“No bended knee for me” – the Charge against Robert Beecher

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 30, 2014

The charge against Robert Beecher is not based upon the malicious allegations made by FBI Special Agent Stanley H. Slater that Robert Beecher was involved in an operation, known as “Operation Mutual Aid”, to kidnap and torture a DHS agent. In fact, it seems that the threat implied by Agent Slater has, well, just disappeared. The only charge is “Felon in Possession of a Firearm”.

Now, before I proceed with discussing the charge, I want to establish a bit of background on the government and their US Code. Harvey A. Silverglate is an attorney. His book “Three Felonies a Day” is instrumental in beginning to understand the nature of that beast (government), when it targets someone for persecution (resulting in prosecution). It is suggested reading for anyone interested in the complexities, and chicanery of the federal legal system.

The Forward, by Alan M. Dershowitz, to Sliverglate’s book begins,

The very possibility that citizens who believe they are law-abiding may, in the eyes of federal prosecutors, be committing three federal felonies each day… But when the executive branch, through its politically appointed prosecutors, has the power to criminalize ordinary conduct through accordion-like criminal statutes, the system of checks and balances breaks down.” He continues, “These prosecutors threaten to indict underlings for conduct that is even further away from the core of criminality unless they cooperate against the real targets. Because federal criminal law carries outrageously high sentences — often with mandatory minimums — these prosecutorial threats are anything but illusory. They turn friends into enemies, family members into government witnesses and employees into stool pigeons. Silverglate believes that we are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences makes it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure. That is why nearly all criminal defendants today plead guilty to “reduced” charges rather than risk a trial with draconian sentences in the event of a conviction.

On to Silverglate’s Introduction, where we find reference to a 1952 Supreme Court decision, Morissette v. United States, [342 U.S. 246, 250-251]. This is interesting because it states that there must be intent to be a criminal act, to wit:

The contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when inflicted by intention is no provincial or transient notion. It is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil. A relation between some mental element and punishment for a harmful act is almost as instinctive as the child’s familiar exculpatory “But I didn’t mean to,” and has afforded the rational basis for a tardy and unfinished substitution of deterrence and reformation in place of retaliation and vengeance as the motivation for public prosecution.

Finally, Silverglate refers to an anecdote told by Tim Wu in a 2007 article titled “American Lawbreaking,” published in the online magazine Slate:

At the federal prosecutor’s office in the Southern District of New York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around, and someone would name a random celebrity — say, Mother Theresa or John Lennon. It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you’d see on Law & Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield: Crimes like “false statements” (a felony, up to five years), “obstructing the mails” (five years), or “false pretenses on the high seas” (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity and carried the toughest sentences. The result, however, was inevitable: “prison time,” as one former prosecutor told me.

Hence the title, “Three Felonies a Day”.

The only charge against Robert, now, is a violation of 18 USC §922(g)(1) (the full text of §922(g) can be found at 18 USC 922). The pertinent part is as follows:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, let’s look at the obvious intent of the law. First, “It shall be unlawful“, well, no problem with that.

Next, if that person “has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Let’s assume for the sake of discussion, that that criterion has been met — that Robert has such a criminal record. So, now we move on to the third portion of the Statute.

It is unlawful “to ship or transport in interstate… commerce“. Now, this next phrase is rather interesting. “Possess” means “To occupy in person; to have in one’s actual and physical control“. So this must mean that you have in your control the firearm or you affect the commerce. The possession must be done while participating or affecting that commerce. Finally, “to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Well, that last one surely must be the direct recipient, the addressee – to “receive”, as opposed to “possess”. For if that were the case, it would read, “to possess any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce.” Otherwise, there would be an inequitable application of the law. The construction, if mistaken, would mean that you could possess the firearm, if it were made in your state, though you could not take it with you, if you moved. It would also mean that if the ammunition were not made in your state, then you could have the firearm, but could never use it. So, the only logical construction would be that you could not be the direct recipient – could not receive a firearm or ammunition shipped from another state. Otherwise, only those who live in a state that has a plant that manufactures firearms could possess one, and could use it only if the requisite ammunition were also manufactured within that state. If that were the case, then the federal law would only apply to those people who happen to live in certain states, which would fly in the face of the concept of equal justice for all. Further, it would defy the concept of Article IV, § 2, which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all of the Privileges and Immunities of the Citizens of the several States.”

Finally, we need to look at what was intended by the Framers, as the prepared they plan for the creation of the federal government in devising the Constitution (Federalist Papers #62 – James Madison).

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

The manipulation of the intent of a law to serve the purpose of persecution and an effort to convert decent people into informants, or, at least, force them into a submissive condition, thereby removing that spirit that made US America.

 

“No bended knee for me” – the Persecution of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – the Demonization of Robert Beecher

“No bended knee for me” – No Speedy Trial – Just Punishment

Liberty or Laws? “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” is Not Legal or Lawful

The Passing of the Torch

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 11, 2001

This morning, a perversion of justice and the Constitution succeeded in taking the life of an American Patriot.  Timothy James McVeigh was executed, by lethal injection, in Terre Haute, Indiana.  His crime, say the courts, was the murder of federal agents.

McVeigh’s death might be more appropriately ascribed to the inability of the US government to function, in any judicial capacity, in a manner consistent with the authority granted government by the Constitution.

After a failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution was created and adopted (ratified) to enable a new government, with more power in the exercise of government, but, with specific limitations established with regard to its jurisdiction, authority and imposing upon it an obligation to protect certain rights which had been deemed, by the Constitution and other founding documents, to have been granted to the People — by God.

In the matter of Jurisdiction, the Constitution clearly sets forth the ability of the federal government to extend “exclusive jurisdiction” over a few enumerated locations.  Even considering the expansion of those locations by the Northwest Ordinance, those limitations were upheld by the Supreme Court for many years.  Federal authority over the actions of individuals was extremely limited, and with few exceptions, existed only when authorized by Constitutional Amendment.  Hence the absence of federal statutes against assassination or murder, until recently.

Likewise, the jurisdiction of federal agencies was severally limited, and extended only to those cases that were well within the Interstate Commerce or other specific provisions.  The Supreme Court has struck down a number of laws, which, though they attempted to appeal to the interstate Commerce provision, were tied to the provision by such a stretch as to be deemed without Constitutional authority.  The striking down of the federal “gun free school zones” is an example of an unlawful presumption on the authority of the federal government.

Many federal agencies were created with a specific purpose.  For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) was instituted to act as a tax collection agency, under the Treasury Department.  Tax matters have always been considered, in this country, to be civil in nature, not criminal.

Within the Department of Justice, there was an agency created whose purpose was to investigate and aid in the prosecuting criminal activity.  The authority for it to “enforce” laws was written in to its directive in 1994, and is a gross violation of the intention of the Founders.  They had always sought a separation between force and civil authority.  Never had it been contemplated that an agency could use force without separate and distinct civil authority.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation was within that scope – until it began, even prior to its description being changed – enforcing, rather than simply investigating.

These two agencies came together, in 1993, in an attack on a religious group in Waco, Texas.  The incident began when the tax collection agency (BATF) entered upon lands recognized by McClellan County and the state of Texas, as a Church.  When they entered, they entered with guns drawn and with every intention of entering the Church through windows and doors, without obtaining the consent of the Pastor of that Church.  They also intended to shoot anyone who opposed that entry.  And, they succeeded in both.

After having four of their own killed (and killing seven of the Church members), they withdrew from their combat positions and regrouped, just a few hundred yards away from the Church – limiting access to only those deemed acceptable by the tax collection agency.

Soon, they were reinforced by the investigators.  Of course, they lied, but just a little bit, about what had occurred, so their bigger brother, the investigators, took family under wing and began an investigation, which resulted in an armed camp, much akin to a military installation, and a defensive perimeter (crime scene) larger than any before ever envisioned.

For fifty-one days, the tax collectors and investigators imposed every sort of mental anguish and abuse that they could concoct – upon the parishioners huddling, scared for their lives, inside of their flimsy Church.

During the course of the fifty-one day siege, the agencies, and their compatriots in Washington, D.C., began a campaign of deceit in an effort to demonize the pastor and his congregation – and, detract from an honest evaluation of the circumstance by both the public and the government.

However, the biggest problem was that for the near first time in the history of this country, the agencies, not the Congress or the President, determined what they would do, how they would do it and what the rules would be by which all would play.

Many people observed, first hand, the encampment of federal ‘soldiers’ just outside of a quiet Texas town.  They also observed the support troops, which had been deputized by the FBI to act as a perimeter guard to the ‘crime scene’.  These deputies, who had sworn to uphold the Constitution in the performance of their duties, had turned their backs on that oath, and blindly obeyed the unlawful orders given by this civilian agency with guns.  Timothy McVeigh was among those observers.

Timothy, like so many others around the country, had sought, by peaceful means, to bring about a return to Constitutional limitations of governmental authority.  After all, being a decorated veteran and hero of Desert Storm, Timothy had demonstrated his willingness to put his life on the line in defense of that Constitution.  He had no choice but to express his discontent with the government’s usurpation of authority by peaceful means.

Then, on April 19, 1993, as the world watched, a tragedy of epic proportions occurred in the area controlled, absolutely, by those federal agents.  Regardless of blame over who started the fire that consumed over eighty lives — men, women and children — the precautions which could have prevented the disaster, or, at least, minimized the degree of death and destruction, were none existent, and when offered by the local fire department were refused.  By any stretch of the imagination, this would be nothing less than gross negligence.  But, considering the obligation of the government to safeguard life and property, the failure to do so constitutes a far more serious breach of public trust than would at first be recognized.

As time went on, it became apparent that federal agents told lies to other federal agents, Congressional committees and the public.  Evidence was lost, misplaced, or hidden.  Eventually, in 1994, when those who had escaped with their lives stood trial, these same agents committed perjury.

Unlike the events in Boston, in 1770, the Boston Massacre, no government agents ever stood trial so that the People might judge whether they had violated the laws, or the Constitution.  Instead, their only judgment came from their superiors within their respective agencies – the same superiors who authorized these unlawful activities in the first place.

