The link below is clear evidence of the fact that this country no longer operates with the bounds of the Constitution in place. We had better wake up soon to the reality that will not go away. The BAR is evil and ANYONE!!!!!!!! who will not recognize your right to be a natural man with no obligation the "state" is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you know a judge personally as an acquaintance or even as a good friend, talk to him and see if he can understand what you mean when you say "legal fiction" or "natural man". See if he has even heard of registering with the BAR or the evil they represent and how to be a Constitutional judge. See if you can make him understand what Terry Trussel could not.
Do you think this is about failure to appear?
Post to Facebook, twitter, e-mail, this needs to go viral
Checking out "Failure To Appear" on Constitution Club: ♥♪♥ http://j.mp/1wtC1Yk
Seems rather straightforward. Terry was arraigned for 10 counts related to simulating a legal process and he had tried to submit a motion/statement that would declare him to be a third party representative of himself.
The court asked "Terry Trussell" and Terry responded, I am here to deal with the matter. Are you representing Terry? ... Are you Terry Trussell? I am a living man...
Terry was trying to get the Judge involved in some sovereign citizen claims and the Judge was not interested. So when Terry failed to properly identify himself as the defendant, the Judge found him as having failed to appear.
Rather straightforward and now Terry is facing another charge.
That is exactly wrong Native,
It was straightforward alright. He was straight railroaded by a judge who refused to recognize a natural man claiming nothing more than his rights and he was not attempting to represent himself in the third person. That description is a perversion of the truth. He was attempting only one thing. To prove that these people are fully prepared to IGNORE his rights to due process and a natural identity as nothing more than a free person. The judge knows that.
The judge was attempting to identify him as a STRAWMAN. A fiction. A corporate/federal "employee", which Terry was attempting to refute immediately as is proper procedure if you wish to have a court of record and remain under common law venue. Otherwise you are left with no alternative but to be a "defendant" and "plea" for mercy.
Being a member of this club you would think you could recognize judicial tyranny when you see it.
Making a video does not make the Common Law Grand Jury any more constitutional...
It helps explain why some people believe in its myth.
It was straightforward alright. He was straight railroaded by a judge who refused to recognize a natural man claiming nothing more than his rights and he was not attempting to represent himself in the third person.
Did you read the document Trussell tried to file? I do understand your mythical beliefs in the 'strawman' however, those are poorly supported beliefs about our judicial system, not borne out of facts but rather fear and unfamiliarity.
Did you read the document Trussell 'note of indemnification' "NOTICE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS A THIRD PARTY OF INTEREST"...
COMES NOW, Affiant Terry George Trussell,“state” Citizen / U.S.A.“national” 8 USC 1101(a)(21), with an Notice Entry of Appearance as a third party of interest on this court of record on and for the public record, a real flesh and blood man of the age of majority, by Special Attendance, (“A shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the master that he intends the law of that flag to regulate such contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him.” Ruhstrat v. People, 185 Ill. 133, 57 N.E. 41, 49 L.R.A. 181, 76 Am.St.Rep. 30,)
We observe several sovereign citizen 'arguments', such as the existence of admiralty court, references to state citizenship and nationality. The Judge wanted to have nothing of the kind.
Trussell had promised to appear when he bonded out, and his failure to appear caused the Judge to issue a bench warrant for his arrest. These magic incantations do not work, and have no relevance.
I can understand that people hold to such beliefs, even though there is no legal justification for them, and they are free to speak their mind, however in a court of law, they come with real repercussions. It's a choice Terry has been willing to make.
The arraignment hearing is part of the statutory process to provide Terry with due process. Instead Terry tried to invoke some kind of magic incantation which some believe would protect him from the court's jurisdiction. It never works.
Let's have the courts explain why this is a legal myth.
The "Redemptionist" theory seems to explain Mr. Ade Bey's relationship to the all-capital letter "RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN." As the Third Circuit has explained:[T]he "Redemptionist" theory . . . propounds that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the "strawman." The "strawman" purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1933, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt. Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free. Individuals can free themselves by filing UCC financing statements, thereby acquiring an interest in their strawman. . . .
