0 votes

Trial by Forum Jury

Proposed:

An experiment in government by the consent of the governed is not a new idea.

Here:
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.
___________________________________________________________

Those self-governors in England had to get rid of the Trolls in England in order to return to civilized, voluntary, life. The Trolls in England were the Imperial Roman Invaders.

Then this happened:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...

Quote:
_________________________________________________________________
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
_________________________________________________________________

The Trolls took over England and corrupted voluntary government so the self-governing, free minded, voluntary people fled like runaway slaves to America, and those Liberated people brought trial by jury with them to the American constitutionally limited states where government was maintained by the consent of the governed, at least until 1788.

The current Trolls invade this Forum intending to enslave their targeted victims with their lies.

The idea behind this proposal is to band together as free minded individuals and by our individual efforts we the people of this forum employ the concept of trial by jury in the effort to defend against the Trolls.

I can offer steps by which that defense of our common liberty can be defended.

If, for example, a Troll is perpetrating a personal attack upon one of the members of this forum, then that example of that personal attack by a Troll can be linked to this Forum Topic, and a trial by voluntary jury can commence in some new inventive shape or form.

Since "sticks and stones can hurt my bones but names will..." only hurt the innocent who are injured by Trolls perpetrating libelous personal attacks on forums, it may be a good idea to stand in defense of the innocent, since the innocent are often incapable of defending themselves.

I hope you all have a beautiful day, at the expense of no innocent victims.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

In other words

Josf wants to post his opinions without any dissent. If someone dares disssent to the great Josf, he wants a majority to determine if they like what was said, and then vote them out. That isn't the way a republic works. A republic has certain standards that are not subject to popular voting. But more to the point, this isn't Josf's website, any more than the Ron Paul campaign was the Lawyers for Ron Paul's campaign.

In the end it is just an attempt by Josf to set up an illegitimate process to influence something which does not grant Josf's process any authority. Sort of like what he proposes with his "common law grand juries."

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

meekandmild's picture

Is the Declaration of Independence recognized as law?

Is there any court rulings or law that support your answer?

Yes and No

The Declaration of Independence itself is not "law" per se, but its text is used in interpreting original intent of the founding fathers, much as sometimes the federalist papers are used. The Federalist Papers were merely newspaper articles or editorials if you will, and they are sometimes cited in Supreme Court opinions on constitutional issues.

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

The DOI is law and it is in US Code as the Organic Laws

ALERT I just noticed that that the link demonstrating that DOI is in US Code is no longer available.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/organiclaws.txt

You can see other links had linked to this entry of US Code that contained the DOI as Organic LAws of the US in US Code:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_law

The links are dead because of the criminal usurpers are at work.

Maybe extra crispy had something to do with this effort. I have shown the chicken the link in the past and now he claims that the DOI is not law. Crispy you are a fraud and anyone here supporting him are frauds as well.

Does anybody know that the US code link showing the DOI as part of US Code is Now GONE!?!

UPDATE-
Here is the original link saved in wayback machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130115144652/http://uscode.hous...

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Criminal usurpers

Yes, they reorganized the web site just to thwart you, knowing that only someone with evil intent such as chicken will have mastered the dark art of entering text into a search box.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/annualhistoricalarchives/pd...

Thanks

I did a search but came up empty.

Yes a little paranoid over here. I have seen many things intentionally disappeared into the memory hole over the years.

Thanks!

Yes the code entries demonstrates how chicken wishes ignore the roots of our law and the entire foundation of law being non-conflicting in Nature only to say. The Code entries only represent what was inherently true, that the DOI is indeed law. The usurper wish to turn this most relevant law for the People into some wishy washy thing to be seen as a relic. Chicken has claimed that he is only stating what is in case law and as aqn everyday reality, I get that, but the difference I have with this chicken his offensive intent to confuse and befuddle the sovereignty issue with a bunch of ADL propaganda drivel.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

An idea whose time has returned?

http://www.clgj.info/uploads/3/7/5/3/3753794/__the_federal_g...

Those who are threatened by voluntary association are confessing their guilty minds?

Joe

Interesting article

He starts out talking about how federal grand juries (the real kind, not the Denny's kind) were intended to work. Then he talks about how that intention was undermined over the years. Okay so far, all spelled out in detail, and interesting to read about.

Then where you might expect him to talk about how to do something about it, and the details are suddenly gone. He writes We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us.

He's just finished arguing about what powers the real kind of federal grand jury was intended to have. Then suddenly he jumps to saying that we the people -- outside of a federal grand jury -- have the power to do what a federal grand jury should be empowered to do. Based on what? Without a doubt, we have the power to insist that the intended powers be restored to federal grand juries, to ask our representatives to make that happen, and if they won't to vote into office representatives who will make that happen. But the argument that people not on a grand jury have the powers of a grand jury seems to be missing a few steps.

And even if it weren't missing a few steps, he's completely vague about what it would mean for people not on a grand jury to "charge the government with crimes." As he says, the US attorneys and federal judges won't agree. So suppose the gang at Denny's calls themselves a grand jury and writes up a presentment charging various government officials with various things. What next? The US attorneys and federal judges don't agree, so they're going to toss it in the trash. It's not clear what he has in mind.

Denny's kind?

Fighting words are often offered so as to reach the goal of fighting.

