New Tactic

I’ve tried to show The People how the Roman Civil Rules Kangaroo Court of Injustice compares competitively to the common law due process of law, law of the land, common law, working in a Court of Law, in Liberty, by volunteers, from grass-roots, organically, when moral people discover, and then peacefully do something about, clear and present dangers to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and the means to defend all: including children, the next generation, and posterity.

That didn’t work, or does not work, and will not work, on Artificial Intelligence, which are brainwashed victims whose power of reason has been turned effectively off, and they no longer have access to independent judgment with internal morality.

Everyone is not, however, currently too far gone into a State of Stockholm Syndrome, which I call those people: those who constitute the sycophants, or members of the Cult of Might Makes Right, also those agreeing to pledge their lives to Blind Belief in Falsehood Without Question.

Nothing anyone might say, except the Treasonous Frauds Orders To Be Obeyed Without Question matters, materially, to the members of the Cult.

When ordered to drink the cool-aid, they drink. When ordered to “believe” that evil is good, they “believe.” When ordered to “believe” that up is down, up is then down.

Test:
This side show is not conducted in a Court of Law, and the proof of that was confessed during so-called “Jury Instructions.” That is a fact that matters in this case, even if the Cult members believe otherwise.

In common law the following is enforced by volunteers:

Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852
"All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.”
If people are abandoned and left to their own devices, people invent in a Revolutionary Way, the means by which liberty is defended. Those best at it rise to the top of that grass-roots, organic, competitive, order.

If this place called America was not taken-over by the criminals, with their dirty deals, then the following would have been a case to remember, rather than a case to be censored.

“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.”

The defenders, like George Mason, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and other anti-slavery, anti-tyranny, pro-federation, and pro-common law, due process of law, rule of law, law of the land, proponents would have preserved the voluntary principles of government, and millions of slaves would not have been kidnapped and forced into slavery. This is not disputable, this is factual, as a matter of fact.

Now suppose, further, that the time period falsely called The Civil War was completely avoided, since there was no Dirty Compromise in 1787, no Subsidized Slavery…

Hold on, look here:

Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852
“To show that this supposition is not an extravagant one, it may be mentioned that courts have repeatedly questioned jurors to ascertain whether they were prejudiced against the government- that is, whether they were in favor of, or opposed to, such laws of the government as were to be put in issue in the then pending trial. This was done (in 1851) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by Peleg Sprague, the United States district judge, in empanelling three several juries for the trials of Scott, Hayden, and Morris, charged with having aided in the rescue of a fugitive slave from the custody of the United States deputy marshal. This judge caused the following question to be propounded to all the jurors separately; and those who answered unfavorably for the purposes of the government, were excluded from the panel.
“Do you hold any opinions upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law, so called, which will induce you to refuse to convict a person indicted under it, if the facts set forth in the Indictment, and constituting the offence, are proved against him, and the court direct you that the law is constitutional"
The reason of this question was, that “the Fugitive Slave Law, so called,” was so obnoxious to a large portion of the people, as to render a conviction under it hopeless, if the jurors were taken indiscriminately from among the people.”

Pre-Criminal Take-over in 1781 the victim uses the mixture of common law and Roman Civil Law in Massachusetts to set herself free from the criminal enslaving her. Post-Criminal Take-over, the criminals attempt to get moral people to subsidize their profitable business, and they attempt to use their Roman Civil Rules to enforce it.

Why were there no more slaves going to court to set themselves free, other than the obvious effective prevention measures preventing the knowledge of common law procedures censored by the criminals, and the obvious re-stacking of Roman Civil Rules over-ruling common law procedures?

A richer history of cases adjudicated by the people themselves, for the people in defense of the people, could have led to modern, very competitive, state-of-the-art, courts of law, as each independent county, in each independent state, has among their numbers of people those best able to provide the best defense that money can buy, or that volunteers can muster. If, for example, it becomes known that the county next to your county has courts of law that work very efficiently, extremely fair, timely, and crime does not pay the least bit, then the counties nearby would soon find out why their courts work so much better, and then that creative, adaptive, efficient by competition improvements would be spreading, rather than being censored.