Now the persecutor and defense are arguing again over which way to CENSOR information from the representatives of The People, who are the jury.

The principle at work here is that Roman Civil Rules are based on the maintenance of deception so as to keep the lower levels weaker so that the upper levels remain powerful. Deception creates more deception the same principled way that aggressive violence creates more aggressive violence, and therefore the RULES grow exponentially until everyone is guilty of something all the time if only someone has access to all the RULES at once. Everyone is guilty is the same as no one is innocent. This is yet another reason why Roman Civil Rules governing Organized Criminals leads to extinction.

If the law is more complicated than a juror (everyone as in The People as a whole) can know, then it is no longer the common law. The exceptions to this rule fall into the category known as criminals. Criminals do not obey common laws – as a rule – that is how they join the group known as criminals.

Think about this when listening to these Roman Civil Rulers argue over the meanings of these complications that spring from the need to maintain deception. Why, for example, would any of this be CENSORED by anyone, and particularly from the representatives of The People who are charged with the duty of adjudicating this case?

So now think of three very obvious facts that clue a fool in on the take-over of the defensive association (voluntary) replacing it with subsidized slavery, whereby the people are made to pay for their own torturous demise.

1. One set of rules for all (equal footing at law) is now one set of rules governing the criminals (those in charge) and another set of rules governing the victims. They get to persecute you, you don’t get to prosecute them.

2. The psychopaths rise to the top, gaining the most power the quickest, as the bodies pile up so quick, they are bulldozed into mass graves.

3. The RULES (both sets of rules combined) are so complicated that anything can mean anything to suit the occasion.

Every one of these people in that Roman Civil Rules Court of Power Extraction is guilty, on the trial transcripts, of at a minimum of non-feasance. The riots warrant an independent grand jury investigation concerning who orders these riots, by funding them, which would place the blame of any injuries done thereafter, to that individual, or that group having arrived at the mutual agreement to set in motion these, and many more, of these riots.

If there is anyone obeying the law, it is the defendant, the one of the many here who has at least attempted to defend the innocent.

If thing can get more up-side-down, how can things move any further than this?

Folks Throwing Rocks, and no Plea Deal Officially on the table. Plea deals, by the way, are crimes when criminals make deals with other criminals to avoid prosecution for defense against crime by making crime no longer pay so well.

Plea Deals are common with criminals running Under Roman Civil Rules.

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."

As this persecution proceeds through undue process of persecution it may be useful to keep in mind the concept of deterrence.

If Rule of Law is effective, expedient, and therefore facts based and accurate, then focus is focused on the risk versus benefit calculations that are known to occur in the minds of moral people.

That does not apply to immoral people.

Immoral people are want to project immorality upon everyone, and therefore no one is innocent. No one is guilty. No one is innocent. No one is guilty. Immoral people want that, it is theirs, and they want to share that, so as to reduce the risks associated with immoral behavior.

Rule of Law teaches people that crime does not pay. Someone may attempt to RIOT in the Blood of the Innocent, doing so for fun, and fun is a form of profit, as would be expressed in the saying: Pursuit of Happiness. If someone, for example, is happy when they see a victim in pain, in pain caused by a psychopath, then from a psychopathic mind, that is The Pursuit of Happiness, and the end desired when the means to that end is cruel and unusual punishment: torture.

Criminal psychopaths use torture to turn good people into bad people, as a rule, but only when criminal psychopaths are immune from any risk of being held to account for their criminal acts.

Those now FUNDING the RIOTS are those who had FUNDED the RIOTS, and these are those who will FUND the RIOTS. RIOTS are Cruel and Unusual Punishments.

A defendant defending defense is held to account for defending defense.

Meanwhile those now FUNDING the RIOTS are smiling?

Look at those minions, we have them actually persecuted for daring to defend defense.

The move from Courts of Law (common law trial by jury) to Summary Justice Courts of Fraudulent Debt Collection Agency were warned about considerably, and here are three:

"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787

George Mason is the guy who went to the Con Con Con Job of 1787 and refused to sign the treasonous Constitution of 1787, which was called The Dirty Compromise, as the treasonous cabal behind it were re-installing Roman Civil Rules that were rejected by The Patriots who fought the Revolutionary War. George Mason, Patrick Henry, and many others (roughly 49% of those “voting” by Majority Rules to RATify the illegal Constitution) were against Consolidating the Independent States into One Monopoly of Power and Profit. George Mason was also credited as one of the major forces behind the Bill of Rights.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

Spooner is the go to guy for the tree truck that spreads into a vast array of branches and roots to principle information about Voluntary Mutual Defense Association or that which is known as due process of law, the law of the land, the common law, with trial by jury, which is based upon The Golden Rule, and natural rights. This is the law that forms from grass-roots organically, or from the bottom up, in opposition to dictatorship from top down.

