time? "Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal." Many victims are not powerful enough to solve their own crime problems, and many who can solve their own crime problems decide to get help because "it is the right thing to do" according to human reason, human logic, human recognition that true authority does not exist in human form as one person claiming to be the authority over everyone else, on and on. So help in solving the criminal problem is realized as some form of process that becomes what it is, over time, and the process only works if it works the same way for everyone, whereby no one is "above" the law, no one is afforded the power to torture and murder at will with impunity because someone makes the claim that they alone are the true authority, and they alone get to torture and murder at will, because they say that they have that authority, because they say that they are, in their own minds, the true authority. I may confuse here as I use terms such as "cast the first stone" and "torture and murder with impunity" when my words choices may be more effective if I can find words that precisely identify the actual people who are the actual criminal power. The word criminal means the same thing as those who willfully decide to "cast the first stone" upon the innocent, and the word criminal means the same thing as those who willfully "torture and murder with impunity" the innocent because they say that they are the lawful authority that can lawfully torture and murder with impunity. "Where the inquest presented anyone either upon suspicion or accusation who had not been appealed, the presentment of the inquest does not appear to have been regarded as sufficiently conclusive in all cases to award the ordeal." Failure is realized when innocent people continue to be injured by criminals despite the effort to realize and then address the crime problem. When those in power are criminals, what is going to be their interest in solving the crime problem? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
From The earlier Grand Jury link again:The trial by battle was in force upon appeals properly brought, but the exceptions which might be taken to the appeal were becoming more numerous. The right of the appellee to decline battle and put himself upon the country is not men tioned by Glanville, nor does there seem to be a recorded in stance of it until the early years of King John's reign. Now, I went to this Grand Jury link from the work of Lysander Spooner in his Essay titled Trial by Jury. I've been in this source for more than a day now. What is becoming clear is the idea that people in this time period were apt to settle questions of who is, and who is not, a criminal by violent means (ordeal) and people were moving toward less violent means. The term "upon the country" is now being used as a possible reference to the process known as Trial by Jury which includes the factor of sortition or "random selection" so as to remove the factor of "special interest" that always occurs when the outcome of a judgment (to release the dogs of war) will transfer any wealth/profit/advantage/money/power to the judge who makes that decision. The problem of decision makers (jurists not judges in judgements made by "the country") having a conflict of interest (a jurist stands to gain by his power of judgment) is not solved by this employment of this random selection or sortition. The problem of hand picking jurists by some supposed authority is solved by this process of random selection of who is or who is not authoritatively representing the interests of the people, or the country, as a whole. When any member of the people are given the power to select the jurists who will then have the power to judge guilt or innocent (and thereby release the dogs of war upon the defendant if the defendant refuses to agree to the decision) that member of the people who is given that power will have a bias, an interest, and that goes without saying, so that POWER to select (hand pick or stack) a jury is nullified, removed, and no longer a power that is up for grabs, to be given, or taken away, with the invention, use, and maintenance of the process by which jurists are randomly selected (sortition). A free people will remain free so long as they realize this POWER, and as soon as free people ignore this POWER this POWER will be taken by the criminals. The criminals will, as a rule, take the power to select (stack) the "deciders" of who is guilty and who is innocent of perpetrating any crime upon the innocent among us, and that is the point at which the criminals take over, at that precise point whereby the criminals gain that POWER to decide who does the deciding. The criminals then decide that there can be only one money, and then the criminals make sure that no one challenges that authority to enforce one money. Note: Reference to another work as Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
