Archive for the ‘Jury’ Category
I have been asked as to what is the nature of ‘common law’? It is not an easy question to answer, given that most are unfamiliar with law in general, and today, few understand our unique form of government “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This statement from our Declaration deserves some explanation before going further.
Prior to the Revolution, conducted by our Insurrectionist Founders, men were subjects of monarch’s who ruled by the Divine Right of Kings. They governed their people by the fallacious concept that an individual was placed on a throne by birth right. God had determined that the individual should be the person who ruled. And that person was given allegiance by his people, but if they failed to do so, they were brought into line by the power of the “Sword.” There has always been plenty who would wield the “Sword” against his fellow man for one reason or another.
Those Fifty-Six Insurrectionist’s, who signed their own death warrant, and had “Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms” saw the monarch as “A Prince whose character [was] thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [was] unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” So, the fight for a government “of, by, and for the people” became a reality for those who sought to abide by law that “We the People” would compose, defend, and prosecute.
There is a history of common law, and it is best that I allow historic figures to explain. I will attempt to give some light to the subject using their words, and case law.
Common Law seems simple enough to me, but to the average person who has been inundated with reams of papers by those claiming some sort of expertise, promoting some foolishness, and judicial legislating, the prescription is anathema to common sense.
Blackstone gives a simple explanation by writing, “THE policy of our ancient constitution, as regulated and established by the great Alfred, was to bring justice home to every man’s door, by constituting as many courts of judicature as there are manors and townships in the kingdom; wherein injuries were redressed in an easy and expeditious manner, by the suffrage of neighbors and friends.”
Our system is that of common law. If you have been harmed in some way, you are entitled to relief. As Justice John Marshall explains in Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137.
“If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. *** Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law.
'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.'
“And afterwards, [still quoting Blackstone] 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'”
Over the years, there have been numerous hucksters, charlatans, and even those who are of goodwill, who paraded out schemes designed, somehow, to enforce the law, or that the law was some form of secret code designed for the elite to enslave us all. While we have been enslaved to a certain extent, the law does not allow for, and indeed it does provide an ultimate authority for the people to claim redress and enforce our sought remedy.
I sincerely hope that those who read this understand that this nation was formed in turmoil. A bloody revolution fought over years, wherein the end result was a Nation “constructed on the principle that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people.” - Chisholm v Georgia 2 U.S. 419, 457
How do we attain, and even maintain such a lofty goal? Those who debated the Constitution were not ignorant of the fact that tyranny would always be a threat. The Bill of Rights arose out of that historical record. Patrick Henry, a student of human nature, understood the dangers of leaving questions, or even clearly defined words at risk to the will of the oppressor.
Henry insisted that a Bill of Rights be added over the objections of James Madison who thought it to be superfluous. This is important to demonstrate that both Henry and Madison were correct in their arguments. Madison noted that government is given certain powers to which they must comply, but Henry argued that there would be those, in the future, who would usurp the powers, and prohibitions clearly stated. Today, we argue and ignore the words of both men.
The Bill of Rights bolsters the principles of common law by citing numerous components of the means to enforce common law; freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and to redress the government. Security against unreasonable search and seizure. Warrants to be issued upon probable cause. A grand jury and a petit jury. Thomas Jefferson noted, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Blackstone wrote, “as all wrong may be considered as merely a privation of right, the one natural remedy for every species of wrong is the being put in possession of that right, whereof the party injured ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
The first law of this nation is the Declaration of Independence. It outlines the relationship between government, and the People who are governed by “consent.” It note’s “that [we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights” as a principle of restricting bureaucratic intrusions and highlighting the fact that we are a nation of sovereigns who answer to a Higher Power.
It is declared in unique form for the entire world to be made aware “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed”. It goes on to assert, “That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”.
The Declaration then details the many abuses of the government that the good People of the 13 Colonies were forced to endure, and therefore “declare the cause which impel[ed] them to the separation.”
Among the many causes, the delegates noted; “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” This seems most notable to me when considering the current political landscape where rights have been converted into privilege by the vermin we continually re-elect, but even more important is the mindset of those who consider themselves to be patriotic.
There are few who stand up “with manly firmness” to tell our representatives that they have crossed the line. Instead we grovel, hope, and pray for a resolution in a game that our abusers have instituted for their own benefit.