Complicit with these agents, the court gave instructions, which some of the jurors later complained of, left no alternative but to convict those Church members on trial, though the lowest possible ‘crime’ was the choice of the jurors who felt that if there was a crime, it was more technical than destructive.  The court became even more contemptuous when it imposed maximum sentences, and even came to some conclusions, which the jury had not, resulting in the judge increasing sentences to up to forty years for some of the defendants.

Many of the same observers of the events in Waco watched the judicial process to see if the government was, in the least, capable of applying justice to the matter, or whether it was more intent on preserving an air of respectability to the actions of the forces which had already decimated the Church to a handful of followers.

The conclusion, by those observers, which has been proven correct in the ensuing years, was that the government had determined that the government (king) could do no wrong.

As a result of the conviction of the Church members, the Constitutionalist community, throughout the country, became outraged.  Many advocates openly expressed their intentions to go to Washington and “hang the Congress from light posts.”  Others advocated blowing up government buildings, killing government agents and taking any action necessary to force the government back in to obedience to the Constitution.

Among all the words, however, only one man began planning an action consistent with the words of others.  He began traveling around the country, securing funding; expanding his knowledge of explosives, visiting potential targets, and preparing a plan of action that would come to fruition just two years, to the day after the destructive conclusion of the events at the little Church in Waco.

To carry out his plan, he realized that there was risk.  Government infiltration of Constitutionalist groups had probably reached epic proportions.  Whether Louis Beam’s “Leaderless Resistance” was a part of his study, or not, it was apparent that he recognized the risk of a broad base of support, so he settled on enlisting the help of two people who he had known for many years.

Had he sought a larger base of support, he might well have had the advantage of sophisticated explosives, timers, and delivery methods.  Instead, he opted for a homemade bomb, using the best materials readily available.

On April 19, 1995, Timothy James McVeigh completed the execution of his plan.  Though he had anticipated even less destruction than occurred, he was successful in bringing attention to his actions throughout the world.  He had little doubt, considering both the historical and recent attributes of the date that the reasoning behind the bombing would be obvious.  He was sure that government would understand his message, and, he was equally sure that he had just committed an act that consummated his status as an enemy of the US government.  He was, finally, involved in a war to restore Constitutional government to the United States of America.

– – – – – – –

In 1995, The Prosecuting Attorney and the Defense Attorney, in the United States vs. Timothy James McVeigh proceedings, formally agreed that ALL documents obtained by the government, regarding the investigation of the Oklahoma City Bombing, be provided to the Defense Team.  This agreement was affirmed and ordered by Judge Matsch, who was also the trial judge.  As a result of this agreement, a new database was set up to track all documents relating to the case.  Virtually every document relating to the investigation was to be logged into the database.

Early on, however, Defense Attorney Stephen Jones asked for documents that were referred to in other documents, but were not listed in the database.  Frequently, he was told that there were no other documents.  He had little choice but to proceed with what was available.

On May 9, 2001, just a few days before the scheduled execution of Timothy McVeigh, and after months of knowing of the existence of thousands of documents which had been excluded from the database, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (remember them from Waco?) went public with the fact that over three thousand documents had been ‘found’ that were not included in the database, nor were they provided to the Defense Team – in direct violation of the agreement, the order, and the law.

The next day, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, stayed the execution of Timothy McVeigh until June 11, 2001.  This, he said, was sufficient time for the Defense Team to study all three thousand documents and conclude that there was nothing that would clear their client – who had, by the way, already “confessed to the crime”.

As time went on, the number of documents that had been excluded approached five thousand.  Many of them dealt with the possibility of witnesses to more than just McVeigh and his two army buddies, Michael Fortier and Terry Nichols.  Perhaps so, but if justice is to prevail, all of the facts – especially those which are required to be turned over to satisfy Due Process – must be made available to the Defense Team.  Due Process, after all, requires a rigid adherence to the law.  If failure to advise someone that he has the right to the presence of a lawyer is a violation of Due Process, then, surely, denial of access to all evidence is, likewise, a denial of Due Process.

And, as for confessions, are the valid if they are not sworn to, or if they come through third party writings?  Evidence, perhaps, but not sufficient to deny someone Due Process of Law.

Even Judge Matsch realized the severity of the problem of the missing documents when he berated the FBI for their failure to comply with his order.  But, then, Judge Matsch, just a few minutes later, denied a stay of execution to allow the Defense Team time to complete their review of the documents.

– – – – – – –

Timothy McVeigh acted as he did because he saw that government was incapable of conducting itself with principle and integrity.  He saw a government resorting to “brute force” in dealing with other nations of the world, as well as its own people.  He wanted to expose the actions of the government – to bring attention to the fact that it was no longer operating as was intended.  He was willing to die to reveal these truths – but the government continued to insist that it was operating properly, and was capable of acting within the laws.

As his execution date approached, the FBI, in true form, once again exposed itself as a bungling, incompetent investigative agency in its inability to keep track of its own records.  Final proof of the need to protect Americans from a government who has set itself has the almighty knower of all truths.

Unlike the government, Timothy McVeigh’s head IS “bloody but unbowed”!

But, today, Timothy McVeigh is dead.  And, now, it is time to pass the torch.

Will you receive it?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The other two articles in this series:

An Essay on Hypocrisy, by Tim McVeigh

What did Timothy McVeigh really say?

 

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman Verdict

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2013

For those who have decided that George Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, consider whether Trayvon Martin would agree with your advocacy of beating or killing whites. If Trayvon Martin would not support your advocacy, then that verdict was in error. If, however, Trayvon Martin would support such advocacy, then that justifies the actions of George Zimmerman and proves that he acted in self-defense.

So, what you have proven is that the verdict was correct, since those not involved in the events in Sanford, Florida, now must fear for their lives, as George Zimmerman feared for his.

 

Jim Stachowiak; Committees of Safety; and, Shades of Grey

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 12, 2011

There is a self-proclaimed “leader” of the patriot community who goes by many names.  He is Jim Stach; Jim Stachowiak; Freedom Fighter; and, probably more.

Though he claims to have been a patriot for 34 years, an Internet search finds results no older than 2008.  I suppose we all can make such claims, though if we are active in the community, it would seem that something that was noteworthy would show more than just 3 years ago.

Now, I did not know who Jim Stach (I will use the easier to pronounce and spell version of the name) was until Riflestock was being put together.  I received a response to my posting of the first announcement of RifleStock (RifleStock 2011), from Jim, claiming that neo-Nazis were behind RifleStock.

Now, I cannot say how Jim got on my mailing list, though I only put people on that list that have requested to be there, though I do not recall any prior communication with him.

I contacted Jim, in response to his claims, explaining that I was not a neo-Nazi; that Mike Freebyrd has an Hispanic surname, and in my conversation s with him, there was no indication that he was a neo-Nazi; and, that Joe Racer said nothing to indicate that he was a neo-Nazi.  Since I was involved as one of the organizers, I had more insight into what was happening with RifleStock than someone who simply read what I had written, and made such determination.

We then discussed the patriot community.  Jim had bad things (accusations) to say about a whole handful of people, some of whom I knew.  We talked about not calling names within our own community, since the government only benefits when we cannot get along amongst ourselves.  He agreed, and agreed to stop making such accusations.

I also explained Committees of Safety, in our rather lengthy discussion.  All seemed well, and he invited me to be a guest on his January 20, 2001, radio program (Freedom Fighter Radio), to discuss Militia and Committees of Safety.  I agreed.

The next day, he called me and ranted (I can’t find another word for what he had to say) about other patriots (contrary to what we had agreed to, the day before).  He went on and on and on, and I was unable to get a word in.  Finally, I reminded him that he had invited me to be a guest on his radio show.  If, however, he was inviting me to be on the show so that he could rant, and I were only be allowed to speak as little I was in the current conversation, I would have to decline the invite.  Without another word, he hung up.  I was not on the program.

The next I heard from Jim was after I posted Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation), which was also sent to the mail list.  His knee-jerk reaction was, well, let me quote from the email:

“this is a joke lol as wram and arm have proven neo nazi connections” (April 11, 2011).  Interestingly, Jim’s email address is “arm1776@gmail.com”.  Even more interesting is that he associated the Committee of Safety with WRAM (Well Regulated American Militia).  This is telling, since he claims “wram” is run by Neo-Nazis, and, he must know that I posted that article on the WRAM site.  Does he have an infiltrator; does he have a friend that is a neo-Nazi; or, does he cloak himself in even another name, to sneak into where he finds such “filth”?

I also posted it to about 30 others, including Tea Party and Glenn Beck sites, and I may have posted it to some sites that were controlled by those evil Republicans and Democrats, who have done far more to take away our rights than WRAM or even the neo-Nazis.  After all, I do try to get what I have to say out to all (not a selective few) who might be interested in it.  This, of course, is because I believe that we all have to work together to amass the number of people that we will need to regain control of the government and return it to its Constitutional foundation.  And, in the hope that some who think wrongly may, by reading something, may just decide to begin thinking rightly.  But, then, that is trying to bring together, not to tear apart.

On that same day, April 11, Jim informed me that:

” iam only doing news now i have given up on a national movement our group here is now calling ourselfs a a fdf family defense force of family and only close friends no recruiting.”

So, we will have to see if he means what he said, or, if he is simply insincere and unpredictable.

That same day, he provided the following, ” there is no way to insure fairness n this plan no way as the movement is infiltrated from the very top to the bottom i have unti recently been in movement since late 80;s “.  So, here, he is in the “movement” from the late eighties.  Being generous, let’s use 1985.  Then, then would be a total of 26 years in the “movement”.  Let’s just keep that under advisement.

Then, three days later, he says, ” gary your idea cant and wont work for example if someone has a problem with me they have no power to drag me in if i wont participate the militia movement has to many who call nazis patriots wram is proof of this 706-394-8019 at least after today maybe july4 patriot will be where he belongs jail.”

