Free Republic

Re: "B- on the formatting. You could have spent a little more time cleaning it up for us."

You are correct and very generous with your "B-." I deserve no more than a "F." Sorry, I will mind my [" . . ."] and [' . . . '] better.

I prefer to call the terrorists "Mohamedans" or Mohamadans" or "Mohametans" for two reasons.

1st, Muhammadans wrote The Hadiths into the Islamist's belief system hundreds of years after Muhammad's death. An act that glorifies Muhammad, not God.

The second reason is that Islamists who think of themselves as Muslims don’t like it.*

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Muslim

* “ [...] Many English-language writers used to call Muslims "Mohamedans" or "Mohametans", meaning "followers of Mohammed", but this terminology is considered incorrect and insulting, because Muslims think it implies that they worship the prophet Muhammad, contrary to the fundamental principles of Islam itself. [...]”

Looking for the correct word?
Try "Muhammedans or Muhammadens."

Where is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran?"

The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu instructed his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

Because we must know the enemy before we can win our war with Islam, we must know the facts, lies and the truths in all related matters. In the Near East, each protagonist, antagonist, and warring faction, both passive and active, considers no city more politically strategic than Jerusalem. Christians, Jews and Muslims, each claim a religious obligation to find a just solution to the problem of who will govern Jerusalem. Christians, Jews and Muslims each claim their Holy Books as the source and reason for their claims.

So in May 2001 in the Tzavta Club in Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims held a debate in an attempt to clarify who should be responsible for Jerusalem's affairs. The debate was resolved after Moshe Feiglin asked Feisal Husseini the question [paraphrased] ". . . where [is] Jerusalem . . . mentioned in the Koran?"

A short history of the event follows:

“Shortly before the death [in May 2001] of Feisal Husseini, who was appointed by Arafat to be responsible for Jerusalem affairs, Husseini and Jewish Leadership founder Moshe Feiglin held a debate in the Tzavta Club in Jerusalem. The debate was held under the auspices of a left-wing organization, and was attended by foreign reporters. The moderator attempted to have Feiglin and Husseini shake hands, but Feiglin refused, saying that he does not shake hands with people who wish to destroy him. "This of course lost Feiglin some points amidst the mostly left-wing crowd," reports Segal.

“When Feiglin's turn to speak came, he pulled out a Koran and asked Husseini, "Is this your holy book?" When Husseini said yes, Feiglin pulled out a Tanach (Bible) and said, "And you agree that this is my holy book, correct?" After that point was agreed as well, Feiglin said, "In my holy book, Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times by name, and additional hundreds in other references," and he gave several examples from various verses. After this point was also agreed upon, Feiglin said, "Now you show me one place where Jerusalem is mentioned in your holy book!" Husseini almost "swallowed his tongue," Segal reports, and after a few uncomfortable seconds of silence, a loud wave of applause swept the room.

"Although it was clear that the debate had ended," Segal concluded his story, "the moderator asked another question or two in order to soften the impression, but it was clear the Moshe had won with a total knock-out. A few days later, Husseini set off for the Persian Gulf, where he died of a heart attack."

http://www.netanyahu.org/jerinkor.html

"No man shall profit from his crime." This idea is “a rule of the Common Law.” "No man shall profit from his crime" is a construct of the federal common law and committed to every definition of Law and is embedded in our National and State Constitutions and all subsequent Statutes.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution is also the law of the Land only to the end that I may govern my life without the unlawful intrusion of Government, any group or individual.

The National Government has chosen to disavow the Laws they promise to enforce. The National Government has created and perpetuates a set of unlawful conditions that put my life, my family’s welfare and my Constitution in jeopardy. Not only do the Government, the illegal migrants, and all those that support them, routinely defy and ridicule my Constitution, our Borders and Sovereignty, but they want me to like it. I refuse.

These scofflaws and criminals do not only want American jobs, they also want all the rights of American Citizens with the intent to inflict us with the failed customs, politics, and ignorance that frame the foundation of Mexico’s class-conscious tyranny, universal lawlessness and eternal poverty.

Profiling is a practice discouraged for mainstream Americans, yet it is the latino's profiling of themselves that they rally for their May 1 “Boycott.” Therefore, in deference for their profile and description, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, Our Borders and our Sovereignty, I will honor and extend their Boycott and deny myself every manner of commerce to all “brown skinned” spanish-speaking Mexicans, both here and abroad, 365 days a year. Any company, organization or politician the supports and reward's Law Breakers will be the target of my self governing Boycott.”

