|Moderated by: Joe Kelley|
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of American's Criminal Courts, Roger Roots
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Plea-bargaining is voluntary when no other people are threatened by the offender, but involuntary when the potential for injury yet to be done by the offender is bought off by a private person, which then allows the offender to run amok in the playground. Those who bribe the offender to use their Profitable Monopoly instead of actual Law are accessories to any crimes yet to be done by the offender who is then let loose on the general public.
The police powers were the powers to clean up like a janitor: Police the Area was a common janitorial duty up until - at least - the Korean War as told by my Father; a veteran of that War.
The Corporate Police Employee, now known commonly as LEO, is employed by shareholders to protect the limited liability of the shareholders: to serve and protect the Legal Fiction.
It is a fraud that started in 1787 in America, to replace The People (one group without factions) living in Liberty and investing in a Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense (a federation of independent states) - to replace actual law - with counterfeit law powers: moving power from the people as a whole, and moving power to a faction.
As informative as is the book by Roger Roots, he apparently (I have not yet finished the book) missed the original crime when the false Federalist Party criminals perpetrated the obvious - confessed - fraud on the American people.
If the question asked is "How to return to rule of law in America (voluntary association for mutual defense), then the book by Roger Roots is a piece in the puzzle, a piece that someone might pick up, peruse, and then see the whole picture for the first time, rather than randomly fitting puzzle pieces into a (so-far) futile attempt to see the whole picture.
My next offering of data will be tomorrow if things go according to plan, and I will post an example of "Police Powers" as they are being exemplified routinely in America these days. Then my plan is to show those same Police Powers at work in what was called The Last Battle of the Revolutionary War: a key piece in the puzzle.
|From Voluntary Mutual Defense:
At this point it may be a good time to explain the functions of independent (voluntary) grand juries, as those groups of volunteers differ from independent (voluntary) trial juries.
A grand jury is meant to be a point at which an individual is given (voluntarily) access to due process of law, and everyone is afforded this access to the same due process of law that works blindly, without prejudice, without bias, fairly, equitably, expediently, efficiently, the highest quality due process, and the lowest cost due process so far invented by mankind.
An individual named John Doe is unable himself to remedy a situation whereby a criminal gang has tortured, raped, and murdered a whole family. The family happens to be the family of Joe Doe; he was at work when the gang perpetrated the crime; massively.
John Doe is incapable of remedying the situation on his own, he needs help. Who does he contact? Does he call 911? What happens, as in the case of the Waco Massacre, when the distressed individual calls 911 and the perpetrators answer the phone?
In actual law John Doe goes to the volunteers who constitute the pool from which a Grand Jury is assembled. John Doe can go to any one of the people in that voluntary pool of magistrates who are also knowable as justices, or justices of the peace.
"The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal."
Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
More to the point:
U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1788
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice:
"Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. 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. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed."
People in need of protection well beyond their power to exert are afforded equal access (equal footing) to the law power. Their first step may be to a nearby Constable or Sheriff. If said employee is reluctant, not powerful him or herself, those (the injured party and the Sheriff) go to a peace officer, a justice, a magistrate, a justice of the peace, and that justice is duty bound to then decide the matter, and assemble a Grand Jury.
Is that untrue? Is that a fanciful Utopian dream concocted by a conspiracy theorist?
There is much more data to this truth. Those who refuse to see it will get their wish; perhaps.