Court de Jure

[consumerpada]

Yeah Kinda, I was reading about the pros and cons and it 'seems' as if its more staight forward to raise a tribunal in the short term.

[huntingross]

I'm not too fussy, I just want to nail them for screwing me around....Notices alone just don't cut it....so what ever steps need to get us there....i'm for it.....the end WILL justify the means.

[Sophia]

Greetings,
jurors drawn from the 'sleeping community' would also be biased. Nothing in nature is impartial, we are all natural, so impartial is a red herring.

Blessings Bright,
Sophia.

[consumerpada]

Tribunal - free online dictionary...

1. Law
a. A seat or court of justice.
b. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin tribnal, judge's platform, from tribnus, tribune; see tribune1.]

..................................................................................

[ArturoDekko]

Thank you for your input Veronica. In the belief that if you see something that needs doing and no one else is doing it, it becomes your responsibility to do it if you are capable; I will take the temporary post of juror wrangler, unless anyone else is really excited to do this (HG?). I will leave it open for discussion for a bit to see if anyone else really wants to do it or offer other suggestions.

I feel like procrastinating on the grounds that we haven't sorted all the details yet but then I realised that has nothing to do with collecting names of interested people.

Village halls are quite cheap enough to hire but not entirely necessary. The Magna Carta was signed in a field! The court is the people, not the place.

Impartiality? Is that even possible? I believe traditionally a jury was made up of peers who would probably know the parties and so could judge from the understanding of who the people were. That would not be impartial. Would a Common Law Court not have to be made up of Common Law people, Freemen-on-the-land? If not, each case would have to explain from scratch the principals of Sovereignty. Being against unlawful and criminal behaviour, like the banking and statutory systems, is not a loss of impartiality, it is just knowing right from wrong, which is what the jury is for. There is no point for anyone having "sleepers" on the jury because they would have to be woken up before any business could proceed. For the law society to claim they wanted representation on the jury would be like a criminal insisting the jury was made up of other criminals. Unlike the convoluted statutory judgements, mostly, a Court of Common Law would be dealing with facts. Is there a contract that is lawful and binding or is there not?

If a single Sovereign is above any servant then a "Court of Sovereigns" (is that another possible title?) would definitely be above any group of servants. Would you want to be judged by children? Surely only adults should apply. Only a Sovereign can say they are no longer a child of the state. Only a Sovereign can say they have matured and taken responsibility for themselves. Only someone who has claimed responsibility for themselves can be responsible for decisions on others. No personal responsibility = no responsibility, full stop. Only A Sovereign has the moral courage to truly judge, and certainly, only a Sovereign could judge another Sovereign.

I do not think anyone could object to our Sovereign Society having a court to resolve internal conflicts, in fact it would be essential. The difficulty I see is if, for instance, a Sovereign brought a utility company to justice and the court ruled in the Sovereigns favour, how would that be enforced? I am not being negative, just realistic with a view to a solution. What reason would statutory slaves, comfortably cacooned within their system, have for not ignoring anything we did in just the same way as they do to individuals now? Would we need a high court ruling to validate jurisdiction?

It seems that most successes have been had by playing with paperwork rather than the rightful recognition of the state of Sovereignty. Beginning this thread was my attempt to move towards Sovereignty being recognised as the full lawful state that it truly is. It is one thing for us to stand on our high morals and know that we are right, it is another thing when the boys in florescent yellow are at your door with a battering ram and do not want to listen to anything you say. Supposedly, we can lien on them afterwards for retribution but I have not heard any success stories of liens being cashed. That is one reason why I was contemplating some form of society/belief system/religion that could be recognised. I do not know the answers but I believe they will come to us if we hold truth in our hearts, maintain our integrity and act every second of every day as true Sovereigns.

AD

[huntingross]

I'm not trying to be clever with this comment AD, but (you knew that was coming)......

would be like a criminal insisting the jury was made up of other criminals

By criminal you mean defendant....who is innocent until proven guilty....this is why I was commenting on the selection process for the jury....but equally accept that a jury drawn from any pool of people comes with its own pre-conceptions....we need to manage that.

I like The Court of Common Law (as mentioned before) its solid and means what it says.

A Jury of Sovereigns or a Sovereign Court of Common Law.

I also like the Tribunal idea it sounds like that is probably what we're talking about anyway.

I think we should take these ideas into a different section as described by V and chew it around in there. AD, I think you should head it up, think of it as a round table.

[ArturoDekko]

Point taken HG or should that be HR? Or even HRH

I will pm V and get it going.

AD

[ArturoDekko]

I have put a post on Think Free Forum and TPUC forum pointing here for discussion and to collect more bodies. If you have any other free thinking sites that would be useful please do the same let us know also.

AD

[ArturoDekko]

Here is my understanding, so far, of what a Court of Common Law would be:-

There is no need for a specific building for the Court as the Court creates its own domain and can be held anywhere.

There are 12 jurors, traditionally peers, that is those that can understand the situation that the parties are in. For a Sovereign, this would mean other Sovereigns.
While that is great for us, I cannot see an official slave being happy with that situation. If there were non-sovereigns on the jury, time would have to be spent education them to understand our position and the nature of common law. I could also argue that we would only allow adults to be jurors which would automatically invalidate any child of the state who had not claimed their maturity and the attendant responsibility.

There is a 13th. member who would take the position we now consider as judge but, in a Common Law Court, this position is more of a master of ceremonies, an ordinary soul and not a professional, to keep order and has no capacity to judge, only to pronounce the judgement of the jury. This position would also have to explain the nature of the jurisdiction that the jury has.

The two parties each present their case to the jury, being able to speak directly to the jury and the jury being able to ask questions directly, although their decisions must be their own, so no conferring within the jury. Nothing is done in secret. Everything is in the public and the jurors have responsibility for their own judgement.

Personally, i feel that if there were more Sovereigns in the audience than there were on the jury and they perceive an injustice occurring, that they would have the ability collectively to call for a miss-trial.

An 8 to 4 majority decides the case.

I am not sure on this next point but I can see no other fair way of this working. After decision of guilt/innocence the jury would also collectively decide the sentence, based on pleas by the plaintiff and the defendant.

I am also not sure what happens if majority is not reached, whether it is no verdict, case dismissed, or whether the parties get a second or third chance to persuade the jury. If the jury was half Sovereigns and half statutory sheep, I can imagine a lot of hung juries.

For most of "our" work, the court would only have to decide whether there was an injured party and whether there were any true facts. Is there a contract?

Your thoughts please.

AD

[huntingross]

This all sounds reasonable....if I get cut short here, its because I'm in the middle of a lego construction project.

I see there is advantage in jurors conferring, it may clarify thoughts and prevent hung juries plus the 13th member presumably has a casting vote ? Or would/could the jury question time be in effect be an open conference where questions are extended by other jurors towards clarifying a point if they felt a question didn't go far enough. 9i think i just answered my own question)

I can see the arguement about a sovereign jury....a jury of peers....but as most cases are most likely going to be Sovereign and COMPANY...(not vs as this is the adversarial court system we currently have)...and as the company would be the defendant it is reasonable if they ask for a jury of peers that would not include Sovereigns....its a tough one to call....I'm not sure if we have 12 Sovereign jurors in close proximity in Scotland, we might have to come to the south for justice, which of course means the jury is not drawn from locals who know the personal issues.

I'm not sure what you mean by personal responsibilty of the jurors....that sounds like they might get locked up for making a wrong decision.