An important discovery? Again from Grand Jury It was in this period that the independence of the grand jury became established. No longer required to make known to the court the evidence upon which they acted, meeting in secret and sworn to keep their proceedings secret by an oath which contained no reservation in favor of the government, selected from the gentlemen of the best figure in the county,127 and without regard to their knowledge of any particular offence, the three centuries that followed the return of a panel of twenty-four knights, witnessed its freedom of action from all restraint by the court. And In the same year an attempt was made to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury for high treason.130 As in College's case, the grand jury desired to hear the evidence in private, but the king's counsel insisted that the evidence be heard in open court and Lord Chief Justice Pemberton assented. Notes in the work above: 132 Earl of Shaftesbury's Case, 8 How. St. Tr. 775. The following ex cerpt from the report of the proceedings shows the attitude of the sheriff toward the Earl : My notes: What happened to random selection of jurors from a pool? Was this more of the same "closing of gates after the horses have left the corral"? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Again from Grand Jury:One of the last known instances of the court attempting to coerce a grand jury occurred in 1783, in Pennsylvania. Mr. Oswald, the printer of the Independent Gazette, criticised the conduct of the Supreme Court. The justices thereof, Chief Justice McKean and Judge Bryan ordered him to be indicted for libel, but the grand jury ignored the bill. The judges severely reproved them in open court in an attempt to overawe the inquest and sent them back to reconsider the bill, but the jury refused to return an indictment.135 Note: That is before the Usurpation of 1787 (The Con Con Con Job debacle) Notes in the reference: 135 Francis Hopkinson's Works, Vol. 1, p. 194. In Mississippi in 1902, in the case of Blau v. State, 34 So. 153, will be found an instance where the Court successfully coerced the grand jury into finding a true bill. A motion to quash was overruled. On appeal the judgment was reversed upon the ground of the improper influence exercised over the grand jury in the finding of the indictment. My notes: Terms used "true bill" and "indictment" meaning the same thing? Continuing in the work titled Grand Jury: When the settlement of America was begun by Englishmen, they brought with them all the civil rights which they enjoyed in their native land, and with them came the grand jury.138 Reference notes: 136 Lesser Hist. Jury System 128. Details of the earliest use of the grand jury in the American Colonies are few and very unsatisfactory. In the New Haven colony, theocratic notions caused the inhabitants to dispense with trial by jury because no precedent for it could be found in the laws of Moses. Further into Grand Jury: The institutions which they brought, naturally flourished in a land so far away from the mother country, and consequently removed from the attacks which were subsequently made by the crown upon the liberties of the people. For nearly one hundred years the colonies were allowed to exercise to the fullest extent a greater degree of civil rights than at any time had been permitted to the subject in England. Notes: 137 The Dutch and Quaker Colonies (John Fiske), Vol. II, pp. 290-299. Further: The Constitution of the United States, as adopted by the states, contained no guaranty of presentment or indictment by a grand jury, but this omission was remedied by the passing of the first ten amendments, substantially a bill of rights, of which Article V provides : My notes: I am copying this as I read this for the first time. Notes: 138 See Ex Parte Wildman, 29 Fed. Cas. 1232. SPECIFIC TO CALIFORNIA The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to prosecute crimes by means of indictment or prohibit them from proceeding by information. The provision "due process of law" refers only to the prosecution of offences by regular judicial proceedings.142Notes: 142 Hurtado v. California, 1 10 U. S. 516; Kalloch v. Superior Court, 56 Calif. 229; Rowan v. State, 30 Wis. 129. The information continues: The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the states to prosecute crimes by means of indictment or prohibit them from proceeding by information. The provision "due process of law" refers only to the prosecution of offences by regular judicial proceedings.142 That is becoming very convoluted or my ignorance is getting the better of me. Who is proceeding by information to accomplish what? Further: The Constitution of Pennsylvania affords a still greater protection to the liberty of the citizen. Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights provides: "No person shall for any indictable offence, be proceeded against criminally, by information, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, or by leave of the court for oppression or misdemeanor in office." The battle lines between those in office and those paying for those in office appear to be expressed in too many words whereby the words are changing like a shell game. I think that it is very important to realize the gravity of the situation whenever evil people take over the power of defensive (voluntary) government, for at that point those in office use their office to make their crimes pay better and those who pay for those in office MAY be inspired to pay more, and more, and more, so as to pay less, whereby the investments intended turn out to be "providing the means by which we suffer" instead of defending the innocent against injury by willful criminals perpetrating crimes while IN OFFICE and presumably UNDER an OATH or promise to not do the crimes they perpetrate. Informations means what? True Bills? Indictment? Presentment? Quo Warrento? Here is a piece of paper, you have been served, you have so many days, if you do not resolve the issue yourself, on your own volition, the dogs of war will be unleashed upon you, and since this applies ONLY to those same dogs of war (office holders and oath takers) your interests in earning your way through life is no longer going to be threatened by your victims pulling your plug, paying you less, now you had better consider your fellow office holders and your fellow oath takers wrath for your discredit of their good name. Dogs of War = Office holders and Oath Takers The People = The source of credit (productive capacity = anything made that is worth stealing) In between, by custom, by trial and error, are common law grand juries. In order to bridge the gap between the authority of the capacity of the people to make anything worth stealing and the authority of the capacity of the government office holders and oath takers to defend the innocent against criminal injury, in case the criminals take over government, are a list of bridges. 