This is interesting in that the Common Law Court is voluntary.  That is what was intended.  If someone makes claims, then he is charged with making false claims, he can answer (defend and prove those claims), or not.  Each will speak for itself.  And, the ultimate judge of what is right will be the judgment, not of the followers or the parties (accuser and accused), rather, of the patriot community, as they will have the opportunity to review all of the information presented (or not presented), and judge for themselves, what the truth really is.  This, at least, would put an end to name-calling, unless it was provable, and would work wonders in doing away with false accusations.  Especially those made which provide no opportunity to respond (as we will get in to, later).

His next response, that same day, was, ” well only if both parties participate and iwill never take part as i know the movement is dead and controlled by anti Semitic racist pricks you may call me i will address this common law bs on my show sometime and encourage non involvement i do get thousands of downloads each week too”.  I’ll let you take that, for what it’s worth.

Now, we come to the current round of discussion.  Though I had spend quite some time, on numerous occasions, explaining to Jim what Committees of Safety were (and, are), he decided to take them (not me) to task.  He posted “Whats Up Doc? Neo-Nazi WRAM and ARM Member Arrested June 1, 2011 Doc [ NAZI] Sacramaniac In Jail” (link no longer valid), and sent me the link and asked me to call him.

First, the pertinent part of that “exposé” by Jim:

“Freedom Fighter Radio Challenges any and all Patriot websites to publicly denounce the NSM, such as Oath Keepers (Stewart Rhodes), Committees of Safety (Gary Hunt) and all Militia forums.”

So, first I went to NSM and found that they presented 25 points, which I assume stand for the principles of the NSM88 group.  When I read their points, I see that they are as socialistic as the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Congress, except, they want to impose limitations on the socialism, such as requiring drug tests for those on welfare.  Well, in that regard, I hold them in a higher light than the Democrats, Republicans, and the Congress, since, at least, they think that there should be some accountability on the beneficiaries of free money.  However, it is not Constitutional, so I object to any transfer of wealth.

Now, there is little doubt that the 25 points have racist (or, is that racialist) tones to them.  But, then, it is only political correctness that says that we are criminal if we have human thoughts of hate (though love, even between people of the same sex is okay), the Democrats, the Republicans and Congress, support this by enactment of laws that, generally, only work in one direction.

Now, don’t misunderstand me.  I am not saying that I believe in what they say, though I do believe that the Congress, and the Democrats and Republicans, have created a very fertile ground for overreaction to the emotions that exist in a normal society, love and hate.  When either is outlawed, both being the character of human nature, you are made criminal for being human.  On top of that, you see that there are those who support such laws because they are selective, not in writing, rather, in enforcement.  When put in that position, it is, again, human nature, to look for those who are willing to say what you want to say, and, even though they may be more extreme in what they say, they, at least, are willing to say it.  The rest of the people will only say it in whispers, for fear of being caught, and charged with a crime, or, being castigated as not being “politically correct”.  It becomes the only refuge for those willing to speak what they believe (freedom of speech), and, then, they are made (by another form of “patriotic political correctness”) out as criminal by those who should be their support of the Constitution, allow them the right to express their sentiments.  This, then, tends to push them even further into their chosen refuge, and defend themselves against attackers — who should be on their side, if not philosophically, at least, lawfully and Constitutionally.

This is all a result of “political correctness” achieving a polarization (making everything black or white), though it is target specific, and does not apply to all.  Whatever happened to the shades of grey that allowed us to disagree and get along, at the same time?  After all, if you study the history of this country, you will find, whether with regard to reconciliation or independence, or, what form of government, there was never absolute agreement.  They shades of grey were weighed, and a consensus made, in both cases, and the country followed that course.  Each was allowed to choose, and was not cast out if his ideas were not consistent with the majority.  He was respected for his input and the thoughts that he brought to the table.  Likewise, he respected the result, even though not what he, personally desired.

You see, it was those shades of grey that allowed the thought and discussion that lead the Founders to what they, finally, gave to us, their posterity.  It was a living society that, through free expression, allowed debate and discussion, without resorting to the current government tactic of demonization, in place of reasoned debate.

Now, since I had done my homework (gone to the NSM site), I was ready to responded to Jim’s request that I call him.  He wanted J. T. Campbell to join us in the call, to which I had no objection — until I found that neither one of them, apparently, had intention of hearing what I had to say.  If I managed to get a complete sentence out, in the conversation, I had two people responding, not to what I had just said, rather, to what they wanted me to say.

My first explanation was that I am not Committees of Safety.  Committees of Safety is a concept with heritage in our English traditions; an historical concept that goes back to long before the creation of the United States.  As such, I cannot speak for the Committees of Safety — since each Committee would be local, then county, then state — and that they can only speak for themselves.  It is not an organization with a leader who must be followed (the unfortunate consequence of our current society having lost the concepts embodied in our creation as a nation, and the ideals of the Founders), rather, it is a number of organizations, each representing those who live within its realm, and, who make the decisions, for themselves.  That by tradition, Committees did not act in a legislative capacity, except in establishing laws to deal with Tories and laws regarding the Militia.  As such, I don’t believe that they would be within their authority to make such a decision to support, or denounce, any other organization.

Now, all for this about Committees was left unsaid, due to the interruptions.  This made it apparent that the request that I call was not to get answers, rather, it was an effort to intimidate me into acceptance of what they chose to dictate.

In his effort to justify the attack on NSM (the 25 points are linked, above), and the demand for denouncing them, Jim did say that he has read many posts on that site that are of a much more threatening nature than the 25 points.  So, I guess we can ask some questions here:

• Do the thoughts of any single member, or members, of an organization speak for that organization?
• If so, what if what they say contradicts the espoused purpose of the organization?
• Should that organization disassociate with other organizations that don’t follow the exact same ideology?
• Can one man dictate what an entire organization stands for?

After I spoke with Jim, and since he and J. T. did not want to hear what I had to say, I wrote an email, to set the record straight.  Jim has chosen to post portions of this email dialogue, though they are hard to follow, and out of context.  Below is the entire discussion:

1.  Gary to Jim (after the phone conversation was over):

Jim,

Since your blog does not allow for responses, even from those named in the blog, I will try to make clear, in writing, the position of the Committees of Safety, with regard to such denouncements that you seem to be demanding.

First, I am not the Committee of Safety.  I am, however, a student of the historical Committees of Safety.  I cannot make a decision pro, or con, with regard to your request.

Second, Committees of Safety are local entities that are, for all intents and purposes, local governing bodies, elected by the people in a community (the Association), to fill the place, in the absence only of existing government’s failure to provide, for the safety and needs of the community (Association).  Any decisions to be made are made at that local level, not by me, who is only a student of the Committees of Safety.

Third, historically, the Committees of Safety did not enact laws, nor did they take any position in political, matters, except when they denounced Tories (people inimical to American Liberty).  Tories were those who supported the Royal government, once the division between what the constitution and charters meant came into question.  (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence for an example of that division.)

Fourth, with the exception of Tories.  Freedom of Speech was supported by the Committees of Safety.  Absent a law prohibiting something (NSM88, Nazi Party, Socialist Party, .  Democratic Party, Republican Party, etc.), there is no position that the Committees of Safety can take regarding either denouncing or supporting and other group.

Now, I know you are trying to leverage support for your beliefs.  I do hope that you are open-minded enough to understand that you are asking for something that would allow personal, or, individual, influence in an organization that is in no position to make such proclamations.

I do trust that you and J. T. Campbell understand the position that has to be taken in the matter.  I can assure you that if you don’t, there will be no action taken by the Committees of Safety, regardless of what efforts to denounce the Committees of Safety you take, since, by virtue of the explanation, above, the same would apply to you, regardless of what assertions you make about Committees of Safety.

Please forward this to J. T. so that he, also, understands what I was trying to tell you on the phone.

I do apologize for hanging up, but since you would not hear me out, I felt that putting it in writing was the best solution.

Respectfully,

Gary Hunt

2.  In an effort, again, to try to explain why Committees of Safety could not take a position, I sent the following:

Jim,

An example of the attitude taken by Committees of Safety in 1774:

On December 12, 1774 (before Lexington and Concord), the Maryland Provincial Congress, which was the colonial substitute governing body, created by the local Committees of Safety, set forth a series of Resolves.  The last on, Number 7, sets forth the sense of the Congress, with regard to personal animosities.

“(7.) Resolved unanimously, that it is recommended to the several colonies and provinces to enter into such or the like resolutions, for mutual defense and protection, as are entered into by this province.  As our opposition to the settled plan of the British administration to enslave America will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of men in this province, we do most earnestly recommend that all former differences about religion or politics, and all private animosities and quarrels of every kind, from henceforth cease and be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we conjure every man by his duty to God, his country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in defense of our common rights and liberties.”

Again, please pass on to J. T.

Thanks,

Gary

3.  Jim to Gary (this was replied to my mail list post, Committees of Safety and the General Association:

so you have not met the challenge we will be putting it out there on a regular basis and point out the neo nazi connections to wram and arm this is for the cause of freedom to expose the nazis from with in like doc sacramanic and jt  ready more to be exposed

4.  Gary to Jim:

Threats and intimidation will only bring dishonor to you.  It will come, and, I suspect, it will come soon.

That is not the way that free people should be expected to act.  It is more along the lines of the Southern Poverty Law Center tactics.

Have at it, but, understand that your tactics have cost you any support I could offer you.

5.  Jim to Gary:

gary dishonor in exposing nazis lol  you are buying into bullshit and my audience is worldwide not just those you reach wake up i have been at this a long time

6. Gary to Jim:

When you believe that you have the right/authority to decide what is, and what is not, acceptable, you have, well, become a dictator.

As I explained (or, tried to, since you and J.T. didn’t really want to hear what I had to say), if you took it to the court, and got a verdict, then you would be justified.

Instead, in your self-righteous arrogance, decide that you can decide for all of the rest.

I have nothing to discuss with someone who decides what is best for all.

7. Gary to Jim (I was curious about his claim of how long he had been in the “movement”:

Jim,

You have been at this a long time.  How long?

