|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 05:53 pm||
|The Practice of Courts-leet, and Courts-baron: Containing Full and Exact Directions for Holding the Said Courts,...
Sir William Scroggs January 1, 1728
E. & R. Nutt, and R. Gosling
“The Steward may impose a Fine upon one who is elected Constable by the Jury, “
Note the date 1728. At some point after Magna Carta (1215) the nature of law decidedly turned from a just nature to a criminal nature as “jurisdiction” shifted out of the hands of the people themselves (juries, sheriffs, and whatever words are used to mean volunteers volunteering to help secure mutual defense, holding to an accurate accounting people who are in fact victims and holding to an accurate accounting people who injured those victims), and “jurisdiction” was taken (by criminal means) by people who counterfeit the law power. Criminals at war with society construct and maintain counterfeit versions of Courts. These counterfeit courts were enforcement arms of despotic criminals, and in order to sell these tribunals of extortion to the people who already commanded lawful - common law - courts, the criminals had to resort to various forms of deception, like baiting a mouse trap with cheese.
The original courts (natural law) were made up of the people themselves, selected randomly, and these law officers were jurors. What was the extent of the lawful powers of these jurors in their jurisdictions? Who gave them these lawful powers? Did the people accept these lawful powers? Did the people use these lawful powers effectively to protect and serve the public as a whole?
There above in quotes is an example of the lawful powers of these jurors at a time when the counterfeiting of the law was already working to a great extent, as measured by claims of counterfeit authority in opposition to the authority already recognized as authority commanded by those jurors. Already in 1728, the despotic criminal counterfeiters of law were claiming false jurisdiction in an effort to extort the general population, to pay “protection” payments to the organizing mob of criminals.
Jurors are representatives of the people as a whole, as confirmed by the fact that jurors were selected randomly. The power of selecting jurors is thereby taken out of the hands of special interest groups, and the power of selecting jurors is given to chance, or is a power given up by any number of people less than the whole number of people: The Public. The power given up by any special interest group, such as an angry mob, a mob of criminals, the government, the accuser, or the defendant, is a power given to more than just chance. Note here the voluntary nature of giving up, rather than taking by force, fraud, or any criminal, aggressive means, the power to decide who decides what is law or not law. Each private interest group, assembled for private interests, give up the power to decide what is a fact at law or what is counterfeit law, and each private individual in each private group gives that power to The Public, through a randomly selected jury. No one gives that power to a private group, but private groups, called criminal organizations, take that power in fact.
Each individual gives up their individual power to convict a felon of the crime of being at war with society, and that power to lawfully convict someone is put in the hands of a lottery. While each individual retains their individual power to set someone free on their own authority. This fact that matters was pointed out during the effort to convince King John of the need to sign the Magna Carta. The country, not the government, must unanimously decide on proof of guilt proven in a court of law (trial by jury, trial by the country), and any individual in the country - randomly selected to be on a jury - was given the power to decide that proof of guilt was not proven, in fact: set the accused free. The government (a despotic King) signed the document which recorded these facts that matter concerning our ancient law power.
The lottery of jury selection is authorized as a known advancement in science. Just as it is a known advancement to sterilize medical instruments, to avoid infection, it is a known advancement to avoid despotism by giving the power of lawful authority to the public as a whole, done so through random selection of jurors. Giving lawful authority to an independent jury - who represent The Public as a whole - effectively removes despotic power from criminals who counterfeit government power.
It is not necessary to place a defendant before the whole country, and it is not necessary to place a prosecutor (accuser) before the whole country to prove guilt to the whole country, and it is not necessary to assemble the whole country in a trial to then demand a unanimous decision from the whole country of people, in order to then unleash the violent actions - the force - of law upon presumed to be innocent accused defendants, who are thereby found guilty. It is not necessary to tax the whole country of people at once to find guilt in a civil case, to then ask the guilty for a fine, if the one who is guilty decides to do what is prescribed in order to return under the protection of lawful order. It is not necessary to ask the whole country to assemble for the purpose of finding a fact in a lawful case. Random samples have been proven to be accurate representations of the whole, and this knowledge found through science is useful when people decide that facts are valuable. When people decide that falsehood is valuable, then people voluntarily give up their power to defend themselves. One path clearly moves toward prosperity as people remain at liberty, and the other path invariably moves toward hell on earth: subsidized slavery of everyone by everyone.
It is possible to find what the whole country (The Public) demands for justice in any case by assembling representative samples of the whole country, but to do so there can be no jury “stacking,” or “packing,” which is a subset of jury “tampering.” If a portion of The Public, a faction, a side, a half, a majority, a minority, a fourth, a segment, a gang, a corporation, a mob, or other division of the whole, or something less than the whole, takes it upon themselves to handpick those who will be on or off the jury, then obvious bias is in place, which thereby counterfeits the will of The Public, turning the will of The Public into a Special Interest Group using government power to perpetrate an obvious crime added to whichever is the alleged crime in any case. The government for the people as a whole becomes a weapon in the hands of criminals. Even if the counterfeiters who falsely claim to speak for “society” (The Public as a whole) have good intentions during their effort to falsify the actual will of the people, the power gained by this deception - if it is effective - will inevitably corrupt the people who gain this arbitrary power. The capacity of the people to defend themselves voluntarily becomes the capacity of a segment of the people gaining absolute power over their defenseless victims. Why would reasonable people ever allow such an obvious crime against nature to begin, let alone ripen, and then rot? Why would reasonable people ever plant this cancer in the social body on purpose? Why would people of sound mind and body ever give up their lawful power for mutual defense and instead agree to be subjected to whatever dictates are issued by the worst human animals that pollute the human gene pool, at their exclusive pleasure?