1. The people can speak the truth without fear of being punished by anyone for speaking the truth. In other words speaking the truth is not a punishable crime. 2. The people who will defend themselves from criminals of any color, foreign or domestic, will be armed with the arms required for that defense. 3. 4. 5. No one will be punished by anyone unless the accused is tried by some process that is not a counterfeit version of trial by jury - punishment outside of this boundary is crime defined by criminals as they perpetrate crimes upon their presumed to be innocent victims. So my comments are offered as a way of making things real when looking at this information. Returning to what I consider to be a heavy work load (I hate willful deception vehemently = a weakness of mine)" Under the same statute the court made absolute a rule for an information where the proceeding was against a justice of the peace who was charged with a misdemeanor in office in taking insufficient bail.144 Notes 146, 147: 146 Grand Juries 29 L. T. 21. More: It remains to consider whether or not the grand jury is worthy to be retained among the institutions of a free government in this progressive age. The institution has been attacked with great vehemence by writers of acknowledged ability, both English and American, but at the same time it has been defended with equal vigor by men no less able. The following may be the last quote I take from this source as the information appears to confirm from which side of the fence the speaker speaks. We have only to turn back to early English history to see how the grand jury was so used for improper purposes that the statute of 3 Henry VIII, C. 12, was enacted, giving to the judges and justices the right to reform the panels of grand jurors returned by the sheriff, and then compelling the sheriff to make return of the panel so reformed. Fighting over who gets to be the arbitrary dictator of summary justice is a fight fought among criminals over the ready supply of victims. Criminal A: "Hey, you are capturing too many victims, so back off, and leave some for the rest of us." Criminal B: "You and what army get to tell me what to do and when?" The point about trial by jury that is worth of pointing out, it seems to me, was the removal of human decision power out of the selection process whereby selecting jurors to try cases proceeded according to custom, because it became obvious to enough people over time that such a power was dictatorial on its face, or in fact, as demonstrated by those who seek power each time. Rather than supply the demand for power demanded by those who seek power, rather than that whole Might makes Right scenario, the idea was to DISCONNECT the suppliers (victims) of POWER (anything produced by the honest productive people that was worth stealing) from those who demanded that POWER, and the FIX was in when the judges of who is a criminal and who is not a criminal, and who is a victim, and who is not a victim, were chosen by LOT. Please note how this very lengthy work done by someone to inform other people somehow (so far) manages to avoid, ignore, and discredit by omission, the FIX that was IN on the Power Struggle called Might Making Right. If sortition is ignored, it may go away? I spoke too soon on my resolve to move onto other works since this work appears to be of a particular bend. Nor can there be said to be any more merit in the complaint that the secrecy surrounding the grand jury is an evil which should be done away with. They deliberate in secret, but the petit jury does likewise, and no one would contend for a mo ment that a petit jury should deliberate in public. What may be needed is a more specific reference concerning a specific common law grand jury whereby it can be accurately known how those jurists on that common law grand jury managed to be selected into those positions. Having one example can show how to repeat the process, or finding one example to be more of the same Might makes Right (Legal Crime) processing, also known as jury stacking, can show which processes ought to be set aside in favor of Liberty. Readers who may be reading this (ha, ha, as if that happens I'd never know?) might be as surprised as I am concerning the next quote from the same source. It may be that I am suffering from fatigue, or my capacity to know things, to understand things, is weak, as the information appears to me as if the balance of power is ambiguous at times and then definite at other times. What do you make of the next quote in context of my own comments above (I read this next quote for the first time, ever, and that reading occurred after I wrote the above comments): Chief Justice Shaw,180 of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in a charge to a grand jury in 1832, admirably set forth the conservative view of this institution. Who could have said it better? I'm done for the night. After a night of digesting this information it occurs to me this morning that there will always be changes in POWER along these lines recording here in this work whereby the Might makes Right (Legal Crime) people gain the upper hand as a function of deceit, threat, and violence upon the innocent, and then the POWER swings back to the people who work to apply the opposite concept which is expressible as The Golden Rule or Liberty. So who is employing which POWER at any time in any case whatsoever? 