Adherents of this scheme also advocate that [individuals] copyright their names to justify filing liens against officials using their names in public records such as indictments or court papers.
Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 203 n. 4 (3d Cir.2008); see also United States v. Landers, 564 F.3d 1217, 1219 & n. 1 (10th Cir.2009) (discussing the theory's origins); Clark v. Caruso, No. 09CV10300, 2010 WL 746417, at *5 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 2, 2010); Marr v. Caruso, No. 1:07 CV 745, 2008 WL 4426340, at *4-5 (W.D.Mich. Aug. 22, 2008); cf. U.S. v. James, 328 F.3d 953, 954 210*210 (7th Cir.2003). The Ohio Supreme Court explains this theory further, as follows:The Redemptionists claim that by a birth certificate, the government created "strawmen" out of its citizens. A person's name spelled in "English," that is with initial capital letters and small letters, represents the "real person," that is, the flesh and blood person. Whenever a person's name is written in total capitals, however, as it is on a birth certificate, the Redemptionists believe that only the "strawman" is referenced, and the flesh and blood person is not involved.
Ohio v. Lutz, 2003 Ohio 275, ¶ 12, 2003 WL 152837 (2003); see also Bryant v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 524 F.Supp.2d 753, 758-61 (W.D.Va.2007).
Another tenet of the Redemptionist theory is that when the United States Government "pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt," Monroe, 536 F.3d at 203 n. 4, it created an "exemption account" for each citizen, identified by each person's Social Security number. See Bryant, 524 F.Supp.2d at 759. When citizens contract for debt, the theory goes, their debts are collateralized by their respective exemption accounts, essentially making the U.S. Government ultimately responsible for satisfaction of their debts. See id. Moreover, each citizen's exemption account is virtually bottomless, meaning that those who understand this theory—and who file the appropriate UCC financing statements, and thereby become a free sovereign, a process known as "redemption," see id.— never have to actually pay for anything. See, e.g., Dinsmore-Thomas v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No. 08CV587, 2009 WL 2431917, at *6 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 3, 2009); Ray v. Williams, No. CV04863, 2005 WL 697041, at *5 (D.Ore. Mar. 24, 2005) (describing the "Redemptionist" philosophy, whose adherents "assign an imaginary account number to some sort of direct treasury account, advocate that this direct treasury account has a balance equal to the monetary value the government places on the life of the individual, and then charge against this direct treasury account through the use of fraudulent checks"); Lutz, 2003 Ohio at P*13 ("By filing a UCC-1 financing statement, the flesh and blood person can make a claim against the assets obtained by the government from the `strawman.' The flesh and blood person Ronald Lutz, therefore, filed a UCC-1 financing statement against the assets earned by the `strawman' RONALD LUTZ and held by the government. By filing this statement, the Redemptionists believe, the flesh and blood person can draw against the funds earned by the `strawman.'").
While the Court does not lightly ascribe such beliefs to anyone—and again, to be clear, Mr. Ade Bey has not explicitly stated these beliefs in so many words—the only plausible explanation that this Court can discern for the arguments in Mr. Ade Bey's filings is that they are rooted in this Redemptionist theory. This would explain, for example, Mr. Ade Bey's insistence on RAYMOND WINTSON 211*211McLAUGHLIN being represented in all capital letters: that was (or is) Mr. Ade Bey's "strawman." See, e.g., Pl.'s Verified Affidavit of Facts by Specific Negative Averment [doc. # 68] ¶ 13 ("There is no evidence in fact that RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN is not a fictional Unincorporated Corporation and Affiant denies that any such evidence exists."); id. ¶ 14 ("I deny that RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN is a living breathing sentient man."); Pl.'s Reply to Mot. to Compel [doc. # 104] at 3 ("The capitalization of one's name, the creation of a "STRAWMAN" was/is a Corporate government creation and endeav[o]r. . . ."). It would also explain why Mr. Ade Bey recorded a security interest in and a power of attorney for "RAYMOND WINTSON McLAUGHLIN," see Pl.'s Judicial Notice/Declaration of Status [doc. # 63], and why he objected during the in-court status conference to this Court's description of him as pro se—meaning representing oneself, seeBlack's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)—insisting instead that he appeared in propria persona, Latin for "in one's own person," see id. Since this lawsuit was commenced in the name of RAYMOND WINTSON McLAUGHLIN, see Compl. [doc. # 1], it would be inconsistent with the Redemptionist theory for Mr. Ade Bey to appear pro se. See Pl.'s Pet. to Compel [doc. # 94] at 1-2 (requesting that the Court order defense counsel to refrain from addressing Mr. Ade Bey "out of status"—i.e., as the upper- and lower-case "Raymond McLaughlin"—but stating that if defense counsel "wishes to address the 14th Amendment citizen legal fiction/U.S. vessel RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN, they can continue to do as they've always done by directing their comments to RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN").
