Due process of law:

1. Guilty Act Injury Innocent Victim

Someone not actively perpetrating a criminal act in the future

Someone not actively perpetrating a criminal act in the past.

Someone following internally generated orders to follow without question, follows those orders internally created, and in time and place the targeted innocent victim is about to be injured in the next few seconds, and time freezes for adjudication.

What is happening now?

The clock is ticking. Is justice delayed? Is justice denied? Who does nothing? Who can do something? Who authorizes anyone to do anything in defense?

Crime in progress, no victims yet, if nothing is done, there will be blood.

There before us, them, we, the defenders themselves, face a case to act in defense because the cause of injury done to innocent victims by guilty criminals, as it happens in time and place factually, is front and center, in view, in your face, the first witness to the last witness would choose deception if falsely claiming not to be a witness, not in a place and a time, when each one could at least say: “No.”

Each one.

A matter of fact is the fact that the criminal has the crime in mind, agrees to perpetrate the crime based on the idea, moves closer to the victim (contacts victims through media in the case of fraud), the criminal act is moved physically into action by the consciously guilty criminal, as the victim is made to suffer injury, even if the victim is unaware of the damage being done, in time, and in place.

Every victim suffers every injury done to them, in time and place, by guilty criminals perpetrating crimes upon innocent victims, including injury done to children you don’t know, people who are not close to you, pregnant women, old people, even a Bus Full of Nuns.

That is, that constitutes, a cause to act in defense, each place, and each time.

Who does the dirty work? Who is paid to do so? Who are the people who merely step up to the plate and hit a home run, because they can?

“Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”

Take anyone who would be qualified to be a juror, so that means everyone, all of The People, the people as a whole, excepting no one, everyone on an equal footing at law. No factions, no parties, no privilege, no prejudice. Take any one, ask internally if defense, at least saying “no,” is proper based upon internal moral, logical, reasoning.

Anyone!

What about those who refuse to help an innocent victim despite the fact that someone is fully equipped to do so, and all it takes is one quick contact with one more volunteer, and the crime is successfully, speedily, defended against? Someone perfectly capable of merely elbowing someone next to them, and both yell “No!” The criminal then stops. Just before injury is done to the targeted innocent victim, two people agree to say “No!” The criminal then agrees fully, that crime does not pay, not there, not now, so the potential criminal isn’t a criminal to an extent in which an innocent victim suffers damage done to the innocent victim, by the guilty criminal.

What if the criminal runs from accurate accountability of the facts that matter in that case? The criminal in view of those two, so now there are four people, and the criminal stopped in mid crime? What next? Does the criminal realize his mistake, walk over to the other two, and shake hands, thanking the defenders defending against crime?

Why would the criminal run, what is the crime done?

What is the method of determining facts in this case?

If the criminal is facing Despotic Legal Fiction Dogma that covers-up Organized Crime Treasonous Fraud, then the fact of any guilt of mind is not adjudicated by Trial Jurors, the people are not directing government enforcement officers. Government enforcement officers are UNDER jurors in due process of law. What is, for example, contained within the meaning of the term posse comitatus? The commander of all jurisdiction in a criminal case – jurors – can make use of government defensive forces in cases involving the need for them, such as a case involving a large, powerful criminal gang that can easily overpower one individual volunteer volunteering to defend each other in time and place.

If the suspect, who stopped before perpetrating an obvious crime – two people yelled “no” - then that crime didn’t actually happen because the criminal agreed to stop. Who is to say if that is a crime?

Is it a petty distinction? Is it a cause to act in defense of future victims that appear to be possibly in danger since this almost criminal obviously had malice in mind? According to who, or what, was that fact determined: malice of mind charged to the defendant by the accuser?

If it is serious, then failing to act in defense is non-feasance in a social body voluntarily bound with the agreement to defend each other, and that happens in time and place to such an extent as to actually prevent criminals from making criminal decisions, because crime does not pay, even if someone volunteers to “follow the money.” Not on my watch, and not sneaking in through the back doors of my mind, turning off my moral capacity, or common sense, good natured, resolute, brave, determined, concerned, morally cognizant, morally aware, morally diligent, in the face of clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all: voluntary association for mutual defense, a.k.a. federation.

No one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

If the case is serious, warranting further discovery of inculpatory evidence, more evidence that raises the level of concern high enough to warrant adjudication by jury, then in either case, the case is serious. If the false accuser is the criminal in a case of false accusation, when the false accuser falsely accuses with malice aforethought, intent to injure an innocent victim – malevolence – in time and place, who decides, who adjudicates, who can say no, we don’t do false accusations here: ignoramus?

No, you too, no, you don’t get to falsely accuse someone now, and who can defend anyone if the false accuser is moving from one innocent victim to the next innocent victim? That false accuser, that one right there, almost falsely accused someone, but that crime too was prevented: nipped in the bud.

Who decides to start taking defensive action? First come first serve. Is that not the natural law at work right there in the situation described? Each individual in power to stop a crime is duty bound to volunteer to do so, and who is going to make all those decisions in any case?

Victim is here, imagine the place and time.

Criminal is not yet injuring the innocent victim, anyone, anyplace, at any time.

The criminal is prevented by someone capable of doing so, even if it is one old lady holding hands with one toddler, and both say “no,” and the criminal, never having ever harmed anyone before this act in progress, stops. Even a case where the criminal is a member of a gang, the gang are all in on the crime, and all the gang members are armed with nukes and bio-weapons.

It is natural, in the face of extreme threat, to be over-powered in defense, in mind.

So the little old lady, and the child, both said no, and the gang members armed with nukes and bio-weapons agreed, no crime, not today, not on my watch.

Not today Satan.