Is it a good idea to take the bait?

(the real kind, not the Denny's kind)

Since I've been active in defense of Liberty my most valuable experiences have been in meeting people who agree with the concept of voluntary government, government by consent of the governed, so as to stand in defense of the innocent against criminals and especially the worst types of criminals, those being the criminals who lie while taking oaths of office and then operate their criminal operations behind the color of law.

I may find someone agreeing with me, joining the cause, while we meet at a Denny's, or similar, place of voluntary, competitive, business.

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

Before the English language, and almost certainly before any written language, human beings find inventive, adaptive, and productive methods by which to defend the innocent among their own numbers of defenders, against willful (mens rea) criminals, and especially against the most dangerous ones, those ones that have figured out how to make their victims believe that the criminals are the only ones that can protect their victims from the criminals.

If you are infected with that lie whereby the only source of protection from criminals originates by authority of the criminals, then may God have mercy on your soul, and I am not a religious dogmatist.

"Then suddenly he jumps to saying that we the people -- outside of a federal grand jury -- have the power to do what a federal grand jury should be empowered to do."

When you get serious, if that may ever happen, you can quote where that member of the group of defenders does what you claim has been done by that member of the defenders. If you do that, then I too can know of what you speak, and then I can work at realizing what you know by that effective method of conveying accurate meaning with English words.

"Without a doubt, we have the power to insist that the intended powers be restored to federal grand juries, to ask our representatives to make that happen, and if they won't to vote into office representatives who will make that happen."

Someone having either no experience, or not enough experience in the actual facts concerning the apparatus of crime being made legal on the National Level, and enforced through the State, County, City, Church, Family, and even at the individual level, those words may be true from such a limited viewpoint. In other words, you have no doubt, in other words you no longer question the orders, you suffer from blind obedience to all that falsehood that currently constitutes the so called "government" as you see it? Note the question mark (counter offer).

Again, if that is your condition of being human, a condition of blind obedience to falsehood without question, then, seriously, may God have mercy on your soul, because you are in no position to defend yourself, let alone any innocent person, in my opinion, based upon the words that you offer concerning "Without a doubt,..."

The criminals do not follow their own laws that they promise to follow by sacred oath, and if you can't even see that problem, then you will probably invent those words, and offer those words, to someone like me, whereby you express that YOU have no doubt about this or that concerning what is accurately measurable as a MONOPOLY of crime enforcement (criminals enforcing their crimes) hidden behind a thin, and rapidly thinning, veil of legitimate authority.

Getting off the religious viewpoint, I can merely offer: good luck with that blind belief in falsehood without question. I hope it works out for you in such a way as to at least afford you the power to avoid having your own hide tortured and murdered by those criminals who have a tendency to burn babies alive.

Here you go, have some more babies to burn, so long as you don't burn me right now?

If you are fine with the conveyor belt of babies flowing into the ovens by those criminals who routinely take over the power of defensive government, turning defense into crime, then I can see the utility of inventing, or borrowing, a blind belief in the lie that the criminals have not taken over.

Let them eat cake.

"But the argument that people not on a grand jury have the powers of a grand jury seems to be missing a few steps."

The concept of argument is misleading a lot of people in my view. My view is offered as a competitive viewpoint, and if you see no use in my offer of a competitive viewpoint, then do you claim that no such thing as a competitive viewpoint can exist if you adamantly refuse to see it?

________________________________________________________
And even if it weren't missing a few steps, he's completely vague about what it would mean for people not on a grand jury to "charge the government with crimes."
________________________________________________________

"charge the government with crimes."

Who arranged those English words in that order?

No such thing as "charge the government with crimes" can occur since "government" is an idea. Only individual human beings can act according to ideas, and therefore only individual human beings can be responsible for those actions, and therefore only individual human beings, or inhuman beings, can be accountable for individual lies, threats, or violence upon innocent victims.

Case in point:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/death/deat...

There is forensic evidence available to any current defender of the innocent against individual inhuman beings who are getting away with burning babies alive.

Refusing to see it tends to, what is the term I am looking for?

Enable.

Someone claiming that "the government did it" is no different (in principle) than someone claiming that "the gun did it" or "the pointed stick did it" or any fabrication of another lie that intends to hide the actual individual criminals perpetrating crimes.

Criminals know how to get away with crime, thereby making crime pay well for them. What is a banker bailout?

People in a leaking boat?

If the victims drink from the cool-aid of lies, then the victims are inspired to pay more, and more, and more of their earnings, their defensive power, to the criminals; in the vain hope of moving further back in the line that accelerates into hell on earth.

If that is your condition in life, so be it, but it certainly is not mine.

Your offer of twisted words is rejected on principle. Thanks for the effort, but no thanks due to a measurably accurate accounting of the lies that you have apparently been led to believe, without question, and I am offering the benefit of doubt, since I can just as easily conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no one can be that stupid, to be taken in by such an obvious lie as to "blame a thing for the actions of individual people," if that is what you are doing.

If that is not what you are doing, then why invent those English words arranged in that order?

This:

"charge the government with crimes."

No such thing is even remotely possible, unless English words can mean anything at any time depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

"As he says, the US attorneys and federal judges won't agree."

Here you may be failing to hold the actual guilty individual human beings involved in the falsification of defensive government into a false front covering crime being made legal: to an accurate accounting. I am not your authority.