The Redemptionist theory also sheds light on Mr. Ade Bey's otherwise puzzling practice of putting the words "IN ADMIRALTY" at the top of most of his filings, as well as his seeming preoccupation with the UCC. "The Redemptionists claim that when the country went into bankruptcy, maritime law became the law of the land. The only laws in force are the UCC, and every interaction between persons is financial." Lutz, 2003 Ohio at P* 15. What is more, if Mr. Ade Bey does adhere to the Redemptionist view, that would unravel the mystery of the "$10,000,000 Indemnity Bond" [docs. # 90-91] he filed in this case, which purports to be secured by a "pre-paid account, exemption ID [a nine-digit number]"—i.e., an "exemption account"— as well as his demand for damages to be paid in pure silver, see supranote 2.
The Redemptionist theory's contentions regarding the 1933 bankruptcy of the United States and "exemption accounts" are also reflected by allegations in the Amended Complaint. See, e.g., Am. Compl. [doc. # 67-1] at 4 ¶ 1-3 ("It is Plaintiff's contention that the UNITED STATES is and has been in bankruptcy since at least 1933 . . . . [T]he gold standard was suspended by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a result, this made the dollar nonredeemable. In addition, the people became the Creditor for the Bankrupt system. As a result, a Federal Reserve Note became a debt note and does not have intrinsic value . . . . As a result. . ., only the People (Creditors) can bring new monies into circulation. Said monies are directly brought into existence from an Exemption Account which was created at the Federal Reserve. Thus, without a Creditor's signature and/or Social Security Number, no new monies can be created. . . ."); see also Pl.'s Verified Affidavit of Facts by Specific Negative Averment [doc. # 68] ¶ 35 ("There is no evidence in fact that the UNITED STATES is not bankrupt and Affiant denies that any such evidence 212*212 exists."); id. ¶ 103 ("There is no evidence in fact that CITIMORTGAGE did not access RAYMOND McLAUGHLIN's EXEMPTION ACCOUNT and already has received the face value of the alleged "NOTE" and Affiant denies that any such evidence exists.").
The Court will consider each of Mr. Ade Bey's specific claims in this next section, but it is important to note that if, as the Court strongly suspects, the allegations214*214 contained in the Amended Complaint are premised on one or more of the above-described theories, that fact alone would be sufficient to grant CitiMortgage's Motion to Dismiss, as all three of these theories have been universally and emphatically rejected by numerous federal courts for at least the last 25 years. See, e.g., Torne, 2010 WL 1904507 (dismissing, in some instancessua sponte, claims alleging fraud, conversion, conspiracy, extortion, securities fraud, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and GAAP, all based on theories advanced here); Barber v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:09CV40, 2010 WL 398915, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2009) (dismissing "utterly frivolous" and "patently ludicrous" claims of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy, and advising plaintiffs that their "tactics are a waste of their time as well as the court's time, which is paid for by hard-earned tax dollars"); Marrakush Soc. v. New Jersey State Police, No. 09CV2518 et al., 2009 WL 2366132 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009) (considering 19 consolidated cases raising arguments virtually identical to those here, all filed in the District Court for the District of New Jersey within approximately one year, and discussing similar influxes of cases in the Federal District Courts in Delaware and Florida); Richardson, 2008 WL 5225824, at *7 (dismissing claims as "patently frivolous and a waste of judicial resources");Demmler, 2006 WL 640499, at *3 (characterizing such claims as "patently ludicrous" and noting that "these arguments have been repeatedly rejected by every court to consider the issue"); Carrington v. Federal Nat'l Mortg. Assoc., No. 05CV73429, 2005 WL 3216226, at *2-3 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 29, 2005) (recognizing that these theories have been "universally rejected by numerous federal courts");Thiel v. First Fed. Savings & Loan Ass'n of Marion, 646 F.Supp. 592 (N.D.Ind.1986) (rejecting claims that lender had violated RICO and National Bank Act by issuing loan check in exchange for promissory note, and dismissing the claims as frivolous); Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortg. Co., 615 F.Supp. 898, 900 (D.C.Ind.1985) (finding the plaintiff's arguments and claims "absurd"). Lest there be any confusion, the Court notes that every other case cited in this decision that has considered similar claims also rejected them.