8. Gary to Jim

Dishonor has to do with how you do something, not what you do.

9. Jim to Gary:

34 years will be posting these emails and quote you on calling Michigan militia bigots

10.  Gary to Jim:

Have at it.  However, if you say that I said something that I didn’t say, you might find that you have hell to pay.

Walk softly!

 

Let’s make some other things clear, I never said “Michigan Militia”, during the entire conversation.  Jim seemed come to that (or at least first make the claim) in his last email – #9, above.  Any comment I made regarding bigot was in this context: “Jim you call me a bigot because I because I won’t do what you want me to do.  Does that make you a bigot?”

Somehow, then, this was construed, by Jim, to mean that I called the Michigan Militia bigots.  Apparently, that message was passed on to someone who goes by Thumper”, who responded, according to Jim’s post, by saying, “bite me”, which appears to be directed at me.

Now, since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, they have to stand on their own, There was no response that I could make on their behalf, since I am only a student of Committees of Safety and attempting to pass on what to other what I have learned.

This did not mean that I couldn’t be concerned about the Michigan Militia, since in the nineties I was in contact with Norm Olson and Mark Koernke.  And though I haven’t been in contact with the Michigan Militia, since then, I was concerned that they might think that either I or the Committees of Safety (which can’t even have a voice), I decide to see if I could find someone in the upper echelons in the Michigan Militia, and set the record straight.  After all, the post made it appear as if I was trying to denigrate them, based not upon what I said, rather, what Jim said that I said (and interesting tactic, used frequently by the SPLC).

My intention was to try to get through to “Thumper”, though I found an intelligent voice on the other end of the phone, so we discussed what had occurred.  The person on the other end of the conversation seemed to understand both what I was saying, and, the nature of Jim Stach.  We talked about other aspects of the patriot community, and seemed to be on agreement on just about everything.  I told him that if we are fighting amongst ourselves we would never be able to take on the government.  That the division in the patriot community is more destructive than anything that the government can do (overtly), and that we are doing it to ourselves.

He asked me if I thought that there was anything wrong with the Michigan Militia not allowing neo-Nazis the right to join the Michigan Militia, and I told him that I believed that if that was what Michigan Militia wanted, they had every right to limit their membership, though they didn’t have the right to try to intimidate others organizations from making their own decisions.  We seemed to agree on that last point, and the conversation was concluded.  I will say that I believe that the other person felt rather uncomfortable that the Michigan Militia was even made party to the dispute between Jim and me.

Well, I thought that this was the end of it.  I had explained to the Michigan Militia that what Jim said I said was not what I said.  Since I can’t speak for Committees of Safety, there was nothing left for me to do.

Friday (June 10) evening, I received an email from Jim, making clear that his efforts to intimidate by demonization were over.  The email provided a link (http://freedomfighterradio.net/2011/06/10/gary-hunt-of-outpost-of-freedom-and-committees-of-safety-calls-michigan-militia-racist-bigots-and-turns-down-challenge/[link no longer valid]), and, though I have no capacity to defend the Committees of Safety, the Outpost of Freedom has now been named, and that brings on a whole new battle. Outpost of Freedom has been what I have been writing under since January 1993.  It was the name of the newspapers I published; the fax network (in the nineties); and has been the name of my webpage since 1995.  It is not an organization, nor is it an association of people (as the Committees of Safety).  It is mine, and I will defend it.  Neither of Jim’s posts have provision to respond.  Since, if I respond by email, Jim will cut and paste and manufacture, to suit his objective (whatever it might be), I will go public with what has transpired, and, I will be open to response by Jim (comments section, at the bottom of this blog).  I have always believed that both sides of any story must be heard, and, that any judgment be made with a fair hearing of both sides.

I will not pretend to speak for Committees of Safety, though I will speak for Outpost of Freedom.  “Thumper” seems to think that he speaks for the Michigan Militia (though that is not the impression I got from the conversation, above).  Jim Stach seems to speak, also, for the Michigan Militia, though not even a member, as well as the entire Militia community, since he knows that they must submit to his “challenge”, or subject themselves to his insignificant and infantile tantrum of wrath.

Now, return to what Jim said about what some said on the NSM page.  He suggests that they speak for the NSM, regardless of what their policy (25 points) says.

Jim also presumes that he speak for the entire Militia community, regardless of what each Militia determines its own policy to be.  He suggests that, if you don’t do what I say, you are not a patriot.  If you do what I say, I will kick everybody out of the patriot community, by use of this demonization process, that I think doesn’t belong here.  It is not your decision, it is my decision.

So, there, you have my side of the story.

You be the judge.  Comments are welcome, so long as they are presented in a decent manner.  If you resort to name-calling, you may find that certain remarks may be edited, though the context will not be changed.

Committee of Safety – Common Law Court

Unlike the common law courts that you hear about, so often, usually in a bad light — as trying to “bring justice” to government officials, the Committee of Safety — Common Law Court (CoS-CLC) is to bring balance to the patriot community.

The Division in the patriot community has, for decades, been our most serious problem.  Perhaps a means to resolve those disputes that lead to division will substantially reduce the problem of division.  This is the idea behind the CoS-CLC.  Suppose there is a name-calling going on between two people.  Others are bound to take sides; generally, it will be the side of a friend or someone who has “your ear” more than the other does.

Unfortunately, such controversy can wreak havoc in portions of the community, often resulting in the disruption, or even dissolution, of an organization.

So, just how can such a problem be avoided?

Let’s suppose that both sides to such controversy are given an equal platform to “air their grievances”.  A platform that will moderate the “debate”, allow evidence to be submitted, both sides being heard, even allowing testimony from witnesses, without any prejudicial intervention.  After all of the evidence is submitted, witnesses heard, and statements made, by both parties, it is turned over to a jury of 12 peers (members of the patriot community) to deliberate and come up with a verdict.

Once the verdict is presented, it will be available for all to read, along with the pertinent portions of the trial.  It will remain as reference, for all who might have questions about either, or both of the parties.

The same can be held for questionable organizations or programs.  All that is required is that someone file a Complaint, and the other party answer.  The CoS-CLC will then begin the process for the “trial”.

All that is needed for this invaluable tool to become available for us it to have members of the community, from as diverse a sampling of Patriots as possible, from all walks of life, from all parts of the country.  This is your chance to have your say, to make your voice be heard, to help rid the infighting, and to provide justice, and vindication or validation for those who have been harmed.

* * *

You can learn more about the Court, and volunteer to serve at http://www.committee.org/Court

You can visit the Forum where you can discuss Committees of Safety or join in conversation at the Green Dragon Inn (need not be registered), or, see the Courtroom (must register), at http://www.committee.org/LibertyTree.

We need volunteers to be judges, jurors, and grand jurors.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see  Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (introduction)]

 

 

Committee of Safety
Common Law Court

Introduction

Just prior to and during the Revolutionary War, there was an absence of lawful courts in certain areas affected by the removal of British government, or removal of Charter government.  During this period, the Committees of Safety would establish courts, if the need arose.  They would handle criminal matters, where necessary, though their focus was greater in based upon the need to control Tory activity.  Punishment for being a Tory could be as simple as restriction of travel; house arrest; removal of “long arms”; imprisonment; or, execution.

Of course, there was a war going on, and the means and necessity were different than today.  However, the patriot community is plagued by accusation, defamation, and other activities that are very disruptive, and, are not conducive to a unified effort to restore constitutional government to the United States.

This Committee of Safety — Common Law Court is intended to provide a means, considering both the abilities (ease of communication, etc.) and the disabilities (proximity, etc.), of conducing “trials”, when charges are brought, and providing the fairest means within those constraints of dealing with those problems.

When someone is found “guilty”, they may consider revising their ways, to avoid the stigma of the verdict. They may decide that they no longer want to be a part of the patriot community. They may, also, resort to asking their boss for a reassignment.  In each instance, the patriot community will find itself slightly improved, and, perhaps discourage such activities in others.

Purpose

Empanelled only to hear complaints regarding disruption to the patriot community; creating division in the patriot community; personal attacks unfounded by the evidence; accusations of individuals having allegiance to the government instead of the Constitution; any malicious behavior which brings discredit to the patriot community.

There is a lot of disruption and division within the patriot community. Some is a result of human nature; some may be a result of intentional activity directed at creating division and animosity; and, some may be totally unfounded, perhaps just an error in communication. Regardless of the cause, it is the effect that is so detrimental to our cause of restoring constitutional government to the United States of America.

In looking towards a solution, aimed at minimizing the damaging impact, it only makes sense to look to that same community, those who seek to restore sound constitutional government, for the solution — a solution based upon the very document that we esteem so highly.

Understanding that many of the means that have been utilized, historically, to resolve such matters, what is being presented here is a common law court that will only hear cases of slander: libel: defamation: or, activities which are associated with the patriot community that tend, by their nature, to be disruptive and bring discredit to a segment, or, the entire community, it must also be adapted to the current means of communication, and the vastness of the community.

The process will begin with the filing of a Complaint. The Complaint will go to the Clerk of the Court, who will not be judgmental, only an administrative arm of the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court.

Composition of the Court

Before proceeding with the explanation, the elements of the Court need to be identified. There will be a pool of judges (voluntary) from which three (3) judges will be picked, at random, for any case brought before the Court. The purpose of the judges will be to maintain decorum and order in the court. They may assist parties in preparing coherent documentation; formulating orders from the court, assisting the Grand Jury in preparing an indictment

There will be a pool of Grand Jurors (voluntary), of which five (5) regular jurors and two (2) alternate jurors will be randomly selected every six months, and will not be able to sit, again, until six months after the completion of any term that have participated in, even as an alternate juror. The Grand Jury shall be unknown and inaccessible during their entire term. They will prepare indictments, based upon Complaints, if probable cause is determined.

