The concept of voluntary mutual defense is by definition a shared viewpoint concerning attempts to accurately assess real threats to life and all that constitutes the power to live and let live, or to prosper, adapt, reproduce, sustain, improve, survive, and to continue surviving rather than abjectly allowing threats to cause extinction: suddenly or slowly.
In other words, the concept of good government, if it is to be so, requires a willful act in which those concerned assess clear and present dangers, so as to know the probable causes of injuries done to innocent people, by guilty people, in advance, or while the damage is current, or after the fact, in order to defend against it, and better still, in order to prevent it from happening in the first place, or stop it, or prevent reoccurrence.
What if it is you facing the willful decision to end your life for a trumped-up (false) crime such as speaking the truth?
You are targeted, you are executed, and then you are dead.
Example:
"Audio of Haunting Oath Keepers Phone Call With LaVoy Finicum Two Days Before His Death"
https://oathkeepers.org/2016/02/new-audio-files-of-the-last-conversation-had-between-lavoy-finicum-stewart-rhodes-todd-engle-and-jason-van-tatenhove/That is good government. In effect, those who are adept at predicting future crimes based upon past crimes (perpetrated by counterfeit government agents: criminals under the color of law) offer a warning to those who are in the crosshairs.
If it is you and you volunteer to go right ahead and jump head first into the trap, then in a way you get what you pay for in fact, in time, and in place.
The difference between volunteering to be the next victim of criminals counterfeiting government, and someone wandering into an avoidable trap, is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter, which is the goal and the ends to the goal of good government.
Surely the victim in one of the most public assassinations perhaps since Martin Luther King Jr, this fellow named Lavoy, was not intending to be assassinated, to offer his life, and effectively degrade his family members lives, as a Martyr. One step led to another, to yet another, and then suddenly it is a death trap, and you are the one trapped in it.
Does that sound at all familiar?
"The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise."
That is from an Essay on The Trial by Jury.
How about this:
The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
"But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states."
The trap was sprung a long time ago, back in 1787 to be precise, and you have been warned. The warning may not have reached you, and the warning may not have rung true in your mind if you got the message delivered to you in time.
June 6, 1788
George Mason:
"Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?"
Good government can be destroyed by those who choose to do so rapidly, even all at once if the power to do so is in their hands, or very slowly, incrementally, one step at a time, if the power to rapidly destroy it is not yet stolen.
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Place a name, or label, on those who do manage to exemplify good government, doing the necessary work required to publicize, make known, accurate accounts of the facts that matter in any case, the vital work once performed by people labeled as grand jurors, and the fact remains that those individuals do the work with or without the name, with or without the credit they earn, and with or without a counterfeit badge or license to act responsibly when necessary to preserve life and the means to preserve and improve life.
Those caught in the trap believe that the murderers in the case have, in fact, a legitimate license to kill at will.
That is not so much a sad reality, it is a very dangerous precedent to set. What I mean is that it is a very dangerous precedent to set when people simply ignore that danger, to let it lie, to do so without questioning the claim of legitimacy.
Author
Topic: Request from Elias (Read 9574 times)