Did you have a Jury of your Peers?

[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.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Rottweiler:

May I ask, how is the music and the lyrics relevant to the subject of this thread? Or is there any relevance?

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

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.

[moishanb]

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.

Being sovereign is so foreign a concept in today's society, I believe you would be labeled a 'wacko'. Welcome to the world of 'wacko's, of which, I am one.

Ironically, this site is called Sui Juris, and the definition from our adversaries recognizes us, as having capacity to manage our own affairs; not under legal disability(represent) to act for our selves.

I wonder how many 'members' on this forum actually know and believe this?

[weishaupt1776]

can't find 12 Florida Nationals who have proper status correction documentation sent to the right agencies

only 4 of us in FLorida so far

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by moishanb

Being sovereign is so foreign a concept in today's society, I believe you would be labeled a 'wacko'. Welcome to the world of 'wacko's, of which, I am one.

Ironically, this site is called Sui Juris, and the definition from our adversaries recognizes us, as having capacity to manage our own affairs; not under legal disability(represent) to act for our selves.

I wonder how many 'members' on this forum actually know and believe this?

Labeling, Noticing, Declaring or otherwise making known to the population that your 'belief' is that you are a 'sovereign' is where most of the problems lay.

We live in a secular world with secular laws, and the vast majority of the population 'believe' in the force of 'law', as implemented by the secular authorities, to wit: the secular authorities have 'force of arms' to enforce the declarations of the 'secular law'. While those of us that would declare our 'individual' 'sovereignty' have, in comparison, no enforcement capability of our declarations.

That is the really sad part about the use of the term 'belief'. There may be the strongest emotional, spiritual or even intellectual backing of what we 'believe', but all of those categories are 'incorporeal', have no substance (as seen in the physical world), and subsequently have no physical effect on the manner in which the secular world conducts its' affairs, excepting a rare situation wherein one of those secular authorities are likewise moved within their/his/her own spiritual, intellectual, or emotional beings, to act in a manner that would be conducive to your present condition of forced and consequential subjection to the whims of those secular authorities.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

Court is not factual, it is a concept, but if I am going to be attacked by a court I could suffer real damage. IMHO it would be in my best interest to meet the attack on my terms.

In my country the people are the peerage, or as David Merrill put it so aptly, the heirs apparent. They are sovereigns without subjects, with none to govern but themselves.

The people have their court, that is the court of record and it proceeds according to the common law. Court is the person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

Obviously calling yourself king or sovereign is not a good idea but who will argue with you if you call yourself one of the people of Florida? It means the same thing.

Hence King Crimson and the Court of the Crimson King. The band is king of their show, that is their court.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

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.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Court is not factual, it is a concept, but if I am going to be attacked by a court I could suffer real damage. IMHO it would be in my best interest to meet the attack on my terms.

In the highlighted text above, you contend that the "court" is something which can be construed as 'incorporeal' in stating that it "is not factual". If it is not factual, then why bother with acknowledging its intrusion into your affairs by adhering to its' dictates when it tells you to appear at such and such place at such and such time on such and such date? In the next statement, you mention meeting the 'attack' of the non-factual 'court' (the incorporeal being) on your terms. If this meeting that is going to take place between you and this incorporeal being IS going to take place, and upon your terms, then what system of law are you going to use when attempting to ward off this incorporeal being that is attacking you and making demands of you?

Originally Posted by rottweiler

In my country the people are the peerage, or as David Merrill put it so aptly, the heirs apparent. They are sovereigns without subjects, with none to govern but themselves.

If you are referencing the above statement as meaning that the 'non-government' men and women are the sovereignty of this Nation, then I would have to ask; why do you say you are "without subjects"? The government employees are the 'public servants' and as such, they are subjects of the 'sovereign'. So, apparently, this incorporeal being mentioned in the first paragraph, does in FACT have subjects to carry out its' orders, but you claim to be a sovereign with no-one to carry out your demands. Hmmmmmm.?????

