Links of evidence:

EXHIBIT 1: ALL my Canadian FOI responses from 21 institutions
[awarriorcalls.com]

EXHIBIT 2: FOI replies/10 more Canadian institutions obtained by other people
[awarriorcalls.com]

I finally finished the "Police Shown Evil Unknown" report, and regardless of arguments over Roman Civl Law (Empire, Tyranny, Despotism, etc.) or common law (law of the land, rule of law, natural law, etc.), the message is clearly:

1. If there is no evidence that a "germ" has been isolated and proven to be the cause of the "pandemic," then 2 is true.

2. There is nothing from which a "vaccine" can be produced since 1 is true.

3. If 1 and 2 are true, then there is no cause to force people to defend each other from something unknown.

4. If 1, 2, and 3 are true, then those who are forcing people are guilty of a serious crime.

Time 1:32 or so...

The stream of communication is injected with the concept of "breach of contract," as if those words described something specific, yet to me, it is clearly ambiguous on purpose.

The property of "construction" is written into messages for many reasons based upon a goal of deception.

That is explained here:

George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"

Those constructing a message that is intended to deceive people construct the words in such a way as to afford the property of "construction" in the message. The property of "construction" written into a message is done so as to afford anyone sufficient room to make the message mean anything desired by the interpreter who constructs meaning from the message constructed with construction in mind.

When selling the message to a target victim targeted with deception, to "make a contract" agreeable to the targeted victim, the message means something agreeable to the targeted victim. Once the victim then "agrees" to the meaning used during the fraud, as the fraud sells the "contract," to the targeted victim, the old message used for the sales pitch is no longer useful to the constructor constructing construction into the message, so the property of ambiguity (construct-ability) leaves room for the next constructor enforcing the "contract," to put new meaning into the words written for that specific purpose. Cover your ass with plausible deniability are words that also ring true here with this look at "contracts" from a constructability viewpoint.

The word fraud is much less wordy when the intent is to accurately account for fraud.

Fraud is the deliberate use of deception by a guilty-minded criminal as a guilty-minded criminal causes injury to a targeted, innocent, victim.

The devil is in the details.

True Civilization.
Warren, Josiah
(1863) Boston, Mass.
"Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."

Roman Civil RULES, if I am not mistaken, include these concepts of enforcement concerning "contracts" made by enforcers upon the enforced, as enforcers enforce dubious "agreements" upon their targeted victims, and the enforcers use fraud to fabricate counterfeit voluntary associations as if the victims knew what they were being entrapped into by the deceptive, spell-binding, words used by the frauds. When the level of "contract" enforcement reaches the level of Law, the power of law, the criminals enforcing fraudulent contract enforcement are perpetrating treason in addition to fraud.

Roman Civil Rules are treasonous frauds counterfeiting common laws, based upon natural laws, laws common to all people, such as the example in history known as The Ancient Law, which is also called The Law of the land, which is also called the common law.

Roman Civil Rules are constructed so as to keep the Rulers from eating each other, and that is one set of Roman Civil Rules, this set of rules are agreed to by the rulers, and the rulers - as a rule - follow these rules that govern the conduct of rulers as rulers treat each other while they divide the people living on their slave plantations, so as to conquer those slaves, and the rules governing the rulers give the rulers the methods by which the fruits of the labors of their slaves are divided among the rules.

The head honcho gives himself his cut, and those lower on the pyramid scheme are given their cut, according to the head honcho. The Roman Civil Rules include rules used by the rulers on the slaves. Disobedience, in this case, requires this punishment upon that disobedient slave, not that punishment, but this punishment, if it pleases the ruler to do so, in this situation. Interpretations of the rules are left at the exclusive pleasure of the ruler, and the rules for dealing with slaves have constructability written into these rules. This property of constructability affords the ruler a bag full of options to do as the ruler pleases to the disobedient slave.

The other set of rules written into Roman Civil Rules is the rules that the slaves must follow or else, and there isn't any or else. The or else clause is itself constructible.

Slaves must pay this much today, or else slaves will spend this much time in the torture chamber.