I am, competitively, my own authority.

I can try to offer to you the "chain of command" or the steps that are taken by defenders of Liberty in order to share, voluntarily, the concept of true authority.

I have doubts as to what you may accept as an offer of fact.

Religion predates written language and so does voluntary association among cooperative human beings whereby the volunteers manage to make crime unaffordable. So the record is missing much human history.

False religion predates written language and so does organized crime among volunteers who earn their living by taking everything worth taking from the innocent victims who produce anything worth stealing.

Volunteers volunteering to outlaw volunteering is my offer of how words can be misleading.

So human existence has been a struggle between honest, cooperative, productive, innocent, people; and criminals who learn how to organize their number into a collective criminal power add their costs to the already existing struggle against the forces of nature.

Productive Liberty on one side, and on the other side is crime made legal, whereby the criminals hide behind false fronts, and those criminals make the victims pay all the costs.

If there is a peaceful form of religion, then the criminals learn how to create a counterfeit version.

If there is a peaceful form of government, then the criminals learn how to create a counterfeit version.

Criminals can't get away with open violence for long, in human history as far back as humans have been recording history, without resort to deception, and what better deception can there be than a half truth?

Moving past a lot of history and moving ahead to England after the criminal invaders known as the Romans were successfully driven out of England, there was a time when such things as trial by jury worked as a peaceful method of crime prevention in England.

Bread crumbs left by happy people earning their Liberty?

Then a King named John took over and so ruined the country of England that a deal was made between the King and the next most powerful people in England, those people known as The Barons. The deal was written down and signed as an agreement, or contract, among the ruling class in England, and included in the deal was the official recognition of trial by jury as it was already practiced by the people in England.

That is recent history of trial by jury, and that time period whereby trial by jury was working as intended is the 13th Century, or the 1200s CE (AD).

The practice of common law trial by jury became corrupted, as volunteers whose duty was recognized by enough people to "make it work as intended" were bribed with money to stay at home and to not engage in the work of defending against criminals in trial by jury. So a ruling class of (money monopolist) criminals hiding behind false authority retook power in England to such a point of despotism, tyranny, or crime made legal, that many victims fled to America.

Former slaves in England fled to America and they took trial by jury, and common law, with them.

Importing customary effective defensive methods.

Here is a source I found concerning that time period whereby trial by common law juries turned into crime made legal. The specific terminology of the "out with the good" and "in with the bad" is:

1. Ancient, customary, common law, trial by jury, of the people, government by the consent of the governed, or voluntary government.

2. New forms of false authority, government by criminals claiming to be "elite," and above the law, whereby the distinction between those who are immune to the law enforce the law upon those who are targeted for exploitation, and here, in this time period, the Crime made Legal version of "Law" is being called, for perhaps the first time: equity. The criminal version of "law" is called "Equity."

Source:

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

That is an aside, an offer of evidence if you will, to be accepted or rejected voluntarily, as I work to convey the reasoning behind the authorization of trial by jury in fact.

That brings the historical record from a point at which the official record of trial by jury is established with Magna Carte, and that is not to make a false claim that trial by jury did not exist "on it's own" (so to speak) before Magna Carte, since evidence is offered whereby the record of trial by jury worked as intended (in defense of the innocent against criminals who make crime pay so well for the criminals) well before trial by jury was "officially" recognized with Magna Carte, from that point, from Magna Carte up to another point at which the concept of government by the people was again made "official" with The Declaration of Independence.

So the chain of command at this point is:

1.
God, or The Creator, or Natural Law: is where the buck stops, where authority originates, and no single human being is above this law according to ancient history handed down from each successive generation of VOLUNTEERS (those who are not criminals by their own choice) who VOLUNTEER to govern in such a way as to make crime unfordable for the criminals.

2.
The volunteers, The People, the actual people who do such things as take oaths, make promises to themselves and offered to each other to not be criminals, honorably, faithfully, and really, in actual practice, and make promises to each other to work effectively at defending the innocent from criminals, and especially those criminals who time and again, somehow, make their crimes legal, including the crime of torture, murder, mass murder, aggressive war, and burning babies alive, somehow being made "legal" according to their actions if not their words, and according to their minions who are led to believe in such lies, and not question said "belief" in obvious lies.

3.
Magna Carte as an official recognition, on the official record, of the customary practice of employing trial by jury as a means of defense against governments that turn from defense against crime into crime made legal by criminals who are accurately knowable as tyrants, despots, etc.

4.
The Declaration of Independence as another official recognition, on the official record, of the customary practice of employing VOLUNTARY association as the principle means by which The People defend themselves, by forming VOLUNTARY governments, of the people, against criminals, such as tyrants, who enforce crime as if crime were lawful by magic wand, or word magic.

So there is the chain of command, or the "take me to your leader," process whereby authority in this country was traced back from that date when The Declaration of Independence was signed as the official, authoritative, record of authority, July 4th, 1776, for this country, right here, including, now, my place of existence, which is called California.

Then the criminals from England (and mercenaries from other places) invaded America on one of those often repeated crimes known as Aggressive War for the profit of a few at the expense of everyone else.