I would gladly participate in a "Rolling Boycott." Target a boycott on each of the four meatpackers every weekend in every month. Seaboard, the 1st weekend, Cargill, the 2d, Hormel the 3d and Tyson the 4th. Then repeat the process until they obey the law and our Executive Quislings enforce the law and protect our borders.

It is amazing that after 215 years of American jurisprudence such noteworthy and esteemed scholars as Messrs. Tribe, Larue, Nowak, Rotunda, and Young are still trying to figure out the 2d Amendment.

Today, our esteemed Constitutional Scholars find themselves arguing and interpreting the 2d Amendment in terms of "modalities," legal grammar," and "rhetorical structures." They identify such "law talk" as textual argument, historical argument, structural argument, doctrinal argument, prudential argument and ethical argument.

I am sure they use these "scholarly" inventions in arguing cases before the SCOTUS. Nonetheless, without “Rhetorical Structures” the Founding Generation, gave us, in scintillating clarity, their reasons for the 2d Amendment. Given so startling a difference in presentation, intent and content, I can only assume our esteemed "scholars" need such inventions so they may obscure what the Founders plainly told us.*

Between 1776 and 1791 the States and the People gave us thirteen State Constitutions, The Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution. Comparisons of their like clauses, said in different ways, provide a clear view into the Early American's Constitutional Intent.

I suggest Messrs. Tribe, Nowak, Rotunda, Larue and Young read those Constitutions and take U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment seriously.

---

*The following Quotations and Excerpts are from "The True Intent of the First American Constitutions of 1776-1791".

Amendment II “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…”.

---

Related Clauses from the State Constitutions of 1776–1791.
The Declaration of Rights of the State of Delaware.
“4. That the people of this state have the sole, exclusive, and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.”
“10. That every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service when necessary, or an equivalent thereto; … Nor can any man that is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms in any case, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent.”
“18. That a well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free government.
“19. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.”

---

The Declaration of Rights of the State of Maryland.
“2. That the people of this state ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.”
“4. That all persons invested with the legislative or executive powers of government are the trustees of the public, and as such accountable for their conduct; wherefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old or establish a new government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
“25. That a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.”
“27. That in all cases and at all times the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and controul of the civil power.”

---

Part I, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Massachusetts.
“Art. I. ALL men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”
“XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”

---

The Constitution of the State of New-York.
“40. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every state, that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man, who enjoys the protection of society, to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine and declare, that the militia of this state, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service. That all such of the inhabitants of this state, being of the people called Quakers, from scruples of conscience, may be adverse to the bearing of arms, be therefrom excused by the legislature; and do pay to the state, such sums of money in lieu of their personal service, as the same may, in the judgment of the legislature, be worth: And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expence of the state, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this state.”

---

The Declaration of Rights, Constitution of North-Carolina.
“17. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the state; and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.”

---

Chapter I, The Declaration of Rights of the State of Pennsylvania.
“III. THAT the people of this State have the sole exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.”
“V. THAT government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; … “
“VIII. THAT every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and therefore is bound to contribute his proportion towards the expence of that protection, and yield his personal service, when necessary, or an equivalent thereto: …”
“XIII. THAT the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

---

Chapter I, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the State of Vermont.
“V. That the people of this State, by their legal representatives, have the sole, exclusive and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal police of the same.”
“XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.”

---

Chapter II, Frame of Government of the State of Vermont.
“XIX. The inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be trained and armed for its defence, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as the General Assembly shall by law direct….”

Prince Harry's swastika-wearing. now makes sense.

The Grand Jury, in Defence of Men’s Lives, Liberties and Properties.

