6 votes

Daily Paul'er Opinions - Citizens Grand Jury

There is effort to reinstate Citizens Grand Jury in many areas. In this climate, is this effective? Or is there a better approach?

Please offer any thoughts or information that you can provide. Thanks.


Study it, this may interest you:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Updated thread.

This may be of great interest.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Form Citizens Grand Jury Power Clubs.

People would enjoy wielding free power over the state if they could understand how to use citizens grand juries. Exercise your power over your elected servants and government employees. Fight back against unjust laws and penalties with jury nullification.

It's our America, let's take her back.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is our country not the politician's or the bureaucrat's. We are the stockholders in America not them. If we do not re-establish our superiority, as free men and women to their authority, soon we'll lose our freedoms altogether. Obama and his Marxist hordes are on the loose and if we don't stand up we'll be run over.

We are in a civil war RIGHT NOW. Rather than being fought with bullets (at least not yet) we are in a war with the Democrats and their Republican allies, who are the new Tories(1). We are fighting as libertarians, second amendment advocates, grass roots, AFP, and Tea Party activists on the streets, in voting booths, and political party meetings all over America. They are fighting for the survival of the United States and we are fighting for the survival of America.

If we are to regain a republic that guarantees us our status as a free people we must use every political tool available to us. What immediately comes to mind, besides the ballot box, are the Citizen's Grand Jury and jury nullification. (http://fija.org/)

Prior to 1895 jurors were informed of their duty to judge both the facts and the law. Our usually corrupt SCOTUS overturned that requirement in Sparf & Hansen v. U S, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)(2).

Although the judges no longer advise the jurors that while they are seated that they hold more power in their hands than POTUS, SCOTUS and CONUS, it is a fact that they do. Jury nullification is alive and well in America. We just need to inform more citizens. A juror can hang a criminal case with one vote. An individual may vote against conviction if the juror believes the law to be unjust, unconstitutional, wrongfully applied, malevolent prosecution, or that the person is innocent contrary to what the other jurors accept or for a reason I didn't list.

Federal law gutted grand jury functions with the 1946 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure(3).

Our government was established among free men who had gained their freedom by force of arms. Any peaceful individual should be outside the purview of government authority and only those persons who voluntarily violate by force or fraud the rights of other individuals should be accountable to that authority. We are a free people. Start demanding that the bastards stand aside so that we can get on with our lives. Let them know that the party is over and we are back and are ready to resume responsibility for our own lives.


It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

Free Power for the People.

It's a lot of power for common citizens to have. I wish it was sold as such.

A good exercise, but it is a farce

Doesn't it all have to do with capital letters or something?....


Trying someone when they aren't present to defend themselves is immoral. So, I'll believe in this Sovereign Citizen crap when they actually arrest and put someone on trial (the rest of the world will call it kidnapping). Short of that, it is a waste of time.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

The grand jury

Let us go back and think about where grand juries came from. The first mention of a Grand Jury is in the Magna Carta which was signed and revealed to the world on 15th of June, 1215 AD.

What brought it about was the Barons of England were fed up with their King, John II. They then gathered their servants and marched against their king, which was a violation of their oaths of allegiance. They then forced John II to sign the great charter in order control their out of control king. Grand Jury was a mechanism created so that they, the barons, would not have to march on their king ever again. The Grand Jury could overrule the Sovereignty of the King.

If it is your intention to use Grand Juries against elected or appointed officials then that means you are vesting these elected or appointed officials with sovereignty, and that sovereignty should be overruled. This is the wrong state of mind.

There is a distinct difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic is the form of government in which sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by the people directly. A democracy is the form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in a whole body of free citizens and exercised by representatives elected from that body. In other words, a democracy is ruled by the majority of citizens and a republic is insulated from majority rule because each citizen acts independently of the others. Sovereignty is the authority to decree law, to exercise the decree of law, or sovereignty, is to become a plaintiff in a court of law. So let us examine how a statute is created and enforced. The state legislature proposes a statute in a bill, the legislature then votes on the bill, and if it passes the vote it goes to the governor to be signed into law. All of these people are elected officials so they are in office by the will of the majority. The statute is created by the will of the majority, and that is all a statute is, the will of the majority. If you are bound by the will of the majority then you are in a democracy, if the will of the majority does not apply to you then you are in a republic. You may ask "Well, who does the statute apply to then?" Very simple, it applies to the members of government, it is government policy. You would not think that Home Depot's store policies would apply in Lowe's stores would you?

If you believe this is a Republic, and you want to hold elected and appointed officials accountable for their actions, open a court of law but you will have to do it all yourself, all law schools have been compromised and teach the ways of democracy rather than a republic.

actually you're not correct about that

In a republic, such as ours, what is intended is for the people to delegate to representatives, who then vote on their behalves. That is why we have a Congress.