What powers (jurisdiction) are commanded by jurors in any case, anywhere, anytime, on this planet? Jurors in the information quoted - apparently - commanded the power to elect a Constable.
Why would true jurors elect a Constable?
Why would counterfeit jurors be allowed to, or told to, elect a Constable, if a criminal dictated an order to be obeyed by a counterfeit jury?
That document reporting juries selecting Constables is dated (1728), and it may be important to note that the process of counterfeiting true law, doing so piecemeal is - the process of counterfeiting is - most like the original at the start of the crime, and least like the original at the point where the original is no longer visible to the public. The true lawful process commanded by the people themselves, in liberty, is as it is, works as it does before the first step is taken to counterfeit that natural, lawful, process: voluntary mutual defense. Then one step toward despotism - counterfeit law - is taken. Then another step is taken. Before Magna Carta (1215) the ancient law included voluntary sheriffs, voluntary jurors, and presumably voluntary prosecutors, and voluntary magistrates, or justices of the peace, or whatever words convey the meaning necessary to designate a volunteer who merits, is credited with or earns the authority to remind the people of the true nature of the process as the process proceeds from the crime scene to the determination by the jury (the country) of any fact in each case. Where does history show how the criminals begin to counterfeit the true law process?
The counterfeiting process has occurred before written documentation was generally done, and this bit of information is well documented in the work by Lysander Spooner: Trial by Jury.
At the start of the crime of counterfeiting government power (voluntary mutual defense through accurate accountability of the facts that matter in every case), the people commanded all jurisdiction civil and criminal, no matter what meaning some imposter might claim as the meaning of the word civil or criminal. The people, not the government, determine any fact at issue in any case. That means that The People, in case after case, determine what civil means, or what criminal means, in fact. That means, clearly, that a group - less than the whole - such as the government, an angry mob, a majority, a minority, a corporation, a town, a city, a county, a state, a federation of states, or even a despotic Nation-State Legal Fiction Angry Mob of Criminals, does not determine - lawfully - what civil means or what the word criminal means in fact.
The determination of fact - in any case - was visible to the public at large at the start of the counterfeiting job done by the criminals, and that method of determining fact - done by the people themselves, not the government - was still visible to the public as late as 1787 in Pennsylvania:
“It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
Previous to the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force, the people, in a jury, elected a Constable, as reported in the 1728 Courts-leet and Courts-baron document. As the confidence scheme imposed by a criminal force began, the criminals began to stack juries, to pack juries, to lie to juries, to coerce juries, to threaten juries, to extort juries, to claim ownership of juries, to control juries, to tamper with juries, to bypass juries, to torture presumed to be innocent people into false confessions known as “plea bargains,” and to profit exorbitantly while counterfeiting the ancient power of law that is commanded by the people themselves. Each step of the way was facilitated by individual people who chose to ignore each step toward despotism, choosing apathy instead of duty.
Is it the Grand Jury or the Trial Jury in the Court Leet of England 1728 whereby the people elect a Constable, and to what purpose in either case?
A Grand Jury or independent individuals moved into action - a cause to act - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or a witness to a crime.
Is that true? If it is true, then it is as true now as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by the Public at large.
A Trial Jury or independent individuals moved into action - a cause to act - by the need to keep the peace for The Public as a whole may elect a Constable to issue a subpoena to a reluctant witness, such as an accused individual mentioned in an affidavit placed into the record by a victim or witness to a crime.
Is that true? If true it is as true now as it was when it was generally understood to be true; understood by the Public at large.
How dumb is The Public at large now? How did The Public at large generally become so dumb? Who would want to dumb down the public, rendering them defenseless?
Anyone, anywhere, is randomly or otherwise elected to serve on a Grand or Trial Jury and they are well informed about their legal, lawful, authorized, justified, moral powers in any case, anywhere, anytime, and they are not the government, per se.
I am someone. So, theoretically, and not conspiratorially theoretic as in Conspiracy Theory, I (or anyone else) can imagine commanding this lawful power being offered in these words that have specified meaning, while at the same time these words can be misconstrued to mean the opposite: counterfeit. If people can see the usefulness of true lawful power (accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case), then theoretically people can employ that power: voluntary mutual defense. If people can’t see it, then people may believe the lies that are told by the imposters.
Theoretically, it is humanly possible to imagine a lawful county of republican nature (res-publica means The Public Thing) whereby a lawful Grand Jury is constituted out of independent people (not controlled by the government), and these people agree by some manner to present a member of the government with a court date.
Why would anyone start sweeping at the bottom step on a very long stairway?