In our system of Self-Governance, the People have no greater responsibility than to do what the People have constitutionally made obligatory. We are that "Branch of Government" that those who plot to separate the People from their constitutional powers, fear the most. Their objective is to unbalance and absorb the separate power structures woven in the Constitution. Their plan is to dominate and control the People by redefining and restructuring the Constitution. The Corruptors also realize that if they are to succeed they must minimize the powers of the Grand Jury. They know of its dangers once the People understand and restore the Grand Jury to its Common Law design. *

*(ie. Designed according to the Common Laws of England in 1776)

While “The Corruptors” know of the Jury’s powers, it is also true that the People are ignorant of them. If you are looking for reasons why the Constitution is losing its effectiveness, reacquaint yourself with the Constitution's two Jury system. It is for our ignorance that the three branches of National Government have separated the People from the Constitution's purpose. We clearly state the ultimate purpose in the Constitution's Preamble.*

* “Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Without the Common Law Grand Jury of 1776, we have denied the certainty of "Justice" and the Corruptors are free to commit whatever felony, misfeasance, malfeasance, or misdemeanor that proliferates their authority and lessens the likelihood of discovery and punishment.

To remedy their contempt for the Constitution, the People, and the States, we must restore the powers of Common Law Grand Jury. To that end, a re-acquaintance with the Grand Jury of 1776 is a necessity. Education is the way to that restoration. For these reasons I post this rather lengthy excerpt from “THE SECURITY OF ENGLISHMEN’S LIVES, OR THE TRUST POWER AND DUTY OF THE GRAND JURIES OF ENGLAND.”

Please read it, you will not regret investing your time.

Edward A. Kole

---

"THE SECURITY OF ENGLISHMEN’S LIVES, OR THE TRUST POWER AND DUTY OF THE GRAND JURIES OF ENGLAND Fourth Edition [ Somers, John ], baron, 1651-1716. - 1773. 101, pp.

"Explained according to the fundamentals of the ENGLISH Government, and the Declarations of the same, made in Parliament by many Statutes.

"THE FOURTH EDITION.

"Published for the Prevention of Popish Designs against the Lives of many Protestant Lords and Commoners, who stand firm to the religion and ancient Government of ENGLAND.

"The principle ends of all civil government and human society were the security of men’s lives, liberties and properties, mutual assistance and help unto one another for their benefit and advantage. Where the constitution and laws serve those ends the people develop increased virtues, prowess, wealth and happiness. Those societies that are in want of such constitutions or those that neglect their fine laws and constitutions have been the prey of the pride, lust and cruelty of their most potent and have had to endure lives without liberty and freedom.

"They have been forced to welter in each others blood because of their masters quest for dominion and in the best of circumstances served as his beasts of burden. By continual subserviency they lose all sense of religion, virtue and independence.

"The Kings of England were ordained for the good government of the kingdom, in the execution of the laws and the Kings cannot lawfully seek any other benefit in judicial proceedings, and that the common right and justice be done to the people, according to their laws and customs. Their safety and prosperity are to be the objects of his continual care with that being of the highest concern. The greatness and honor of the Prince consists of virtue, multitude, wealth and prowess of his people; and the greatest glory is by the excellence of his government so to encourage virtue, piety, that few or no criminals are to be found in his dominions.

"For hundreds of generations our English ancestors, in their wisdom, piety and courage in guarding, defending and preserving a body of laws for themselves and their posterity by force of arms if necessary. They also provided the means of correcting and punishing their Ministers and Counsellors if they transgressed the laws, or who dare to oppress the people or design against the their freedom or welfare.

"The Constitution is the finest inheritance they can leave their posterity. The people must therefore guard against those who would by fraud, sham, deceit, false accusation and perjury deprive all of us of our birthrights by reinterpreting the laws to use them as engines of oppression.

"By design, these usurpers have caused freemen to languish in prisons by forcing others to swear falsely against them lessening their confidence in the Constitution, laws, religion and government.

"Our founding fathers foresaw the dangers that they might suffer from greed, malice and passions of others, that they might accused falsely in the Courts of Justice or suffer the corruptions of our representatives and judges and the briberies of those with depraved principles.

"Therefore, that all men shall live in safety justice must be equally and impartially administered and that the all the people must live in obedience to their laws.

"For this purpose it was made fundamental the no man’s life shall be touched for any crime whatsoever, save by the judgment of at least twenty-four men, twelve or more to find for a bill of indictment, if not twelve or more the judgment of not guilty be joined. Of these twenty-four the first twelve are called the Grand Inquest or the Grand Jury for the extent of their term. Their numbers must be more than twelve up to twenty-five never less than thirteen twelve of which must agree on an indictment.

"The office and power of Petit Juries is JUDICIAL, only they are the judges. Their number shall always be twelve of his peers and it is their decision that would determine the life or death of the indicted. It is upon their findings of civil as well as criminal cases that both law and fact are judged. Unless the jury willfully, without compulsion, fear or menace asks the Court to decide for them it is uniquely the purview of the Juries that determine and judge the person and the law.

