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.

Update:

Study it, this may interest you:

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/

Comment viewing options

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

Here's how to find out

procure a video camera and a small, but sturdy, tripod. Attach the tripod to the base of the video camera. Check to see if the battery is good. If not re-charge the battery. Get up from chair and look through camera towards chair you were in. Adjust focus, or check to see if autofocus working properly. If working properly, start taping. Then, get back in your chair and resume what you were doing.

You will then be able to re-create what insane person is doing.

Repeat as necessary.

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

Subjects worthy of discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ1b-PHdFZU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7NXu9_UjZY

High paid liars, paid highly per lie, to cover up the facts, is not news to some of us, certainly not news to the high paid liars.

Joe

going back and reading your link

I see you linked to a story about how a fake court is giving a fake indictment because some real judges would not follow for real legitimate reasons the wishes of a fake grand jury. Wunderbar.

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

Law books closed?

According to the dictators, and their minions, but that is typically half true. Law is only closed to the victims, according to the criminals.

And their high paid liars.

Joe

not really

it looks like the courts decided, based on the "law" whether they should follow the fake i.e. "citizens grand jury" and decided against it. If one were competent at legal research, the result would have been knowable before the whole charade started.

Sometimes I read about these things and wonder if it wasn't just a ruse to separate some rich fool from his money. As in "hey donate to this cause and we'll have a grand jury indict the president/judge/whomever you want." Money then gets donated. Some is spent on a relatively inexpensive process. Obviously, they save money on legal advice because the whole shebang apparently involves precisely none. Then when it doesn't succeed, file a quacked up appeal or seek a phony indictment from the fake court. Maybe they don't even try to file it (that could really get into breaking some laws) and just post it online. Then pocket the difference.

That to me sounds more plausible than the idea that whoever organized that circle jerk really thought it was going to do something.

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

Just following orders

Those who just follow orders typically sink their ship.

Those who know better don't.

Monday will be another meeting among those who don't, to see how well we are managing to keep those who sink their ship at arms reach.

Your offers of your viewpoints are not accepted and not in demand, so why are you offering?

Joe

oooh some extraneous gibberish just for me

"blabber your offers of view points are not accepted and not in demand...blabber" Why is it that you sovereign citizen kooks always sound like Beldar Conehead?

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

I ask then

How does one person have rights then if the will of the majority applies? Does that not eliminate the idea of rights and replaces them with privileges allowed by the majority?

yes it does

and that is precisely why the founding fathers wanted a Republic and not a direct democracy (which is what you called a republic)

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

Nonsense

Now you are not making sense.

My logic is as follows. The legislatures are elected by popular vote, therefor they represent the majority. When the legislatures make rules, those rules are the will of the majority. If those rules are applied to the minority then the minority is oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. Since every individual will always be a minority when against the will of the majority, there exists no rights, only privileges allowed by the majority.

The process of electing representatives is called the democratic process. Since a democracy and a republic is not the same, a republic must not conform to this process.

So what characteristics does a republic have? It has rights for each individual. There is only one way for this to occur and that is if each individual has vested sovereignty and can exercise that sovereignty. What that means is each individual makes their own rules to govern themselves and their property. Have you heard the term self government before? I logically reason that a strict republic would conform to self government.

Regardless of what wikipidia says, these are only logical conclusions.

So why do we have elections then? You may ask. Because we do not have a strict republic we have what is called a representative republic or constitutional republic. A constitutional republic is the form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by either the people directly or by representatives who's powers are specifically enumerated. That is what a constitution does, enumerates powers. The purpose was for a nation or federation to perform certain tasks such as establish justice, or provide for the common defense.

you are misinformed or mistaken...

about the distinction between a democracy and a republic.
Yes, determining any outcome by majority wins voting is a democratic process. The following is a VERY stripped down explanation:

If a citizenry determines a legislature by way of majority wins voting, then you have a republic. (The legislature make laws for society.)

If a citizenry determines the laws themselves by way of majority wins voting, then you have a democracy.(The voting citizenry make laws for society)

In one instance, the citizenry is determining a legislature (republic) in the other, the citizenry is determining the law (democracy).
-------------------------------------------------
A constitution can enumerate powers or not. (I believe they should and those powers should be very specific and extremely limited.)

In addition, a constitution need not be limited to a republic. Any mechanism of government can be spelled out on a charter.

Keep it up, I'd be happy to discuss this further if you wish. Contact me directly if you want to hash it out in private.

My definitions

I believe both of your explanations are democracy, the former being an indirect democracy and the latter being a direct democracy, but neither describes a republic.

My definitions are paraphrased from my own study, and are how I understand these things. Here are my sources for these definitions so you know I am not just pulling stuff from my anus.

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Here is some more citations that support my idea that the people are sovereign and create their own law.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
"D." = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

Here is a citation that supports my idea that statutes do not apply to the people.

