The Common Law Grand Jury

The people of Georgia have done something VERY interesting. They convened a citizen's Grand Jury under the Common Law. This Grand Jury has indicted Obama for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, which... if (and I stress "IF") they can get any prosecutor in Georgia to pay attention to the law, President Obama will have to face his day in court.

For those of you who do not know, Grand Juries have come a long way from what they originally were...

Grand Juries are supposed to be chosen by lot, much like regular jurors. The only difference is that Grand Jurors are not sifted based on biases. The jurors are chosen and seated.

A typical Grand Jury has 23 members to serve every 3000 populace (a town of 6000 people would have 2 Grand Juries). A Grand Jury is supposed to hear the evidence a prosecutor has, and then judge whether or not he has a case for indictment. A mere majority vote of the Grand Jury grants indictment. There typically is no judge in the proceedings.

Grand Juries are allowed to deliberate, ask questions and hear additional witnesses if they desire, however, they are not there to try the case... simply to judge whether or not there IS a case to be tried. If a Grand Jury votes against indictment, the Prosecutor should NOT be allowed to try again with the same case and a different Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury typically sits for a week (5 business days) and hears several cases; however, it is not uncommon to have a Grand Jury sit for Months, meeting once or twice a week during those months. The proceedings are typically secret.

Example:
You get a jury summons. You show up at court, and they say they are seating a Grand Jury. Aside from being excused for medical/personal reasons, you should be placed without question.

Let's say that the Grand Jury you are on is being seated for 6 months, meeting every Monday and Wednesday during that time. You might hear 4 cases 1 week, 1 case the next week, 6 cases the next week, and 1 case that consumes 2 weeks, and so on. After your 6 months is over, the Grand Jury is dismissed, and another one is seated.

Grand Juries seem inclined to side with a prosecutor as far as indictment goes... however, Grand Juries (when properly applied) can exclude the prosecutor from an inquisition and can subpoena witnesses and issue indictments themselves if necessary. This typically happens when a Grand Jury feels that the prosecutor is corrupt, or part of a corrupt system.

According to the Common Law (upheld by the Supreme Court) a Grand Jury acts as a protector of the citizen against "arbitrary and oppressive government action" and that Grand Juries may "deliberate in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry" (US vs Calandra, 414 US 338 (1974)).

A Grand Jury is independent and is “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (Branzburg vs Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972)). It has been ruled that “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (US vs Sells Engineering, 463 US 418 (1983)).

Grand Juries are a right protected under the 5th amendment to the Constitution, however, most people today believe that a Prosecutor or Court has to assign a Grand Jury, but the reality is, under the Common Law the community may assign a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury has considerable power.

Under Common Law, Grand Juries can be have between 12 and 23 members, with an indictment allowed upon a majority vote, with no less than 12 jurors voting to indict (in other words, a GJ of 12 would have to be unanimous, but a GJ of 13 to 23 would only need 12). They are not governed by the Prosecutor or Court, and (as stated above) may even by-pass or exclude the Prosecutor, Judge, etc. and issue its own subpoenas, indictments, etc. Especially if the GJ has reason to believe the system or persons involved are corrupt or misapplying the law. Grand Juries also have the power to investigate public officials without interference from the government. Historically it has always been their JOB to pin government corruption to the mat.

In US vs Williams, 504 US 36 at 48 (1992) the Supreme Court decided:
"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). '"

...and...

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]"

Historically, and under the Common Law, Grand Juries have the right to be assembled by the community, to investigate and independently determine a case should not proceed to trial, or hand out indictments; and to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers or otherwise circumvent the law.

Many will try to dismiss this indictment as "frivolous", or that it has no legal merit... but anyone who still has an understanding of Natural Law, the Common Law, and the the beliefs and aims of the Founding Fathers to which this entire system of government was founded, knows better.

Human Livestock

There is a section of a film that is fairly well done, and it spoke many truths... however it also had some things in it that I thought took away from the message; was antagonistic to faith; and had some other “problems”. There was too much good in the film to discard it, and too many “issues” for me to embrace it fully.

I thought long and hard about it, and would revisit it from time to time; and then I realized that I needed to get this information out. I had several choices, I could simply send the link to the film and add “disclaimers”; I could write my own take on the subject; or I could edit the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film.

After careful consideration, I decided that there were too many things that were phrased too well in the film to allow it to go to waste. So what I have decided to do is to take the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film, edit it, and add some of my own words to smooth out the editing and strengthen some of the concepts. I am also going to give the link to the original film so that anyone who is so inclined can watch it (it is worth watching).

True News 13: Statism is Dead – Part 3 – The Matrix
The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

It is just over 16 minutes long. (the edited transcript below is very reduced, taking maybe two typed pages)

I give full credit to Stefan Molyneux (the filmmaker), and I want to thank him for much (but not all) of what the film has to say. With that in mind, I now present the edited (and "revised") version of the transcript.

Human Livestock:
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

We, the people, end up as slaves to the Government that was put in place to serve us. We act as nothing more than livestock upon a State-run farm. To the State we are nothing more than cattle.

Just as owning cows is advantageous because they provide surplus milk, meat, and other goods, having “slaves” upon Human “farms” is looked upon by the elite as being advantageous. However, simply caging an animal and “milking” it for all it is worth can have great disadvantages.

For example, when cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom."

Similarly, it is advantageous to grant additional liberties to the human livestock… not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

Without enthusiasm depression and despair begins to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is the need for propaganda, “medication”, superstition, wars, the creation of "enemies", the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, the promotion of hedonism, paranoia, and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle - since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so much more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.

The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and other parts of Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The illusion of freedom, enabling willful slavery can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

Through the children, the “livestock” learns to love the farmer, and embraces the farm… all the while chanting that they are free.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.