"Our forefathers saw to it that all men be of the same condition as the indicted as they may be sensible of each others circumstances. As every man on the jury is equally likely to be accused or indicted of the same criminal act. The law intends that a man be judged by his equals, possibly companions, personally known to him and him to them in the neighborhood where the alleged crime occurred. Our English ancestors were careful that all men of like condition and quality should be judges of each other, as each of us are equally liable to be suddenly accused and judged by the same party that he is at present to judge. Juries should be his neighbor, companion and be personally knowledgeable and sensible to the other’s infirmities and know of his condition and subjection.

"Grand Juries are to examine with the utmost diligence the evidence against their peers.

"Until the Councils of the King come to the Grand Jury he can bring no such criminals to judgment, or to answer to the accusations and suggestions against them.

"For the support of Government and the safety of all men’s lives and property that some should be entrusted to inquire after all suspicions that may subvert the government, endanger or hurt the King or destroy the lives or estates of the innocent people, suspicions of treasons, murders, conspiracies, felonies or lesser crimes and disturbances of the common peace that they might be prosecuted and brought to their deserved (condign) punishment. Our laws intend the Councils of the King to be continually upon the protection and security of the People and the prevention of all their mischiefs and dangers by wicked, lawless and injurious men.

"And in order thereunto, to be advising how to right his wronged subjects in general, if the public safety be hazarded or beset by treasons of any kind, or their relations snatched from them by murderers, or in any way destroyed by malicious conspirators in form of law, or their estates taken away by robbery and thieves or the peace broken. And for these ends to bring exemplary justice all offenders and to deter others from the like wickedness.

"It is no less needed for everyman’s quiet and safety that the trust of such inquisitions shall be in the hands of persons of understanding and integrity and indifferent and impartial that no man shall be falsely accused or defamed or their lives be put in jeopardy by malicious conspiracies or the perjuries of of any profligate wretches. For the necessity of honest ends was the institution of Grand Juries created. They thought it not in their best interests to trust their well being in the hands of any officer of the King, or in any Judge named by him nor in any given number of men lest the be influenced or awed by men of great persuasion, corrupted by bribes, flatteries, love of power, or the become negligent or partial to friends and relatives, pursue their own quarrels or private revenges, connive within the conspiracies of others and indict thereupon.

"The people must never allow their legal power and jurisdiction in the Grand and Petit Juries be decayed and taken out of their hands, for there will be no peaceful means to preserve their lives and interests. No agency of government should be allowed to exert dictatorian power over the Grand Jury or commanded to find a verdict to the liking of the usurper. Nor should they be coerced or threatened with arbitrary taxes. If this should occur the Juries will be vassals sworn to abide by the directions of the Judges.

"Next to the power of the Legislature the grand Jury is and aught to be considered as the greatest concern of the People.

"Grand Juries are the principle means of preserving the internal peace of the nation as offenders will be punished with the wisdom, diligence and faithfulness in making due inquires after all breaches of the peace, and bringing everyone to answer for his crime at the peril of his life, limb and estate, that every man who lives within the law may sleep securely in his own house.

"That the courts, or judges, or commissioners of the Oyer and Terminer, and of Goal-Delivery, are to receive from the Grand Inquest all capital matter whatsoever, to be put in issue, tried and judged before them by Petit Juries. That capital offenders to pay with their lives to the cause of justice and criminals of lesser crimes other punishments according to their demerits.

"As it is one part of their duty to indict offenders so another part is to protect the innocent, in their reputations, lives and interests from false accusations and malicious conspirators. That in their search for the truth they find a reasonable suspicion of malice or wicked designs against any man’s life or estate the laws of the kingdom and God bind them to discover the villainy is a conspiracy against the accused they are bound not only to reject the bill of indictment, but to forthwith indict the all the conspirators, abettors and associates.

"All our lives are entrusted to the care of our Grand Inquests and none may be put to answer for their lives unless by their indictment. If a careless indictment cause the suffering of an innocent and guiltless man their fault cannot be executed by any accuser. To oblige juries to exercise more conscientious care an oath was devised and imposed upon them in the words following, viz.