1. Involuntary Association Might makes Right or Legal Crime or Power gained by people over people through the utilization of deceit, threat, and violence targeted innocent people. 2. Voluntary Association Liberty, or The Golden Rule, or No human being is above this voluntary LAW, whereby everyone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and if there are any exceptions to the Rule of Law, then those exceptions ARE criminals by that POWER of exception. The volume of words flowing forth from writer to reader in the work titled Grand Jury paints a picture of the POWER struggle swinging from those who claim to be Excepted (Legal Criminals), such as Kings were known to do, with their claims of Divine Right, as that POWER then swung back into the hands of all the people without exception, whereby no one was legally able to commit crimes with impunity, let alone BE the POWER OF LAW themselves, as Criminals Issue what they call Summary Justice (Just us, or just me, above everyone else, supposedly). Where things are confused, precisely where things are confused, involves the spaces between all the targeted victims ears, those places in each human brain, and possibly even those places in each human hear and soul, whereby the LIES take hold and the victims are led to Believe in such nonsense as False Authority in any form, such as The Divine Right of Kings, or the Absolute Authority of anyone over anyone else ever - NOT INCLUDING GOD (in other words the subject of GOD existing is an entirely different subject). Again, the confusion occurs within the human beings who are adversely affected by the LIES, as may be the case when a fellow human being effectively deceives other human beings into a false belief that a human being is a GOD, and a human being is thereby EXCEPTIONAL, and a human being making these false claims is in any way ABOVE the LAW, by their ability, their POWER, to confuse, befuddle, deceive, and render powerless their targeted victims. Those claims of EXCEPTIONALISM made by EXCEPTIONAL human beings whereby it is their RIGHT to perpetrate any crime, because they do it, are easy to see, easy to spot, and easy to know, and easy to understand, throughout history, and here, for your consideration are two examples: The first example comes from my copy of The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli: (From the Introduction in my copy): Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual. That type of message is the accurate identification of the POWER that is used by Legal Criminals as Legal Criminals take over the POWER of defensive government (voluntary government), as the criminals realize that the only way their way of life can exist is by overpowering the POWER held by their targeted victims whereby their targeted victims combine into an effective, voluntary, defensive POWER. So the criminals know that they have to corrupt the rule of law, the criminals know that they have to corrupt Liberty, the criminals know that they have to corrupt free market government power, the criminals know that they have to corrupt the defensive POWER of their victims, and failing to corrupt Liberty (Rule of Law/Golden Rule/Voluntary Defensive Association/Free Market Government/Trial by Jury based upon sortition/etc.) removes their POWER to perpetrate crimes with impunity. Here is item two: The Crimes and Punishment of I.G. Farben The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap. This is a warning from me to you, anyone reading this, which to me is rare, or non-existent, but in case someone is reading this, this warning, the issue of Slavery is at (or near) the heart of this POWER struggle. For there to be a slave there has to be an aggressor, a criminal, a slaver, a capturer, and a destroyer of Liberty. They, the criminals, know their business, and their business is to feed upon the innocent. These inhuman beings exist among us, and they remain hidden so long as their ability to deceive us remains a POWER they command. They can turn a moral person into an immoral one, and then they can turn two moral people into immoral people, and then four people can be turned from moral to immoral, and that POWER is an exponential growth POWER, just as a lie grows into two lies, and then four lies, each new lie required a dozen lies to cover up the first, so is the fate of human kind as deception spreads out from the source to all the ancillary end points, each in turn, each infected individual connecting to the root of deception, and each in turn thereby infecting another, and another, and another, until no one can see the root cause of all their trouble, and everyone is at each other's throat in a wild orgy of lies, threats, and violence. It is so damn simple once it is seen. Voluntary association is LIBERTY, and the moment someone claims to raise themselves above that clear understanding of how easy it is to exist in peace and harmony, as soon as someone claims EXCEPTION, impunity, RIGHT to deceive the innocent, RIGHT to threaten the innocent, and RIGHT to destroy, enslave, consume, the innocent, with impunity, is the moment someone confesses their Guilty Mind, which may be followed by criminal act. The Legal Criminals are knowable at the start, let alone after the fact of torturing and murdering millions. They walk among us, and they hide behind their minions who have been deceived into a false belief that authority exists in the form of a human being, on exceptional human being, a false leader among false