9 votes

Root Cause is the Courts

Question: Is the discretion of public prosecutors undermining the judicial system?

My view is that the root cause of all the problems in society are summarized here:

ONLY individuals claiming injury should have the power to press or drop charges. This is the most important principle worth defending.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I like that thought of

I like that thought of multiple courts. But what happens if one of the two parties involved doesn't agree to or recognize a third party court?

there are these things called laws

which define what court has jurisdiction. That's what.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Please consider accurate language

What is the meaning of "one of the two parties," and what is the meaning of a "third party court?"

I am asking because your question is being asked and answered as a process that is now documenting facts, but the concept of parties does not apply to courts in the current effort to ask and answer the question.

There are Liberty minded people (minds that are free from the corporate contract fraud disguised as government) now creating common law courts in New York as part of a nation wide effort to regain consensual defensive government power in Liberty.

Tonight will be an update meeting on current stumbling blocks where corporate judges and corporate clerks (false or counterfeit versions of defensive government) are working to exclude these people in New York from the common law courts that are within common law for them.

So your question appears to be similar to the current actions being taken in New York, but your question also appears to be written from a perception that the corporate courts are part of a political party process, and therefore it may be your opinion that a common law court is a third party court, and that opinion may not be an accurate one.

Common law courts can be confused with Common Law (tm) courts.

I don't know if that can make sense to you, it makes sense to me.

The United States of America (tm) can be confused with states that are united into a voluntary defensive force knowable as these united states of America, or We the people in these United States of America do this or that, or whatever accurate words convey the intended meaning.

So as to avoid confusing two opposite things:

A Monopoly Power of Aggressive Involuntary Force for the Profit of a few at the expense of many = a fraudulent corporate entity

An ongoing competition among free people to ensure their consensual government remains strictly consensual while retaining the defensive power required to overpower any foreign or domestic armies of criminals

One of the two opposite things is The Problem, while the other of the two opposite things are many competitive solutions to The Problem.

Who does it serve to confuse the two opposite things as if the two opposite things are the same thing?

Who does it serve to confuse the "two partly system" as if it were anything other than a Fraud and Extortion Racket Crime in Progress?

Who does it serve to confuse a "third party" with a competitive methodology of defending victims from criminals?

In my opinion the efforts currently playing out to defend Liberty in New York, whereby people are regaining their power of knowledge concerning ancient customs of trials by juries are being rediscovered and employed by people in New York, and who are still stuck firmly, and unfortunately, in the "party system" DOGMA.

I am trying to help them see the error of their ways while they take each step along the way toward regaining a foothold into a voluntary, defensive, government agreement to USE currently existing court buildings as centers of accurate information transfer, whereby the people intend to efficiently, and accurately, identify specific criminals within the corporate government who are currently perpetrating serious crimes upon many innocent victims.

The fact that individual people acting as agents of corporations are working to exclude people from voluntary government is, IN FACT, demonstrations of crimes in progress along these specific lines of thinking, and acting, in DEFENSE OF LIBERTY.

These events are happening right now.


You may (or may not) want to find within that link information that may be useful in figuring out how consensual government works for you, or, alternatively be subjected to involuntary servitude to criminals who have perfected methods by which their targeted victims are stupefied, excluded, and exploited.

If none of this makes any sense to you, then you can ask questions, and get answers.

Which questions are vital, which answers are accurate?

"I like that thought of multiple courts. But what happens if one of the two parties involved doesn't agree to or recognize a third party court?"

The people intending to defend voluntary association in New York, are encountering agents of corporate government who are attempting to exclude those people from those common law courts.

That is where any claims of authority will be determined as FACT recorded in what is known as a Court of Record.

If you don't recognize the existence of voluntary government, government by the consent of the governed, in the form customarily known as Common Law Grand Juries, then it might be a good idea to realize, for YOU to realize, that the corporate, fraudulent, extorting, involuntary, monopoly, government DOES recognized Common Law Grand Juries in their own fraudulent, legal, records.

If those corporate agents are going to PUSH their efforts to exclude people in New York from those court buildings, then those corporate agents are going to confess that they are no longer following their own corporate laws.

Those corporate agents have been getting away with very serious crimes since 1788 because they have been using the corporate charter know as The Constitution of The United States of America as their claim of authority.


When the corporate agents perpetrating crimes against innocent people confess that they are no longer making that claim, that they have "NO AUTHORITY" other than criminal authority, then those confessions can be recorded in a common law court of record.

