|Moderated by: Joe Kelley||
|News from the Monopoly?|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Wed Oct 30th, 2013 08:27 pm||
|A volunteer member of The National Liberty Alliance posted the following link:
For those who have been brainwashed into thinking that legal authority is handed down from "supernatural" men to their chosen successors who are then made into "supernatural" men by that process, or for those of you who have lived your life working so hard that you know nothing about government by consent IN FACT, the above news is news.
It was not news to King John in England in the 13th Century.
King John was one of the worst false authorities in English history. John, a supposed King among men, was so bad at that job that he inspired almost everyone in England to band against him.
King John was given an offer he could not refuse.
King John was given at least two choices as offers offered to King John as to the nature of the relationship between the King and the rest of the people living in the Country known as England.
Sign this piece of paper and remain King
Do not sign this piece of paper and no one, certainly not us, will help you avoid the angry mob that will in all probability have your head on a pike as soon as it is reported, on the record, that you refused to sign this piece of paper.
The paper was an oath or promise that the King was being asked to make and the promise made by the King, since he did eventually sign the promise, the Oath, the record of trust that the King would do as he says, a contract if you will, a will if you will, a testament if you will, signed, sealed, stamped, made official, and then offered to everyone else in the country, as a record, in a Court of Record, was, from then on, the official Declaration of Independence of each free human being in the Country.
Each independent peer, or juror, each defender of the Country against all who are enemies of the people in that Country, was at that moment raised as authorities over any law made by any other person, any person, in that Country from that moment onward.
No punishment could be executed by anyone upon anyone without condemnation by 12 members of a randomly selected Jury of peers, and that practice which started in the 13th Century was KEPT by those Americans who fled England to escape the Kings who were effectively destroying Liberty in England, including the destruction of the practice of Trial by Jury in England.
So Trial by Jury worked for some time after the 13th Century in England. Then the really bad people took over once again, as the really bad people Usurped Liberty once again in England, and those who fled England to American took with them their Defense of Liberty in that form that worked to reach Liberty, that process known as Due Process of Law, with that process known as Trial by Jury.
There is no way that Trial by Jury can work if the peers are ignorant of how the process works in fact.
So where is the information that informs the peers of how the process of Trial by Jury works in fact?
I suggest that any peer, any free thinking person, and defender of innocent people against horrible crimes perpetrated by terrifying criminals, read the following:
Trial by Jury Web copy
Trial by Jury .pdf
Including these words:
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.
Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.
But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.
Now, having given, offered, a context from which to place a reader into, I can quote from the link at the top of the page (relink that link HERE) and try to explain the concept of JURY NULLIFICATION.
Prospective jurors who take the subway to D.C. Superior Court and exit near the National Building Museum see these words: “Good jurors nullify bad laws” and “You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”
If we the people living in this country called America banded together under the common goal of defending the innocent against any criminals anywhere then the following scenario should suffice to illustrate how that can work.
Suppose the so called President of the United States (which is a corporation no different than Wall Mart is a corporation) orders all the first born of every mom and pop across this country called America had to, by law, cook and eat that baby within one week after it is born.
You can jerk your knee and blame me for proposing an absurd law, all you want, but I am an amateur at proposing absurd laws; we are among the professionals who ENFORCE absurd laws IN FACT.
So the idea is to illustrate the point by reaching for an extreme illustration of the POINT being illustrated.
So, the edict, the Law (so called) is handed down by the King, or the President of Wall Mart, whatever, and there are plenty of Wall Mart Security Employees ready, willing, and able to enforce this edict, and the edict reads like this:
So the stage is set flamboyantly in the illustration for consideration.
What next all ye Friends of Liberty?
Protectors of children from tormentors?
Following up with the concept, the mind can imagine things proceeding step by step along the path of absolute despotism, as the pretenders to the throne of absolute authority of Man upon Man find someone suspected of having not eaten their first born.
Here, says the prosecutor, is the accused, and here is the first born of the accused, and as you can see, Jurors, the first born is not fried up, and the first born is not eaten, and since the first born is now obviously 2 months old, the accused is uncontroversially guilty as charged, what say you Jurors?
What can you say, Jurors, as there is no room for any doubt whatsoever, not at all, the accused is guilty of failing to pay the tax.
|Current time is 03:01 pm|
|Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > News from the Monopoly?||Top|