 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I can try to add to the thought process, but my viewpoint may appear to be foreign, and my viewpoint may appear to be misdirecting the intention behind the question.
First:
"...the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order..."
That appears to be an error to me: in thinking. There is no entity knowable as the Common Law Grand Jury, as if said entity was one thing, one power, by which this one entity can exert power and that power is then causing other people to act against their own power of will.
In other words the concept in question (law) is based upon the concept of voluntary agreement among individuals who are responsible and accountable for their own power to act.
I can try to rephrase the question in order to help me discover the intention behind the question:
Original:
"I know this is a silly question, but if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man.
Putting it differently, what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?"
Removing some words in the effort to get closer to the meat of the question:
"...if the "Common Law Grand Jury" has the power to order a district judge to sign a writ, why don't they have the power to sign the writ themselves? You know, cut out the middle-man...
and
...what's the point of inventing a fantasy legal system in which you need judges to sign things for you if you can invent a fantasy legal system in which there are no judges and you can just sign things yourself?"
My adjusted question:
...if people agree to discover the facts in a case (said common law grand jury) where someone claims that an injury to an innocent individual victim (or individuals constituting a group of innocent victims) has occurred in time and place, will they do so, so as to set in motion a discovery of facts concerning the named perpetrator (or perpetrators) of that claim of injury, and if those people have the power to do so (because they agree to do so), then will they do so?
I do not know why fantasy is introduced into the question.
I can ask.
Why is fantasy introduced into the question?
I answer in this way because there appears to be a missing element involved in this conversation here and now.
Is there ever a power by which people help each other defend each other, voluntarily, against harm done to each other, so as to deter harm done to each other effectively, efficiently, and expediently, and if not, then is it a good idea to authorize ourselves to do so here and now?