View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Wed Oct 10th, 2018 08:44 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When the people as a whole maintain their power to enforce their will for justice in matters involving crimes perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims the people as a whole must - by natural laws - keep the process simple.

Failure to keep the process simple ensures that the process will disenfranchise a segment of the population, a segment already weak in powers required to gain, and employ knowledge, rendering that segment of the population outside of the powers of law, rendering them even less powerful.

The segment of the population that is strong in the powers required to gain, and employ knowledge, are afforded the opportunity to abuse this imbalance of power once the gate is opened to them for them to increase the complexity of the process of law. In simple terms: if the law process is simple, then the law process works for the whole people equally, and if the law process begins to become too complicated for some of the people, then the law process begins to empower those who make it complicated at the expense of those who begin to see the law as a process that is too complicated to understand or employ on their own. When that begins to happen the cost of the law process is paid for by those who do not understand the law process.

When and where this imbalance of power is acknowledged, the knowledge affords the people the opportunity to simplify the processes of law so as to return the people to a balance of power. Examples of this effort by the people to simplify the processes of law include the common law in England before Magna Carta and the common law in America between 1775 and 1789.

When the people constitute themselves as the group responsible for maintaining the law process, as in the common law with trial by jury, the people are by necessity moved toward simplicity. This is a natural process proven in each case whereby any innocent victim is processed by the whole people, and the whole people are bound by law to establish the facts, the law, and if the facts prove that the accused is guilty, then the whole country, through their jury, must also find a just remedy.

Why is it a natural process required by the people, to keep the process simple, when the people as a whole are driven to demand, and find, justice based upon fact?

When 12 people are randomly selected as trial jurors and those 12 people represent the whole people as one, those 12 people constitute the force of government power themselves. They are the power of government in that individual case. The whole people are represented as one group in that jury, and the whole people must unanimously agree, without division, without faction, without conflict among them, in order for the force of government to be lawfully unleashed upon anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Those who demand action against the accused are a faction, a division of the whole people, and they ask the whole people for a decision concerning their accusation against the accused. The whole people are represented in the jury, not a division of the whole: the jury is not a faction.

Those who demand action in defense of the accused are another faction, a division of the whole people, and they ask the whole people for a decision concerning the accusation against the accused.

Those factions have a common interest when those factions are inspired to convince the jury of the facts. Those factions must ask the whole country for a decision concerning the accusation against the accused. That common interest is for each faction to keep it simple: when both factions are inspired to convince the jury of the truth. Each faction must keep it simple because they are dealing with 12 randomly selected members of the whole people. If both factions fail to keep it simple for those 12 randomly selected members of the whole people then some of those 12 people might become confused and incapable thereby of finding the required agreement for a decision. Confusion leads to doubt about the facts.

That is the natural order. The natural order is to keep the process of law simple 6for 12 randomly selected jurors, so as to avoid confusing the jurors, which is the required process that is necessary when the goal is to find the truth, the facts, and render a factual, impartial, just, decision.

Why would anyone want to confuse the whole country of people? Why would anyone want to confuse 12 randomly selected people when 12 randomly selected people constitute the power of government in any case, anywhere, anytime?

In those times, and in those places where the people are the government, those people have demanded that failure to find unanimous agreement is insufficient to set in motion the power of government against any individual, anywhere, anytime, lawfully.

Accusers seeking remedy for injuries sustained by the accused cannot realize that desired remedy without convincing the entire jury - which represents the entire country - that the accused is, in fact, guilty and that the victim was, in fact, innocent, and that the government (those jurors) must remedy this wrong done by the guilty upon the innocent in that case.

If the jury does not agree, then there is division in the jury, which represents a division in the whole country, which renders the concept of government by the whole people, for the whole people, and of the whole people no longer possible, because of that division right there in that jury.

Rather than allow one part of the whole country to be set against another part of the whole country, the common law process does not allow a portion of the jury to set in motion the force of the government, and in cases of disagreement in the jury, the accused cannot be found guilty.