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The people have their court, that is the court of record and it proceeds according to the common law. [b]Court is the person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

What is going on here? In the first paragraph, you contend that the court is "not factual", now you contend that the court is the "court of record". A record is a physical, FACTUAL thing. Ahhh! I get it; this incorporeal being is keeping a physical record of what happens in and under its' direction. So IT tells you to show up; you do. UH OH. what just happened?

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Obviously calling yourself king or sovereign is not a good idea but who will argue with you if you call yourself one of the people of Florida? It means the same thing.

I can deal with the concept that the "sovereignty" devolves on to the "PEOPLE" or "People" or "people" or "men and women" as a 'body politic', but once this 'body politic' has formed and acquiesced to conditions agreed upon by the union, immediately places restrictions on them, then the concept of 'individual sovereignty' goes right out the window. Likewise, those that have voluntarily placed themselves in the position of 'public servants' also have made themselves subject to the authority of the superior 'body politic'.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

Hence King Crimson and the Court of the Crimson King. The band is king of their show, that is their court.

No doubt, 'the band is king' of THEIR show. Likewise the "People" (as a group) are the kings of this show.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[rottweiler]

The people acting as government officials who are calling people to their court are real and they are going to use failure to object to hurt people. To do nothing is to agree and give them power to rule.

There are different ways to approach the problem and maybe a counterclaim is not for you. Maybe you just want to abate the process.

What do you do if you are damaged? As far as I am concerned, simply pulling me over is damaging and a effective lawsuit should make whomever pulled you over to think twice before they do that again.

The idea is for you to be the sovereign of the court, not waiving your sovereignty by failing to properly object and allowing yourself to be ruled by a pagan god called "judge". The idea is to counter them with your own suit making yourself the tribunal. There must be a injured party for them to have jurisdiction in my court.

These government servants are only servants of the people when they are acting in their official government capacities. The clerk of court doesn't mow my lawn on my command, his duties are limited to the court.

You are missing the point when you say the whole people are sovereign. 100% of the people have to be against me and their must be an injured party. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't injure anyone. People used to agree to duel in the street and the law could do nothing about it as long as it was a fair fight.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

In the highlighted text above, you contend that the "court" is something which can be construed as 'incorporeal' in stating that it "is not factual". If it is not factual, then why bother with acknowledging its intrusion into your affairs by adhering to its' dictates when it tells you to appear at such and such place at such and such time on such and such date? In the next statement, you mention meeting the 'attack' of the non-factual 'court' (the incorporeal being) on your terms. If this meeting that is going to take place between you and this incorporeal being IS going to take place, and upon your terms, then what system of law are you going to use when attempting to ward off this incorporeal being that is attacking you and making demands of you?



If you are referencing the above statement as meaning that the 'non-government' men and women are the sovereignty of this Nation, then I would have to ask; why do you say you are "without subjects"? The government employees are the 'public servants' and as such, they are subjects of the 'sovereign'. So, apparently, this incorporeal being mentioned in the first paragraph, does in FACT have subjects to carry out its' orders, but you claim to be a sovereign with no-one to carry out your demands. Hmmmmmm.?????



What is going on here? In the first paragraph, you contend that the court is "not factual", now you contend that the court is the "court of record". A record is a physical, FACTUAL thing. Ahhh! I get it; this incorporeal being is keeping a physical record of what happens in and under its' direction. So IT tells you to show up; you do. UH OH. what just happened?



I can deal with the concept that the "sovereignty" devolves on to the "PEOPLE" or "People" or "people" or "men and women" as a 'body politic', but once this 'body politic' has formed and acquiesced to conditions agreed upon by the union, immediately places restrictions on them, then the concept of 'individual sovereignty' goes right out the window. Likewise, those that have voluntarily placed themselves in the position of 'public servants' also have made themselves subject to the authority of the superior 'body politic'.


No doubt, 'the band is king' of THEIR show. Likewise the "People" (as a group) are the kings of this show.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[Jerry Pitts]

There is obviously a conflict of perspectives existing between you and me. I concur with you in regard to the principals of sovereignty and the 'court' being our 'court', and the principal that the 'sovereign' has the capacity of making the 'law'.