What you call a republic, where sovereignty is exercised directly, is actually a democracy.

So it appears you have it backwards.

From the wikipedia entry:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

"In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics.[47]"

I point this out because this misunderstanding of the term republic seems to be at the root of a lot of disputes.

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

A Citizen Grand Jury

is "the people," whoever that is, delegating representatives because there is a limited number of jurors deciding a matter on behalf and in the name of "the people." (singular "the" plural "people" term of art with no meaning)

Sheesh, I am not even a fan of useless, undefined terms of art such as "the people" but I am not so ignorant to not recognize a Citizen Grand Jury comprised of "the people," by "the people," and for "the people" is a representative form of governance.

BTW, you are going to quote Madison? Let me get this straight ... the guy who was f'n wrong on everything that has occurred in 225+ years is the guy you are going to rely on? How about going with someone like Ron Paul who accurately predicted 8+ years in advance what was going to happen or any anti-federalist who predicted 225+ years in advance what would happen.

I realize you're not a fan of reality

but it is what it is.

Ron Paul quite obviously believes in a representative republic form of government. If you need me to explain why, then you're really hurtin' upstairs.

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

Let us consider a couple Anti-Federalist

responses to Federalist #10 and the writings of free men whose opinions have been vindicated by the history and present realities of the United States.

Centinel Number 1

Whether the trial by jury is to continue as your birth-right, the freemen of Pennsylvania, nay, of all America, are now called upon to declare ...

I am fearful that the principles of government inculcated in Mr. Adams's treatise, and enforced in the numerous essays and paragraphs in the newspapers, have misled some well designing members of the late Convention ...

Having premised this much, I shall now proceed to the examination of the proposed plan of government, and I trust, shall make it appear to the meanest capacity, that it has none of the essential requisites of a free government; that it is neither founded on those balancing restraining powers, recommended by Mr. Adams and attempted in the British constitution, or possessed of that responsibility to its constituents, which, in my opinion, is the only effectual security for the liberties and happiness of the people; but on the contrary, that it is a most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed ...

If the foregoing be a just comment if the United States are to be melted down into one empire ... (you really have to appreciate that empire was predicted in 1787)

From this investigation into the organization of this government, it appears that it is devoid of all responsibility or accountability to the great body of the people, and that so far from being a regular balanced government, it would be in practice a permanent ARISTOCRACY.


or Federal Farmer 1

Independant of the opinions of many great authors, that a free elective government cannot be extended over large territories, a few reflections must evince, that one government and general legislation alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded


or Federal Farmer 2

It is however to be observed, that many of the essential powers given the national government are not exclusively given; and the general government may have prudence enough to forbear the exercise of those which may still be exercised by the respective states. But this cannot justify the impropriety of giving powers, the exercise of which prudent men will not attempt, and imprudent men will, or probably can, exercise only in a manner destructive of free government. The general government, organized as it is, may be adequate to many valuable objects, and be able to carry its laws into execution on proper principles in several cases; but I think its wannest friends will not contend, that it can carry all the powers proposed to be lodged in it into effect, without calling to its aid a military force, which must very soon destroy all elective governments in the country, produce anarchy, or establish despotism. Though we cannot have now a complete idea of what will be the operations of the proposed system, we may, allowing things to have their common course, have a very tolerable one. The powers lodged in the general government, if exercised by it, must intimately effect the internal police of the states, as well as external concerns; and there is no reason to expect the numerous state governments, and their connections, will be very friendly to the execution of federal laws in those internal affairs, which hitherto have been under their own immediate management. There is more reason to believe, that the general government, far removed from the people, and none of its members elected oftener than once in two years, will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view, and employed to enforce the execution of the laws, and to make the government feared and respected. No position can be truer than this, that in this country either neglected laws, or a military execution of them, must lead to a revolution, and to the destruction of freedom. Neglected laws must first lead to anarchy and confusion; and a military execution of laws is only a shorter way to the same point — despotic government.


This is your best post ever

You actually cite to a legitimate source and don't try to make it say something it doesn't. Thank you for that. I upvoted it in the hopes of encouraging this new style of discourse.

Aside from that, it makes some logical points. One can argue for or against whether it came true. While our liberties are fleeing and threats to them are multiplying, I don't agree that "it is a most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed" - either in terms of its result in present day terms, or the intent of the Constitution back then. That seems totally baseless and the sort of rantings that a bipolar person might have in a fit of manic anxiety.

And, more to the point, the anti-federalists lost.

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


Legitimate eh? Pray tell did I link to the original document? Pray tell did I link to a copy of the original document where anyone has accepted liability for certifying its authenticity under oath or affirmation? Pray tell did I link to an interpretation or translation of the original where anyone has accepted liability for certifying its authenticity under oath or affirmation?

