"My fellow juror, how then do we decide on punishment and not become that which we abhor?"
If the sentence is nothing more than a guilty verdict, that is fine with me, but is it a good idea to keep paying these criminals their "retirement" income, including any tax breaks from other incomes not available to the people who actually earn income?
What happens if a fellow juror refuses to listen to reason, in any case?
At least the trial is shown on The Alex Jones Show, or, does Alex then show his true colors too, and refuse to broadcast the discoveries found in the official manner of discovering the legally authoritative version of the facts?
If all that due process is merely evil, as in Men are Bad, then why keep paying so much to the most evil among us?
Why call it tax, when it is merely investing all the good stuff that can be produced, by all us evil humans, into turning that good stuff into evil stuff instead?
If the idea is to be good, how can you, or I, in good conscience, work another minute to produce another kilowatt/hour worth of anything good, when doing so ends up painting a target on our backs, for those people to collect on their Golden Parachutes, for serving evil so well?
Trial by Jury, not perfect, by any means, could conceivably, at least, shine the light on the worst among us, so as to warn others as to what can be expected when those worst among us knock on the door.
"If someone cannot testify against themselves, perhaps that was supposed to alleviate confession torture?"
Torture is known to be unreliable, and therefore counterproductive, besides being as evil as evil can get.
I think a huge problem, a problem I am just now discussing with my cousin Mike on my forum, has to do with any residual credit given to Legal Criminals, where no such credit has been earned, where in fact the opposite is true.
What is the opposite of credit?
So The Constitution Usurpation was the problem of the day, and a fix to that problem was these Bills of Rights, including that Fifth Amendment. What can anyone make of such a thing?
I think it may be a good idea to judge the situation for what it was, not what we may want it to have been, and it is a compromise to Liberty, and who, on what end, forces such a compromise in any case whatsoever?
That brings us back to the question of who is the boss.
You have goodness in God on your side, teaching you to avoid being that which you supposedly abhor, refusing to join the criminals, refusing to be one, and in that, to me, includes not abandoning the victims.
You make as good a boss as any other human being, for those reasons.
Who do you elect to be above you in this authority to do good, for you, where you are not available, or capable, where you are, alone, and powerless, in any case whatsoever?
"...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..."
Why is it, in my travels, the case, always it seems to me, unless you can come up with one, whereby proponents of The Constitution end up referring to The Declaration of Independence, or The Bill of Rights, when crediting this Constitution with so much goodness?
Is that a clue?
What is this due process stuff if it is not a means by which the powerless victims are not abandoned and left to be tortured, and be murdered, in masses, in churches, by people collecting National Debt?
Waco, for example, was a tax collecting operation, in case you did not catch that fact in The Big Lie effort to inform those who are next.
"So what is the deal with people having to sign confessions under lengthy police interrogations?"
So...put on your juror hat.
What is due process?
Who is due process for and be precise if possible, please.
"You know, the kind you see on TV…good cop, bad cop."
Here is a fairly large myth, it seems to me, as to what due process is, in fact, and what is the opposite, and again I think we can spell this out in a math problem.
Common Law - Admiralty Law = Legal Crime
Common Law, or Natural Law, includes the concept of a process that is due to everyone without exception.
Does that sound reasonable to anyone, without exception?
If there is an exception, what is reasonable to that person, and would that person actually tell the truth or could you expect, trust, that the exceptions are exceptions because they lie so well?
What is the purpose of this or that television show dealing with cops?
I saw a show on yesterday, a show that I would not watch on my own, I have my own preferences for things on television, but I was not controlling the channeling device. A family swaps a wife with another family.
You can see red now, if I know you well enough, but it becomes even more clearly a case of willful intent to modify behavior, to me, as I watch.
A religious family send a bible thumping religious person, dressed provocatively, at least I thought she looked very attractive, as if that was the intent, to be attractive, but this person, in this counterfeit way, it seems to me, represents Christians.
You probably didn't watch the show.
The Christian swaps a wife from a family where the wife is married to the dad, and has herself a wife, it seems, I'm not sure, but dad was holding the hands of the wife who was swapped, and holding hands with a younger, more attractive woman, who was, apparently, the lesbian lover of the wife, and who knows what else, but I have an active imagination, so I guess, and meanwhile, since now I know a true Christian, and I have a basic idea of true Christianity, and so I can see this situation from a less vulgar viewpoint, not merely my own viewpoint, but I can borrow the true Christian viewpoint, at least as far as I understand it, despite my tendencies to be a vulgar child-like adult, and the show, the T.V. Show, with wife swapping, is contrasted against an actual Christian viewpoint.
Something here appears to be premeditated, as if to say, hey, it is OK to be anything you want, do anything you want, whenever you want, be free, free from costs, someone else will pay, and don't listen to those Christians, they are hypocrites.
I'm thinking that Television is Monopolized, a tool, a very destructive one, when there is no competition. Now there is competition, and so the Monopoly Message can be left behind, is being left behind, but the damage has been done: more torches of freedom.
Please excuse the wandering so far off topic, I hope my report does not disturb you too much.
"It was a theatrical production as far as I was concerned. A mockery. A case of is is."
No need to elaborate, but my point was to point out a specific command of power. If you had none, that is the point. If you had power, but did not utilize it, then that is the point. If you had power, abused it, then that would be the point. If you know what I mean, since you were on a Jury, then consider how someone not ever on a Jury may be considering the concept based upon no experience other than hearsay.
I hear people say a lot of things when considering Jury Duty.