Slaves must pay more the next day, or else slaves will spend this much time on a different work gang, a work gang under stricter rules concerning how much the slave is allowed to eat, drink, or sleep.

Slaves must obey.

Those are the rules.

It looks to me like this guy in the video is selling Roman Civil Rules when this guy refers to contract enforcement.

A reference to "wet signature" is injected into the conversation. Common law dates back before people write things down. The concept of disobedience when ordered to perform an unlawful order, which is one criminal telling someone to join the criminal group, a criminal telling someone to perpetrate a crime, or else, is a moral question decided upon by the criminal issuing the criminal order, and the targeted, innocent, victim receiving the criminal order.

The common law settles any claims of disobedience by placing those involved in those claims before 12 randomly selected representatives of the whole people for their adjudication, and that, historically, is done in a Court of Law, not a Roman Civil Rules Summary Justice Court such as Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Equity, Family, Traffic, etc.

Time 1:30 or so...

The value of this exchange is found in many ways including the value of the questions and answers between someone choosing to break the infantile bonds of ignorance, and the other one choosing to help break those infantile bonds of ignorance.

Question:

"How does..."

I was unable to hear the words, but the answer to the question suggests to me that the question can be framed:

How does society work if not enslaved by this counterfeit government treasonous criminal organization?

The answer was, in my opinion, along the lines of breaking the bonds of ignorance that are spell-bound into individuals from birth.

Here:

"The Six Purposes of Schooling" - John Taylor Gatto

“Now you are ready to hear the six purposes of modern schooling taken directly from Dr. Anglisse’s book.”

“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”

“How can you establish weather someone has successfully developed this automatic reaction, because people have a proclivity when they are given sensible orders to follow? That is not what they want to reach. The only way to measure this is to give stupid orders, and people automatically follow those. Now you have achieved function one.”

The "Service Corporation" (not my term, I use the term Treasonous Counterfeit Government Criminal Organization, or Treasonous Central Banking Fraud) convinces infants to remain infants in mind, body, and spirit, and that is done from the moment a child can think. Parents are generations past the creation and maintenance of the Counterfeit Government Indoctrination Centers PROGRAM that removes critical thinking from infants brainwashed with the PROGRAM designed for that specific purpose. Parents are infantile, so from birth each successive generation is spell bound into a state of infantile ignorance. The only thing an individual knows is what they are told.

Obey

All the words that fill all the Counterfeit Government Criminal Organizations Law Libraries amount to one command only.

Obey

Not, is it a good idea to obey. Not, you are told to do this, but you are allowed to question the order on a moral basis, which is a legal basis, which is a lawful basis, and if you decide that it is unlawful, illegal, or immoral, then it is your responsibility, your duty, to disobey a criminal order.

The only message being sent, and the only message allowed to bind the infants into an infantile state, is OBEY.

So Gabriel asks (if I am not mistaken) how do the infants grow the fuck up?

The other guy misdirects with this "contract is the law" bullshit, which is (to me) crediting Roman Law as lawful, legitimate, and moral, but it is clearly not, then the other guy offers sound, reasonable, advice.

The infants have to grow the fuck up, the infants have to learn. The infants have to ask questions, and the infants have to regain control of their minds. The infants have to regain control of their moral calculator. If the infants do not do this, the infants will remain obedient to whatever they are told to do, whenever they are told to do so, with the obvious exceptions that are common with infants.

Infants may not do what they are told if they are lazy infants.

Infants may not do what they are told if they are rebellious infants.

Infants that do not do what they are told will be made to do what they are told by those assuming the role of parents.

Basically the guy answering Gabriel is saying that a society of parents (who are no longer in an infantile state) negotiate settlements on an Equal Footing.

Someone falsely assuming a role as a parent over-ruling an infantile adult, when dealing with someone no longer spell bound by ignorance in an infantile state, can be accurately identified as someone falsely assuming a role as a parent over-ruling an infantile adult.