There will be a jury pool (voluntary), from which seven (7) jurors will be randomly selected, for each trial. In addition both the Accuser and the Accused will appoint one (1) juror to the jury.  Three (3) alternative judges will be randomly selected, though will be in “read only” participation, unless a regular juror is unable to participate, or removed for cause. The Jury will try the case, and will be allowed to ask questions, through the judges, during the course of the trial. Their verdict shall be the final decision of the Court, unless an appeal is granted.

There will be a Clerk of the Court who will retain that position as long as they desire, subject, however, to removal by the judges for failure to perform, or, failure to maintain records, correspondence, etc., or to divulge any information to other than those intended to receive such information, records, etc.   There shall also be an Assistant Clerk who will fill in when the Clerk is unable to attend to duties, or has been discharged for cause.  Any two (2) judges sitting on a current proceeding may require the removal of a Clerk. The Clerk will maintain, in proper order, all correspondence, complaints, indictments, verdicts and any other records for every case. He may delegate to the Assistant Clerk, as necessary, though this shall only be done when the workload warrants additional help.

There will be an Internet Forum which shall serve as the Courthouse for trials and all information pertaining to any case brought before this Court.

This is the composition of the Court, which personnel will change with each case, with the exception of the Grand Jury.

Procedure for a Complaint

An Accuser, who wishes to accuse another, and bring them to trial in the Committee of Safety – Common Law Court can file a complaint with the Clerk.  Participation of the Accuser, and agreement to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, are granted by filing a Complaint.

The Accused, once they answer any request for information or indictment from the Grand Jury, has agreed to jurisdiction of the Court; its procedures; and, its final decision, by virtue of their response. Absent a response, there is no jurisdiction granted, and the Court may publish any information provided by the Accuser, any findings, and, the indictment, along with an explanation that the Accused refused to respond to the Complaint and/or indictment, and has thereby waived consideration of any answer to the accusations.

Once the Complaint is filed with the Clerk of the Court, the Clerk will forward copies of all information received to the three judges which the Clerk will select, randomly, from the pool of judges. If any of the selected judges finds that he is familiar with either party, or for any reason determines himself unable to be impartial, he shall remove himself, in which case the Clerk will select another judge to fill such vacancy.

The Clerk will also notify the Accuser of the names of the judges. The Accuser, for cause, may request recusal of any of the judges that he feels may not be impartial; however, he must provide written cause along with the request for recusal. The judge in question may remove himself, however, if he does not voluntarily remove himself, the other two judges may rule on the recusal, however, if more than one judge is named in the recusal, the Clerk shall call two (2) judges from the judge pool who will sit with the third judge to weigh the merit, and make determination on the recusal. The Clerk will then fill any vacancies created by recusal from the judge pool.

The judges will prepare a concise presentation of the Complain. If evidence is necessary to substantiate information provided in the Complaint, the judges will notify the Clerk that additional information is needed. The Clerk shall then inform the Accuser, who shall provide the additional information requested.

Once the judges have determined that the Compliant, and supportive information, be complete, the package shall be provided to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may, through the Clerk, request additional information through the judges, who will pass the request to the Clerk, who will pass the request to the Accuser.

When the Grand Jury has completed its review of the information provided supportive of the Complaint, they shall prepare an indictment. They may request the assistance of the judges in preparing the indictment, if they so desire. When the indictment is completed, they shall provide the indictment, along with any copies of evidence they feel should be included, to the Clerk to send to the Accused. The Clerk shall also provide the names of the judges currently assigned to the matter, and the Accused shall have the same right to request recusal of any of the judges. This will be the first knowledge of the Accused that proceedings are being considered against him.

The Accused will have the opportunity to reply to the Grand Jury, with evidence, answering the accusations made against him. This will be the only opportunity, prior to trial, to address the Complaint. This information will be returned to the Clerk who will provide the Accused’s answer to the Grand Jury and the judges.

The Grand Jury shall then review the answer provided by the Accused and determine if there is merit to the accusation, in which cause the y will find probable cause and provide a True Bill to the Clerk. If they find that there is insufficient probable cause, they will provide a No Bill to the Clerk, who will then destroy all records pertaining to the case.

In the event that the Accused refuses to recognize the Court and submit to jurisdiction, which may be indicated by a direct answer, or, failure to respond to the indictment within thirty (30) working days (six weeks), the Court shall make public the indictment and any evidence supportive of the indictment, at the discretion of the judges, by posting the documentation in the Closed Docket Forum.

Jury Selection.

The jury will be composed as described above. Jurors will have their name posted at the beginning of the trial, in the Courtroom (see below). Either party, for cause, may request the removal of a juror. A reason must be given and the judges will rule on removal. The party selected jurors shall not be subject to removal. Vacancies in the jury will be filled by the Clerk prior to opening arguments.

Proceedings

If the Accused has answered, a Courtroom will be opened in the Forum Courthouse, bearing the name of both the Accuser and the Accused, along with a very general statement of the cause of action. Access to the Courtroom, at this point, will be Clerk – read only; judges – read/write; Accuser and Accused – read/write; jury – read only; others, no access during the trial.

At trial, the Accuser and the Accused shall restrain themselves from posting, unless the floor is theirs. The judges will open the proceedings by reading the charges.

Then, opening arguments from the Accuser; then the Accused, shall be presented. Each will have a thread in the Courtroom Forum. The charges will be presented in “Counts”. All discussion relative to a Count shall be on the thread for that Count. To maintain a proper sequence, the judges (court) will advise when and what either of the parties may post.  The parties may write their comments in a text editor, but they should not be pasted in the forum until told to do so.

There will be a thread named “bench” where the parties can pose questions to the court, at any time. This “bench” will not be made a public record, so what is posted there will not be a part of the public trial, available after the case is closed.

Jurors may direct questions they wish asked of either, or both, of the parties, by posting them to the “Clerk” thread. The judges will then formulate the question to be presented to the party to whom it is directed, including a Count assignment, where the party shall answer the question.

Objections will be posted at the Bench thread. Any objection will be ruled upon by the bench prior to proceeding with the trial.

Witnesses may be called, and they will be allowed access to the Courtroom only during their testimony.  They will be subject to cross examination. Any witness may be recalled by either party, though there is no subpoenaed power in this forum. The jury will also be allowed to ask questions of witnesses through the Clerk. If a witness testifies for one party and refuses to answer cross examination by the other party, or questions from the jury, his testimony will be stricken, and the jury will ignore the testimony. The trial will conclude with closing arguments (threaded) after the completion of the submission of all evidence.

Closing arguments will be presented by both parties, Accuser being the first to offer closing, with a short rebuttal allowed to each party. Closing arguments and rebuttals will mark the end of the trail.

Jury Deliberation

The jury will then be directed to the Jury Room Forum where they will deliberate. They will have full access to the Courtroom, and may ask any questions of the judges, if they so desire. Their deliberations should be maintained in the Count threads, or in a general thread, depending on particular discussion — based upon the judgment of the jurors.

Every effort should be made to come to a unanimous verdict, on each of the Counts. This will be highly unlikely, since each party has a juror present. If six jurors do find for one side, the Court will consider that verdict as unanimous.

Final Decision

The final verdict, however, will be based upon the preponderance of evidence, for each count, and the verdict will be final, subject only to appeal (explained later). The jury will then prepare, with the assistance of a judge, or judges, final pronouncement of the Court (Final Decision). The final decision will be posted on the Docket Forum. Others are able to copy and utilize the final decision, for information purposes, so long as it remains unedited and the source (URL) for the permanent record (Docket Forum) is attached to any copies distributed. Violations of this practice (complete decision and URL) will result in a contempt of court against the violator(s), and that violation will be posted, attached to the final decision, in the Docket Forum.

At this time, the Courtroom will be opened (read only) to provide public access to the proceedings. It will be locked, and no changes or postings will be made after the close of trial, except that the final decision will also be posted in the Courtroom.

Appeals

Decisions of the Court are subject to appeal. Appeal Hearings may be granted by a five (5) judge panel, randomly selected by the Clerk, none of which can be judges from the original trial.

Basis for Appeals:

New evidence, unavailable at time of trial

New witnesses, unavailable at trail

Other circumstances which, when brought forward, might affect the outcome of the original trial

To Appeal a Decision of the Court, the Appellant must submit to the Clerk a request for a hearing before the above mentioned panel, which will be empanelled upon receipt of the request. Full detail, including evidence to support request for appeal, must be submitted with the original request. The appeals panel may require additional information.

If the determination of the appeals panel is in favor of the appeal, the Panel may:

Hold hearings, with both parties participating; or,

Retry the matter, subject only to the additional information brought toward, though incorporated with the Jury deliberations form the original trial.

Either hearing or retrial can result in setting aside portions, or all, of the original Final Decision of the Court.

All records, evidence, etc., brought up in hearing or retrial will become a permanent part of the record of the trial.

[For more information on the Common Law Court, see Committee of Safety – Common Law Court (an explanation]

 

A Simplified Explanation of
“The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government”

I have been asked for a sentence, or two, to describe “The Plan For the Restoration of Constitutional Government”. Well, I could not provide such a short description due to the complexity of the Plan, itself.

However, in numerous phone conversations, I have tried to provide an explanation of the Plan, and I do believe that I have found a descriptive means of demonstrating just how it would work.

Suppose you had a map of the United States and it was all black. Black represents areas that are under the control of repressive government (yes, this also includes all state governments that have submitted to receiving federal funds — all of them).

Now, suppose a very small white dot appears on the map. Within a few days, a few more white dots appear. These white areas (even though very, very small, at first) represent areas that have returned to Constitutional government, regardless of the means. As time goes on, these small white dots become more frequent, and, they begin to become larger.

After a short period of time, some of the dots, now growing into definable shape, stretch out and merge with another white area.

As time goes on, these areas become even large, merging with other areas, and, soon, encompassing counties within their respective state. Growing and merging, the will soon encompass most of the state, perhaps wrapping around large population areas (cities and metropolitan areas).

As they continue to grow, they will cross state lines and begin absorbing the high population areas, until the map has been reversed, and the black areas are reduced to dots, and then disappear completely.

So, if I have been successful in reducing the Plan to a simple and easily conveyed explanation, perhaps you would like to go to The Plan for Restoration of Constitutional Government,  and download a copy of The Plan.