Next on the official record of how authority became official authority in this country is The Articles of Confederation as the Continental Congress formed a Trust among the Constitutionally Limited Republics who were Voluntarily Associated for the purpose of defense against the criminal army of aggression then invading, and occupying, raping, pillaging, one Republic after another.

So now the list of authority, in order of higher power first, and then in order of lower power further down the list, is this:

1.
God (creator, or natural law depending upon your personal beliefs)

2.
Actual human beings who are not volunteering to make their living as criminals

3.
Magna Carte with trial by jury which is a customary form of government by the people working under God (or the creator, or natural law depending upon your personal belief) in effective defense against Tyrants and lesser organized criminals forces.

4.
The Declaration of Independence which declares a significantly important point by which the non-criminals are accurately discriminated from the criminals, and therefore the lies made by the criminals that the criminals are the authorities are no longer lies that are "forceful" in the form of blind belief in lies without question, but these are merely my words, and the document stands on its own as an official record of the chain of command being declared in fact.

5.
The Articles of Confederation being a legal contract formed voluntarily by the representatives in each Sovereign Constitutionally Limited Republic so as to form an effective defensive power sufficient to run off the criminals who were busy torching babies alive, raping, pillaging, for fun and profit.

Then, after all that legal mumbo jumbo, a corporation was formed by criminals posing as authorities and that Usurpation is known as the Con Con of 1787.

Where there was once a Continental Congress formed in an emergency of current war of aggression upon the innocent people in this country, there was then a false version called into being upon the false claim that The Articles of Confederation would be improved so as to more readily pay off the debts owed by each Constitutionally Limited Republic, and then the criminals closed the doors, issued gag orders, and instead of improving the contract the criminals made a deal whereby a central bank was created and slavery was to be made officially legal, and the criminals called that Usurpation (The Dirty Compromise): The Constitutional Convention, or Con Con (con job).

Order of authority, and again, from higher to lower authority in numerical order:

1.
God (with obvious qualification)
2.
The People (again with qualification)
3.
Magna Carte (qualified again)
4.
The Declaration of Independence (minimizing qualifications)
5.
The Articles of Confederation (emergency measures in time of defense against aggression by the largest criminal army then existing on the planet earth)
6.
The Dirty Compromise or The Constitution NOT YET RATIFIED

So there is then a time of extreme significance known as RATification whereby more than one person smelled a rat.

Then The Bill of Rights was added to The Dirty Compromise whereby the so called "rebels" kept their declarations of independence codified into officialDUMB.

1.
God
2.
People
3.
Magna Carte (trial by jury and "unofficial" common law being made "official")
4.
The Declaration of Independence (rebellion against criminals pretending to be "government" is lawful by official law)
5.
The Articles of Confederation (form a Voluntary Federal government in defense against invasion by foreign armies of aggression, and it proved to be effective, but costly)
6.
The Constitution AND The Bill of Rights (take over by central banker criminals but the takeover was not complete since the so called "rebels" officially restate their declaration of independence FROM criminals in government with The Bill of Rights)

That can continued if requested, since events such as the so called Whiskey Rebellion, Alien and Sedition Acts, The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, occur, and then what happens is the falsely named Civil War occurs, whereby the criminals retook the power of government in a big way.

For your consideration, voluntarily.

If you please.

Joe

well, then voluntarily

I decline to read your wall of gibberish. Can you give us an executive summary? I did scan over the phrase "conveyor belt of babies" and found it alarming but aside from that, I think its a scam

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

Yep

"Then suddenly he jumps to saying that we the people -- outside of a federal grand jury -- have the power to do what a federal grand jury should be empowered to do."

When you get serious, if that may ever happen, you can quote where that member of the group of defenders does what you claim has been done by that member of the defenders. If you do that, then I too can know of what you speak, and then I can work at realizing what you know by that effective method of conveying accurate meaning with English words.

Where did Donofrio do that? In the second-to-last paragraph that starts "The law is on our side". He writes that the people have the "right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes". But the entire rest of the paper only makes the argument that grand juries have this power. He gives no argument to support the idea that the people have this power outside the context of a grand jury.

"charge the government with crimes."

Who arranged those English words in that order?

Donofrio. Second to last paragraph.

"charge the government with crimes."

No such thing is even remotely possible, unless English words can mean anything at any time depending upon which way the wind is blowing.

I was just quoting Donofrio, from his conclusion. Are you disagreeing with his conclusion then?

Aggreement?

"The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far
and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us."

Can it be mutually agreed upon that those are the words published in fact?

"I was just quoting Donofrio, from his conclusion. Are you disagreeing with his conclusion then?"

I am disagreeing with your twist by omission of the information contained in the publication.

Your twist cut and pasted from your publication, your message:

Quote:__________________________________________________________
And even if it weren't missing a few steps, he's completely vague about what it would mean for people not on a grand jury to "charge the government with crimes."
____________________________________________________________

Contrary to your twist the actual message offered in the publication is the following cut and pasted from the actual message offered in the publication:

Quote:______________________________________________________________
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far
and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supre
me Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
_________________________________________________________________

Where you omit and commit on your own volition a counterfeit message the actual message does not end with the period you fabricate, the actual message contains the information that offers the facts as they actually exist.

Your version cuts off the message with your period that you insert.

The actual version adds "...by returning presentments..."

An example of a presentment is here:

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/site/docs/Presentment%201...