Source: McLaughlin v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 201 - Dist. Court, D. Connecticut 2010
 McManus appears to subscribe to the specious "redemptionist" theory, common among individuals in the sovereign citizen, militia, and tax protestor movements. Adherents to this "redemptionist" theory believe that a person has a split personality: a real person and a fictional person called the "strawman." The "strawman" purportedly came into being when the United States went off the gold standard in 1993, and, instead, pledged the strawman of its citizens as collateral for the country's national debt. Redemptionists claim that government has power only over the strawman and not over the live person, who remains free.
Source: McManus v. KAMEEN, Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 2014
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit found that the district court acted properly, noting that the court "was rightly concerned that Delatorre and Benabe would speak out of turn and espouse their theories in front of the jury, causing confusion, prejudicing their co-defendants, and tainting a carefully screened jury pool."Benabe, 654 F.3d at 766. The Seventh Circuit noted that it had "repeatedly rejected their theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk." Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767. The court stated that "[r]egardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a `sovereign citizen,' a `secured-party creditor,' or a `flesh-and-blood human being,' that person is not beyond thejurisdiction of the courts." Benabe, 654 F.3d at 767; see also United States v. Cochran, 2009 WL 4638836, at *10 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (the court rejected the defendant's contentions that the court lacked jurisdiction over both the charges and over him as a flesh-and-blood man, stating that the defendant's "arguments in this vein, no matter how deeply he mines them, are meritless").
Source: US v. Gibbs, Dist. Court, CD Illinois 2012
I do not know what other people think until they tell me, in no uncertain terms, so as to leave no room for constructive interpretation on my part.
In the offer of words above there is this:
"...never have to actually pay for anything..."
If someone actually believes in cost-less existence, also known as "something for nothing," also known as "do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you," also known as "I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale," also known as "I am a rich Prince in South Africa needing to hide millions of dollars in your account," also known as a Ponzi Scheme, also known as a Pyramid Scheme, also known as a Confidence Scheme, whereby there is someone offering the idea, and then there is someone believing the idea to be true, while the originator of the idea knows that someone does pay the cost, and that someone is called the mark.
The mark is led to believe in the Ponzi Scheme.
If there are many marks, such as the entire population of a Federation of Republics known as America, then the tally of the FUND where all the false Promises to Pay are stored can look like this:
That is called legalized debt slavery. That was not legal before 1787 in America. That was not legal after 1776 in America. So there was a window in between 1776 and 1787 when people were offered freedom, and Liberty, if they could keep it, and people had competitive Republics in a working Federation to help them. People also had trail by jury according to the common law to help them in that window of opportunity. People also had Matthew 7:12, known as the Golden Rule of law, to help them defend the innocent from the guilty in that window of opportunity and it almost held.
Liberty almost held in that window of opportunity between 1776 and 1787, if not for the false Federalists and their version of the Ponzi Scheme.
Exampled again here:
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter.
That is the something for nothing scam in a new and improved verbal assault tactic known as campaign promises. The Revolutionary War fighters, which included anyone on the side of the Patriots, which was no one on the side of the criminal British banker frauds, had just fought a war over the debt collecting business involving criminal courts (some were called Admiralty, some Exchequer, some Equity, some Nisi Prius, some Maritime, some Oyer and Terminer, some Common Law (tm), some Debtors Courts) collecting fraudulent taxes called Excise Taxes, based upon fraudulent money issues, often falsely labeled as Paper Money.
