[facebook.com]

Two wrongs add up to two wrongs, unless someone falsifies the accounting process, and in that case two wrongs attempt to make things right on a very thin surface curtain of treasonous fraud.

Was there no cause to act in defense of a suspect suspected of using deadly force unlawfully in the Jacob Blake case? A cause to act lawfully in defense places a suspect, presumed to be innocent, before a trial jury, so as to lawfully establish the law and the facts in that specific case. Someone unlawfully shooting someone else is not a so-called “Civil” case, not unless someone has been drinking too liberally from the poisoned cool-aid called treasonous fraud.

I do not know if there was an effort to employ due process of law in the Jacob Blake case. I am just beginning to look into this case. I have no power. I have no ability to move that case to an independent grand jury. As far as I know, an independent grand jury does not exist in any county in America today. If there was one, one independent grand jury in one county in America, there would be proof of one, and that proof would be a presentment that places one of the treasonous frauds, such as those inciting riots, on trial before an independent trial jury to establish both law and fact independently; independent from the treasonous frauds power to cover their treasonous frauds. A treasonous fraud would face the representatives of the people as a whole in a court of law according to the common law. I do not have the power to move the suspect to face an independent trial jury according to the law of the land, which is the common law. The only power I have are the facts. If facts do not matter, God help us, because we are on the path to self-extinction.

Assemble an independent grand jury to establish probable cause. If a grand jury establishes probable cause, based upon the evidence against the accused, and dutifully avoiding trial by grand jury, then the grand jurors place the presumed to be innocent suspect, in a criminal case, before an independent trial jury, to establish both law and fact in the case, and move onto the next case. Why not?

That is the law of the land. If anyone can read Legalese, such as the Legalese published in a Bill of Rights, which were attempts made to amend the Constitution of 1789, then anyone can know, and use, the law of the land, in fact. Why is no one empowered to bring the worst suspect before the representatives of the people to stand trial in a criminal case of treasonous fraud, such as human trafficking subsidized with tax funds, or clearly the incitement of riots from positions of power to defend against rioters? If those in power fund, incite, and cause riots, while standing down defenders of innocent people in danger of harm during those incited, funded, riots, then clearly that is a cause to act in defense by due process of law in a treason case. If people don’t know this, then it is an effective treasonous fraud case, since the victims are too stupid and servile to defend themselves.

Evidence:

“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.”

That, if I am not mistaken, was a “Civil” case according to Roman Civil Rules commingled with common law trial by jury. The evidence in that case would prove or disprove my suspicions. Massachusetts, at that time, was suffering from internal infestation of criminals taking public offices and using those defensive institutions for personal gain, including the subsidizing of slavery, which means that the public fund collected for defense is used to enforce the institution of slavery, to cover the costs of enslaving people by taxing the slaves. That is factual. That is unlawful for all but the criminals caught red-handed perpetrating the crime of treasonous fraud, on their own documents that confess their actual malevolence.

To get back to due process of law, amendments were attempted, after a deal was made between Slave Carriers in the North, and Slave Consumers in the South. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to amend The Dirty Compromise. The Three Fifths Clause, was a deal made, a deal signed, and a deal rammed down the throats of Americans in 1789, doing so covertly, and doing so with liberal usage of treasonous fraud. The amendments failed to amend the Dirty Compromise. The criminal treasonous frauds running the Nation-State hidden behind a false front of Federation, attempted to tax the slaves to pay for their enslavement. The people continue to this day to resist that end game that ends mankind.

What remains of our common laws that help us cooperate with each other for our mutual defense?

I have collected the receipts, the evidence, and it is well beyond reasonable doubt, the criminals took over in 1789. As shown above, with a clear precedent, prisoners of mixed war, such as the petitioner in a “Civil” case, Stated her case before a trial jury of 12 white men, and those 12 white men could not, in good conscience, allow the guilty to continue to enslave the victim, in that landmark case.

Who knows about that landmark case? Why was it a “Civil” case and why was it not a criminal case, involving not simply a human trafficker, a member of a human trafficking gang of criminals, rather, it was a human trafficker protected from prosecution by the existing counterfeit government, and therefore it was a treasonous fraud criminal case; so why were those treasonous frauds immune from prosecution, leading to decades more mixed war against millions of prisoners of that war? If they were fooled into believing they were slaves, and not victims of mixed war, then they did so, despite the precedent setting case, where the woman set herself free from that false imprisonment, falsely imprisoned into slave labor, funded at the public exepense.

How, in good conscious, can Americans today, be so servile to falsehood, so stupid about the facts that matter in the case, to actually be crediting those human traffickers with any moral authority, let alone the keys to the future of humanity?

People today are so servile and so stupid about our common heritage of common law, that they actually confuse The Constitution of 1789 with the Bill of Rights, as if those two documented messages tell the same story. They do not, and this is not subject to argument, not unless someone clearly resorts to willful falsehood, or speaks from a State of Infantile Ignorance.

“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.”

Why is that not see-able, view-able, as it is in fact? What blinds people from the facts that matter in this case?

If people from Top to Bottom in America are so blinded by Falsehood as to become, each individual in turn, a human embodiment of an Infantile STATE, then each one is defenseless in the face of clear and present dangers to mankind as a whole.

Bring the suspects suspected of the worst crimes before a trial jury in a criminal treasonous fraud case or allow them to Riot in the Blood of the Innocent and Guilty, it matters not, in an Infantile STATE, we are all guilty.

“There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? 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.”