Arguments can be made as to the authority of any claim of authority, for sure, such as your claim of authority concerning the message contained in the publication whereby you claim that some mysterious person thinks this following:

Quote:__________________________________________________________
And even if it weren't missing a few steps, he's completely vague about what it would mean for people not on a grand jury to "charge the government with crimes."
____________________________________________________________

What was actual written, not a claim of false authority over what was written, was this:

Quote:_______________________________________________________________
The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far
and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supre
me Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”
_________________________________________________________________

Rather than someone, somewhere, somehow, charging "the government with crimes." - which is patently absurd - there are people volunteering to hold actual criminals perpetrating actual crimes under the color of law by filing presentments according to the law of the land which includes common law grand juries, trial by jury, and that part of that Constitution known as the 5th Amendment.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

The official source above quoted:

Quote:______________________________________________________________
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
________________________________________________________________

"on a presentment or indictment"

Finding my way back to common sense, working to get around the twisting of meaning, in layman's terms (perhaps) the idea is to defend the innocent from injury by criminals with names, like the people named in the presentment as follows: cut and pasted:

Quote:________________________________________________________
Gail Prudenti, Michael V. Coccoma, C. Randall Hinrichs, Allan D Scheink, and Allan, D Scheinkman, hereinafter the defendants
acting under color of law did conspire against the people in acts of high treason, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, contempt, and RICO by taking upon themselves the peoples role of tribunal after being
forewarned in writing by said Grand Juries that they perform only their ministerial functions and that they not take upon themselves to perform any tribunal functions. Defendants instead acted arrogantly outside their role as servant and contemptuously orchestrated a state wide obstruction of “The People’s” Constituted Grand Juries, thereby boldly denying the people their unalienable right, protected under the Fifth Amendment1, to act in their most
sacred role as consentor2 thereby committing the following offense(s)
___________________________________________________________________

There is a measurable contest concerning authority.

Is that not understood to be an obvious fact?

Those who are contending on one side are not, as your words may appear to suggest, on a grand jury to "charge the government with crimes."

Instead those who are contending on one side are naming names so that those so named "shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" by "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" assembled by the people for that specific purpose.

A. Your message

B. The actual message

Your message intends to suggest that someone, somewhere, and somehow, holds a nebulous legal fiction known as "government" to blame for doing some nebulous wrongdoing that was, in fact, a wrongdoing done by actual people with names and those actual people with names have injured specific targeted victims who are defending liberty according to the law of the land?

The injury to the grand jury volunteers is the obstruction of due process perpetrated by the accused upon the grand jury volunteers?

Your message, if understood, is meaningless, when the actual message that your twisted version hides is the message that confirms the existence of such a thing as due process of law whereby criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law are held to account for their crimes in point of fact despite their false claims of being immune to such proceedings?

If, it turns out, that the volunteer grand jury members are further victimized by the perpetrators of the obvious crimes being perpetrated, then that happens.

If, on the other hand, the perpetrators named in the presentment are removed from office, at least, then that happens.

Who, in your opinion, please let me have it, would be the authorities that reach the opposite goals in either case?

A.
Those named in the presentment are afforded the opportunity to continue perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims.

B.
Those named in the presentment are no longer perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims as the example of crimes perpetrated by those named in the presentment are currently perpetrating.

I do not often gamble. I do prefer to invest in Liberty instead of blind obedience to falsehood without question.

Joe

Example of a citizen's grand jury presentment

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/site/docs/Presentment%201...

There's a lot here! Trying to reconstruct the story here, apparently some people filed papers with the courts trying to establish a common law grand jury. (I couldn't find a copy of that original filing.) They got back a bunch of replies saying no, that's not how it works.

A meeting was held on 9/27/2013 at Harley's Smokeshack in New York (http://harleyssmokeshack.com/ looks like some good barbecue, but seven bucks for a beer?!?) at which by show of hands the people present voted for "the reestablishing of the Common Law Grand Jury." Other similar meetings were held other venues.

These grand juries wrote up charges of high treason, conspiracy, etc., against those who rejected their earlier attempts. They put a *lot* of work into this!

It was rejected.

They filed something demanding that the clerks say whether they were being coerced or intimidated into not taking the filings of the common law grand jury seriously:
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/site/docs/Quo%20Warranto.pdf

It was rejected.

They wrote a letter:
http://nationallibertyalliance.org/site/docs/11-11-13Letter%...
warning the clerk that the Nuremberg defense would be no excuse for not doing their duty, and assuring the clerk that We also understand that you may feel that your employment is in jeopardy and if that is the case the Grand Jury will do all that is necessary to see that you will not be harmed.

And apparently that's where things stand today.

there's a lot of nonsense there

including the infamous "meet your strawman" video - hey, I thought those guys were all claiming they didn't believe in the strawman no mo?!!! Other than that, just typical sov cit fake legal myths such as the idea that common law is something other than case law, and that it is "always" superior to statutory laws. Have these guys ever really read the Constitution, especially the part that creates a legislative branch? Jeez

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

In an effort to be clearer

Your version of events and the actual events are not the same thing.

Is that agreeable?

Joe

How so?

Your version of events and the actual events are not the same thing.

It's not "my version" of events, unless I've misread something it's what the documents on that web site show. If I've misread something, what did I get wrong?