"“You shall diligently enquire, and true presentment make of all such articles, matters and things as shall be given you in charge: And of all other matters and things as shall come to your own knowledge, touching this present service. The King’s Council, your fellows, and your own, you shall keep secret: You shall present no person for hatred or malice; neither shall you leave any one unpresented for favour, or affection, for love, or gain, or any hopes thereof: but, in all things you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of your knowledge; so help you God.”

"The King’s only interest in the evidence given against the party accused, and the manner taking it, is to have the truth and justice of the case manifest. And if the accusations may be first examined in secret more strictly and exactly, to prevent fraud and perjury than is possible to be done in open court, (as hath before appeared) then ‘tis for the King’s benefit to have it so.

"If the King’s witnesses sincerely deliver the truth and the whole truth impartially in the matters of question they are therein the King’s witnesses though the accused be acquitted by reason of their testimony. If such testimony is other than the truth or swear falsely, maliciously, or for reward or promise though they depose positively facts of treason against the accused yet they are truly and properly witnesses against the King, by endeavoring to prevent justice, and destroy his subjects. By endeavouring to prevent justice and destroy the King’s subjects the King’s Attorney ought to prosecute them in the King’s name, and at his suit, for their odious offences against him in such depositions pretended to have been for him: If the Kings prosecutor’s or the Attorney-General prosecution shall be proved knowingly malicious or by conspiracy against the life or fortune of the accused, they are to be of corrupt minds therein are against the King, and ought to be indicted at the King’s suit. Whoever is trusted to prosecute for the King dishonors his master and office or if such acts gives occasion for his subjects to believe that his master seeks other profits or advantages by the accusations than the common peace and welfare.

"The reason for the Grand Jury keeping accusations, evidence and testimony secret is most manifest when considering how useful and necessary it is for the discovery of the truth in the examination of witnesses that they not know who has been examined before him, nor what questions had been asked nor the answers given, or that the witness had been biassed in his testimony by malice or revenge, or love or hopes of lucre and gain in the present or the future or promise of impunity for some enormous crime.

"Grand Jury’s by virtue of their constant and uninterrupted usage for so many ages hath obtained the force of law. The trust of the Grand Jury’s was thought so sacred in those ages, and their secrecy of so great a concern to the kingdom, what whosoever should break their oath therein, was by all thought worthy to die; only some would have had them suffer as traitors, others as felons. And, at this day, it is to be held a high misprision, punishable by fine and impoverishment. The law then having appointed the evidence to be given to the Grand Juries in secret, the King cannot desire to have it made public. He cannot change the legal method or manner of enquiring by Juries, nor vary in any particular case from the customary and general forms of judicial proceedings: he can neither abridge nor enlarge the power of Juries, no more than he can lessen the legal power of Sheriffs or Judges, or by special direction, order one how they shall execute writs, and the other how they shall give judgments.

"It is criminal that the King desires a Court of Justice, or a Jury, to vary from the direction of the law, and they ought not to be believed therein: If letters, writs or other commands should come to the Judges for that purpose, they are bound by their oaths not to regard them, but to hold them for null; the statutes express that if any writs or commandments come to the Justices in disturbance of the law, or the execution of the same, or of right to the parties, they shall proceed as if no such letters, writs or commands were to come to them: And the substance of these and other statutes is inserted into the oath taken by every Judge; and if they be under the most solemn and sacred tye (knot or bond) in the execution of justice, to hold for noting or none of the commands of the King under the Great Seal; surely, the word or desire of an Attorney-General in the like case, ought to be less than nothing.

"As all capital offences are always the principle matters given to the Charge of the Grand Jury it also appears that the Grand Jury must inquire into the truth of everything for which they shall indict or present any man: That they must be diligent in their inquires and to receive no suggestion of any crime for truth without examining all the circumstances around it both before and after the fact. They ought to consider the informers and to determine their aims and pretences of their accusations, if revenge or gain should appear to be their ends there should be a greater degree of suspicion of the truth of their accusations. Next the jury is to inquire into the matters themselves, whereof any man is accused as to the time, place and all circumstances if the alleged fact.

"The simplicity of establishing the truth often depends on the natural manner and demeanor the witness answers the questions propounded. The equality of his temper, suitableness of his answers and the consistency of his uprightness, directness and evasions to simple questions, the pretenses of doubtfulness and the want of memory of things of such short date, or the credibleness of his ignorance or forgetfulness. By the demeanor the witness in their private investigations and their minute observations of the witness they will determine the character of his testimony. This is one of the many reasons Juries are made the absolute Judges of their evidence.