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound." People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

I reasoned that this all makes perfect sense when you consider these 2 citations in conjunction.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AMENDMENT 9

If a People of the United States exercises a basic right and a law of any state is to the contrary of such exercise of that basic right, the said supposed law of any state is a fiction of law and unconstitutional and no courts are bound to uphold it and no People of the United States is required to obey such unconstitutional law. MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Since the Constitution is the supreme law, any law contrary to the Constitution is void of law, and since the people have all rights. Can I not give notice that when ever a statute denies me a liberty, that that particular liberty is a basic right and that statute is now void of law?

about your definitions,

okay :)
---------------------
About people being able to make their own law, your quotes support the idea that a body politic is able to make law by any mechanism it chooses.
---------------------
About your idea that statutes don't apply to you...I share your sentiment even though I think your legal position is weak. The state may have a different opinion than you, and I'm sure will be more than happy to show you the "error of your ways" if you ever cross paths.

BTW Bill Thornton exposed me to the concepts you mention many years ago and last I heard, his legal study group was not fairing well in the courts.
---------------------
Fun talking to you again.

Wrong

You don't like republics, so you have misdefined the term to include your personal idea of utopia. That just isn't a republic.

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

state of mind

My definition of a republic is just as valid as yours. The only difference is my definition supports liberty and yours supports tyranny. You said so yourself when you agreed that the act of enforcing statutes abolishes the idea of rights. The founding documents support my perspective, and may support your perspective, I can only speculate since I do not have your perspective.

All it takes to reach out and take liberty is to change your state of mind. I like to think philosophically. With liberty in mind, I reason a logical state of mind and I hope others will share my perspective.

I believe this may be the end of our discussion seeing as no further argument can achieve a different outcome. We can either agree or agree to disagree.

Regards

"all it takes to take liberty

is to change your state of mind."
Until you run afoul the state. Then they will demonstrate how much liberty they are willing to allow you to have.

The philosophy of individual liberty is wonderful. But you will be robbed of your power to enact your philosophies (which are in line with mine) by not understanding basic civics. At least, that is why I am engaging you in conversation.

I believe we share a similar dissatisfaction with the status quo and I wish to empower you so you can be successful in putting a dent in the "system". :)

the reason

The reason I say it takes a change of a state of mind is because any of this will eventually boil down to a jury trial, and if the jury holds the state of mind that supports tyranny then tyranny prevails, but if the paradigm shifts and people start supporting liberty, then liberty might have a chance.

very well said

"But you will be robbed of your power to enact your philosophies (which are in line with mine) by not understanding basic civics." I couldn't put it better.

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

not only is it fake it actually harms its cause

fake grand juries are actually outlawed in various states, but the real problem is that it just has no power to do anything. These fake grand juries are usually assembled by a group that is partisan to a particular cause or issue and therefore are not considered reliable cross sections for jury purposes, and their findings are roundly disregarded by the courts due to that fact, and well, the fact that they aren't real grand juries.

I bet a group of democrats could get a citizens grand jury to indict all gun owners. I bet a group of libertarians could get a citizens grand jury to, well, you get the idea.

Being associated with fake, illegitimate legal processes just makes the persons that do so look stoopid and ineffective to anyone that they need to impress with their indictment. Save your time. It is better spent on real outreach, writing letters to Congress even. At least that doesn't make one look like a loon.

Hey, I'm just being honest here.

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

yeppers

well said.

thank you!

It's nice to have truth not fall on deaf ears here.

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

From the horses' mouths?

I have been allowed to be the California State Common Law Grand Jury Organizer within the following group:

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/state/state.html

I attend the National Monday Meetups.

Last night was a typical effort to find agreement in principle and purpose.

My responses to last nights Meetup are offer to anyone who cares to know here:

http://www.power-independence.com/

That is my Blog, which will be replaced by a new entry.

Here is a more permanent record:

http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_topic.php?id=99...

The concept is not only sound, it is legal, not arguably legal, it is legal in the true sense of the word, whereby law is a concept shared by people, throughout history, to be a voluntary association among volunteers who volunteer to find competitive methods of maintaining Liberty.

Liberty is a tough concept to convey to a well practiced lair, or a minion in the service of criminals.

Criminals know what Liberty is, and it is known by criminals as something to be feared, something that must be destroyed, if crime is going to pay well.

My suggestion offered to the Topic starter is to start learning more about ancient common law, which is not the FALSE Common Law which is a counterfeit version of the original.

Anyone who becomes confused about common law (the real thing which is synonymous with Liberty) is probably a victim of the efforts of criminals whereby criminals have produced many false versions of common law, so as to censor, block, crush, destroy, render powerless, the actual efforts of volunteers who volunteer to defend liberty in competitive ways that expend the least cost yet remain to be effective ways to defend Liberty.