Gabriel, to me, was asking how does Rule of Law actually work, especially when dealing with criminals running a counterfeit government scam that has been in operation for over 200 years on this North American continent?

Why not look at how it worked in the past?

Each individual on an Equal Footing has as much natural right to due process of law as each other individual on an Equal Footing.

That actually happened in places where and when it did, in fact, happen. It is not new. It was called the common law, the law of the land, which in Latin is Legem Terrae. The law of the land dates way back before English was a language. The law of the land dates back before Roman Law.

The law of the land is the law internally produced inside of human souls, bodies, and minds. The law of the land is created inside each naturally born human being. Psychopaths are human mutations, forms of beings that do not have the internal moral calculators.

What is someone who assumes the role of a parent over an infantile adult?

Is the adult infantile in fact?

If not, then someone assuming the role of a parent over someone not an infantile adult would be morally, reasonably, logically, rightly, shown evidence of that fact that matters in that case.

What if the one assuming the role of parent over someone not an infantile adult is shown the facts that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the individual is not an infantile adult, yet the one assuming that the individual is an infantile adult continues to act as if the individual is an infantile adult despite the evidence proving otherwise?

Clearly, in my opinion, the one refusing to acknowledge that someone they are dealing with is not an infantile adult is, in fact, the infantile adult, someone in power, someone corrupted by power, someone abusing power, as if a child with too much power has never been shown simple moral principles, such as the law of the land, based upon the golden rule, which is reciprocity, which is Equal Footing at law.

Time: 1:18 or so...

The events in question with this video are reported as a negotiation between an individual and other individuals, negotiating on paper, which means documentation.

1. Video Evidence

2. Documentation

The claim being made "to produce the evidence" as to precisely what is the Cause to Act in Defense claimed by individuals enforcing the Park Closure is "isolation" of the Sars Cov 2 Virus organism.

The claim is that failing to produce the evidence of the isolated Sars Cov 2 Virus fails to warrant the defensive measures, such as Closing the Park.

Obvious to me, if not to anyone else, all those individuals privately or collectively guilty of this Global Treasonous Pandemic Fraud, are neatly protected from prosecution by the already entrenched National Treasonous Debt Collection Agency or "Court System" of Monopoly Power and Profit.

The fake court system (Summary Justice, Civil Law, Roman Law, Debt Collection Agency) will slow walk any attempts made by the victims to prosecute the criminals running the scam. The criminals running the scam can throw their minions under the bus, if needed, and the criminals running the scam can bribe the victims with "Punitive Damages" paid out of the LOOT stolen and collected into the FUND, that is fraudulently claimed to be The Public Fund. Insult, thereby, is added to injury, Win/Win for the criminals and lose/lose for The Public, as the potential defender attempting to prosecute the case accepts the bribe, accepting stolen property, and is thereby employed by the criminal cabal.

For those claiming there never was, never can be, or never will be a voluntary mutual defense association, because people are inherently evil, the evidence refuting such as claim is overwhelming, at least to those who care to look. To those who refuse to look, there is no evidence.

1:05

Video evidence was broadcast through Public Access Media.

In the video evidence no one resorted to aggressive violence, however there was evidence of both fraud and extortion. People not knowing that they are communicating extortive, fraudulent, information are guilty non-the-less of doing so: actus reus, or Guilty Act.

Which of those individuals in the video are guilty of fraud and extortion?

Backing up, not in the video, is the initial contact between any of the individuals involve, where Group A contacts Group B.

Group A can be the parents and children playing in what they think is a Public Park, as yet not known by due process of law providing evidence of Allodial Title held by anyone, leaving thereby only vacant land or land not owned by anyone.

Group B can be the masked guys with impressive gear: microphones on their shoulders, utility belts, probably pistols with magazines full of bullets, if not pistols with cambered rounds. If one were to judge which Group looked more threatening, it would easily be, factually be, Group B rolling up in Uniform.

Group B probably arrested the progress of Group A as Group A were found by Group B doing what parents naturally do with their children in a park.