We philosophize in great detail about how, what, when, and where. We speak circles around theories and events that may never occur, nor do we have the historical basis for those events.
We have allowed changes to the Constitution without a bona fide amendment process. We’ve allowed the meaning of the words to be interpreted away when it was understood that “In expounding the constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it.” – Holmes v. Jennison et al., 14 Pet. 540, 570-571, 614, 618 Appx.
We’ve allowed so many incursions into our rights and powers that we can no longer call this nation a functional Republic. It is exactly or might be considered far worse than what the Colonists endured.
How do we approach restoring the Republic without a violent revolution?
Before answering the question I’ve posed, I should express my doubts as to whether it is possible at this point to avoid bloodshed.
This nation was founded on a principle. It is a principle that seems to be impossible for almost every American to comprehend and embrace. That belief is stated in the Declaration as a government of the People that “deriv[es] its just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Let me expand on that a bit. We judge the Law, we “execute the Law”, and we enforce the Law. We do not sit on juries and rubber stamp statutes that infringe our rights. We do not allow for the creation of agencies that go beyond the scope of government’s limited authority. We do not allow government thugs to perform functions specifically enumerated to ourselves.
The Founders instituted a government that had little power to act without the People taking the specific steps or expressing the authority to resolve an issue. On a subject that I’ve almost beaten to death in my articles, the expressed authority “to execute the Laws of the Union” is in the hands of We the People. That is to say, “the whole people”, acting with the recognized authority in the institution that flows throughout the Constitutions, and both state and federal statutes. It has not been changed, nor can it be changed without re-writing literally hundreds of statutes, the constitutions of the states and federal government, and the admission that there has been an obvious violation of fundamental law.
On that subject, today, I will only say that if we are avoiding the return of power to the People in its constitutional forms, we are embracing the destruction of liberty, and more importantly, the inevitability of a bloody revolution. Stop claiming that you are opposed to bloodshed when you endorse it by the aversion of the People’s stated authority.
This nation has morphed into an oligarchy with a population of dreamers. One side dreams that they will destroy the other with lies and deceit. While they preach tolerance, they are the most intolerant people. Their motto seems to be that you can speak freely only if you agree with me.
The other side dreams that they can do the same thing over and over and obtain different results. An example of which is to go into a court that has consistently worked to violate most of our rights and expect it to turn around because it is the law.
What plagues us today troubled the colonists back then; men with no scruples, and those with swords to enforce the exploitation. How do we overcome?
This system is dependent on the voracity of the various components, which are executive, legislative, and judicial. Three branches, taught to us in school, that function to limit abuses by the other. This is all well and good, but it is not a legitimate diagram of our form of government.
There is the state, the People, and our jury system; it was pure beauty in its simplicity. The system has been corrupted, in main part by a branch with little oversight, and our willingness to do nothing but follow its often-illegitimate decrees.
The delegated authority of the courts was to function as a stop-gap to unlawful acts of any branch, agency, or bureaucracy that stepped on the law. However, what the Founders hoped ...
No Comments »
by Nicholas Testaccio
Richard Henry Lee, one of Virginia’s representatives to the Continental Congress having made the long journey to Philadelphia presented a resolution on June 7th, 1776 that proposed the separation of the Thirteen Colonies from the state of Britain.
The Lee Resolution declared, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.”
However, there were states that were not ready to take the steps necessary to break the bonds with England. On July 1st, the Congress selected Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and Robert R. Livingston of New York to draft “A Declaration”.
John Adams convinces Thomas Jefferson to write the first draft and in just three days the man from Virginia writes what will become one of the most poignant doctrine of history, proclaiming not only the reasons for “dissolv[ing] the political bands” of one people to another, but also detailing what was to become the most unique governmental enterprise known to man … A government “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and subject to the popular sovereignty of the People.
After a long and arduous fight the “bands” were broken and a new nation was formed. The struggle was not over as the men from Virginia stood their ground to guarantee “certain unalienable Rights”. Once again the political genius that helped form this nation instituted a Bill of Rights.
Sadly, this Fourth of July we lament the end to the Bill of Rights for despite the admonition that “Congress shall make no law” every branch of this government, its bureaucrats, and unconstitutional agencies treat the document as if it were a blank sheet of paper that may be interpreted away by fiat, and tyrannical acts. Unalienable rights will eventually become irrelevant while being replaced with pretend rights that aid in the destruction of family, safety, honor, and integrity.