human beings. That warning should not confuse Christians who believe in Jesus as the Son of God, because any study of the actual words attributed to Jesus should, quickly, reinforce the warnings offered by any human being offering these same warnings. No man is God. When a man claims to be God while they deceive, torture, and mass murder innocent people, the proof of the claim being false is in the blood being spilled for want of what? If only someone warned me? In context, or back down to earth as the case may be, the warning here is along the lines of accurately identifying (judging) friend from foe, False Gods from God, innocent victims from criminals, false authority from authority, and it starts in the mirror. So many are duped, this has to be the case, it is unreasonable to assume that I, me, the one in the mirror, knows, and all of the accountability is accurately accountable to everyone else, me being the only exception, and all reasons for all horrible crime is squarely placed onto all other people, other than me. Example: If anyone sends one 100th (penny) of 1 Federal Reserve Note to the Internal Revenue Service, then that person IS GUILTY in mind, body, and spirit of aiding and abetting, lending moral and material support, to the worst group of human beings ever to disgrace, and discredit, the goodness of the human species. Look in the mirror if you have paid the extortion fee, if you are paying the extortion fee, and if you will pay the extortion fee, in Federal Reserve Fraud Notes, to the Internal Revenue Extortion Service, and KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person staring back IS that precise amount of CRIME made LEGAL. You are duped into the mire of falsehood by the exact measure of how much you keep funding the rapid increase in lies, threats, and violence that is NOW consuming so many innocent lives all around this small planet. From that point of understand of BEING precisely that much of the problem myself, as I look in the mirror, there can be then a place to stand firmly on the principle of responsibility, accurate accountability, and move to find other people who have reached this end point, at the end of this rope. From that point other people can be found who have arrive at that point too. From that point such things (processes) as Trial by Jury based upon Sortiion (by lot) shine like the light from a Light House in a storm of trouble as one of many highly competitive solutions to the Crime made Legal problem. Returning back to the work in progress, the study of Grand Jury as offered in the lengthy essay linked above, and quoted above, the POWER to decide who decides was understood to be a POWER that should not be commanded by an individual human being, and the obvious workable solution was to give up that POWER to decide who decides with the competitive invention, production, and use of Sortition. In other words, it is like saying to each other, yes, yes, yes, we free people agree on the issue of how POWER corrupts each of us, so we must find a way to avoid the mistake of giving up POWER whereby a human being has the POWER to OVERPOWER another human being, because that process whereby one human being gains the POWER to OVERPOWER another human being tends to corrupt that human being who has that POWER. So the answer is to never be a criminal ourselves. No one is rightfully, legally, more POWERFUL, by law, than anyone else, ever. But the obvious problem still exists, whereby some people continue to perpetrate crimes, and so there must be a POWER to defend the innocent against those who continue to perpetrate crimes, so how can we find among ourselves those who will be less corrupted, while POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals, in defense of the innocent, is temporarily GIVEN to a human being? Obviously, if you have read the essay on the history of the Grand Jury, there has been an invention, and the invention has been produced in fact, and the invention is a process, and the process has been maintained for centuries, whereby the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals, in defense of the innocent, is temporarily GIVEN to more than ONE human being. The numbers of human beings that temporarily command the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals range from 4 to 24 or as much as 100, depending upon which case in which place in which time in human history. The obvious reasoning for temporarily GIVING the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals to more than ONE person was, is, and can be the reason that human beings are imperfect, and therefore more than one human being divides the POWER of imperfection, rendering the imperfection less POWERFUL. I know that may sound confusing, but there is evidence proving the fact, that human beings are basically good, despite their imperfections, so the concept of dividing the POWER of OVERPOWERING the criminals (moral use of defensive power) from ONE DICTATOR who has all that POWER into more than ONE DICTATOR who has only a portion of that POWER works in a way that can be reasonably, logically, proven over time. Example: The wisdom of crowds and the Jar Experiment You may not have time, inclination, or clearness of mind at the moment to read, and understand the information offered in that link, and you may then be unable to apply that understanding to the present concern of dividing the POWER to OVERPOWER the criminals among many, not ONE, human being who is GIVEN that POWER. I can explain in words the principle behind the dividing of POWER. If you elect one person out the whole number of human beings and that one person is GIVEN the POWER to decide if it is a crime for a person