1. Arrest (unlawful or lawful, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or evil?)
2. Fraud
3. Attempted Extortion

All of those are felonies, all of those disturb the peace, all of those are criminal acts, and if the criminal perpetrating those felonies are impersonating a legal, lawful, moral, just, peaceful, voluntary, office of government, then treason is added.

1. Unlawful, illegal, immoral, evil, aggressive, involuntary, arrest
2. Fraud (mens rea or actus reus)
3. Attempted Extortion (pathetic attempt given the targeted victims)
4. Treason

Slow walking this through due process of law, delaying a criminal treason case, is a crime.

1. Criminal arrest
2. Fraud
3. Attempted Extortion
4. Treason
5. Obstruction of Justice

Everyone not moving this case, who is able to do so, speedily through due process of law, the common law, the law of the land, is guilty of 5.

Those who don't know the law may attempt to move this criminal case each step of the way, rapidly, efficiently, effectively, to protect and serve everyone (The Public) as clear and present dangers, criminals running amok in the playground, arresting, lying, extorting, obstructing, and committing treason, but failing to know the law, how it works, each step of the way, is allowing the slow walk, obstruction, to occur, which allows the treasonous criminals to move yet one more step to the next, and the next, and the next, victim consumed by these treasonous criminals.

Halfway through so far, now at Time 50:55

The subject of trespass is communicated in advance of a demonstration of a specific trespass case. This may be very important to take apart for relative value as information useful for voluntary mutual defense of all.

While listening I can keep this text window open, and I can comment on specific messages offered as Police Shown Evil Unknown continues.

The example trespass is claimed to be located in a Park.

So the claimed (alleged) crime scene is located within an established area of existing claims of ownership, or jurisdiction, or territory, or turf, or control. The word control is the most accurate word, the word having the least room for deception, misunderstanding, misleading, confusion, division of mind, and misleading paths of misdirection.

Group A claims that Group B is guilty of wrongdoing.

Group B claims that Group A is guilty of wrongdoing.

Group C, on the other hand, are the members of the whole people who belong in Group C because we these people demand accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case of controversy over claims of any threats to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all.

Group C would do this:

Each individual witness to an alleged crime takes the evidence to a member of The People known as a Magistrate, a non-government official, someone not paid out of the government FUND, someone working as a volunteer, someone honest, impartial, unbiased, and discrete, wise, knowledgeable, and these Magistrates are numerous within the area of people sufficient to constitute a pool from which a Grand Jury is formed, of, by, and for The People as a whole, not of, by, and for the government, or of, by, and for any division of The People less than the whole, such as faction, political party, religious sect, corporation, company, family, business, coop, trading association, etc.

Evidence, such as witness testimony, is null and void as evidence in any case of willful falsification of evidence, which is an obvious fraud, an obvious crime, disturbance of the peace, and potentially reaching the level of treason, which is the worst of crimes, since treason turns a member of civilized society into a member of the extreme most evil group, the group of people who counterfeit government, turning government into a tool used by criminals (means) to consume everyone (despotism, tyranny, Fascism, Corporatism, Communism, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Nationalism, Technocracy, Imperialism, and Empire).

In the example in question above, two rival groups contending control over some turf, all members are duty bound to take their witness testimony to a Magistrate for validation or invalidation by that member of the common law, the Magistrate.

If there is any factual evidence of trespass, the Magistrate is duty bound to form a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury is duty bound to investigate on behalf of the accuser, and in this case accusers.

Since double jeopardy is potentially disturbing the peace, efforts must be made to avoid trying the case during Grand Jury investigation. The mere fact that two parties accuse each other of trespass, which is potentially going to lead to violence, the obvious moral thing to do, as a Magistrate, would be to schedule a Trial by Jury Criminal Trial for each accuser and each defendant.

So which of the accusers serves to illustrate the moral path for Group C first?

Suppose the witness named Gabriel moves his evidence to a Magistrate, the Magistrate chooses to investigate, since trespass is a disturbance of the peace, and escalation of conflict must be nipped in the bud before it grows into ever larger disturbances, the Magistrate assembles the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury finds immediately a counter claim of trespass claimed by those who claim to own the Park, where those claimed owners of the Park claim to have closed their Park, and those people found in the Closed Park were guilty of trespass.