"It is unavoidably necessary to reveal to the Grand Jury’s all that the King’s Council whose principle care entrusted to him is the execution of justice, or any of his Ministers, Judges or Justices concerning any treasons or other offences whereof any man is accused. And where suspicion has caused one to be imprisoned all the grounds of their suspicion ought to be opened concerning the principles and accessories, before as after the fact, all the circumstances and presumptions that may induce a belief of their guilt, and all notices whatsoever, which may enable the Jury to make a more exact and effectual inquiry and present the whole truth. They themselves will not only be offenders against God by reason of their oath, but subjects to legal punishments, if the knowingly conceal any criminals, and leave them unpresented; and none can be innocent, who shall conceal from them anything that may help and assist them in their duty. Should the evidence against the accused be not manifest and full it may be kept without prejudice under secrecy until further inquiry.

"The Jury ought to inquire into the witness’ condition and quality, fame and reputation, means of subsistence,usual residence, estates and manner of living, sort of men they are, their companions and friends with whom they are accustomed to converse and whereof they came by the knowledge they are testifying about. Such knowledge being necessary to make a good judgment upon most accusations. The sole purpose of which is to find out the truth.

"Sometimes a witness’ of debauched lives and low condition, have deposed discourses and treasonable councils against persons of honor and virtue that the pretence of being privy to them, was a strong evidence that the whole story was false and feigned.

"Sometimes there be enough witnesses who prove the bill, yet the Grand Jury is not bound to find it, if they see cause for the contrary.

"Neither may the Jury lawfully omit to enquire concerning the parties accused, or their quality, reputation and the manner of their convention, with many other circumstances from whence they may be helped, to make right inferences of the falsehood, or truth of the crimes, whereof any man shall be accused. The Jury ought to be ignorant of anything whereof they may inquire, or be informed, that may in their understandings enable them to make a true presentment or indictment before them.

"When a Grand Jury is sworn to inquire diligently of every man and all men that can inform them after all treasons in the object of seeking the truth. They ought to first enquire of one another of all matter of questions laid before them as Juries are to be of the neighborhood to the place where crimes are committed. Next they ought to enquire of such witnesses as the prosecutors will produce against the accused. Next they are to receive all such testimony as shall be offered them and to send for such as any of them think able to give testimony in the case pending.

"If it be asked how or in what manner the Juries shall inquire the answer being “according to their best understanding” for it is they not the Judges who are sworn to search diligently to find all the treasons within their charge. The must uses their own discretion in the way and manner of their inquiry. No directions can legally be imposed upon them by any Court or Judge.

"An honest jury will thankfully accept good advice from the Judges, as they are assistants; but the Jury is bound by their oaths to present the truth not the Judges. It is then incumbent on the Juries to receive or reject such advises as they judge them good or bad.

"If the jury suspects a combination of witnesses are against the accused it would be needful for the jury to examine them privately and separately at the discretion of the juries for the sayings of one should provoke or instruct others to say their like. Jurists may ask questions for their own satisfaction about matters of personal and particular knowledge. Under private examination Grand Jury’s may discover the truth of some disagreements of the witnesses.

"The Jurors need not search the law books, nor tumble over heaps of old records for an explanation of them. The language of the oath is known and understood by every man and the Judges cannot assume a legislative capacity and put a new sense upon them other than their genuine and common meaning. Judges cannot impose their opinions on the Jury that they will pursue his comments and not the intent of their oath.

"Juries cannot be restrained from asking any manner of question. Nor are they tied to what charges the Judges think fit. Their inquiry shall extend to “All other matters and things which shall come to their knowledge, touching the present service.” If they have ground to suspect that any accusation before them proceeds from a conspiracy, they are obliged by their oaths to turn the inquiry that way, and if they find cause, not only to reject the bills offered upon such testimonies, but to indict such witnesses, and all abettors of their villainy. Conspiracies against the lives of innocents have frequently been detected under secret, separate and private examinations. Such investigations protect the innocent from malicious combinations of witnesses and their planned perjuries.