When you read the Plan, you will see that it is based upon our own history. It is an emulation of the same course taken by our own Founders in securing the colonies that were soon to become the United States of America.

Some Thoughts on the Judicial Process

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 16, 2001

Introduction

If you watch a child grow, you see every stage of that child’s life and cannot really discern the transition from infant to adult, except upon reflection.

If, however, you are introduced to an adult, you have no means by which to recognize the infancy and growth to the point where you have met.

Of course, if you look at a scrapbook, carefully prepared by a doting mother, though you will not have an entire picture of those many transitions of life, you will be able to begin to understand the foundation that brought that person from infancy to adulthood.

Our legal system is introduced to us in much the same way.  When we first become aware of what the entire judicial system is, we acquire most of our understanding from both the television and schooling.  We tend not to look for that scrapbook; rather, we accept what we are taught, at face value.

If we are among the older observers, we might recognize that there has been a lot of ‘growing’ in that judicial system since we were first introduced to it, though we tend to accept those changes as necessary, since we still rely upon television or other media, even the courts, to determine what course this system should take.

We understand those changes to be a result of progress.  Progress, however, is a rather interesting word, though we seldom give much thought to what it really means.

We can progress in our studies, with the objective of an education and a degree to be the goal of that progress.  If we make progress in a trip, we know that we are getting closer to a destination, with the goal being a location which course was set out at the beginning of our journey.  As we progress through life, our destination is what we perceive to be the end result of that journey, most often defined as passing out of this life — a goal which might not be sought though it is inevitable.  We can clearly see, then, that progress has in mind a goal — a purpose for the pursuit of that progression.

So, let’s return to the progress we see in the judicial system.  What, exactly, or even remotely, is the goal that we are pursuing?  Is it a higher degree of justice?  Perhaps a more equitable administration of justice.  Not much difference between the two, however, it is hard to conceive of a positive goal that would not pursue one or the other.

On the other hand, and, once again referring to the older amongst us, if we stop and look back at what has occurred in our lifetime, we can see that the changes that have occurred, though couched in the term of law and order, generate little semblance to a progression in that direction.

So, let’s see if we can find the scrapbooks that will give us a better picture of the transition, from the beginning to the present, of our American judicial system.

So as to develop a foundation upon which the judicial system was created, we will look, first, at the Constitution.

Constitution

In the Preamble, the Constitution sets forth the authority and responsibility of the government:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Establishing Justice is one of the principle objectives in the creation of both the government and the Union known as the United States of America.  Note that it does not say that it is to establish “Law”, rather, to establish “Justice”.  This is an important consideration in the transition from what was to what is.

Next, we can look at what created the federal judiciary, in Article III of the Constitution:

Section 1– “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish….  “

Section 2– “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority…”

So, we have a supreme Court established as well as inferior courts that the Congress might “ordain and establish“.  We also see that the power of these courts “extends to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under” the Constitution and the Laws of the United States.  This, of course, would include all laws made pursuant to the Constitution, so, obviously, they cannot conflict with the Constitution.

Next, we find in Article III:

Section 2, clause 3– “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

So, all crimes shall be tried by a jury (more later on the proper role of the jury) and we have the introduction of jurisdiction, whereby such trial “shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed“.

To understand what is meant by this limitation on jurisdiction, we need to look back at Article I

Section 8– “The Congress shall have Power …”
Clause 17 “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;…”

Note that the Congress has the power for “exclusive Legislation” only in the venue (geographic area where the injury or crime occurred) defined as Washington, D.C. (District – not exceeding ten Miles square), all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State (which, too, have to have cession of jurisdiction to be included in the exclusive legislative jurisdiction) for purposes related to government functions.  Land simply purchased by the government, without the State having granted jurisdiction, does not fall in this category.

It might be worthwhile to point out that the Supreme Court has recognized that there are three United States’, from a legal standpoint, when they ruled in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, [324 U.S. 652], when they declared that, “The term {United States} has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.  “The lands described in Section 8, above, fall within the second definition, “territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends”.  It might also be worth noting that subsequent decisions extended that sovereignty over territories that have not become states.  The States which were members of the Union (the United States of America) fall, clearly, within the third definition.

The, in Article IV, we find a reference which suggests that the Common Law (more on that, later) is the means by which justice will be established.

Section 1– “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

“Full Faith and Credit”, this provides a means of establishing justice on an equitable, or, at least, relatively equal basis throughout the States.  This is a concept of common law, not of civil law.

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.  It was prefaced with an oft-overlooked Preamble that included the following, to set forth its purpose:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

First, we find in Amendment IV:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This protection evolves from what was practiced in England, and was ignored here, here, in colonial times.  William Pitt, a Member of Parliament said, in the House of Commons, “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.  It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter — but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”  This might begin to explain that old adage; “a man’s home is his castle”.

Early on, well before the War of Independence, James Otis spoke out against Writs of Assistance.  A Writ of Assistance was, quite simply, a blanket search warrant.  It did not say exactly what was being looked for, nor, did it say exactly where it was to be looked for.  It might best be described as a “fishing expedition”, and was, without question, intolerable, in the eyes of the Framers.

The Oath or affirmation is a sworn statement of personal knowledge.  It is not third party, or hearsay, it is absolute knowledge.  That “John Doe told me that you robbed a bank” is only personal knowledge that “John Doe” told you something.  Only John Doe can swear to what you told him.

We are then provided the protections contained in Amendment V”

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

So, we can see that the Framers were concerned over the power of the government to make arrests (held to answer), even in capital offenses (death penalty) or infamous crimes (felonies, which would be any crime that would include at least 1 year of imprisonment), unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.  The significance of the Grand Jury will become more apparent as we go on.

Next, we will visit Amendment VI:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”

So, here we have a guarantee of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury (more on the petit jury, later), again, held where the crime was committed.  He is assured that he has a right o know the “nature and cause” of the accusation.  We also see that the right to confront all witnesses against the accused is assured and that he has a right to counsel (it does not say lawyer) for his defense.

Finally, within the Bill of Rights, we have Amendment VII:

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

This speaks for itself, except that it does say that the decision of thee jury may not be reexamined in any court.

There were subsequent amendments that had minor effect on the judiciary, though they are not worth mentioning.

What might be worthy of your consideration is that within the Federalist Papers, the arguments published in support of ratification of the Constitution, and, recognized as the best representation of the intent of that Constitution, mentions “courts of justice” eight times, though never once mentions a “courts of law.”

Common Law

To understand the Common Law is a rather complex study.  There have been numerous older books written on the subject.  Many recent claims that its foundation is on Christian or, Judeo-Christian principles is unfounded, though there is no doubt that these principles have influenced the course of Common Law.

In the earliest accounts, ordeal by fire was a means of judging, and, a person could not be compelled to enter the court (or, whatever forum was in use at the time).  That evolution had proceeded over 11 centuries when that Common Law, as it had evolved, was adopted by the new States who had come together under the banner of the United States of America.

Many old state statute books (perhaps some still do) included something similar to, “and adopt the common law of England as it existed on July 4, 1776”.  It was qualified that the common law so adopted could not be in conflict with the constitution or statutes.

So, in body, where not in conflict, and, in principle, the common law was adopted by all of the states except Louisiana (which had its Napoleonic Code).  Many state’s statutes have been revised to remove this reference, though we must wonder why.

To have a general understanding of the Common Law, sufficient to the purpose of this paper, we can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

From Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:

Common law.  As a distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the governments and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of a immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.  The “common law” is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution. 

Common-law consists of those principles, usages and rules of action applicable to government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.

As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals.

California civil code, section 22.2, provides that the “common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decisions in all the courts of this State.”

In a broad sense, “common law” may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.

Judge.  An officer so named in his commission, who presides in some court; a public officer, appointed to preside and to administer the law in a court of justice; the chief member of a court, and charged with the control of proceedings and the decisions of questions of law or discretion.

“Judge”, “justice”, and “court” are often used synonymously or interchangeably.

Preside.  To occupy the place of authority as of president, chairman, moderator, etc.  To direct, control or regulate proceedings as chief officer, moderator, etc.  To posses or exercise authority.  To preside over a court is to “hold” it.  — to direct, control and govern it as the chief officer.  A judge may “preside” whether sitting as sole judge or as one of several judges.

Magistrate.  The term in its generic sense refers to a person clothed with power as a public civil officer, or the public civil officer invested with executive or judicial power.

U. S. magistrates.  A judicial officer, appointed by judges of federal DISTRICT courts, having some but not all of the powers of a judge.  In the federal district courts magistrates may conduct many of the preliminary or pre-trial proceedings in both civil and criminal cases.

Perhaps, from the above, you can begin to see what is relevant to the Common Law and what is not a part of the Common Law.

Properly, a Common Law Court (not those that you hear about on the news, rather, those which were acknowledged as our right), could only be deemed courts of justice.  A court of law is the administration of rules in an arbitrary manner and is based upon Roman Civil Law.

Common Law, then, is made more by the people and less by the government.  “How so?” you ask.  Well, to understand this we must look at who decides innocence or guilt, for that interpretation would tell us what crime really is.  The juries, both Grand and Petit, achieve this, in Common Law.

Grand Jury

Early reference to the Grand Jury process can be found in the Magna Carta (1215 AD), in Article 36, “In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs.  It shall be given gratis, and not refused.”

Grand juries have been described in numerous ways, over the centuries.  In 1694, Lord Somers described them as, “security of Englishmen’s lives”.  They have also been described as the “conserver of liberties” and “the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals and states”.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Jury, n.
A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empanneled [sic] and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case.

Grand juries consist usually of twenty-four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments.

The purpose they serve is to consider complaints (not limited to those submitted by the state, rather, the including of any complaint against state officials), and determine whether a petit jury trial is warranted to determine innocence or guilt.

Through their history, Kings have enacted statutes that wrested control of the Grand Jury from the people and provided the King more leeway in prosecuting people, though these changes were apt to be turned over by outrage, violence, or even revolution.