“As the trial by jury is provided for in criminal causes, I shall confine my observations to civil causes — and in these, I hold it is the established right of the jury by the common law, and the fundamental laws of this country, to give a general verdict in all cases when they chuse to do it, to decide both as to law and fact, whenever blended together in the issue put to them. Their right to determine as to facts will not be disputed, and their right to give a general verdict has never been disputed, except by a few judges and lawyers, governed by despotic principles.” Federal Farmer XV, Janurary 18, 1788, Richard Henry Lee

Richard Henry Lee was the Sixth President of The United States of America while it was a Federation, and before it became a Nation-State Legal Fiction under Roman Civil Rules and Debt Collection Agencies enforced in Summary Justice Courts. Lee also explains the methodology (criminal means of treasonous deception) of Legal Fiction in reference to the Nationalist Take-over to replace common law with – eventually – SCOTUS.

Break for Lunch. While viewing it is useful to place one's self into the jurors seats, but before doing so, consider some of the mountains of evidence that proves beyond doubt that the jurors command all jurisdiction, they are the executors in charge of executing orders to the government, such as "get me a cup of water," or "arrest that individual for contempt of court, and get from that individual required testimony that that individual refuses to voluntarily give to us, so that we have what we need to accurately adjudicate this case on behalf of the people as a whole.

Notes on the State of Virginia
The following Notes were written in Virginia in the year 1781, by Thomas Jefferson
“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.”

That is before the usurpation of 1789, affording Legal Fiction Nation-State “Appellate Jurisdiction” to The State (no longer The People as it is in a Republic) in the form of a Summary Justice Court that became known as SCOTUS. Previously the Federal Courts were in place, by Roman Civil Rules, to keep the Independent States from harming each other, so it was a in common law terms a voluntary agreement to settle disputes by an unbiased (for one state over another state arbitrarily) arbitration process: Federal Court.

One the independent Republics were Consolidated, the Summary Justice Court System became a Debt Collection Agency as already existing in the past with Admiralty and Equity Courts; by Roman Civil Rules.

In common law those who are FUNDING these RIOTS with money extorted within the EMPIRE, would be on trial for Treason, and this is not news. This is matter of fact stuff, facts that matter in this case.

The Persecutor counterfeiting a lawful prosecutor (attorney general) as this Persecutor represents those who FUND these RIOTS (counterfeit government) attempts to CENSOR evidence. The Judge who represents Roman Civil Rulers (see also Robert’s Rules of Order) maintains a level of impartiality between the Persecutor and the Defendant’s Team of Very Expensive Lawyers familiar with Roman Civil Rules. These arguments at play take a lot of time as the Persecutor attempts to convince the Judge to CENSOR information from the Jury.

This clearly shows the different between due process of law in a common law Court of Law, and a Roman Civil Rules Kangaroo Court of Fraudulent Debt Collection Agency. The jurors in common law command all jurisdiction in this criminal case, and it is their duty to ensure that they execute adjudication based upon fact. How can the jury do their job if these clowns are arguing over what the jury can or cannot hear as they may then determine to be relevant as either inculpatory or exculpatory evidence?

Only 1 person, in all that chaos, shot someone. The message there is "do not attempt to defend," since someone might get shot. Again, why are those who fund all this chaos, not on trial? If peaceful defense is possible, it is a process of accurate accounting of the facts that matter MOST in any case. If, instead, defensive forces are focused - at great expense - on slow walking one individual in one of the FUNDED riots, through an obvious persecution process, then how many more people will be shot while actual justice is delayed by whoever is in charge of this persecution. That "judge," and that persecutor telling lies, are themselves part of the greater conspiracy to over RULE common law with Roman Civil Rules. Any witness takes evidence of clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all, to a peace keeper (in common law it is a magistrate or justice of the peace, someone not on the government payroll) and if there is probable cause (facts that matter suggest that probable cause exists), a grand jury is formed to officially validate the case, moving from grand jury independent investigation to a meeting of the accuser/prosecutor (a private person, or if not, an attorney general representing The People not "the government" ) and the accused defendant, both STATING their cases before the trial jurors. No one in the "government" is ORDERED to execute anything other than whatever the jurors tell them to execute, such as subpoena, arrest warrant, posse comitatus assembly of a force required to execute a warrant ordered by the representatives of the people, the jurors.