Today we live in a world where common sense is overwritten by political correctness. Our rights are no longer “endowed”, but rather privileges granted by the state.
Hordes of immigrants are granted favor for their religion, free speech is that which is consigned to zones and does not offend select groups, and this government of the People has declared it has no obligation to redress a grievance.
The body of the People most “necessary to the security of a free state” is gone through deceit and outright lies, and without our knowledgeable consent.
We quarter thousands of our friends, neighbors, and family as those who stand ready to write tickets, arrest for pretend offenses while allowing invaders to rape and destroy our traditions and laws.
We are subject to forfeiture of property, invasions of our home by teams of armed men, sometimes holding defective warrants, sometimes holding silent warrants, and always held by those without the recognized authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.
We are subject to the ignorance, corruption, and ambivalence of a grand jury no longer under the control of the People, but rather subject to the machinations of often vicious and ambitious prosecutors.
We are held for criminal prosecutions derived from unconstitutional acts, and often deprived of knowing the nature and cause of the accusation, and unable to confront those in the state who make such fictitious claims.
We are subject to the whims and fears of an uneducated jury improperly, and erroneously instructed by a black robed administrator of the state.
We are fined or jailed for protecting our property, speaking out, resisting unlawful arrests, and attempts to reclaim our sovereignty.
Rights that are clearly defined are attacked and eroded ongoing, while those activities most repugnant to the sanctity of a free republic are lauded as something to be honored.
We are cowed to a federal oligarchy that imposes its will through schemes, or artful design that erodes, confuses, and confounds liberty while the state stays silent as its People are laid bare to tyranny.
This Fourth of July, we may drink our beer, eat our hot dogs, and celebrate the acts of some celebrity, or sports figure as the nation falls into decay, and the forces of evil encroach on every aspect of our lives.
No Comments »
On December 3rd a Grand Jury handed down a verdict of “no bill” in the case of the murder of Eric Garner. The Grand Jury handed down the correct decision. What’s that you say?
I said the Grand Jury handed down the correct decision. I did not say that the Grand Jury handed down a proper or lawful decision. Their decision was correct in the role we’ve abdicated to a government seeking to diminish not only our rights, but also our authority.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”
The Grand Jury is charged with the investigation, and determination of whether or not an act of malfeasance had occurred. It is, among other things, a stop-gap to government tyranny so it is certainly not subject to the authority of a prosecutor. It is meant to be in direct conflict to the unconstitutional office of the prosecutor. I don’t care what attorney or pretend constitutional scholar states to the contrary. They are simply part of a system who seeks to perpetuate its own authority, and wealth.
Each and every servant of the republic must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is as binding on the states as it is on the central government. That oath is a sacred pledge to the People that the “rule of law” will be followed as it was enacted by the good People of this nation.
Law does not change. Either the word is followed as it was originally meant, or as Thomas Jefferson warned, “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
Nowhere in the Constitution can you find an office of prosecutor established. The term prosecutor applies to the person bringing the complaint, and since this is a nation of sovereigns, not subject to the law, the office of prosecutor cannot exist. As a sovereign we can prosecute a war against another sovereign, and we certainly can claim the right of self-defense from the intrusions of another sovereign.
As a nation of sovereigns we can also prosecute through our most peaceful method in a jury trial. That petit jury is charged with not only determining the legitimacy of the claim, civil or criminal, but also the law, under which a case may arise.
Both the Grand and the Petit juries are independent of government intervention. They are not subject to the instructions of a judge, and the Petit Jury becomes the ultimate authority in the case, “…and no fact tried by a jury, shall otherwise be re-examined in any court of the United States”.
If we subscribe, at all, to the principles of the “Declaration” that established this nation as one, in which “all men are created equal”, we cannot logically conclude that one person, no matter what office he/she may have been assigned, can call upon the awesome power of the state to achieve what may very well be an abuse of power.
Years before my family came to this nation, and I dare say that one of the reasons they came was because we the People were willing to guarantee our rights, and freedom. As the court highlighted, “When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.” – Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356
“We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, 8. As James Madison wrote, “[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”” – United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549
In both cases the court was simply stating the obvious intent of what our Founders saw for this nation of sovereigns. “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton
What happened? We the People sat back and fell for every trap, ploy, act, sham, and false flag devised and perpetrated by those who seek the power to rule over us with an ‘iron fist’.