Immediately, to me at least, it would be clearly a case of a dispute over the control of specific territory. But as a Grand Juror, again not wanting to disturb the peace in the effort to defend life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all, the right thing to do would be to schedule at least 2 criminal trials before 2 criminal Trial Juries.

The power of agreement would be required if the conflict was Civil rather than Criminal. Since the charge of trespass is claimed in any case, let alone both cases, there is potential harm to be done to anyone, anywhere, when a trespasser is running amok in the peaceful, civilized, social order. There is the possibility of a deal being made between both parties, to settle their dispute voluntarily, however such a deal would have had to be done before a witness charges trespass formally when contacting and reporting the trespass to the Magistrate. After the Magistrate has been alerted to a clear and present danger to life, liberty, PROPERTY, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all, the disturbance to the peace warrants investigation, and investigation discovers obvious trespass by one or the other, or both, and therefore the warranted cause to act in defense is factual based upon the evidence so far discovered factually as potential continued trespass threatens anyone in control of any property anywhere, when trespassers are free to trespass as they please, without any defense at all, from anyone, never facing accurate accountability of the facts that matter in the case of trespass the first time, nor the second time, nor the third time.

So the criminal cases of trespass move from witness testimony to Magistrate, to Grand Jury, to indictments or presentments, and the accused criminals face their accusers before 12 randomly selected Trial Jurors for adjudication.

That is Group C. What is likely to happen in both Criminal Cases before Trial Jurors in a case of trespass, with contentious claims of ownership of land?

If you don't want to do this work, then perhaps you prefer to have the "Elite" do this work for you.

The result will be a lot of falsehood injected into the minds of the jurors by both sides in this criminal case.

The jurors are either going to understand the principles involved in disputes over claims of land ownership, and the associated control over land, or the jurors are going to fail to do so.

Group C, the moral group, apply the Golden Rule as their base foundation of law, so are any of the litigants involved resorting to deception, threat of aggression, or aggression during the dispute, if so, then that individual, or those individuals are guilty of crimes added to trespass.

Example:
Suppose Group A claims title of land, but further investigation demanded by the 12 Jurors unanimous agreement, discovers the dubious claim of ownership rests on the criminal aggression known as Conquest. The "owners" claiming ownership of territory because they slaughtered everyone living on the land Conquered is not a claim of ownership, it is a confession of trespass, disturbance of the peace, and if mass murder is also confessed, then that is added to trespass and disturbance of the peace, perhaps also fraud, since "true believers" in the "ownership by conquest" claim is patently criminal, everyone except perhaps psychopaths know this, and any psychopath gaining any power by conquest whatsoever must by reason know that the victims believe in moral concepts, so fraud even sticks to them as accurate accountability of the facts that matter in the case.

So... is the Park in question Public Land (everyone owns it, no one has yet gained allodial title by settlement or improvement upon vacant land), or Private land (allodial title acquired peacefully, morally, lawfully, factually)?

1. Public Land, found factually as such, by due process of law

2. Private Land, found factually as such, by due process of law

If it is Public Land, adjudicated as such by 12 jurors in the Criminal Case addressing this contention in time and place, then neither the accuser or the accused is in any position to allow or disallow anyone else on Public Land.

What actually happened in place and time, if it is clearly Public Land, and not land owned in Allodial Title, by the lawfully, legally, morally, determined owner?

49:26 or so...

Now there are 3 different questions:

1. Am I property?

2. Do I have a contract with you on the private side?

3. Do I have a contract with you with the Service Corporation like the OPP is, its a Service Corporation, do I have a Contract with your Service Corporation?

Number 1 is argumentative. The idea that someone is going to answer that question accurately assumes that the answer will be knowledgeable, and these guys are already pointing out, accurately, that many people have been lied to for so long that many people believe the lies, and many people are in no position currently to even acknowledge that they are led around the nose by these lies.