Now the people have the so called Internet, and this specific challenge by specific people in New York, can be recorded and spread far and wide utilizing that Medium of Exchange, as a competitive COURT OF RECORD.

So, as Ron Paul has reminded us (but in different words), an idea (such as common law grand juries and courts of record) is more powerful than those (monopolists) who wish to suppress such competitive ideas.

Where do these vital questions find these accurate answers and will there be a RECORD of such things that is available to all the people in Liberty?


"corporate judges" guffaw

what a kook

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Troll confession

When the Trolls come out of the woodwork they don't pick their targets randomly. The Trolls are very specific as to which targets they attack with their deceptions.

Those choices made by those Trolls confess their affiliation.

The Trolls aid, and the Trolls abet, their fellows, who earn their way through life through deception.

How can you tell when a corporate (member of the monopoly enforced Union of law "professionals" or "Bar Association") Lawyer is lying?

How can you tell when a politician is lying (with few exceptions like Ron Paul who was a doctor not a corporate lawyer)?

How can you tell when a member of the forum is a Troll?


Conman confession

A conman is one who comes to an internet forum selling fake legal bullshit such as straw men, redemption schemes under the UCC, fake grand juries, etc. to people.

The conman probably works out of his parents basement and finds this avocation slightly more rewarding than his other side job which involves delivering pizza.

His dupes are uneducated, ill informed young men with lots of time on their hands. He gets to cause them to play governemtn from their mommy's basements.

But the ultimate litmus test is that most conmen are named "Joe". It is true!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Liar confession

A liar is one who comes to a place, such as an internet site, and makes an untrue allegation, such as "selling," when there is no evidence to suggest the activity complained of is being engaged in by the party against whom the accusation is made.


So he runs his conference calls for free? There's never a request for donation, a suggestion to give, etc? So you have no financial interest in selling mumbo jumbo? Not buying it. You could also be a dupe, though, I'll give you that out. Maybe he's blowing through an inheritance by giving free fake grand jury conference calls where fake legal experts talk about fake laws. That's a possibility. Maybe you're all pranking us for a next-gen version of Jackass. That too is possible. So, no, I don't claim to have the answer.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

One place I must disagree

Assuming a lack of corruption for argument's sake:

A homeless man/woman with no relatives is murdered then who would press charges against the murderer? If we followed the arguments in the above article then the only person who was harmed by the murder is dead and is unable to press charges.

A woman who is beaten constantly by her husband and is too scared to press charges even though it meant her safety. Her family is not directly harmed so would not be in a position to press charges and she is so psychologically screwed up at this point that she never will. Unless you've been there I don't suggest attacking the victim for lack of spine. And lets not talk about my cheap, fast, and efficient method of dealing with anybody who harms my family; not everybody has a family member like me ... or possibly you.

A small child with only one parent that is too young to effectively communicate is abused by that parent. Again, no way for this child to press charges. Now, don't start about the CPS because they'd be the last group I'd call on to "help" this child but somebody needs to. And if we're doing it by the law then somebody has to be able to step in and press charges against the abusive parent.

Simply stated the argument is wrong simply because it doesn't hold true for all concieved scenarios. By the presented argument there is at least one group that will suffer without means of obtaining justice. Justice should be blind but we do not live in a world where this is currently true.

Not a problem

No problem. In all of the examples you cite ANY concerned citizen could demonstrate they have good standing i.e. that they are injured by the injustice if they could convince a jury of that. In all the examples you cite it would seem any easy task when the injustice is so clear.

The important point is that whoever the person is pressing charges they take full responsibility for pressing the charges. At the moment the prosecutor acting in the capacity of an agent has a limited liability. With such a limited liability irresponsible/unjust/corrupt actions are more easily facilitated.

Ah, I see your point

I totally agree that a prosecutor should not have limited liability. They should be held fully liable for their actions to ensure their actions are just and punished when they cross the line. Too many times we've read that a prosecutor continued to persue a case even though they knew the person was innocent.

spikechange's picture

Murray Rothbard on the illogical monopoly of govt courts

In the first place, the monopoly courts of government are subject to the same grievous problems, inefficiencies, and contempt for the consumer as any other government operation. We all know judges, for example, are not selected according to their wisdom, probity, or efficiency in serving the consumer, but are political hacks chosen by the political process. Furthermore, the courts are monopolies; if, for example, the courts in some town or city should become corrupt, venal, oppressive, or inefficient, the citizen at present has no recourse. The aggrieved citizen of Deep Falls, Wyoming, must be governed by the local Wyoming court or not at all.
In a libertarian society, there would be many courts, many judges to whom he could turn. Again, there is no reason to assume a natural monopoly of judicial wisdom. The Deep Falls citizen could, for example, call upon the local branch of the Prudential Judicial Company.

quoted from M. Rothbard: For a New Liberty, Pocket Edition, Mises Inst., 2011, p. 276.

spikechange's picture

Chickenator: you haven't read Rothbard yet?