What I’ve stated above is the rule of law as it was pronounced by the Founders of this nation. The thoughts, aspirations, and hopes of the People who fought for and established a new nation created as a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a democracy, and here lies the basic problem.
We the People have taken as Gospel so many fallacies that we don’t know the difference between what is up, and what is down. I’ve elaborated on a number of things in the past. Restating the obvious would mean nothing to the majority who’ve been led down this path of democracy, and tyranny. There are few who understand what is taking place, and even fewer who will admit that they don’t know how to resolve the issue.
The biggest problem is the majority ...
1 Comment »
In my article “Five to Four”, I suggested that controversies in law are more often than not resolved with more controversy. It is my conclusion that either the judiciary is ignorant of the law, or its purpose is to destroy the sovereignty of the People.
There are several questions that come to mind when considering the judicial system. The first of which is whether or not it conforms to the mandates and restrictions set forth in Article III of the Constitution? Then I must ask if it sets itself within the original idea that it was to protect the People from the transgressions of the executive, and legislative branches?
More importantly has it procured authorities that it was never granted? The powers of interpretation, and fiat are not enumerated anywhere.
Robert Yates writing in opposition to the language and meanings of the proposed Constitution wrote, “The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.” The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the law. The law as established through the Declaration of Independence comes solely within the jurisdiction of the People as they granted limited powers to the government to perform very few specific tasks.
I would also like to note that the parameters of whether the rule is federal or local are specious arguments that are designed to obfuscate the obligation of the People’s servants; “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—.” The state, as an instrument created by the People, did not create the federal government, in turn, with a completely different operating paradigm.
The distinction made between federal and state disregards the fact that every individual that is in some way attached to a function of government must swear an oath to the Constitution. It also ignores the law enforcement authority of the People as explained through the function of the Militia. Did the People leave themselves bare to local tyranny, but not federal? No! The servants in our form of government, be it local or federal, should be working overtime to protect our rights, or else be subject to our rule of law.
The argument of federal and state is made, in my opinion, to denigrate our unalienable rights by making the fallacious claims that the state has no obligation to adhere to the Bill of Rights, and that instead of securing “these rights” the state governments may by acts of the local legislature convert them to privileges. Or as some would say, we operate under De Facto law; exercising power as if legally constituted.
Did some of the most brilliant philosophical and political minds of any time mean to protect the People from the federal government, but make no such restrictions upon the local governments? It is without logic, and has no reconciliation in the build up that initiated the Declaration of Independence, and the ratification of the Constitution.
In addition, the arguments create a miasma of legal definitions, precedents, twists, and turns that are ultimately designed to centralize powers to the federal government. When the judiciary interprets the law, such as its wildly inaccurate and unlawful claim that the “general welfare” clause gives government powers not listed, it is taking power from the People, and transfers it to the government.
Madison clarified the meaning of “general welfare” by stating, “Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it. . . . But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”
However, from the very outset, and over the decades we have allowed the judiciary to make outlandish claims of interpretations that render the Constitution and the power of the People moot. Robert Yates went on to say, “[the authors of the constitution] have made the judges independent, in the fullest sense of the word. There is no power above them, to control any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controlled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.”
The inevitable conclusion is that the legal profession through its brotherhood can, and will establish an autocracy with divine powers equivalent to the system we fought to overturn.
In the “Rights of Man” Thomas Paine writes, “There was a time when Kings disposed of their Crowns by will upon their deathbeds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed.”
Paine goes on to say, “The laws of every country must be analogous to some common principle. In England no parent or master, nor all the authority of Parliament, omnipotent as it has called itself, can bind or controul the personal freedom even of an individual beyond the age of twenty-one years. On what ground of right, then, could the Parliament of 1688, or any other Parliament, bind all posterity for ever?”
With each passing decision rendered by the judiciary, that body of men and women trained in the law have consigned not only you and I, but also our progeny to terms and conditions that jeopardize, or abolish our natural rights.
It should be obvious that when one right is deemed subject, then all rights are at risk of the interpretations established in the first case. It is a slow and inconspicuous erosion of rights geared toward the centralization and monopoly of power.
Remember that the legal system is a contained unit of those who learn the law as it is ever changing by their own hands. That is to say that those people who write the laws, interpret the laws, and ...
No Comments »
Recent Form Posts