- Counting The Cost To Stand For Freedom By Ron Branson Dear Brian Cregger: I wish to thank you for delving into an important issue within J.A.I.L., i.e., itsMessage 1 of 1 , Nov 17, 2012View SourceIn 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.Counting The Cost
To Stand For FreedomBy Ron Branson
Dear Brian Cregger:
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.
-------- 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.
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