"Now to make their inquiry more instrumental and advantageous to the execution of justice they are enjoined on oath to keep secret the King’s Counsel, their fellows and their own, all persons offered to them to be indicted, all the matters brought in evidence before them, all circumstances whatsoever whereof they are informed, which may any way conduce to the discovery of offences, all intimations given them of abettors and encouragers of treasons, felonies or perjuries and conspiracies or of receivers, harborers, nourishers and concealers of such criminals.

"The secrecy imposed upon the Grand Inquest was for the public good. It was intended that they should have all the advantages which the several cases will afford to make effectual inquires after criminals to offer them to justice. If packs of thieves, murderers, traitors, conspirators and suborners can get intelligence of all that is known of their villanies, all the parties concerned may consult together, how to hide their crimes and prevent such inquires as can be made after them: They may form sham stories by agreement that may have the appearance of truth to mislead and delude the Jury in their investigation, and avoid contradicting each other, they may remove or conceal all such things as might occasion a fuller discovery of the crimes, or become circumstantial evidences against any of their associates if one or more is to be indicted, or to prevent the flight of criminals if the evidence against one that is accused should be publicly known, whether it would be sufficient to indict him and how far it extends to others who might easily take note of their danger and take the opportunity to escape from justice.

"The kings interest and honor is more concerned in the protection of the innocent, than in the punishment of the guilty.

"Occasionally it has been looked upon as a mark of great wisdom and virtue to destroy all evidences against delinquents and nothing is more usual than to compose the most dangerous distempers of men and nations by acts of general amnesty, which were utterly unjust, if it were as great a crime to suffer the guilty to escape, as to destroy the innocent.

"All human laws were ordained for the preservation of the innocent, and for their sake are punishments inflicted

"Justice may be dispensed impartially.

"To preserve unto the Jury all reasonable helps

"It is necessary that they should apprehend that what is entrusted to them are things of the greatest consequence.”

END of "THE SECURITY OF ENGLISHMEN’S LIVES, OR THE TRUST POWER AND DUTY OF THE GRAND JURIES OF ENGLAND”

"...What this idiot fails to consider is you have to start SOME where. ..."

OK, you say "... you have to start SOME where. ..." Where did they start from ... ? They have for their Constitution's foundation the Koran, Sunnah, and Sharia. Does that suggest a "Federal Democratic Iraq" or a Centalized Theocratic Iraqi dictatorship?

The United States started from the Magna Carta and the English Common Law. Does that suggest a centralized theocratic dictatorship or a Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic?

I wonder what Eleanore Roosevelt said to channeling Hillary Clinton about the channeling Cindy Sheehan ... and "vice" versa.

"The Iranian situation is now coming into focus as the free world's real dilemma!"

So long as no action is taken by either Iran, Israel or the United States the "dilemma" will persist. The Iranian government was sanctioned by the Iranian people so their commitment to produce nuclear bombs is the will of an islamofacist people. It's time to put the "dilemma" to rest.

"Like Ann Coulter wrote, it would have been better to have a candidate with proven conservative bonafides."

I cannot help but feel that something is phony about a "politician" that has no enemies and is everybody's friend. Judge Roberts, like John Kerry, planned their ascent to power. Their strategy was different. Judge Roberts intentionally avoided controversial issues, and Kerry intentionally wrapped himself in controversy. This difference does not mean they are cut differently. On the contrary, Robert's withhold is just as deceptive as Kerry's lie.

Ambrose Bierce wrote about such a man as Judge Roberts.

---

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/fanfb10.txt

The Man with No Enemies

AN Inoffensive Person walking in a public place was assaulted by a Stranger with a Club, and severely beaten.

When the Stranger with a Club was brought to trial, the complainant said to the Judge:

"I do not know why I was assaulted; I have not an enemy in the world."

"That," said the defendant, "is why I struck him."

"Let the prisoner be discharged," said the Judge; "a man who has no enemies has no friends. The courts are not for such."

Project Gutenberg's Etext of Fantastic Fables, by Ambrose Bierce

"We don't need to deport the illegals, they will leave if we make their lives miserable. Go after employers, stop tuition breaks, no dirvers license, bank accounts, etc etc. Give them no reason to be here. Then they will leave!"


Thanks BreauxBridge, you got that RIGHT!!!!

"We believe that the Mexican government has that capability."

True, but corruption runs so deep -- and because the mordida is so firmly entrenched and is an integral part of the Mexican culture -- and because payoffs are the "politicos" chief source of income and wealth, that the Mexican government does not have the "will." They never had the will -- and never will.