[mrg]

First, you need enforcement of the GUARANTEE of the enjoyment of "a trial BY an IMPARTIAL jury."

Not to be subject to a "jury trial."

Is something "impartial" whole and complete in and of itself?

Im-part-i-al.

Im-part.

Impart?

Where in "this Constitution for the United States of America," does "a trial BY an IM-PART-IAL jury," include/require seating WITHIN it, AND above it, a BAR Esquire attorney with an "appointment," titles of honor, and a pastoral cassock?

How, precisely, does such constitute a jury whole and complete in and of itself (IM-PART-I-AL)?

In the Constitutional "guarantee" to "enjoy" "a trial BY an IMPARTIAL jury," where, precisely, is it written:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,

by an impartial jury

of the State and district

wherein the crime shall have been committed,

which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,

and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;

to be confronted with the witnesses against him;

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,

and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence;

subject to the rule, edicts, pronouncements, decisions, interpretations, opinions, beliefs, whims, fancies, etc. of a BAR ASSOCIATION Esquire attorney with an "appointment," titles of honor, and a pastoral cassock.

In Suits at common law,

where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,

the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,

subject to the rule, edicts, pronouncements, decisions, interpretations, opinions, beliefs, whims, fancies, etc. of a BAR ASSOCIATION Esquire attorney with an "appointment," titles of honor, and a pastoral cassock.

and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,

than according to the rules of the common law,

The Trial of all Crimes,

except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;

subject to the rule, edicts, pronouncements, decisions, interpretations, opinions, beliefs, whims, fancies, etc. of a BAR ASSOCIATION Esquire attorney with an "appointment," titles of honor, and a pastoral cassock;

and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;

but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

...where, precisely?



Do you think you will simply have "a trial BY an IMPARTIAL jury?"

If (when) you have "your" "jury trial" do you think you will "be allowed" to quote, to that "jury," "on the record," those passages from those "cases," cited HERE, and other "cases," as well as to directly PRESENT other authoritative materials and "law" to that so-called jury, and ensure they have them in hard copy with them, along with their record of "admittance," for reference during "deliberation?"

Do you think that you will be "allowed" to present (not ARGUE, not re-present) your self and your cause in direct light of such findings, evidence, information, etc.?

What happens in a darkened room infested by scavenging ****-roaches when "direct light" illuminates it?

And, how will you ultimately be pre-vent-ed enjoyment of your guarantee of "a trial by an impartial jury?"

Perhaps by brown-shirted force of arms?

"JURY TRIAL"

BAR attorney/"judge"-in-conflict of interest/collusion...........................Jury/"DEFENDANT"



Second, you need a court.

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards. This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, thus, must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit documents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

How, precisely, does a bucket shop pettifogging private for-profit monopoly trade guild bastard Esquire attorneys' BAR "association" casino/brothel, commercially trafficking, in rem, in the flesh, blood, and bone of sentient men, women, and children, in which the majority parties at interest are pandering wagerers, as well as barratry/champerty-practicing fraternal private for-profit monopoly trade-guild BAR brethren Esquires, employed and paid by the plaintiff, (and/or STATE--always a party at interest nonetheless), and backed by heavily armed under-educated drones of large forces of corporate municipal mercenary troops, substantially, and lawfully constitute "court?"

Do you think you will be "allowed" "the Assistance of Counsel for...defence;" or "required/advised/urged/coerced" etc., to be "re-pre-sent-ed" by a common denominator fraternal member of the BAR, or, if declining the "offer," "required" to "re-present" your self AS a "pro se" "litigant?"

Do you think you will be "allowed" to directly PRESENT your SELF and the TOTALITY of your cause in "a trial BY an IMPARTIAL jury?"

And if not why not?

And if not, precisely how, ultimately, will you be denied the enjoyment of rights, and, how will the BAR usurp the bonds of the "Supreme Law of the LAND?

The judicial Power shall extend to

all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,

the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

to Controversies between two or more States;

between a State and Citizens of another State;

between Citizens of different States;

between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,

and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


(The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.)

Where, precisely, is it written in "...this Constitution for the United States of America," that

"The judicial Power shall extend to"

"The trial of all Crimes?"

What body stands well above "The judicial Power of the United States?"

And, is this only in part, or is this as a whole in and of itself: IMPARTIAL?"

How, precisely, is it construed, presumed, or assumed, ENFORCED, etc., that Esquire BAR ASSOCIATION(S) constitute "The judicial Power of the United States?"

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Is Washington, District of Columbia, a lawfully admitted state of the "more perfect Union" of the lawfully admitted states of the union of the several states of America?

If so, precisely, how so?

If not, how, and why could it not be presumed a "foreign State" to those of the lawfully admitted states of the union of states of America?

United

States

OF

America.



District

OF

Columbia?



Interesting aside:

We've allowed the government to bring us into federal jurisdiction instead of under Article III State Jurisdiction.

In most cases the alleged crime is committed outside federal jurisdiction, because it's committed or omitted within the boundaries of State jurisdiction, and on the basis of Article III, the trial is to be in State court.

“Under [our] system of dual sovereignty, we have consistently held that state courts have inherent authority, and are thus presumptively competent, to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States,”

Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990).

Indeed, that state courts could enforce federal law is presumed by Article III of the Constitution, which leaves to Congress the decision whether to create lower federal courts at all.

Nevada v. Hicks 533 U.S. 353 (2001).

One Supreme Court decision, Nevada v. Hicks 533 U.S. 353 (2001) citing another, Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U. S. 455, 458 (1990)