Libido Dominandi
by Joe Kelley
2-7-2022

Attorney Reiner Fuellmich's Opening Statements @ Grand Jury, Court Of Public Opinion
Published February 5, 2022
[rumble.com]

The following two viewpoints ought to be considered in the minds of those defenders seeking the facts that matter in this or any criminal case, from worst to least damaging to mankind.

Notes on the State of Virginia
by Thomas Jefferson
1781

“The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil. If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system. In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile. These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information. If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal. If the criminal be a slave the trial by the county court is final. In every case however, except that of high treason, there resides in the governor a power of pardon. In high treason, the pardon can only flow from the general assembly. In civil matters these justices have jurisdiction in all cases of whatever value, not appertaining to the department of the admiralty. This jurisdiction is twofold. If the matter in dispute be of less value than 4 1/6 dollars, a single member may try it at any time and place within his county, and may award execution on the goods of the party cast. If it be of that or greater value, it is determinable before the county court, which consists of four at the least of those justices, and assembles at the court-house of the county on a certain day in every month. From their determination, if the matter be of the value of ten pounds sterling, or concern the title or bounds of lands, an appeal lies to one of the superior courts.

“There are three superior courts, to wit, the high-court of chancery, the general court, and court of admiralty. The first and second of these receive appeals from the county courts, and also have original jurisdiction where the subject of controversy is of the value of ten pounds sterling, or where it concerns the title or bounds of land. The jurisdiction of the admiralty is original altogether. The high-court of chancery is composed of three judges, the general court of five, and the court of admiralty of three. The two first hold their sessions at Richmond at stated times, the chancery twice in the year, and the general court twice for business civil and criminal, and twice more for criminal only. The court of admiralty sits at Williamsburgh whenever a controversy arises.

“There is one supreme court, called the court of appeals, composed of the judges of the three superior courts, assembling twice a year at stated times at Richmond. This court receives appeals in all civil cases from each of the superior courts, and determines them finally. But it has no original jurisdiction.

“If a controversy arise between two foreigners of a nation in alliance with the United States, it is decided by the Consul for their State, or, if both parties chuse it, by the ordinary courts of justice. If one of the parties only be such a foreigner, it is triable before the courts of justice of the country. But if it shall have been instituted in a county court, the foreigner may remove it into the general court, or court of chancery, who are to determine it at their first sessions, as they must also do if it be originally commenced before them. In cases of life and death, such foreigners have a right to be tried by a jury, the one half foreigners, the other natives.”

That is a Giant Wall of Text, but it constitutes human memory as to the adapting and adopting of common law principles into American Federated Republics. Was it true to principle, and if not why not? Was there British Empire Bullshit injected into America by Treasonous Frauds, in need of the immunizing power of the truth through accurate accountability processes?

Is it true that the people in federated republics are themselves duty-bound to police infestations of government by treasonous criminal frauds? Is it not true that the people themselves must regulate the government? If not the responsibility accountable to the people themselves, then who must guard against assumptions of absolute and arbitrary power by treasonous frauds infecting government? Who in their right mind would believe for a second that the government, if left to its own devices, would police itself, and regulate itself? Is it not an obvious clue to the clueless when anyone in government gives themselves impunity and immunity from prosecution by due process of law?

From Jefferson (who confessed in both his own words and his own actions to be complicit in treasonous fraud) wrote:

“If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.”

Jefferson claims that a Grand Jury tries a case before a Trial Jury tries a case, and that is a clear example of institutionalized Double Jeopardy. Double Jeopardy is one of many steps leading to institutionalized slavery.

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

Where was the Grand Jury in that case?

What supersedes the authority of the people in judgment of crimes, such as Institutionalized Slavery, such as National Debt Slavery, as a precedent preserved on the Public Record? What is the just line of distinction between the people power to hold criminals in government to account for their infringements of natural laws, with independent Grand Jury procedures, in command of criminal jurisdiction at the county level, where independent Grand Juries in each of over 3,000 American counties, in Federated Republics, preside over the execution of writs, warrants, subpoena, quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and command posse comitatus, as clearly distinguished from the purview of the trial jurors in those same American Federated Republics at the county level?

U. S. Supreme Court
RE SP UBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U. S. 236, 1788
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788
M'Kean, Chief Justice

“Were the proposed examination of witnesses, on the part of the Defendant, to be allowed, the long established rules of law and justice would be at an end. It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue. If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land. This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: 'till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country. Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation. But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed. Considering the bill as an accusation grounded entirely upon the testimony in support of the prosecution, the Petty Jury receive no biass from the sanction which the indorsement of the Grand Jury has conferred upon it. But, on the other hand, would it not, in some degree, prejudice the most upright mind against the Defendant, that on a full hearing of his defence, another tribunal had pronounced it insufficient? which would then be the natural inference from every true bill. Upon the whole, the court is of opinion, that it would be improper and illegal to examine the witnesses, on behalf of the Defendant, while the charge against him lies before the Grand Jury.”

“The prevalent practice of fornication by the masters with the female slaves was regarded as “ a pleasant method to secure slaves at a cheap rate.”
Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard
Chapter 18
Slavery in Virginia
Page 584

No, Mr. Jefferson, people must guard each other against criminal infestation of the government by Treasonous Frauds, failure to do so turns a Court of Law into a Court of Legal Fiction Debt Collection Agency also knowable as Institutionalized Subsidized Slavery.

Confusing clear and ever-present moral principles with clear and present dangers to life and the means to defend life moves clear and ever-present moral principles out of the viewpoints of the natural-born defenders and provides thereby opportunity to make crime pay almost unlimited fringe benefits to Treasonous Frauds.

The political fringes, psychopaths, sociopaths, and armies of sycophants dominate quickly during the Booming Empire Building Back Better and the Busting Empire Falling to new lows Pathological Treasonous Fraud Business Cycle.

These armies of criminally insane inhuman zombies eat both prosperity and posterity without the defensive power of accurate accountability earned by private and public vigilance. To suggest that a vigilante is someone taking the law into their own hands, as if it were a crime to do so, leaves only one more, obvious, option for keeping the accounts accurate as to which are, and which are not, moral principles worthy of the name LAW.

Rights of Man
Page 52.
"A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no constitution."

When one goes looking for the law, and they abdicate their own responsibility in any matter, that rejection of responsibility clearly rejects accountability of self, leaving the defensive, moral, power of LAW, which is accurate accountability of the facts that matter, because all lives matter, into the hands of those who will see the opportunity to cash in on defenseless people.

Courts of Law are not Courts of Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Equity, or other Summary Injustice Legal Fiction Debt Collection Agency. If the people are fooled into resorting to immoral defense, they are as stupid and servile as would be fraudulent claims of willful ignorance. Knowing that which one refuses to acknowledge is knowing, it is not ignorance, it is a confession of abdication of both responsibility and accountability of those facts that matter.

Caveat Emptor