|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Sat Jun 1st, 2019 06:34 pm||
|When a number of volunteers filled those positions in actual government in the Bundy trials the outcome was something resembling trial by jury according to the common law; meaning trial by the country. The criminals in government were not allowed to continue to use kangaroo courts to persecute the Bundy patriots, at least not at that time, in that place, for now.
That is a serious precedent, as serious as the jury finding the government guilty of conspiracy murder in the Martin Luther King Jr. case, late in the day as it was.
What I don't get about modern patriots and their reliance upon counterfeit government is the lapses in moral conscience and the setting aside of Christian law (Mathew 7:12) in order to create (out of thin air) that reliance upon that counterfeit government power.
When criminals persecute under the color of law as a rule, maybe it is time to question the color of that law power.
Is Victoria Sharp afforded a remedy, or restitution, for having injury done to her by criminals with counterfeit badges? Shouldn't the real cops be interested in the case, if not alarmed: "one if by land, two if by sea"? Are those who perpetrated those injuries - under the color of law - joined in a conspiracy to add further injury to Victoria Sharp by obstructing the justice owed to her by those who claim to wield the power of government, if so who are those other conspirators?
Who is supposed to inform Victoria Sharp of her right to officially attest to the fact that she is, in fact, a victim of at least reckless endangerment in the first degree and depraved indifference to human life? Isn’t that the job of the county grand jury as they fulfill their duties, to care for those who are less versed in the law power? A presentment against the perpetrators by those common law grand jurors isn't prevented by the absence of an accusation affidavit, but why not write one up, file it, and then present the counterfeit government perpetrators with their opportunity to face the country in the form of a jury? The country, not a dictator, can find fact, or innocence, or guilt, and offer redemption of some kind, to allow those found guilty to volunteer to return to civil society.
Even if the victim is ignorant, confused, misguided, or guilty of any number of failures to do her own duty in a free country, isn’t it the duty of the government to protect and serve her, and since she was a victim of a crime perpetrated by a gang of criminals roaming the countryside, then isn’t it the duty of the government in that county to protect and serve all the other people in that county while that gang is rioting in the blood of the innocent in that county? Is it right to deport those criminals and allow those criminals to immigrate to another county without at least holding the perpetrators to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in the case? Those criminals might arm other criminals in other counties, doing so fast, and doing so furiously. Those criminals you set free may roam to other states, or other federations of states, or other dictatorships posing as republics. With a court of record documenting the facts about those criminals there is then a clear understanding of what is in store for those people in the other counties as those criminals are allowed to depart and immigrate hither. The facts are recording for public consumption, in courts of record, not fake news. Isn’t it the duty of the government to ensure that actual information that passes the actual will of the country through their representatives in a jury trial serve as a precedent for all?
Obvious to me there is no law in America, so where is this victim Victoria Sharp going to go to secure her remedy? Will there be another exception to the rule (there is no law in America) as was the case when the country was represented by trial jurors during the persecution case of the Bundy Patriots: a miracle? Instead, will some dictator with a fake gavel take more stolen loot out of the criminal counterfeit bank account and attempt to bribe the victim, censoring further investigation into the criminal matter?
“Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury." Conviction Factory, Roger Roots
Is that not simple enough? A civil case is where an individual has a conflict with another individual and the whole country of people are not endangered by either individual. A criminal case is a case where someone who willfully injures innocent people - with malice aforethought - is running amok in the area where good people have jurisdiction civil and criminal. Good people don’t allow evil people to get away with crimes. Good people hold criminals to account, and the law affords guilty criminals an offer to redeem themselves; all according to scripture by the way.
Evil is recognizable to some.