The Patriots fighting for Liberty fought against false debt collector enforcing fraudulent extortion payments called Excise Taxes as those payments were first enforced by fraudulent bankers, then fraudulent legislatures, then fraudulent courts, then fraudulent military forces known as Red Coats.
Then the false Federalists figured out that their pyramid scheme in America was slipping through their grasp when the Patriots fought back against the same Pyramid Scheme then operating in Massachusetts.
That again is explained here:
You, the interested modern day Patriot fighting for Liberty in America, can know so much more precious information in that lecture about the true causes of our demise at the hands of criminals who take over governments than you can in as much time, competitively, from any other source of information save for, perhaps, the Bible.
That moment in history is pivotal in reference to precisely when, where, and how the criminals took over America.
The Ponzi Scheme is simple enough, but the color of law can be told in very attractive words, such as the example offered by Hamilton during the fraud that was a campaign to sell, with false advertising, with false campaign promises, an American version of the British Monarchy, also known as a Consolidated government, or government monopoly corporation.
The Ponzi Scheme is claimed to be a desperate need for credit so as then to have the purchasing power to invest in productive enterprises, to build a strong life for all, at the expense of no one at the Capital.
At the expense of no one (at the Capital) the credit needed to gain the purchasing power for investments in building a strong Nation State, or Consolidated Government Corporation Power, must have a bank account, filled with money.
It must be a big bank account filled with a lot of money.
Once the big bank account filled with a lot of money is created, those who run the big bank account filled with a lot of money have that credit they deserve to have, because they are so powerful as they can now purchase anything that can then be used as an investment.
The credit that was once earned by the people who actually created the productive wealth, people called the American People, as in the good faith and credit of the American People, is then stored in that one place, rather than allowing all those American People to store, or invest, or consume, their own earnings.
You, say the central bankers, pay me what I demand from you, and then we are a powerful nation, and we have earned the good faith and credit of the American people, and our National Bank has the power to purchase anything needed according to...
We the people, in this way, Nation Wide, or Country Wide, according to the false Federalists, according to the Ponzi Schemers, earn our way in competition with all the other minions working under the British Monarchy.
We earn our place at the table of Nations fighting among themselves for that glorious position as World Reserve Currency Power.
Switzerland is one example, say the true Federalists, that do not play that game, they prefer not to live life as people investing in perpetual war for perpetual peace.
We the people instead, say true Federalists, keep our earnings and if there is a criminal hiding behind a false Excise Tax Code in our local government, then we take care of business locally. There is no direct taxation power, say the true Federalists, between the Federal governors and the people, in a true Federation.
But I can never agree that this Body shall dictate the mode of Taxation, or the collection shall in any manner be subject to Congressional control.
Richard Henry Lee
The power to tax, combined with the power to assemble a National Army of slaves (conscripts), is the power to enforce the payment of taxes Nation Wide.
That is exactly what was done once the criminal false Federalists took power.
Perpetual war for perpetual peace is their game, and they let everyone know this fact by their actions, all the while that they promise a future peace, so long as we the people continue giving all the surplus wealth we can afford to give, including first born sons, to the perpetual war machine.
Look in these 3 links please:
1. Side A
2. Side B
3. Side C
World War III, supposedly the good war, was just another banker war. So was the Revolutionary War, same game, same 3 (or more) sides financed by the same World Reserve Currency Power, which we are not given the memos as to which is the Dominant Power, the Dutch East India Company, the Dutch Bank, or the British East India Company, and the British Bank, or the Jesuits and the Vatican, who knows, I don't, I do not get the memos.
The routine is the same base, root, lie.
A study of Annuities may help:
Many people are inspired to volunteer to send money into one FUND.
From the one FUND there are a few people who control the rate of money flowing into the FUND, and the rate of money flowing from the FUND to a few people.
The good version is called insurance.
The false, evil, version is called insurance by the criminals, because if the criminals call it a Ponzi Scheme, or Organized Crime Cabal, then the number of volunteers dwindle down to nothing quickly.