They were not, as they are construed, now, especially on the federal level, simply an arm of government for the prosecution of people who violate laws.  They were instituted to determine if any crime, including a denial of rights, was committed, based upon investigation by the Grand Jury, itself, and having available to them the right to call any witness, including the accused, to determine if an indictment or true bill was warranted.

Once issued, the indictment or true bill could not be quashed and the matter had to go to trial.  Nowadays, many states and the federal government allow a prosecutor to refuse a true bill, denying a trial where the Grand Jury had called for it.  The best-known instance of this had to do with an FBI sniper named Ron Horiuchi, who was indicted by an Idaho Grand Jury under the charge of murder, based upon his killing of Vicki Weaver.  Probable cause was established by the Grand Jury, though the federal court usurped the authority of the State to try the case and moved it into federal jurisdiction.  The federal court then determined, contrary to the Idaho Grand Jury, that no crime had been committed and the accused never stood trial.

Each state has its own laws regarding grand juries, and they vary, often significantly.  The primary elements, however, used to include little or no control by government officers and gave broad inquisitorial powers to the jury.  Without these, they would not be safeguard to our liberties.

To fully understand the history and authority of grand juries in the United States, see an article by G. B. Edwards on “Essay on the Grand Jury in America” (1904), at the Outpost of Freedom Library.

Petit Jury

More often simply called “petty juries”, trial juries”, “common juries”, or, just plain “juries”.  These are the mainstay of a system of justice, and, can be a tool of oppression in a system of laws.

Here is how Webster’s 1828 Dictionary explains them:

Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions.  The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

Notice that he said that this jury would decide “both the law and the fact”, not just the fact, as we are told, today.  And, understand that Webster’s definition is the same definition understood by the Framers when they mentioned juries in the Constitution.

Through our history, from John Peter Zenger, in 1735, where the jury rejected the law, to trials regarding slaves, where juries refused to convict those who violated the laws regarding the return of slaves to their master, to during the Prohibition Era, where juries refused to convict many of those accused of “moon shining”, we have seen the jury reject law (which is often followed by the legislature overturning the law) when the facts presented clearly suggested a violation of that “law”.

The power to judge the law was an inherent right in the days of the Framers.  Since we are a self-governed people, the ultimate responsibility to judge what we must abide by MUST be in our hands, not the hands of those in government.

Here is how Lysander Spooner sets out the purpose of petit juries:

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

To understand more about petit juries and jury trials, see the entire Lysander Spooner “Essay on Trial by Jury” (1852) at the Outpost of Freedom Library.

Courts

First, let’ look at what a court is, as perceived by the Framers, according to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (irrelevant definitions excluded):

Court.  n.

3. A palace; the residence of a king or sovereign prince.

4. The hall, chamber or place where justice is administered.

5. Person who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor.

6. The persons or judges assembled for hearing and deciding causes, civil, criminal, military, naval, or ecclesiastical: as a court of law; a court of chancery; a court martial; a court of admiralty; an ecclesiastical court’ court baron; &c.

***

7. Any jurisdiction, civil, military or ecclesiastical.

When we look at these definitions, we might wonder whether the meaning of the word (definition #4) as intended by the Framers is the one that the government has continued to operate on our behalf.

Courts, as they are perceived today, are tribunals intent on imposition of laws, fines and penalties, whose primary beneficiary is the State.  Restitution, “making whole” of a victim of a crime, is left to the victim.  If he has insurance, he has paid for the privilege of restitution; if he has none, then he must bear his loss.

This raises the question as to whether the courts that we have become familiar with are those same courts that the Framers intended for their Posterity.

As mentioned earlier, the Federalist Papers recognized “courts of justice”, though they made no mention of “courts of law”.

Courts of Justice are “The hall, chamber or place where justice is administered“.  They would include the grand and petit juries, as intended, and would have consideration of any injury, whether imposed by a private individual or a government official.

Courts of law, on the other hand, are courts of punishment.  They are intended to force the will of the government on the people and endeavor to impress upon all the consequences of violation of the government’s rules.

It is true that there are beneficial results couched in these forums of obedience, where truly bad people are sent to prison, though, often, those truly bad people are back on the streets in a short period of time, to redo their misdeeds.

It is also true that those in government who do misdeeds under color of law [“The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right” – Black’s Law Dictionary] are, for the most part, exempt from any criminal prosecution, regardless of whether their crime is simple, as a misdemeanor, or capital, as murder.

We need to return to courts of justice, and remove the taint of obedience to the King through courts of law from our landscape.  Without such change, we will remain vassals in the country of our birthright, which our forefathers were willing to give their lives to assure to us.

Crimes

Crime is a word that can be defined in many ways, today.  However, when crime is coupled with justice, the definition narrows considerably.  From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Crime.  n,

1.  An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws.  A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as in commission, or positive transgression.  The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gate without resistance.

But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offence, or a violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public a wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c.  The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.  Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured.  But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.

2. Any great wickedness; iniquity; wrong.

Capital crime, a crime punishable with death.

The Framers, when they devised the Constitution, the document that defined just what powers the new government was to have, were very cautious in what was perceived as crime.  Of what they did perceive, there were two types of crime envisioned.  First would be those that were to secure rights and protect individuals from transgressions by others.  These provide the authority to pass laws that would give a source of recourse to those offended by another.  An example would be Article I, Section 8, clause 8, the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, which provided legal recourse if others violated that right.

The other is those activities that threaten the government directly.  Of this second class, in their wisdom, they were only able to define three crimes of this nature:

Article I, Section 8, clause 6, “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.”

Article I, Section 8, clause 10, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations”.

Article III, Section III, clause 2, “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Though they were given powers to enact other laws, it is apparent that they had determined that crimes against the state were the only crimes that could be defined by the federal government, except while in military service, or in service to the government — those being employees or officers of the government).

Crime is, by its nature, an offense, whether that offense be against another individual or against the public [understand that public is not the government, it is the people — see Charity and General Welfare].  When against an individual, a damage or injury would be the result.  When done against the public, it can only be appropriate to a crime that affects those within a limited community, for, how can it be an offense against someone in another state, or even another county, if committed in this county?  If it is too broad in its coverage, it is an attempt by a few (those who legislate) to dictate how others may live their lives.  This, in concept, is contrary to the ideals of self-government, and is indicative of an attempt at social engineering.

When the ability of any legislature to impose upon larger bodies of people their will, whatever the incentive, that power will grow in its effect and administration until the large body of people come under abject subjugation.  When carried to the next logical step in the subjugation and oppression of the people, even the remotest possibility of someone committing a crime becomes a crime, in itself.  (See Thought Crimes)

When determining what crime really is, when the activity causes a damage or injury, laws instituted to punish that crime make sense, so long as they leave the discretion of punishment to the jury.

However, when laws, by their very nature, create crime, which does not result in loss or injury, the laws, themselves, have become the crime.  The laws result in injury or loss where none existed, absent the law, when the accused has, then, become the victim.

Arrest

Arrest is nothing less than denial of liberty.  Liberty was one of the major maxims for the War of Independence.  It, unlike freedom, is best defined as being free, where freedom, generally, has to do with not being obligated or enslaved.

Let’s look at how these two words would be perceived by the Framers, from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Arrest v.t.

1. To obstruct; to stop; to check or hinder motion; as, to arrest the current of a river; to arrest the senses.

2. To take, seize or apprehend by virtue of a warrant from authority; as, to arrest one for debt or for a crime.

Arrest, n.

1. The taking or apprehending of a person by virtue of a warrant from authority.  An arrest is made by seizing or touching the body.

2. Any seizure, or taking by power, physical or moral.

3. A stop, hindrance or restraint.

4. In law, an arrest of judgment is the staying or stopping of a judgment after verdict, for causes assigned.  Courts have power to arrest judgment for intrinsic causes appearing upon the face of the record; as when the declaration varies from the original writ; when the verdict differs materially from the pleadings; or when the case laid in the declaration is not sufficient in point of law, to found an action upon.  The motion for this purpose is called a motion in arrest of judgment.

Freedom, n. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement.

Liberty, n.

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force a operates to restrain his actions or are volitions.

2.  Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.  It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life.  This liberty is abridged by the establishment of governments.

3.  Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society are, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.  A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression.  Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another.  Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
                                                                                    Ames

In this sentence, the letter word liberty denotes natural liberty.

4.  Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty.  But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation.  Hence, we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or in the nations of Europe.

5.  Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshipping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control. 

Clearly, then, when someone is arrested, he is restrained of his liberty, as well as having his freedom removed.  It is liberty, then, that is offended when one is arrested.  This, according to the Constitution, can only occur when warranted (warrant), which can only be issued by a jury, grand or petit, or by “Probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation” [Article IV, Bill of Rights].  There have been some exceptions, under the Constitution, such as allowing a person to be arrested to stop the completion of a felony [John Bad Elk v. US, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)].

Now, if the arrest was made and no indictment by a Grand Jury, the person who sought the warrant was liable for false arrest.  After al, he denied the accused his liberty and could not prove his claim.

To begin to see the child that we have not been able to see grow, and must piece together the transition to what we accept as lawful, today, we can review what arrest was treated like by the United States Supreme Court in 1900.

John Bad Elk was told that he was under arrest by deputies, though they had no warrant for his arrest.  One of the deputies had a gun, but did not raise it to threaten John Bad Elk, though the means of threat of force to retrain liberty were present.  John Bad Elk shot and killed the deputy and was convicted of murder.  The case then went to the Supreme Court where the Court ruled that, absent a lawful warrant, John Bad Elk had every right to shoot and kill the officer who was trying to restrain his liberty — that it would be a misdemeanor, or not crime, at all.  (See The Right to Self Defense).

As astounding as they may appear to us, today, if we understand just what was intended, perhaps we can return to true freedom and liberty.

