In the recent video interview I posted, the German-born (American resident) Dr. Reiner Feullmich explains:

1. American Courts are relatively less corrupt than German Courts
2. American Courts have advanced rules on the discovery of evidence compared to German Courts
3. You can forget about a criminal lawsuit since the prosecutors are not independent.
4. Civil suits cost the petitioner (accuser) a lot of money to gain access to “due process.”
5. 3 Courts (Portugal, Austria, and Germany) have “ruled” that PCR tests are invalid for diagnosis

Please understand that the following case exemplifies how due process of law works when the criminal psychopaths have not taken over with counterfeit government and Kangaroo Debt Collection Summary Justice Court Systems:

“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.”

Even that case is problematic because of the lack of independence, even then, concerning prosecutions by prosecutors in criminal cases. The woman who was kidnapped and forced to work (and who knows what else) for the criminal who kidnapped her was found guilty in a Civil Case (as far as I know), and therefore the damages paid by the offender (Civil offender) to the litigant/petitioner/accuser/victim was a restore-to-whole type of remedy paid by the offender/defendant to the victim in a “Civil” case.

To suggest that “back then” slavery was “legal” is to parrot the words authored by the psychopaths and sociopaths, like a good Nazi, or like a good sycophant. Be proud of your criminal heritage, but don’t admit it to anyone as such, and know that you are in evil company when you do this type of shit.

No, sorry, asshole, slavery is one of the worst crimes imaginable, institutionalized slavery (so-called “legal” slavery) is as obvious a treason to law and order as would be cannibalism. When the masters of slaves actually start cooking and eating their victims the sycophants can parrot the dogma right up into they are skewered and turning over the fire, some will still chant the ridiculous dogma.

So 12 people randomly selected (not likely) from the local population acknowledges the natural-born right to try the case and the woman sets herself free from slavery.

If it were a criminal case, and if people then – as now – would stop chanting the ridiculous, self-evidently evil – contradictory dogma, long enough to grow a conscience, the criminals above the lower level human traffickers would face The People in a Criminal Trial by Jury Case. Then the next, on up the ladder to the top of the pile of psychopaths. But no, keep chanting instead.

Your “Elite” enslaving you are very capable of “pressing” criminal charges upon you in ways that are cruel and unusual, without warrant, infringing upon all your natural rights, and doing so speedily as if their inspiration to reach their intended goal was vital to their special interests.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."