Chickenator: maybe check out his "For a New Liberty". So much is spelled out in there. Stretches the mind a few sizes. Has real staying power, too. If you read it, you'll see what I mean.
The book at Mises:

haven't read that particular book

but having been a libertarian since well before I went to law school, I doubt it contains many, if any, new insights into this issue that I haven't already thought of or studied. But thanks for the book recommendation. I may even read it!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

It has been tried before but needs to happen again

All we need to do is abolish "Qualified" and "Absolute" Immunities. Make them all personally and financially liable for their mistakes. They will think twice about innocence or guilt from the very moment of detainment going forward.


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Right on!

These kinds of things get to the heart of the problem which is people believing or being encouraged to believe they can limit their liability.

To solve the problems, and I

To solve the problems, and I agree with you 100% by the way, the first thing that needs to happen is the judges and prosecutors need to be stripped of their powers immediately because they are way too corrupt. Secondly, there is no reason the Bar Association should be in charge of the lawyers, prosecutors, and the Judicial Commission in charge of judges. I understand the checks and balances and I understand the independence of the courts. I also know it's a rigged game. Before any change can happen, they need to be stripped of their powers. Then you can get rid of the Fed, the parties, etc. Restore the 4th, that stuff. Won't happen until.

Be Your Own Media!!!

Too much too fast

Advocating a sudden stripping of powers is difficult because too many people are afraid of radical changes to the judicial system. The status quo is an aggregate that we all must take responsibility for beginning with ourselves and shifting the "too many people" into "few people" means you have to find a way to reach their hearts and minds. Advocating a change using intense language usually is an inhibitor to the meme.


some good ideas and some not so practical ones.

How do you have a government without a court system, and a court system without judges, and (really) without lawyers?

I agree that access to the court system should be improved, both directly by making it legal to represent yourself and have nonlawyer assistance, but also that it should be made easier and less procedural, so that such things are more than the theoretical rights that they would be the way courts are currently run.

But still, someone has to be a judge. There has to be a way they are elected or appointed. And ideally a judge should be schooled in legal theory so there is consistency and predictability. As long as people are involved, there will be corruption and imperfection. This is why the founders wanted limited, small government and checks and balances.

But you can't just eliminate it. That isn't much of a solution.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

As WE THE PEOPLE...I believe

As WE THE PEOPLE...I believe that the court system is so corrupted, the bar so entrenched with ethics violations, criminality, and corruption...that the solution would be to establish competing court systems.

Having 2 of them could be an option, alternatively.

But we could move the corruption plagued court system out of the way, get rid of the white wigs and black robes, and establish real justice.

Why could we not establish a court system that has a jury of peers?
There could be judges.

The main thing is to rid ourselves of the Bar. Would be a good place to start to hold them all accountable to the people, not the bar.

The bar is a conflict of interest when prosecutors and lawyers are not held accountable to the people. After all, the people pay for the courts.

We could have rule of law and judges could be our elders for example, such as in Tribal Court. Anything is better than the system we have, but then again, that's why they have a Gate Keeper.

Be Your Own Media!!!

Rearranging the deck chairs

So you appoint elders. Guess what? Most judges nowadays are "elders". Elders can be corrupt.

Is there something about elderdom that makes them inherently not corrupt? Nope. What kind of checks and balances do you propose, other than that people be able to fart dust, in your ideal system?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

That's a fair enough

That's a fair enough response.

You make a fair assessment. I merely and quickly discussed alternatives. We don't need judges for divorces for example. That is not to say that an elder wouldn't take boxes of cigars and cases of liquor like that which happened in the courts in NYC to return a favourable outcome in divorce court.

Speaking of farting dust in fairy land, perhaps we could relinquish their power, immediately, and usher in we the people. I know as well as you do that people are people. It is just that we can do better than the "independent judiciary" as seen by the Judge that was helping game the system for Disability Lawyers while "exercising judicial independence" at the Social Security Administration. That didn't get seen in the press in the last month. You see it?