Or did you dawn a black robe and just deem those links to be so called legitimate sources whereas other links are not legitimate sources? And what does it mean to be a legitimate source? Surely a thing derives from a source or it does not. A source is the originator of a thing or it isn't. A source either is or is not. There is no gray area. So if a source is in fact a source then how can it be anything but legitimate if it is factually a source?

You continually demonstrate you have no understanding of any man made concept of authority, its sources, or how it is derived. If it is already well established by your own actions you lack any real understanding of man made authority then what use are any of these opinions?

"don't try to make it say something it doesn't." As if you have any example of that ... which you don't.

"While our liberties are fleeing and threats to them are multiplying, I don't agree that "it is a most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed"" ... would that be because the world has or has not witnessed 17 trillion dollars of debt? Exporting up to 17 trillion dollars of debt is assuredly the most despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed. No other empire in history comes remotely close.

"And, more to the point, the anti-federalists lost." Lost != Wrong. Yes, they lost but time has vindicated their wisdom. Continue to ignore their wisdom which time has proven to be true at the peril of your own liberties or those of your posterity.

ok well you have a point

since I am dealling with you, and not a rational sentient being, did you cite to fake text? If not, then why are you questioning the legitimacy of what you cited?

Yes, like anyone else who isn't a fool, I evaluate the credibility of my sources of information. For example, angry neighbor who barely graduated high school, high on pain killers, on a semi racist rant about Obama, repeats as 11th level hearsay some exaggerated bs he read on "before its news" or saw in a youtube video, not a credible source - for me. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere.

Unless they are idiots. There's always that possibility.

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

What leads you to believe

I directed any questions towards legitimacy of anything I cited?

Your post


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

What would happen if the sun was deemed by decree

an illegitimate source of light?

makes no sense

we haven't been discussing laws that relate to such things. A grand jury is a legal construct. There are no grand juries appearing in nature. So either it is created and conducted in accordance with the laws that exist about it or it is just yayhoos playing government in their spare time. Saying that there is no law that requires the courts to adhere to the wishes of a fake grand jury or any of your other gibberish doesn't equate in any way to your absurdist example.

But I do believe your logic often follows that same path...e.g., denying that gravity exists because you don't like falling down.

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



The history of Switzerland clearly proves that we might be in amicable alliance with those states without adopting this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity; for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together; they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, republican simplicity, and valor.



Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

A Federation, something that was in effect between 1776 and 1788 under the Articles of Confederation, the numerous Constitutionally Limited Republics were Voluntarily Joined into a Federation.

A Federation worked, works, and will still work like a free market for investors seeking to invest in Voluntary Government based upon the consent of the governed (voluntary) and they have many products to choose from, ranging from least capable of defending Liberty (voluntary associations), most expensive, on one end, and on the other end of the number of choices the shopper can invest in the most capable of defending Liberty at the least cost to the consumer.

Despots hate it.

Despots steal money and then hire liars to maintain the lies that cover up their crimes.

Where can someone find a good liar when one is desperately needed to cover up the facts about how Trial by Jury worked within a Federation of Constitutionally Limited Republics defending Liberty with their Voluntary Union?

When a Constitutionally Limited Republic was being threatened by a out of control (despotic) Federal Government, as far as the people representing that Republic were concerned, those Employees running that Constitutionally Limited Republic, they could stop investing in the Voluntary Union at will, and therefore stop paying for their membership in the Federation.

Despots and their minions can't tolerate Voluntary Associations whereby the members of the Voluntary Union can choose to pay for, or not pay for, membership in the Voluntary Union, so those despots work diligently to suppress the value of Voluntary Association such as the one that worked well enough between 1776 and 1788, in defense of Liberty, to drive off the largest Criminal Army of Aggression for Profit then on the planet: The Bank of England and their minions.

Trial by Jury, with or without employees hired to keep the sewers running, worked to keep all the Employers and all the Employees checked with that balance of giving everyone capable of reason license to sit on a Jury.


FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

The reason why that worked so well is understood by people who are capable of reason. Not so much for those who are either insane, or stupid, or feeble minded, or paid to lie well.

The reasoning of why that worked so well was not lost, is not now lost, and if lost in the future, there is a reasonable chance that it will be reinvented and returned to good use in defense of Liberty.



Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


in scanning your reply

it appears you are referencing and quoting various sources on a whole host of related but different subjects. Switzerland, the confederacy, jury trial rights, etc.

Can you summarize your point in a few words, or a paragraph or two? At present, I am not inclined to read it because it appears to off-topic rambling about injustice in the world. In other words, it appears you are saying "there is injustice in the world, therefore the normal and accepted understanding of what a republic is, or whether citizens grand juries have any power, are somehow wrong."