Private Person A (arrested from free travel on foot or in vehicle by Private Person B):
"Am I property?"

Private Person B:
"no"

If Private Person B (with or without a badge, license, title, false or true authority) stops Private Person A, arresting the free travel of Private Person A, then why is "Am I property?" the assumed right, moral, just, polite, civilized, nice, good, proper, valid, authorized, question?

There would be an assumption assumed by anyone asking or answering the question based upon the evidence contained within the question itself. Such as the assumption that someone, someone, is enslaving people, and since someone someone is enslaving people, the question being asked is authorized as a legitimate, legal, lawful, moral, polite question to ask.

Back up some in time, and start with two people on foot. Two people have an intersecting course, one is willfully intersecting the course of the other, intending to arrest the free progress of the other one.

Private Person A, traveling freely, is going from a private home to a friends private home.

Private Person B, traveling freely, is going from a private home to work, then out in the Public Domain, then for some reason, Private Person B is targeting Private Person A, intersecting the path of Private Person A, and arresting the progress of Private Person A.

So far, the event can be someone intending to solicit the sale of a Bridge in New York, or someone intending to sell shares in an African Prince's desire to hide money from the African Kingdom. The event can be a Religious Private Person intending to save the soul of the intended, targeted, Person A.

In this case, the assumption is that Private Person B is working for an Organization of Private Persons, and so far in this narrative, Private Person B is working for a Service Corporation that is accurately accountable as an Organization of Private Persons.

Private Person A is happily in pursuit of happiness, or not, but Private Person is traveling in The Public Domain. Having left the Private Persons home, through the Private Persons door, past the Private persons gate, the Private Person A has to travel through The Public Domain to get to his friends house.

Private Person B intersects the path of Private Person A while Private Person A is in The Public Domain.

Private Person A discovers Private Person B waving and obviously signaling a request for Private Person A to stop traveling in The Public Domain freely, and instead of traveling in The Public Domain freely, Private Person B, working for an Organization of Private Persons, thereby arrests the progress of Private Person A.

Person A, arrested, says:

"Am I property?"

What planet is this?

Time 46:00 or so...

"The only time you are supposed to engage with your fellow man or woman - this is the law - if they breach the peace (one finger up) or if there is a verified claim that they have done wrong or harm (two fingers up), that's it."

Before listening further it seems important to me to point out an obvious point of contention.

What constitutes doing wrong or harm?

What constitutes verified claims?

Who is authorized to determine right from wrong?

How is someone going to determine right from wrong?

What is used to determine right from wrong?

Is there a process by which right is accurately discriminated from wrong?

Who authorizes someone to use the means that reaches for the ends of determining right from wrong?

Who authorizes someone to be banished from using the means that reaches for the ends of determining right from wrong?

Thinking on this is important since failing to think on this (verify this) leaves the door wide open to falsehood leading to fraud, which is intentionally harmful deception leading to harm and wrong done to the deceived, done by the deceivers.

I can attempt to offer reasonable answers to the thoughtful questions inspired by the messages offered in the media posted and titled: Police Shown An Evil Unknown.

1. Wrong is that which is done by someone to someone else known by the perpetrator as something the perpetrator of wrong would defend against in a case where someone does the same thing to the perpetrator as the perpetrator is willfully doing to someone else: such as deception, threat of aggressive violence, or aggressive violence. Right is that which someone does to someone else that would be something agreeably acceptable if someone does the same to the one performing the act for someone else, as in: offer reasonable help, rescue, defend, warnings of danger ahead, give support, lend a hand, befriend, love, cherish, honor, etc.

