I wish to thank you for delving into an important issue within
J.A.I.L., i.e., its enforcement. You suggest that an
enforcement order should come from the Special Grand Jury
itself. If you mean an official enforcement body such as the
Special Grand Jury has their own Special Prosecutors, and
their own Legal Counsel, as well as their own clerical staff.
Then you are exploring a new concept within J.A.I.L. worthy of
further discussion.
So let us explore your proposal. Essentially you are
suggesting an Official Enforcement Body be established to
carry out the Orders of the Special Grand Jury, instead of
allowing the common People to arm themselves and enter a court
buildings to conduct the enforcement of the Orders of the
Special Grand Jury.
The J.A.I.L. concept as originally written had in mind that it
would be the Sheriff of the County who was the enforcement
body. I was challenged by the Militia of Bakersfield on this
very point. They felt that leaving enforcement in the hands of
the Sheriff made enforcement subject to the political
manipulations. That is, suppose the Sheriff refuses to carry
out his duty in enforcing the power of the People which is
vested within the Special Grand Jury. I found the Militia's
objection sound.
I was made to see that my original enforcement measures (i.e,
Sheriff's Deputies) created a loop back around to the very
political system of which we were trying to get away from. I
was asking the Bailiff, who is a Sheriff's Deputy, to arrest
the very judge of the court in which he is assigned by the
Sheriff to protect. Even if another Sheriff's Deputy, not a
Bailiff, walked into the Courtroom to enforce the Order of the
Special Grand Jury, we would have a Sheriff's Deputy verses a
Sheriff's Deputy, each facing off with one another with a
conflicted purpose.
So, let us consider a body outside of the Sheriff's Office.
Shall we empower a formal Army to enter the court and ask the
Sheriff Deputies to Stand Down? Even if we did this, how are
we going to support this Army hired on the payroll of the
Special Grand Jury?
Common sense dictates that the answer to this dilemma is to
turn over enforcement of the Order to the common People as is
clearly described and authorized by the Declaration of
Independence. Whenever the Special Grand Jury issues an Order,
such Order should permit the Sheriff, in the first instance,
the power of enforcement. But should the Sheriff choose not to
enforce such Order, the carrying out of the Order then falls
to the People. This is precisely what we now have existing
within the J.A.I.L. provision.
So now, Brian, let us increase this force issue to the max.
Suppose the Sheriff chooses not to enforce the Order of the
Special Grand Jury against the judge, but to call out his
forces to resist those who will carry out the Order of the
Special Grand Jury. In this case, the Sheriff Deputies lie in
wait, armed to protect the wayward judge. The People, in this
instant, enforcing the Orders of the Special Grand Jury, have
complete and total immunity as though Ambassadors, inasmuch as
they are carrying out the law. In this instance, we have the
People clothed with immunity carrying guns verses the
Sheriff's Deputies also carrying guns.
This is not a pretty scenario that we wish to see, but the
People must be prepared should government show intent to go to
war with the People. In such case, like a war, some on both
sides will get hurt, but none of the People can be held
liable, if this is what it takes to enforce the law. All power
has to ultimately reside within the People, and J.A.I.L. makes
this point very clear.
Essentially, bureaucrats are in this to preserve
their jobs. But the People are in this to preserve their
survival. Bureaucrats preserving their jobs must learn that no
amount of effort to preserve their jobs is worth giving up
their life for. Many, if not most law enforcement, will throw
their badges to the floor before they will give up their their
lives and leave their wives a widow, and their children
fatherless. They will not count it a worthy exchange for them
to give up "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor" for bureaucratic politics.
Ron Branson
-------- Original Message --------
Technically it seems to me the enforcement order must
come from the special Grand Jury itself. It is the Jury
that is immune and from this immunity umbrellas agents of
enforcement the Jury assigns in the enforcement order. This
may very well be something that needs to be addressed
explicitly in your amendment.
In the old days it was essentially an organically spawned
posse that sought to bring organic justice to those who
voluntarily stepped outside the law by not appearing in court to
face the accuser; aka the outlaws. This lost history of the
nature of common law courts and justice gets to the very heart
of the whole issue we face.
Historically protection of law aka courts and law enforcement
was voluntary because voluntary participation is the only way it
can be lawful otherwise it would be forcing someone to accept
protection of law which is extortion because someone is forcing
someone else into some form of contract they may not wish to be
a part of. So if you can't force protection of law or force
them to come to a court and abide by common laws of do no harm
then how can you implement justice? It is easy and this is what
they used to do, the court is there as forum for non-violent
dispute resolution with common sense rule for finding and
evaluating facts. The court was put there and maintained only
by people who sought protections of law. Anyone could chose to
live outside the law and still have all of their natural rights
but if they did they would explicitly be giving up the
protections of law.
There was only 2 types of common law evaluated by Courts and
Juries Breach of Peace and Breach of Duty. All disputes and
crimes were directly linked to these two contexts of action.
The accuser is the man or woman or plurality thereof who would
initiate the powers of justice or just powers aka the common law
court by presenting a valid cause of action to a magistrate. If
the jury determined a valid cause of action then the accused
would be summoned to the court by the jury.
Here is the relevant voluntary point of the whole thing and the
organic posse is possibly spawned; if the accused did not
answer the summons, then the jury could only assume the accused
had voluntarily chosen to live outside the law. At that point
various scenarios played themselves out; publicity of the outlaw
was the most common but for really heinous criminals that had
the evidence heard of the accuser about the heinous crimes of
the accused the jury might recommend a posse or the posse would
form spontaneously to go hunt down and kill the outlaw.
In fact, because the accused chose not to have the protections
of law, anyone could simply go shoot and kill them even in the
middle of the public, because it was proven that the man or
woman chose not to have the protections of law.
The flip side of this was that people were aware of this fact
and just like today, you had your ninnies, gimmes, slimmies, the
leave me the hell alone crowds, and everyone constantly battling
for every different direction all at once, but most were aware
of the fact that the protections of law was voluntary due to the
absolute requirement of consent, otherwise it would be tyranny.
Of course, fast forward to today, and we can see clearly the
slimmies learned how to use the fear of the ninnies to build
giant bureaucracies for the gimmes to gain more power, so that
they could steal from the prosperous leave me the hell alone
crowd that was busy making a hard earned honest living in
prosperity.
All the time we forgot how the whole enforcement law itself came
from. This is how our courts are supposed to work, but don't.
They are supposed be simply waiting for the full liability
accuser to take action against those who claim harm.
You should address enforcement explicitly
Send Email