I have no desire to read something that tries to cherry pick historical information to support a thesis that reality doesn't exist.

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

To anyone caring to know better


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.


ok so about citizens grand juries

what are you trying to say?

I assume you believe you have a point, but merely posting things that are tangentially related, without stating your point, doesn't tell us what it is.

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

The battle of ideas?

4 Judges in New York have an idea that there are no longer any legal remedies checking their absolute power to create slaves out of normal people who earn an honest living.

Someone hired to lie for the criminals is probably going to refuse to admit the facts, but none-the-less the facts are what they are in New York concerning 4 Judges.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 an indictment was handed down, and filed at the New York Supreme Court, Greene County; located at 320 Main Street Catskill, NY by (Eighteen) Unified New York Common Law Grand Juries from Bronx County, Columbia County, Dutchess County, Greene County, Kings County, Nassau County, New York County, Orange County, Putnam County, Queens County, Rockland County, Sullivan County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, Niagara County, Ulster County, Monroe County, and Schenectady County of New York; against New York (1) Supreme Court Chief Administrative Judge A. Gail Prudenti; (2) Deputy Chief Judge Michael V. Coccoma; (3) Suffolk County District Administrative Judge Judge C. Randall Hinrichs; and (4) Administrative Judge Allan D. Scheinkman, 9th Judicial District; for High Treason, Conspiracy, Obstruction of Justice, RICO, and eleven other charges.

Press Release:


Copy of Presentment:


Common Law, or common law, is not new.

The ancient form of common law worked so well that the Criminals were inspired to make a false copy of it, which may be hidden behind any number of false flags, such as Common Law (registered trade mark?), or Equity Law, or Maritime Law, or Admiralty Law, or who knows what the Criminals have, may, or might come up with in the effort to hide the facts.

The thing that might be well understood is also not news here:


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.

Once the criminals take over government the criminals use the power they steal from those who work to produce that power, earnings to normal people, the criminals use those earnings against the victims, once the criminals take over government.

The criminals buy high paid liars to lie well, so as to cover up the facts. This is not news, by the way.

So...the 4 Judges now have an opportunity to bow out and retire, or who knows what, as the battle continues, and as the people, who have names, work to regain defensive of Liberty, government by the people, government by consent of the governed, with the age old tried and true Trial by Jury process, which is Due Process that is due to everyone, including criminals who wear black robes and pose as judges.



so the good old days, when the "ancient" common law ruled, is what we should pine for?

I don't think so. There are attempts to take away our rights at present, I think we can all agree. But I don't view the middle ages as the good old days for the common man.

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


"On Wednesday, October 23, 2013..."

The good old days: last Wednesday?


wrong rambling

I was referring to the same post, in which you rambled as follows:

"The ancient form of common law worked so well that the Criminals were inspired to make a false copy of it, which may be hidden behind any number of false flags, such as Common Law (registered trade mark?), or Equity Law, or Maritime Law, or Admiralty Law, or who knows what the Criminals have, may, or might come up with in the effort to hide the facts."

You will recall, I questioned in this thread earlier why you were quoting a bunch of disparate tangentially related subjects but not explaining yourself. Perhaps a little clarity on your part would help even you?

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

Real versus Counterfeit


Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.


"Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot"

Oh but the woes of a mysterious random occurrence?


Yes, in 1066..

when the King decided what you did, where you lived, etc. the good old days, oh wait...why are you pining for the middle ages?

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

Looking for a dummy?

I think you can buy a dummy at the dummy shop.


When you find one, then you can speak for the one you find.

Next Monday the common law Grand Jury in New York will have more information to offer, and they don't ask for your services to speak for them either.


Found one

see above

oooh more info from some dudes playing government in their spare time? Really?

Just down the street, some 6 year old kids are playing house. In their imaginary reality, their names are Ken and Barbie, and Ken is the pretend president. He has stringently decided to prosecute all citizens grand juries for being counterfeit legal processes and will prosecute the persons involved for Federal felonies. The kids have procured office supplies such as crayons and construction paper, and will with those implements, create a mutlicolored arrest warrant, replete with pictures of Ken's pet bunny rabbit, which are quite cute and entertaining but not drawn to scale. Consider it sort of like their apostile.

So when they execute this neighborhood kids arrest warrant, query, whose imaginary legal process has precedent?

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

What are insane people doing now?


Rather than participating in, or covering up, or lying for, the insane people, there are competitive options.


There is no need for competitive options to be reinvented, or handed down from any pretentious authority to anyone who is waiting for more orders to follow without question.

Those who choose not to go down with the ship being sunk by the criminals, can.

Those who choose, pay for, lie for, and ask for, the sinking, sink.