Step by step offers of possible evidence

Along the lines of there being two sides in conflict.

A.
Blind obedience to falsehood without question.

B.
Voluntary government as the people consent to it.

Your version appears to be the former:

"...trying to establish a common law grand jury..."

Call that Exhibit A?

The version employed by those in the later group is such that those grand jury organizers established a common law grand jury and they are proceeding lawfully according to well established custom and precedent spanning many centuries of human existence.

A.
Pathetic fake government failing to accomplish anything of any value to me personally.

B.
Actual people standing up to the criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law.

There is an obvious contest of ideas, and which one, which side, as a rule, resorts to deception, threats of violence, and violence as a means of gaining by some accurate measure at the expense of the other side?

A.
Dictators, tyrants, and criminals perpetrating unspeakable crimes under false authority.

B.
Defenders, productive people, and civilized people employing time honored processes that constitute that which is due process of law that is due to everyone without exception with one possible exception being those who except themselves because they resort to crime as a means of getting their pound of flesh from their targeted, and innocent, victims.

So long as you remain on the opposite side of the side I see as being worthy of my time, there will remain disagreement due to your insistence upon lending support to the criminal side hiding behind the color of law; assuming that I can understand precisely which side you are on at any moment in time and place.

Possible evidence Exhibit B:

"They got back a bunch of replies saying no, that's not how it works."

What is "it" in that version of the events in question?

Possible evidence Exhibit C:

"It was rejected."

Here is a return to an earlier point of obvious contention concerning what "it" is when speaking about responsibility, accurate accountability, and claims of authority. Who did what in reference to "It was rejected."?

Other than that my opinion is that you are reporting factual information that does not confess your, ahhhhh, affections?

I don't know if that word is usable in this case, but I can offer it.

Joe

gibbberish to English please

"blind obedience to falsehood"

WTF is that? Following the laws that exist? How is that a falsehood? Be brief, don't need a wall of gibberish.

I think by reference to that website, YOU believe in a lot of falsehoods, including every sovereign citizen myth or scam known to mankind. Why does that not make you one who is seeking others to "blindly obey?"

You still haven't answered my questions:

1. Have you ever succeeded?

2. Have you ever asked your participants for money $$$ or otehrwise?

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

In a hurry.

Not reading the whole offer by "extra crispy"

Consider:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

Quote:___________________________________________________________
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
__________________________________________________________________

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/02/following-orders-never-a-d...

Joe

ok, so what?

You provided a link to the debt clock and quoted an excerpt of the constitution about not questioning the public debt. I'm well aware we have a huge debt and what the Constitution says on it, so you haven't provided any new info.

This I see as a tactic on your part, and one commonly used by "fake law" scammers here. You either gibberish bomb with a whole page of crap that no one can decipher, or you quote things here and there, that on their own, don't support anything you are saying. And you do it without even telling us what you are saying. So, what are you saying, if anything?

Once again, yes, the debt is huge, it sucks, its terrible. Got it. How does that make your fake grand jury somehow legitimate/effective/ not fraudulent?

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

Confessions?

"...we have a huge debt..."

I am not one of the people who are in any way morally obliged to pay the so called "National Debt," and even if I were to be fooled into thinking I was, the obvious fact is that there is no way that that crime of fraud (in progress) can be paid without further abuse of a very thin, and thinning, veil of authority.

If you and your army of frauds are insane enough to actually believe that it is your debt, that is one thing, but to expect any sane person, or moral person, to volunteer to be in your group, that is another thing.

"How does that make your fake grand jury somehow legitimate/effective/ not fraudulent?"

I have not yet taken the step to serve public notice of an impending election in my county, so your words above are typically false, and even if I were to volunteer to be a part of a common law grand jury it would not be mine, it would be a service to the innocent who are currently being routinely injured by criminals acting under the color of law.

Some people, like the group I just met last night, understand the competitive method of holding elected officials to account for their own criminal acts upon innocent people while they have taken an oath promising that they not only know what is a criminal act, but their oaths are promises that they will not perpetrate criminal acts while in office. Some people don't understand, and some, measurably, find reason to resort to deception as a means of discrediting time honored legal methods of trial by juries.

Interests:

1.
Defend the innocent against criminals who perpetrate crimes while hired as government employees.

2.
Discredit people who find, and then use, competitive, time honored, legal, lawful, methods of defending the innocent against criminals who perpetrate crimes while hired as government employees.

It depend upon who butters your bread?

Joe

ok more sov cit drivel then

I get it...you misunderstand what government by consent means, and while you are here on this site on the internet you pretend you are a sovereign...you then leave the house (I hope) and pay taxes and function as a citizen like everyone else. Heck you're even here at a site named after a US politician and dedicated to constitutional government. Either you're lost, or you're disinfo, or you're just stupid. Which is it?

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

Thanks for the explanation

So I said "trying to establish a common law grand jury" and you're objecting to the "trying to" part, i.e., you're asserting that they did, in fact, establish a grand jury there in Harley's Smokeshack restaurant.

That's the crux of issue isn't it. From one point of view, a self-appointed grand jury is, in fact, a legitimate grand jury, even if nobody else takes them seriously. From another point of view, they can call themselves a grand jury but that doesn't make them a grand jury, they're just some folks sitting in a restaurant, eating barbecue, drinking overpriced beer, and talking about how things ought to be.