Simple is better than complex to the point of stupidity.
Such as the latest example offered by a devil worshiping black robed "judge," claiming that the Grand Jury Foreman cannot be seen as the Grand Jury Foreman is answering in clear English, in spoken words, that the Grand Jury Foreman is right there in the room.
That is an indirect message offered to those who feel powerless at times.
The peaceful way is done through common law trial by jury.
I have to go back into that and find the quote. There is in that information a case where someone refuses trail by jury and the judge recognizes the need to hold a trail to ask the jurists if a trail by jury is needed despite the refusal by the accused to not have a trial.
That is a lot of information, a lot of work, in the attempt to make things simple, the web of deceit must be acknowledged and it must be torn down piece by piece.
One big piece is direct taxation from the Federal Level connecting criminals who find themselves in power at the Federal Level, and then those criminals connect to every single producer of wealth where every accurate measure of wealth can be stolen and used to steal more.
That is the significance of this case:
If that alone gains currency, only that, then the FUND evaporates.
Instead of the worst of the worst in power, from that point on, the trend is for the best of the best taking the place of the worst of the worst, because they would have to do so in order to recapture their Federal Power at the Federal Level.
If you do not understand that, then you may have some homework to do in civics.
The Native Born American example of a spammer will not touch this information with a ten foot pole. Just like the false judge in the false court who can't see a Man speaking right there in the same room, the Native Born American example of a spammer cannot, will not, see this information, acknowledge it, for it is the truth that sets us free from those criminal, treasonous, types.
Not treasonous to some false Federal Contract that creates a false corporation, but treasonous to truth, treasonous to the Golden Rule of Law, which is in some beliefs treasonous to God, or treasonous to God through Jesus.
The people, all of them, every one, can be the victim, and rather than listing every single name, including the criminals who are offered redemption through true law, due process, trial by jury, common law, legem terrae, the law of the land, rather than listing all the names of all the people, there is a handy word, also from Latin, res-publica, or the public thing, or Republic, which is all those people.
Treason to God.
Treason to true Law.
Treason because all those people are threatened and injured by those who choose treason as their criminal way of life, as they falsify true due process.
Devil's advocates often turn out to be merely devilish people.
Again nothing that addresses the observations by the court.
You may believe in treason and true law but those are your beliefs and have no relevance to our nation which is not guided by what Joe believes, but rather by our Laws and Constitution.
There may be a concept of 'Treason to God' but that is something God will have to deal with. As to treason, the requirements are outlined in our Constitution.
I understand that you believe in the myths about the Federal Government being a corporation, and other myths, however, I have no reason to address them other than to show that they have been found to be wanting by the courts.
And thus we move on.
You may believe in treason and true law but those are your beliefs and have no relevance to our nation which is not guided by what Joe believes, but rather by our Laws and Constitution.
An opportunity to repeat what has already been offered arrives at this time and in this place.
Trial by jury is designed to be trial by the whole country, not by Joe, and not by sycophants who are paid-off in some form or another for covering up the crimes of those who take over governments.
Here is an explanation:
“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial by the government.
It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”
The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?
Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other ---or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.
On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.
To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [*7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes, of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor--- that is, with the government.
It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And, as unanimity is require for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the [*8] government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.
But all this trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.
If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. [fn1]
So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country,” [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own --- by their own judgments of their rightful liberties --- but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people’s determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people, against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.
The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are cable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. [*10]
The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all.
Knowing that before throwing the jury duty notice in the garbage may inspire more people to be our best lie detector and therefore our best defense against the fraud and those who extort under the color of law, and their minions.
Trial by jury is designed to be trial by the whole country, not by Joe, and not by sycophants who are paid-off in some form or another for covering up the crimes of those who take over governments.
So certainly not by a few 'common law' volunteers who signed up to set things straight? I am glad we have cleared that up.
Of course, I have no idea what sycophants you are talking about in your pink colored world, but sufficient to say that your presumptions once again remain unsupported by much logic, fact, reason and well, Christian understanding.
I find that unfortunate as it prevents a constructive debate in which you present your arguments in a logical fashion without the need to accuse others.
After all, let he who is without sins cast the first stone.