to cook babies while they are alive and then eat those cooked babies, then there is a mathematical possibility, or ODDS, that you could find the ONE person in a million who IS a person who cooks babies while they are alive and this person eats babies, so that ONE "judge" may actually acquit his fellow cannibal. So the POWER to OVERPOWER the baby eater is then GIVEN to a fellow baby eater, and so, in that case, the wisdom of crowds is not working well, since that crowd is comprised of, is constituted by, the population of baby eaters. What are the mathematical chances of randomly picking, among the whole population, the only other baby eater when the rest of the local community is reaching for the goal of reducing the number of babies being eaten in their community? In ruder times the Dad or Mom finding the baby eater cooking their baby may not be composed at that time of catching the baby eater red handed, to consider tried and true methods of OVERPOWERING the criminals, such as trial by jury based upon sortiton, and the Dad or the Mom, might use the POWER they have at the moment to deal with the baby eater with summary justice, dictatorial powers, whereby the Dad, or the Mom, executes punishment on the spot. Who, naturally, would do otherwise, such as which Dad, or which Mom, naturally, would stand by idle, and just watch a baby eater cook their baby? The wisdom of crowds is based, in part, on the concept of natural law, whereby most of the parents do not cook their babies alive and eat them. Back to Grand Jury: In some of the Western States the grand jury has either been abolished, or the constitution has been altered to permit this to be done.161 In California, where the district attorney files an information in all cases of felony and misdemeanor, the statutes make provision for a grand jury and confer upon it greater inquisitorial power than has ever been conceded to it in those states which proceed with it according to the common law.192 What does that mean? Note: 161 See Constitutions of Colorado, 1876, Art. II, Sec. 23; Illinois, 1870, Art. II, Sec. 8; Indiana, 1851, Art. VII, Sec. 17; Nebraska, 1875, Art. I, Sec. 10. See Thompson & Merriam on Juries, Sec. 471-2. In Michigan, How. Ann. St., Sec. 9554, dispenses with grand juries unless summoned by the order of the judge. See People v. Reigel, 78 N. W., 1017. As to Montana, see State v. King, 24 Pac., 265. Grand Juries abolished in Kansas by Act of Feb. 12, 1864, Sec. 7, and see Rice v. State, 3 Kan. First checking the modern day California Constitution here: Article I SEC. 8. A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin. That is all there is between Section 7.5 and Section 9 on that Web site. KEEP in mind the concept of NOT accepting the false notion that a Legal Fiction such as The State of California is in any way the source of authority. Also: The date of publication for the work Grand Jury is 1903 How about a Google search for California Constitution Article I Section 8? California Constitution Passed at the Twenty-Third Session of the Legislature, 1880. SEC.8. Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination commitment by a Magistrate,or by indictment,with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county. How about Penal Code Calif., Sec. 915-929? 915
925-933.6 925. The grand jury shall... Back to 904
Note: The supposed law does not yet make the formation of a grand jury by volunteers among the people (as tradition in ancient history offers) a crime. How about an index? What?
Can that be so constructed as to be even more difficult to understand? How about a better index? Official PENAL CODE SECTION 681-691 682. Every public offense must be prosecuted by indictment or information, except: What is the authority by which anyone creates an "indictment" or "information"? What is the answer according to those who currently run the so called "government" which could be called the popular (manufactured consent) government or could be called whatever anyone may want to call it, and I call it Crime made Legal or Legal Crime; what do they say, any one of them in that so called government, anyone claiming the authority to answer the question lawfully, factually, without error, without failure to answer the question authoritatively, which means accurately, who, by what authority, has the power to create an "indictment" or "information" in the context of that California Penal Code?
California Penal Code Grand Jury Proceedings I am taking a break. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I took a long break. Much has happened since my last visit back into Spooner's Trial by Jury. More and more it is becoming obvious that the entire THING that people call government is nothing less than a crime in progress perpetrated by criminals wearing false badges. Therefore it is vital, in my considered opinion, that the army of potential jurists in this country realize that their power of defense is completely separate from The Status Quo. Any attempt to find legitimacy within Statutes is a step in the wrong direction. Look in the mirror: find authority. Returning to: Trial by Jury In Chapter III (Oaths of Jurors) there is mention of the work Grand used in conjunction with the word Jury. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community." - 1 Hume, Appendix, l. Look in the mirror. http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassinat... http://www.businessinsider.com/new-bitcoin-assassination-market-2013-11 Jim Bell wrote Assassination Politics many years ago, and now the idea is resurfacing in a different form? What is Put Options? http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/illegaltades.html |
|||||||||||||||