Spinning as a rule?

"...they're just some folks sitting in a restaurant, eating barbecue, drinking overpriced beer, and talking about how things ought to be."

The presentment was published, witnessed, notarized, sealed, and offered voluntarily.

Failing to accurately report the facts is the rule, not the exception, for those whose pound of flesh taken from innocent human beings constitutes their source of "livelihood"?

Joe

Spin

The presentment was published, witnessed, notarized, sealed, and offered voluntarily.

Anyone can publish a document. Anyone can witness a document. A notary will witness your signature on pretty much anything you want them to notarize. Anyone can seal a document. Anyone can offer it voluntarily to anyone they want to offer it to. But why should anyone care?

My opinion offered

Innocent children being tortured and burned alive causes me to care enough about those crimes done on my dime for me to act in defense of further crimes done on my dime.

"my dime" is a phrase that can certainly be misunderstood as well as the next phrase can certainly be misunderstood:

The good faith and credit of the American people.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

In the famous words of Alfred E. Newman
"What me worry?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGNRwoOx0hs

A competitive idea may be an idea along the lines of caring for other people less fortunate once in awhile.

Joe

When I said "why should anyone care"

When I said "why should anyone care" I didn't mean "why should anyone care about others people less fortunate." I meant, why should anyone believe that doing things to a document that anyone can do to any document somehow made that group at that barbecue joint into a grand jury, as opposed to them being people at a barbecue joint pretending to be a grand jury.

If all that was necessary was that that they themselves declared themselves to be a grand jury, and had some papers signed and signatures notarized and so on, that's easy. The process could be streamlined with pre-printed forms and such so that, as long as a notary public is handy, any group that wants to be a grand jury could become one in minutes. Someone could open a bar at which any table that orders at least three pitchers of beer can sign some forms and have them notarized on the spot, and become a grand jury for the evening. Instead of being a bunch of friends sitting around drinking beer and talking about who think should be arrested, they're a bunch of friends sitting around drinking beer and talking about who they think should be arrested and writing up presentments that the clerk of the court had better take seriously or else face criminal charges themselves the next time the bar run a two-for-one wings special.

Failure

I care enough to defend honest people against slanderous and libelous attacks too.

If such attacks are made, I care enough to volunteer to act in defense.

Those who don't, won't.

Those who desire to injure people with slander and libel, for some reason, do so, because their cares are of a different bent?

Joe

None of that answered the question

about why doing things to a document, that anyone can do to any document, would make those people sitting around the table at the barbecue joint into a grand jury, as opposed to being people sitting round the table at the barbecue joint merely pretending to be a grand jury.

So the question remains. Any group of people can pretend to be a grand jury, in the same way they can pretend to be the Council of Elrond. What exactly does a group of people need to do in order to declare themselves a grand jury in a way that makes them an actual grand jury, as opposed to a group of people only pretending to be a grand jury?

I trust

I trust that anything I say to you will be used by you against me.

Having that as a defensive declaration, without bells and whistles that you may require before you officially recognized my offer to you of my viewpoint, aside, for the record that is what it is, a discussion of relative importance to me, putting that aside, having that aside, I can move onto answering a question that may or may not take seriously, and you may or may not try to use my words against me by your willful employment of your time and your power deceptively; whatever you deem to be profitable to you, at my expense, if my trust in my judgment of you is on the mark.

I may very well be wrong.

My intention to offer my viewpoints to others in an official legal capacity according to declarations made on the Declaration of Independence, whereby government is authoritative, and valid, when government is consensual; which is expressly, specifically, opposite of government by fiat, or government by decree, or government by tyrants operating tyranny, on and on, transpiring daily, as I type.

A.
Consensual, or voluntary, government being validated by the authorities volunteering to be authorities in 1776 setting one of many reinforcing standards of excellence in offering words in defense of the innocent against the crimes perpetrated by criminals hiding behind a thin veil of false authority.

B.
Criminals perpetrating crimes upon the innocent while the criminals are hiding behind a thin, and rapidly thinning, veil of false authority.

My intentions to do A transpire daily, without your permission.

My personal, whereabouts, at any given time, on any give day, in any given place, are offered to those who share A with me, even if we may meet at point A or point B.

You can degrade, discredit, foment, deride, destroy, bemoan, decree, your judgments concerning which place I go, who I meet, what we do when we meet, at your own cost, and at which time I am no longer able to defend against your degrading, discrediting, fomenting, derision, destruction, on and on, that will be the moment that I can no longer be a part of A, but I still won't be, if I have anything to do with it, part of your B routine.

"...those people sitting around the table at the barbecue joint..."

I've attended National Liberty Alliance Monday Meetups. I've joined that which I call A (offered as a definition in defense against your unwelcome attacks that obviously intend to be used against me, with your forensic choice of words aimed at discrediting that which deserves no discredit whatsoever) since well before I ran for congress in 1996, as a part of A I held myself accountable for the responsibilities I see my life to be, whereby I read, learn, become informed, and improve my viewpoint so as to be a better part of A, in defense against B.

When dealing with B, as often is the case, B decrees (actually those who join B, each in turn, decrees) that this be done that way, or this be done this way, according to their exclusive power to dictate what must be done, when it must be done, without question.

I learned how that works, and I learned well, when I ran for congress.