I've found more than one source of information that serves to be a competitive example of evidence documented how common law (the original employment of Trial by Jury based upon sortition) became a false version, or a Usurpation, whereby the voluntary association became an Involuntary one.

Here is one:

http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...

Quote:
________________________________________________________________
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.

Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.

Read more: Historical Introduction | English Legal System Lecture Notes | Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/english-legal-system/lecture-notes...
Follow us: @lawteachernet on Twitter | LawTeacherNet on Facebook
___________________________________________________________

Note the dates.

The following is a very important work done by Lysander Spooner (a person living in America who was later called an Anarchist):

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest/trial_...

Quote:
_______________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________

Note the date.

If you read the whole work done by Lysander Spooner you will be informed as to the methods by which the criminals retake control of Trial by Jury, turning a Voluntary Association into an Involuntary Association. Then you can see how free people are inspired to expend all the costs required to move their behinds from England to America, and they take with them the concept of Trial by Jury - based upon sortition.

Now, at this time, people have no place to run, and no place to hide, no place to go and start defending Liberty in a New World.

What does that leave?

Joe

ah yes

there were so many protection of individual rights in medieval/ middle ages England, now weren' there? Let's wistfully remember the Star Chamber for a moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

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

Trial and Error

Making torture Legal and then paying high paid liars to lie about it again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUHoi1gKfrM

Joe

Just a couple of notes

1. The more I listen to "sovereign" theories the more confused and lost I get in every version of Blacks going back to 1890, what the significance of boldface and capital letters is, the constitution tied to this, flag law and aunt Molly's kitchen sink.

2. No sovereign has yet has answers for me when I ask them what happens when your grand jury comes in conflict with somebody else's? Oh for that you have a magistrate. Well what if somebody else has a magistrate too? And they say YOU are the criminals? And what if I opt out of your authority? Then I'm an "outlaw" but I never consented to YOUR LAW to begin with did I?

3. This business of arresting public officials might have an application but as a political move it's bound for conflict. In the not-good way.

The only way it makes sense to me is in a post-regime situation where local people are formulating their own dispute resolution processes.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

Clarification

This is my understanding at least.

1. Sovereignty is commonly defined as the highest authority within a political system. The supreme court has said that the very meaning of sovereignty is the decree of the sovereign is law. I define it as the authority to decree law, or the person who makes the rules. If the sovereignty is vested in one person it is a monarchy, if in a few it is an oligarchy, in the majority it is a democracy, and if in everyone it is a republic. The exercise of sovereignty is the execution of law. Generally done in a court of law. In England the King was the plaintiff, the magistrate was responsible for administering the ruling but did not make the ruling, the King made the ruling based on the evidence and reasonable action. If the evidence was false it was the defendants responsibility to prove the evidence was false. If the action seemed unreasonable the defendant could appeal to a petite jury, and the jury chose what would be reasonable action. The King chose the jury though. This was suppose to be justice.

2. The Grand Jury was created to overrule sovereignty. Government officials do not have sovereignty, they are public servants, but only when they are acting in their government capacity, when they go home they are sovereign like everyone else. Think about when a police officer puts their badge on and takes it off as having some significance. The way grand juries worked was 4 members would approach the other 21 members of a grand jury with evidence of someone's wrong doing. First of all there has to be a victim, or injured party. Second there has to be some evidence that points to a culprit. A magistrate is only used to administer the ruling. You may be thinking of an arbiter. Arbitration is a different process all together.

3. I have a saying to address this "Anyone who takes up an office, and swears an oath to that office, but has no intention of abiding by that oath, has no business holding office." So if you want to arrest public official, they better of harmed you so that you can prove their guilt, and that harm was caused by their violation to their oath of office, then the only reasonable action in order to protect yourself and your fellow citizens from further harm by this official, they should be impeached and removed of office post haste.

meekandmild's picture

along with the Grand Jury

a Citizens court system to had down verdicts and punishment

No Teeth

What makes a citizen grand jury any different than a group of school kids getting together to indict Obama? Judges have the command power of the big guns. What would make them listen to those who have not been sanctioned by their community of monopoly law makers?

I agree with the writer below.

The first step is to convert the minds of the voting majority - and that has turned out to be a massive (but worthwhile) task. Until that happens, Citizen Grand Juries will only be a dream.

That is why our focus should be on waking up the mob.

Gene Louis
http://www.survivaloftheslickest.com/
Supporting a Needed Tool for Government Feedback:
A Citizen-Operated Legal System.

Exactly

well said

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

At the end of the day, there is no state

Never has been. Just what people are willing to do for each other. Now sometimes that involves violence. Laws are just a majority of people agree that if someone doesn't agree they are willing to use violence, or let violence be used.

That acceptance of violence, and the character of the organization of men who accept violence takes many shapes.

I personally choose not to find the initiation of violence acceptable in any form.

Séamusín