The perspective difference and one that is not quite understood by me, exists in the fact that you give the appearance of being one that when you enter into a 'court'-room, you are not concerned about the matter because you 'make the law'. My perspective, tells me that if they (the ptb's) desire to lock you in jail, take your property, make you do community service, or whatever, they have the 'force of arms' to accomplish that end. You make it appear that you are immune from the unlawful acts of a corrupt system, just because you say that you make the law. Are you truly suggesting that they cannot lock you up or that they cannot take your property, if they set it in their minds to do so? Sure, I know, they will have to kill you first... heard that too many times.

Sorry Rottweiler. But this is one of those situations, wherein, I would have to demand evidence of the issues in a scenario wherein you were in court and had accomplished what you are saying to be a fact. Evidence as in the 'transcript' of the entire hearing, or the opportunity to sit in the gallery and witness firsthand your acts of sovereignty amid those that scoff even at their own laws. In other words, seeing is believing.

Abatement? I have seen also, evidence of where people have attempted the abatement process and were unsuccessful in those attempts. I have also read some of the 'abatement' documents, and can clearly see, where the documents are (when viewed by secular eyes and judged according to secular laws) are fraudulent at a bare minimum. And when those type documents are submitted to a secular court, the secular court has every right under their secular laws, to laugh them out of the court-room.

You asked what would I do in the event of a tort against me. What is there to do? Go to their secular courts? Pick up a gun and wage physical war against them (in which case I would be taking a switchblade to a gun-fight when considering the massive amounts of armament they have in comparison to the virtual zero armament that I have)? I have no recourse in and under secular law. I count my asset losses and move on. Even when I was nearly killed by a physical attack, I attempted to utilize their secular law system, and I was rebuked by the authorities, as there were no 'witnesses' available that would testify TRUTHFULLY as to what really happened. The witnesses that were there, had a huge financial vested interest in the safety of the perpetrator of the criminal act against my person.

Thus my position, that you can pile paper into the court as high as from here to the moon, or you can get on the soap-box and speak until the sun no longer shines, and if you do not have an enforcer on your side, then you loose. All the judges belong to the House of Peers, and as such they regulate the jury, they regulate what goes on in their court-rooms, and they decide on what the law is, and if there is no appropriate version of a law to meet their needs, then they will make one while sitting at the judiciary bench.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

The people acting as government officials who are calling people to their court are real and they are going to use failure to object to hurt people. To do nothing is to agree and give them power to rule.

There are different ways to approach the problem and maybe a counterclaim is not for you. Maybe you just want to abate the process.

What do you do if you are damaged? As far as I am concerned, simply pulling me over is damaging and a effective lawsuit should make whomever pulled you over to think twice before they do that again.

The idea is for you to be the sovereign of the court, not waiving your sovereignty by failing to properly object and allowing yourself to be ruled by a pagan god called "judge". The idea is to counter them with your own suit making yourself the tribunal. There must be a injured party for them to have jurisdiction in my court.

These government servants are only servants of the people when they are acting in their official government capacities. The clerk of court doesn't mow my lawn on my command, his duties are limited to the court.

You are missing the point when you say the whole people are sovereign. 100% of the people have to be against me and their must be an injured party. I can do whatever I want as long as I don't injure anyone. People used to agree to duel in the street and the law could do nothing about it as long as it was a fair fight.

[Jerry Pitts]

Who are the peers that constitute a 'Jury of your peers'?

Reading the citation from Justice William O. Douglas, in a case involving race, discrimination, bigotry, and the selection of a 'jury commission', he indicated that it is an impossible solution to reach in this society wherein there is abundant evidence of those negative traits mentioned above; and in the presence of these traits, it is not likely that justice can be attained.

"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 "

In the above case, the "peerage" spoken of was to be based upon the 'racial' trait or characteristics of the parties involved in the case.

In a previous thread, a certain member of this forum would not comment on his knowledge of the definition of the word 'race'. "Race" is not limited to the color of skin. Everyone needs to look deeper into the meaning of that word.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.