First of all, I think the prosecutors should all be canned and never be welcome back. All they do is lie. They do not care about justice, just about winning. They get up their and paint lies that nobody would be allowed to paint in any other credible "system".

So now that the prosecutors are on unemployment, let us look at the judiciary.

I'd give them all notice that they don't have a job, but they can reapply later if the people so desire. There would be no bar.

We would have more alternatives and more mediation. We would have less conflict of interest. Best part about the fartin fairy dust, is the corruption would be minimized.

One other thing, we could pay jury members since the prosecutors are on unemployment. And all jurors will be instructed of Jury Nullification, ok second thing.

Beyond that, the rigged game would be over.

Be Your Own Media!!!

National Liberty Alliance

Playing fake government

Is not the answer.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


Please stop trolling this forum.


it isn't trolling

it is a sincere, on topic response. It isn't an ad hominem attack, or an attempt to avoid the issue. It's an actual discussion. Someone disagreed with you. Deal with it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein


Stop trolling.

The actual fact of the matter is that fake government is currently destroying many lives; hence the reemerging of government by consent.

Out with the Fraudulent False Federal Government, out with The FED Legal Money Monopoly Fraud, out with the Internal Revenue Service Extortion Racket, and in, step by step, with actual defensive, voluntary, effective government such as Trial by Jury.

Monday will be another National Liberty Alliance conference call reporting on current events happening right now in New York where the main focus of effort is to regain control of common law Grand Juries.

For those who understand how true authority is gained by knowledge, not by fraud, not by threat, and not by violence, and certainly not by way of Forum Trolls, the following link may help:


The basis of Trial by Jury is a customary methodology in defending victims from criminals that are criminals even when they perpetrate crimes while working under Oath in a government office.

If you would like to know more about the true meaning of defensive government, such as the concept of government by consent of the governed, such as those principles declared in The Declaration of Independence, then one of many sources for such valuable information is the National Liberty Alliance web page.


Attendance to these live calls are open while the Trolls have yet to invade, infest, and corrupt them.

Another very competitive source of information is here:


There at that link are weekly conference calls for those who are not Trolls, as trolls at these places are easily recognized as trolls, easily called out as trolls, and trolls are dealt with effectively at these meetings.

No more trolls.

Trolls are too costly.

Trolls are infected with something foreign, a concept that their Might makes them Right, without question.

It is disturbing.

It is disgusting.

Fake government is no longer affordable. Monopoly of Fraud and Extortion is no longer well hidden by the Trolls, those on the payroll, and those who just Troll for fun, it is no longer effective to troll for the Legal Criminals.

Please find something useful to do with your time, please.


snake oil

our government is imperfect, that is why most of us are here, among other things.

Your fake government and fake grand juries are not the answer. They are also illegal in many jurisdictions. Not saying it should be that way. Heck, I think people should be able to "play house" or "play grand jury" but you have to understand, many jurisdictions have passed laws against it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Trolls deceive

Any government that is not consensual is criminal. If the criminal government is shared by criminals, then the criminals call the criminal government "ours," while those who don't consent to the criminal government don't call it "ours," unless the victims of the criminal government are stupid enough to listen to the trolls.

Ask any Troll, please, and see if any Troll will move outside of Troll Routine, see if the Troll will answer the question accurately.

Ask any Troll if they can prove the authority of their so called government power or their so called jurisdiction. Where Troll? The question can be offered. Where Troll? Where do you get your so called authority, Troll?

The Troll God?

The Troll God is the source of Troll Authority over Troll Government with Troll Jurisdiction?

Where Troll do Trolls like you follow, follow, follow, your regime of criminal authority to the source of it, please, please, answer accurately, and please, please, please, move outside of your orderly routine deceptions that you follow without question.

No one is so stupid as to hold their breath waiting for a Troll to answer a direct question with an accurate answer.

Where, Troll, do you get your authority to dictate what is or is not "our" government?


I'll answer your question

and ignore the ad hominem preachy nonsense before it.

Well, God gives the people sovereignty, and we delegated that to our states, and then to our federal govt. So, that is where I get my authority to speak on government. I am part of the sovereign which jointly has the authority in this country.

Aside from that, God gave me reasoning, and I obtained an education. So, I have personal knowledge which makes me an "authority" on the subject.

Aside from that, what gives you the authority to say who can or can't comment on our government? Another con man who is not a libertarian, but rather a failed authoritarian, and who is just here to sell his snake oil. How do you finance it? Do you ask for memberships? Sell bogus education?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein