The Remedy: Our Own DeJure Courts...

[NoName]

Hi folks. Experience seems to be telling us that it's not possible to get justice in the corporate courts. We shouldn't be surprised.

I saw an interesting chap last night on TV - Chris Coverdale. (http://www.makewarshistory.org.uk/) He has been trying to take Blair et al. to court for genocide & other war crimes for a decade. He knows his stuff about war law - treaties etc. and he says it's totally clear that the UK govt. has broken a number of existing laws prohibiting pre-emptive war. You will not be surprised to know he's had no luck.

You will be interested to know that he says it was established in the Nurembourg War Trials that if your govt. is corrupt - it is your duty in law to refuse to obey them. He says that as the war in Iraq/Afghan is unlawful, UK taxpayers are accessories to crime by paying tax. Paying tax in the UK is against international law! So he stopped paying, and they made him bankrupt and took his house.

The most important thing I've really gained from my experience in 'court' is that this is proper serious. The state is at war with it's citzens, and we don't even realise it! I'm not being extreme, I've just woken up.

War can take many forms - it doesn't have to involve guns and bombs... Consider this - there is:
- economic warfare (depriving the enemy of wealth / resources / technologies)
- psychological warfare (mind control, cencorship, propaganda, chemical tranquilisation (eg.flouride, alcohol, food additives))
- biological warfare (making the enemy sick... See allopathic vs homeopathic medicine, iatrogenic disease, vaccinations...)
- spiritual/information warfare (depriving the enemy of information essential to know who they are!)

If you bother to look - the state (and I include govt, law, religion, banking etc) is obviously a criminal cartel.

We can expect no remedy from this criminal cartel / mafia / occupying force. To expect remedy from your captor against himself is pretty naieve.

I think our only remedy is to take to law back into our own hands... We must convene Natural Law grand-juries and courts with sentencing power! It is my understanding that it would be possible to Claim the Right to do this. We all know how to send Notices... We might have a bit of a problem locking people up - unless someone has a really big garden shed :-) - but that isn't really necessary anyway. Let me elaborate...

The biggest problem is the total and utter world-wide monopoly on the 'Law' that the Law Society has. We need to offer an alternative... If we offer a viable, open, honest alternative to the JustUs system, then ordinary folk will start to see the difference between a dejure court dispensing justice, and the corporate courts offering assumed guilt, secrecy and unlawful judgements.

In the US - 2 Grand Juries (at least) have indicted Obama for fraud! These are groups of 23 ordinary citizens. Their indictments are often ignored.

The first step would be to convene a grand jury, the second, to convene a court dejure once the indictment has been issued. Everything would be recorded & YouTubed - It doesn't matter if the courts' decisions are ignored by the cartel - because it would be public, and it would remind the people of this country that we are the sovereigns, we make the rules. Plus we can offer the powerful argument that the people indicted / convicted by the courts have been through a truly lawful process, and that the court itself and it's judgement is far more valid that any of the corporate courts.


Discussion Points:

1) OATHS
I'd like to discuss the concept of jurisdiction (oath-spoken) too... I don't like oaths, nor did Jesus. He said 'Make no oaths' and 'Let your yes be yes, and your no be no' - i.e. just tell the truth all the time.

Oaths have always (and mainly) been used as a means to enslave honest people. Oaths were the basis of the old obvious feudal system (1066-?) , and they are the basis of our current high-tech 'plausibly denyable' feudal system (Your birt cert / NI # is your oath!) (?-now). Only honest people abide by oaths - so they are put at a disadvantage. If a lying psycho takes an oath (makes a contract etc), they will feel no need to uphold that oath, and will lie if it suits them anyway.

It is against the oldest written law there is - the 10 Commandments (Thou shalt not bear false witness). So you don't have to be under oath to be committing a crime by lying, just the crime of 'perjury'.

I think it is acceptable to state at the start of proceedings that the courtroom is a place of truth, and anyone found to be lying is guilty of the heinous, ancient crime of lying! This is Natural Law...


2) WRITTEN LAW
I don't believe written law is useful or desirable. Only psychos need to be told not to do bad stuff. OK, children need training, but most of us know right from wrong.

Once you start to codify the law, then the law start to come out of a book - instead of coming out of the hearts of the jurors, which is its true origin.

Each and every case is tried upon it's merits - with reference to precedent as an aid only.


3) JUDGE AND JURY
In each case the jury is able to lead the proceedings, demand witnesses, perform its own investigations, and ultimately rule against the plaintiff if the claim is found to be fraudulent. The judge's role is to manage proceedings, maintain order and to provide information and advice to the jury.

If the defendant is found guilty, the judge and jury decide an appropriate sentence together based on the facts of the case.


4) FINANCE / STAFFING
The judge and jury are unpaid volunteers from the community who pay their own expenses. The court is not an incorporated entity, and has no financial aspect.

Anyone can apply to be a juror. I think folk should probably have to do something like a multiple-choice test first to check they know their arses from the elbows...

Perhaps anyone can apply to be a judge... What extra qualifications would they need? Age / experience? To be a freeman? Hmmm.


Anyone fancy a bit of (unpaid) jury duty?
;^)

[huntingross]

I'm wondering (seriously) if we can summons those that transgress, to an online Court of Common Law....the 12 + 1 and the defendant and plaintiff have read write access and everyone else is read only.

Post up any documents, everyone can read them, say your piece and make the judgement.

[NoName]

Hi HuntingRoss,
I've been giving this some thought and I reckon it is not only do-able, but a very good idea... I can build websites.

The first question is - what should it be called? How about "The People's Common Law Court of Justice" ?

The second is a good domain name? How about 'dejure.org.uk'?

Feedback welcome.

[huntingross]

In the real world arena we (on that thread) went with The Court of Common Law, your suggestion is similar and I like it....I wouldn't go down the DeJure route becuase no one knows what it is, unless that was just the domain name.

Sounds good so far....it gets over the geographic problems, and the public anywhere in the UK can lodge a complaints and start the ball rolling.

[1965freeman]

We should try to investigate the 'Sharia Courts' system here in the UK. Their judgements ARE binding under 'English Law' and a lot of non-muslims are now opting to use their services as they are speedy and a lot cheaper than the 'conventional' courts.
Andrew

[NoName]

I've put together a basic scheme for an online court, but before I invest the time in building it, I'm wondering if it's worth it, and what people think about it...

It seems to me that a court without any power would be of little interest, so what it comes down to is punishment - how much appetite people have for it, and how far are people prepared to go in fighting the state. Ultimately, I suppose it would need officers and a jail...

Are folk prepared to act as peace officers? How about requisitioning unused MOD land for a jail?...

[huntingross]

I kinda figured the 'virtual court' would have as much power as the real court.....as long as the security of information can be covered....and whilst i'm not a techy....it seems that it should be possible...

Afterall, it brings the court closer to the people, breaks down the barrier of accessibility.

I'm not sure we need to worry about locking people up at the moment, and perhaps an online court wouldn't want to consider those cases....but would be perfect for what is probably a high proportion of peoples daily life, which isn't serious crime, its the small beer stuff which burdens you down.

[Farmer]

Don't forget about the possibility of libel.

[huntingross]

I don't follow Farmer....do you mean of us committing it or prosecuting for it.

[Farmer]

I don't follow Farmer....do you mean of us committing it or prosecuting for it.

Yes, us committing it. I'm only talking about a court on the web. If the powers that be do not recognise the court, then what is written on a web site could libel etc.