Can you imagine a world where the government hardly ever made an arrest?  Where if an arrest had to be made, the person filing the complaint was responsible for making the arrest?  Where the person making the complaint need simply go to a Justice of the Peace, a magistrate, or the Sheriff, swear out an affidavit, and get the arrest warrant?  Where he gathered a posse of citizens, and even the Sheriff, if he chose to, to make the arrest?  Where justice was administered not by the government, but, by the people, themselves?

Considering the apparent gross disparity between what we have today versus that which was, and that which we should still have, proof of that stated in the above paragraph, is even more lost in childhood.

More information can be found at Are Cops Constitutional?

The ability to arrest, as you will learn from the above references, was reserved to the people, not to the government.  Government was not allowed to restrain our liberty without the consent of at least a small body of people who were not a part of that government, or an individual who had been wronged and was willing to “swear out an arrest warrant”..

Indictment

To understand what an indictment is, we will refer to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Indictment, n.

The written accusation or formal charge of a crime or misdemeanor, preferred by a grand jury under oath to a court.

2.  The paper or parchment containing the accusation of a grand jury. 

Once the Grand Jury issues an indictment, it is indicative of the determination of “probable cause” for the accused to stand trial.  At trial, the accused will have the rights, protected by the Constitution, for a speedy and public trial with the right to meet the accuser and call the witnesses.

By the Constitution, there is no other means by which one can be held to answer to a criminal charge.  What is generally known as an “information” does not satisfy those judicial protections provided for in the Constitution.

Trial

Amendment VII (bill of Rights provides, as explained earlier, that, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial“,

This does not preclude the accused agreeing to be tried at the “bench”, where the judge sits as the jury, though it does guarantee his right to insist on the jury trial.  In either case, the other rights, as to witnesses, etc., is not diminished.  This, however, is the only instance where the judge becomes the trier of facts and law.

So, we have both civil and criminal trials before juries.  Interestingly, we have been raised to believe that the judge is senior to the jury and can overrule them; can instruct them, with an extensive checklist, what they must do to determine innocence or guilt; and, can actually tell them what the laws means/says, as if the jurors are incompetents, unable to even read our language.  Is this the sort of person that we should trust with the administration of justice?

That is not the way that it was intended, though we have, through a progression through over a century, allowed the exodus justice to be replaced by what is no less than Roman Civil Law, with all decisions made by the judge, or, at least, so strongly influenced as to effect, negatively, the ability of the people to judge both law and fact.

Another term that we have heard often associated with juries, though not written into the Constitution, is “a jury of our peers”.  Peerage is a separation of classes.  In olden times, it separated lords from serfs.  So, if my peer is one of equal rank, can I be judged by a jury that is composed of foreigners, or others, that, by the way that they accept the condition impose by government, believe that we must submit to such abuse of the judiciary process?

If one were to understand that he was a citizen of a state, while some of those sitting on a jury believed that they were citizens of a country, would they be peerage?  Can they judge lawfully if they believe that the government is all-powerful and always right (i.e.  The King can do no wrong)?

For a better understanding of the two classes of citizen, you would recommend reading Two Classes of Citizen.

Punishment

Punishment applies to both criminal and civil trials.  We’ll begin with the criminal variety.

Punishment can take two forms.  It can be intended to discourage future behavior, or, it can be intended to be retribution or revenge.  In the sense of justice that we have been taught, it is intended to be the former.  However, quite often in the press, it takes on the meaning of the latter.  In true justice, the former can be quite more severe than the latter, or, it can be much more lenient.

We can look at what has happened to the jury’s right to judge fact, law and determine punishment as a means where each case is judged, by supposedly intelligent people (or, why would we have the alternatives that follow?) who can review the evidence, are intimately familiar with the case, and, can look in to the eyes of the accused and judge his actions and reactions, if determined to be guilty, to determine if there is guilt, if it was an unintentional crime, if he shows malice or regret, and, from this information judge which punishment best suits all of the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Instead, we have had imposed upon us two rather cold and rigid ‘systems’ under the headings of “Sentencing Guidelines” and “The Three Strikes Rule”.

Sentencing guidelines require that if the accused stole bread to feed his starving children, he is subject to the same sentence as one who stole bread to sell for money to buy drugs.  Can that possibly be defined as justice?

The Three Strike Rule is based upon three convictions.  In some states, the mandate is life in prison for the third violation, regardless of the type of crime.  So, if you stole bread three times, or robbed a bank three times, you are destined to spend the remainder of your life in prison.  Of course, the judge administering such “justice” will apologize and say that the law made him do it.  Can that possibly be defined as justice?

We will not enter a realm that makes exceptions for certain behavior by certain classes of people, except to say that if you kill a cop, you will probably be sentenced, under statutory law, to execution, while, if a cop kills you, he will get time off, with pay, and more than likely not even go to trial.

Let’s go to the last step in punishment — Capital Crimes.  These would be any that may result in a punishment of execution.

We have all lived through the period of public proclamation that the death penalty is unconstitutional, or, is cruel and unusual punishment.

Of the latter, how can that be cruel and unusual when execution (recognition that there are capital crimes, see Amendment V, above) is in the Constitution?  Considering that cruel and unusual did not include a firing squad or hanging, we have opted for some very unpleasant “cruel and unusual punishments.  Gas chamber and the electric chair were fallible.  Reports of witnesses indicate grotesque contortions in the gas chamber and failures of the electric chair resulting in fried people waiting to die.

In an endeavor to be less cruel, we now watch people see a series of injections, each one depriving him of pain, awareness, and, finally, life.  Wouldn’t car exhaust into a closed area be less painful and less expensive?  However, we seem to have a passion for creativity in killing people.  Why?  They deserve the sentence that the jury finds, if justice is to be served.

Along that line, at what point do we consider, as a collective society, that some criminals serve no useful purpose to that society?  I believe that this was the purpose of the death sentence, in the first place.  What else would motivate a society to get rid of a human life?

Given that the purpose is to dispose of those who have nothing to offer to society, why have we set so many steps, expensive in lawyer’s fees, time and providing for the accused,

Now, in civil matters, the punishment comes in the form of restitution and rewards to the injured party.  The court will recognize these real damages and punitive damages.

Real damages can be easily calculated.  They are based upon loss, including, but not limited to, lost wages, medical expenses, replacement of damaged property, etc.

Punitive Damages used to be awarded, or not, based upon a rather simple formula.  If there was no negligence, then only real damages would be awarded.

For the other two, we can look to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Negligence (simple).  The omission to do something that a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations that ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or of the doing of something that a reasonable and prudent man would not do.

Gross negligence.  The intentional failure to perform a manifest duty and reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of another.

Awards of up to three times the real damages could be awarded for simple negligence.  This was expected to encourage more caution in the future.

In the determination of gross negligence, the award could be up to 10 times the real damages.  This, obviously, was more punitive in nature, encouraging a greater concern for the life or property of others, in the future.

Understand that awards of millions of dollars, such as overly hot coffee causing serious burns, serve only to punish the society, as a whole.  When awarded by a jury, the millions of dollars must be paid.  The accuser’s attorney will probably receive 40% and the injured party will receive the remaining 60%.  However, the entire 100% will be paid by those who drink coffee and are intelligent enough to not to burn themselves.  Is this justice?

We have allowed attorneys to manipulate juries into thinking that unreasonable awards serve a valid purpose, that on top of the fact that we have a proliferation of rules requiring labeling (i.e. “coffee is very hot”), and those who don’t heed the warning are, as a result, worthy of receiving compensation from everybody for their idiocy.

We need to return to reasonable punishment for both criminal and civil crimes, for, without such reasonableness, we have a lottery and the luck of the draw.

The Ultimate Court

Going just a bit further, we can look at what has transpired in the judicial community of the United States.  When a trial is held, there is an appellate process that can lead all of the way to the United States Supreme Court.  If either party is dissatisfied with the verdict, the trial can be appealed.  It must stand “on the record”, meaning that the case will not be retried, only that based upon the record of the original trial, a higher court can rule on what has already been presented.

So, for instance, if you believe that your Constitutional rights were violated, or that the government was operating outside of its authority under the law, their methods, or any other aspect of what had occurred, you can seek redress in that Supreme Court.  Interestingly, that Court, in its early years, actually rode circuit to hear cases appealed from the lower courts.  Over time, however, they attained a more noble stature by holding all of their sessions in single building in Washington, D.C.

Within two decades of its creation, this Supreme Court established its authority to rule on the Constitutionality of any case brought before it.  Judicial review, then, became what we have, in our lifetimes, always respected as the ultimate decision on the Constitutionality of a matter that could be brought to that level of review.

We expect that any law passed by the Congress (or even under its authority) can be tested as to its Constitutionality by this ultimate review.  After all, if we have a Constitution that limits the power of government and affords them only certain privileges, this ultimate court must be our protection from the governments violation of that very Constitution that created it.

Occasionally, we read of a Supreme Court decision that makes us want to scratch our head in wonderment.  How could they possibly rule that a certain decision was decided in a manner that does not seem to fit what we perceive the Constitution to say?  We tend to assume that they, by their articulate arguments, must understand something that we are not able to comprehend — about the Constitution.

Well, quite often, we may be more correct in our interpretation than the ruling of that august body.  In 1937, that court, by its own admission, declared that ruling on the Constitutionality of a matter before them, well, let me use their words to say this, “The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…  ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.”

To understand more why the Court will, only in a last resort, rule on the Constitutionality, I would suggest that you read About Ashwander v. TVA

Conclusion

Since that infant (the judicial system) was conceived in 1776 and came into life in 1789, it had grown through its infancy by 1860.  As it reached adulthood, it was well matured, though, perhaps, gone astray.

We have learned to look at it only in its very senior years, and have no idea what it was as in its youth.  Unfortunately, that wonderful child has gone through some changes during its lifetime that have obscured what it was when it was brought into life, with loving care.

As if relegated to a senior citizen’s home, cared for by abusive and self-serving attendants, the judicial process has been abused, manipulated, and, lost all semblance of that great and wonderful object of adoration that it was to the Framers.  It is only by virtue of a scrapbook that we can see that transition, and, perhaps, restore that child to the dignity and respect that it truly deserves.