I learned how that works, and I learned well, when I read a list of books that bears repeating, but not right now.

If person A wishes to join A, according to those who have joined B, those who join A must do this and that with this or that specific process, or those who join B won't accept the validity of those who join A. In other words those who dictate into being an involuntary association, or organized crime ring, dictate the rules governing everyone without exception; while those who agree to avoid such nonsense are often encountering the minions of group B, the liars, or those who threaten, if not there being a meeting of one in group A with the actual dictators who resort to terrifying and horrifying aggressive violence upon the innocent.

Case in point:

Joiners of B lend moral and material support to the English monarchy and they are known as Tories and Loyalists.

Joiners of A lend moral and material support to their own sacred honor as defenders of Liberty against criminals hiding behind a thin, and rapidly thinning, veil of false authority.

Joiners of B claim that those who have join A must join B instead, or die.

The B members kill those who refuse to accept blind obedience to falsehood without question.

Hence the words:

http://www.patrickhenrycenter.com/Speeches.aspx

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Those in B are apt to skip past all the other words, zero in on the words that can be used against those who join A, and use those words against that individual who said those words, and do so by twisting those words.

A false claim by the individual using those words against the individual who is quoted as having said those words might attempt to discredit that person by claiming that that person who had joined A has, by his own words, a death wish.

The false law, in the B group, offers death for the crime of failing obey the B group, and so the counter offer, offered back to the B group is no thanks, I'll take option A, not B.

Patrick Henry did not get B, Patrick Henry insisted upon A. Patrick Henry was one of those who were instrumental in making sure that the following stood as the law of this land after the B group was temporarily bottled up, or chained down with the following:

__________________________________________________________
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
_____________________________________________________________

That is from the official law of the land that is supposedly followed by the employees.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

Sacred Oaths are supposedly honored by Oath Takers taking Oaths that are promises (like campaign promises) to obey that law of this land according to THEM who take those Oaths.

When the volunteers in group A care not to hold the volunteers in group B to account for failures to do as they promise, then those who volunteer to join group B get away with unspeakable crimes while they are under Oath to not do unspeakable crimes.

Example:

_________________________________________________
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
__________________________________________________

Call that an opinion offered by those in group A to anyone caring to know better from worse.

Counter offer example from those in group B:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

___________________________________________________
The Sedition Act clearly violated individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution; however, the practice of "judicial review," whereby the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws was not yet well developed. Furthermore, the justices were all strong Federalists. As a result, Madison and Jefferson directed their opposition to the new laws to state legislatures. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the federal laws invalid within their states. The bold challenge to the federal government offered by this strong states' rights position seemed to point toward imminent armed conflict within the United States.
____________________________________________________

What happened to Amendment V?

Those is group B, dictators, criminals, and the like, criminal minds think alike, took Oaths to obey their own rule of law and then broke their own rule of law as if there was no such thing as rule of law, demonstrated in point of fact, demonstrated by those in group B.

Those in group B, apologize for each other, cover each other, with a never ending increase in lies.

Those is group A warn:

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/henry.html

___________________________________________
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.
___________________________________________

Which trial by jury?

The trial by jury dictated into being by those in group B (the offer of obey or die) or those in group A (the offer of agreement or no longer be recognized as being a part of group A)?

What do I mean by that last answer to the questions being asked by
someone I trust to be someone in group B?

I cannot offer the message intended by me better than this:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/SamuelAdams1776.html
____________________________________________
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!
________________________________________________________

The offer is, in my own admittedly pathetic words, join or die because those in group B will kill or enslave.

If that is not the truth, so help me God, then I am unfit as a volunteer in group A, and perhaps I should start licking boots too.

Count on me, anyone, anywhere, I do not lick the boots of those in group B. I never have, I am not now, and I never will, so help me God, or so help me anyone including God.

My parents never licked those dictatorial boots, neither parent, and neither did their parents. Handed down from generation to generation of English, Irish, and German decent, as far back as I know personally.

Please, anyone reading this sword play of trial by jury, do not listen to that song of that siren, parroted by the minions of group B, and take heart in knowing that our numbers in group A are sufficient to defend against those in group B, now.

The tide is turning so long as those in group B are prevented by those in group A from executing further pogroms that they claim to be legal, as World War III does appear to be going off the schedule.

What does "don't listen to the song of that siren mean", from one in group A to another?

______________________________________________
Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
________________________________________________

Does it mean listen to those in group B who by routine rule of their involuntary laws they resort to lies as means of gaining for themselves that which someone else has produced?

The siren that says obey and you will be secured by us without you ever having to question a thing little lambs?

What is my reason for my defense right here right now?

If I don't stand up to these liars who will?

Please help, if you will, and if it is worth your time, and worth your effort, then what you will into being will be done by you, at your own cost.

No big deal on my part, I employ these Trolls as a routine practice so as to then be better prepared in my life when I meet higher Trolls who have climbed up their Troll ladders on the backs of their innocent victims that they alone destroy with their lies, their threats, and their aggressive violence INTENDING to destroy the innocent among us.

Take heart, my friends, if I may be so bold in offering, the rules that govern us are swinging rapidly in favor of Liberty, because we are tolerating nothing less and because they, the criminals, have spent all their political capital which was stolen in the first place.

Joe