View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2018 05:07 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
"This suggests that journalism has a higher calling, and a certain responsibility to the people, to be truthful and accurate. It is a noble calling to those that understand it, yet, in this day and age, few want nothing more than to wield power towards attaining their agenda."

Written words can be factual, and therefore moral, legal, lawful, peaceful, accurate, justified, right, productive, constructive, and the same applies to words transferred from individuals to the collective sum of individuals, by voice.

Written words can be willfully false, intending to harm innocent people, and therefore immoral, illegal, unlawful, disturbing the peace, inaccurate, unjustified, wrong, destructive, and again the same principle applies when the criminal words are spoken.

When the criminals take-over the law power they - as a rule - make it a crime to blow the whistle on the fact that the criminals have taken over the government.

The First Amendment to the criminal Constitution of 1789 (the African Slave Trade Subsidizing Constitution) was not an effort to give license to anyone, it was an effort to remind people that it is their duty to blow the whistle on criminals taking over the government: indict the criminals in government.

How can anyone hold criminals in government to account if everyone knows that they will be tortured or murdered for writing or speaking accurate accounts of just exactly which crimes are perpetrated by which individuals infesting criminal government: so-called tyranny?

2 examples out of many examples concerning what happens to those who do not keep their mouths shut when speaking publicly about criminals in government are Martin Luther King Jr. and Lavoy Finicum.

If an indictment can be exemplified then please consider entertaining the possibility that the Declaration of Independence is worth the effort to example in this light.

Of course the British Warmongering, Slave Trading, Central Banking Fraud criminals did not rubber stamp the Declaration of Independence as a legal indictment against themselves. The British criminals had made it the "law" that whatever they did was legal, including the enslavement of entire populations on earth, and anything anyone else did was potentially a capital crime resulting in torture for "confession," and then summary execution.

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.

"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."

People, on their own authority, seek the facts that matter, and those facts are published on the public record. Those inculpatory facts prove beyond reasonable doubt that the government is criminal. If said "government" hides under the desk, fearful of being tortured, murdered, or fired for not protecting the criminal government from the victims (the so-called people), then the criminals in government confess the fact that they are in fact the criminals, at least to anyone who cares to know the truth. Either the individuals in government drain the swamp or they shoot the messengers. This is not rocket science. The public domain, the public record, is overflowing with indictable inculpatory evidence, to put the criminals in government on trial for their crimes. This is not news.

Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
Lisa M. Kurcias
"While the Supreme Court requires prosecutors to disclose certain evidence to the defense, consequences for withholding such evidence do not exist in the criminal justice system."
87. See Weeks, supra note 78, at 878 ("[T]he prospect of a civil suit under federal law for a Brady violation simply does not exist. We will have to look elsewhere to discover the incentive for prosecutors to comply with their constitutional obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence.").

"In fact, the Supreme Court has granted prosecutors absolute immunity from civil liability for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence.88"
88. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Bruce A. Green, Policing Federal Prosecutors: Do Too Many Regulators Produce Too Little Enforcement?, 8 St. Thomas L. Rev. 69, 79 n.54 (1995) [hereinafter Green, Enforcement] (stating that "prosecutors have absolute immunity for misconduct related to their prosecutorial function").

People either constitute a total power (sum total of all the individuals that constitute the whole people: republic) that insists upon accountability in government (1st so-called Amendment) or people support (aid and abet) criminals in government.

There is no middle ground. There is no fence to sit on.

JANUARY 17, 1788.
Richard Henry lee, 6th President of the United States of America before the criminals took-over the federation.

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert."