Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rottweiler
I wanted to connect the concept of the peerage, the king, and his court for the sake of winning in court to avoid real war so I used a song. I had the feeling you were in some way not seeing the advantage of a jury of one's peers. Sovereignty can empower us over a corrupt judiciary.
We are the sovereigns of our own court. I am my own state and I am sovereign over that which I created. That includes my court and the government. I decree the law. I have sovereign immunity unless 100% of a jury of my peers disagree with me.
A court is a stage upon which the sovereign conducts his show so as to satisfy the rest of the world that his decision is a good one. Court is the person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. A jury of peers in a court of record/common law court in this country means a jury of fellow sovereigns(the peerage). See the Magna Carta.
|
I watched the video and listened to the lyrics and was intrigued, but could not put an intent (that I knew to be FACTual) behind either. So I thank you for the explanantion. I must admit, that in and from a secular position, those points of your explanation will be overlooked intentionally or will be ridiculed.
Your explanation, reminds me of the words of the late William O. Douglas (former justice of the USSC) speaking his opinion relating to a case involving (ironically) the selection of men and women to serve on a 'jury committee'. His words were
"I cannot see any solution to the present problem, unless the jury commission is by law required to be bi-racial. In the Kingdom of Heaven, an all-white or an all-black commission could be expected to do equal justice to all races in the selection of people "generally reputed to be honest and intelligent" and "esteemed in the community for their integrity, good character and sound judgment." Ala. Code, Tit. 30, 21 (Supp. 1967). But, where there exists a pattern of discrimination, an all-white or all-black jury commission in these times probably means that the race in power retains authority to control the [396 U.S. 320, 343] community's official life, and that no jury will likely be selected that is a true cross-section of the community. "The above citation is located in the opinions portion of the cased styled "CARTER v. JURY COMMISSION, 396 U.S. 320 (1970) 396 U.S. 320 "
His mention, specifically, of 'an all white or an all black' commission, attests to the fact that this case was about a 'jury of your peers', and he also points out that this type of selection cannot be found within the norm of secular society, but rather can only be expected to be found 'in the Kingdom of Heaven'.
My characterisation of this scenario (peers and peerage) as used by the courts is that there is in fact a group known as the "House of Peers", which are comprised of the elitist/lawyer/nobleman, and that the use of the term by the courts/judiciary is nothing more than a way to deceive the people and make the people think that they are receiving a 'jury of their peers' when in fact the 'peers' are in fact members of the 'House of Peers'; thus regardless of what the 'jury' says, the members of the 'House of Peers' will have the final determination. Hence the reasoning behind so many cases where the 'judge' will overrule the 'jury' and implement his/her (the judge) opinion instead of the 'jury' opinion. This 'final determination factor' I mention is also emphasized in the 'FACT' that the 'judges' have implemented a 'court rule' wherein the 'jury' is instructed on how to reach a determination. So, in FACT, the jury is governed by guess who "the House of Peers".
Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.