2. Verified claims of harm done by someone upon someone else are historically called presentments or indictments, leading to warrants, by probable cause discovered during the investigation of the accusation, leading to trial by jury in a Court of Law, not a summary justice debt collection agency or other arbitration court such as Exchequer, Chancery, Admiralty, Equity, Family, Traffic, however, many wrongs and harms done by criminals upon victims happen in the presence of someone capable of defending the victim and preventing that harm to the victim done by the criminal. In those cases every single individual capable of defending the victim is by natural laws duty bound to do so, the situation warrants defensive action, the probable cause to act in defense is the information perceived by the witness to the crime in progress, and the calculations made by the witness at the time of the crime are BIASED by moral conscience, which is a naturally occurring human brain function built into the species for the survival of our species against all the forces of nature that works to destroy our species. To suggest that someone capable of defending an innocent victim from a guilty criminal in time and place is unauthorized to do so, would be to discover a source of falsehood, that lack of reason leads back to the source of it, and following that false suggestion to the one suggesting it is following the inculpatory evidence to the culprit creating it, proving beyond doubt that the one making that suggestion is doing wrong, doing harm, doing so with false and misleading statements. Use the common law principle to figure this out on your own. The one claiming that someone else is unauthorized to defend the innocent victim (when capable of doing so) is not going to be the one targeted as a victim, telling someone else not to stop the crime, when clearly the one witness can stop the crime, but this “authority” as to who is “authorized” and who is “unauthorized” informs the only one capable of preventing the crime done to the victim can’t prevent the crime, because this idiot makes that false claim. It does not reason out. Of course everyone is always authorized to prevent a crime in progress when it is within their power to do so in time and place. Everyone has a warrant all the time, by probable cause they witness in time and place, to act in defense of the innocent as the innocent are, in time and place, being injured by the guilty. If all the person has to do is yell “Stop,” for example, why would someone be unauthorized to do so, other than an internal, natural, self-defensive mechanism, fear of being the next target, overriding moral compunction?

Since fear is naturally occurring, then by natural laws, some people are more fearful than others, and therefore some people specialize in arresting a criminal caught in the act of a crime red-handed. That is a special ability for some people, and so those people would naturally, by natural laws, gravitate to positions where the job title is to protect people.

None of that has anything to do with contracts or corporations.

Now as word to the wise from history (a.k.a. memory, or precident):

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

“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 neverarisen 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.”

In a case other than a clear and present danger to life requiring the arrest of the criminal progressing with the injury to the victim in time and place, where commanding the criminal to “stop, or else” is warranted by anyone having the power to arrest the criminal progressing with the injury to the victim, other than that type of case warranting immediate action on the part of the defender, other cases involving suspicions, claims, accusations, witness testimonies, evidences, that warrant validation of those accusations, history shows that the organic law, the grass-roots law, the bottom up law, the moral law, the voluntary defensive law, has invented, and people have used, the grand jury formation, and the grand jury investigation investigating, validating, and prescribing trial by jury or prescribing IGNORAMUS in cases too frivolous, or without justification by evidence, of further expense of time and energy prosecuting the accused, after investigation, by independent, volunteer, grand jurors, who are afforded all legal, all lawful, all jurisdiction both civil and criminal, which includes subpoena and posse comitatus.

A clear and present danger to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all, is witnessed by a witness and the witness takes the evidence (including witness testimony of what the witness witnessed his or her self) of the clear and present danger to a grand jury member, who is a volunteer, who is not a member of the government per se., and then the individual having the HOT POTATO (one if by land, two if by sea) moves one step further in due process of law, determined by the validity contained in the evidence discovered currently at the time the witness passes the evidence to the grand jury member.

If the witness is corrupt, or suffering Stockholm Syndrome, the witness sees nothing, hears nothing, knows nothing, not when dealing with criminals running a Legal Fiction Scam. If the Legal Fiction Scam Treasonous Criminals have already dispensed with grand juries, despite the Statute (Bill of Rights) attempting to Amend the Constitution of 1789, their claim to authority, then the witness who sees nothing won’t have anywhere to go even if the witness wanted to defend the innocent people harmed and injured by the criminals running the Legal Fiction Scam.

Back to history:

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger

Page 3

"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
“But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.”

“Stop” one might say, stop ignoring natural laws, here is an accusation, we need to reform grand juries, or failing to do so leaves only Private Justice, since due process of law is ignored, discarded, the power plug was pulled, there is no law, only criminals counterfeiting whatever the please with impunity.