| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Independence Preferred | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10th, 2018 03:44 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 16th, 2018 05:36 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor." George Mason When the people as a whole maintain their power to enforce their will for justice, they - as a rule - keep things simple. In matters involving crimes perpetrated by guilty criminals upon innocent victims the people as a whole must - by natural laws - keep the process of justice simple. Failure to keep the process simple ensures that the process will disenfranchise a segment of the population, a segment already weak in powers such as finance and knowledge. When the process of law begins down the path of complexity, the costs of gaining access to the process of law begins to increase, and the rate of increase becomes exponential as is the case when someone lies to cover-up a lie. As soon as the complexity of the process of law renders the cost of gaining access to that process unaffordable to a segment of the population - each individual in turn - the franchise (the law) created by that inequity affords an exclusive power to some, at the expense of other's, which is anti-just, anti-law, and therefore criminal. Once the law becomes a crime under the color of law, power then flows inexorably from the disenfranchised to those in command of the franchise: the rich get richer, and the power get poorer. When the process of law becomes expensive, due to increases in the complexity of that process, a segment of the population poor in education and poor in finances, are thereby placed outside of the powers of law, rendering them even less p66owerful, adding insult to injury. The segment of the population that is strong in the powers required to gain, and employ knowledge, are also the segment of the population that is thereby strong in gaining finance, utilizing power to gain even more power. When that segment of the population are afforded the opportunity to abuse this imbalance of power, they do so by natural laws. Once the gate is opened to them for them to increase the complexity of the process of law, they will do so, and they will do so in order to disenfranchise a segment of the population: rendering a segment of the population defenseless in knowledge, defenseless in finances, and defenseless against further injury because they are disenfranchised when the law process becomes unaffordable to them. 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 can no longer understand the process. When that begins to happen the cost of the law process is paid for by those who can no longer understand the law process. As the complexity of the law increases the number of people disenfranchised increases, and the law then benefits an increasingly smaller segment of the population at the expense of those who pay for the law process. When and where this imbalance of power is acknowledged, that knowledge affords the people the opportunity to simplify the processes of law, so as to return the whole number of people back 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. The Roman Law became so complex as to disenfranchise everyone, making everyone poor, with almost no one capable of understanding it, and the few who profited from it could no longer support it, and this is why Empires rise and fall. The lives of great majority of people are consumed so as to support the mechanism that transfers all the power to the few who have perverted the law process, taking something as simple as the Golden Rule, and turning that process into a convoluted web of deception. When there is thereby no longer a functioning economy, the perversion of law - Empire - falls. When Roman Rule left England the free people retook the true, simple, law process, up until the time of Magna Carta, and the cycle returning to law perversion with complexity. More recently the same Empire building process, a perversion of the law, through complexity, infected the English people, sending many disenfranchised victims of perverted law to America. In America the people retook the law process, keeping the processes that simply work for all the people, and setting aside those complexities that pervert the law. 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 through their trial juries When the whole people are bound by their voluntary agreement to establish the facts, establish the law in any individual case, and bound by the facts to prove that the accused is guilty, or the accused is set free. The whole country, through their jury, must also find a just remedy. The people retake the process of law, and this is not news, this is demonstrated as a fact in history. 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. Those volunteers are representatives of the whole people - as one - and they are the power of government in each 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, in order for the force of government to be lawfully unleashed upon anyone, anywhere, anytime. If law is too compacted for the jury, it is thereby too complicated for the whole country, and that fact will enable a segment of the people, a faction, to take-over the law process, gaining absolute power, and absolute power - as a rule - corrupts everyone who takes it. Victims who demand action by law against an accused perpetrator 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. The whole people represent no faction. The whole people do not represent the victims. The whole people do not represent the accused. The whole people, through their representative jury, represent the whole people in the effort to find the facts in any case where people have been divided by criminals who willfully cause injury to victims. Those who demand action in defense of the accuser - the victims - 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 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 for 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? Is it simply true that someone seeking to avoid accountability for the actions that they are responsible for perpetrating will be someone who is inspired to confuse the jury, so as to divide the jury, so as to keep the jury from finding agreement concerning the facts that lead to the truth? 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, in cases where the accused is an innocent victim, will seek remedy for injuries sustained by the accused, when the accused is a guilty criminal, but that remedy cannot be realized 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. The government (those jurors) must remedy this wrong done by the guilty upon the innocent in that case, and that can't happen without the jury finding agreement concerning the facts in that case. So why would anyone want to confuse the jury, why would anyone, including the members of the jury, want to hide the facts from the jury, or distort the facts, or lie to the jury? Someone doing so, in simple terms, is someone choosing to lie to the whole country. 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. That is a simple concept that is founded upon the easy to understand, and easy to demonstrate, Golden Rule. Who in their right mind would elect someone else to be the absolute power of law, assuming of course that such a power was in the hands of one individual? If that question confuses the reader, then the opportunity is present to apply the Golden Rule: the principle foundation of the law power. If someone decides to give someone else the absolute power of law, it is then presumed that the giver would accept the gift too. If someone decides to remove the power of law from someone (which is a way to define the meaning of the word crime), then someone is, by the Golden Rule, accepting their own loss of the power of law. If someone were to be fooled into giving someone else absolute power of law, then it is reasonable to conclude, based upon factual evidence over a long period of time, that the receiver of absolute power of law would abuse that power, become corrupted, and pervert the law, such as is often the case whereby the absolute dictator disenfranchises, and thereby enslaves, everyone who has given up their individual power of law.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:49 am | |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Work > Independence Preferred | Top |
