From: legal_reality
Subj: Zimmerman was never indicted -- just as with O.J. Simpson, and . . . and . . .
Subj: Zimmerman was never indicted -- just as with O.J. Simpson, and . . . and . . .
12 July A.D. 2013
When the O.J. Simpson homicide case first started, this author seemed to be a committee of one, in the nation, raising the roof that O.J. Simpson had not been indicted.
Exactly as is "taught" by "Perry Mason" and such tv "programmes," what CALIFORNIA does, instead of Indictments, on a "When we want to" basis, is file a Felony Complaint.
At the time, this author was still a "constitution-ist," and, frankly, at the leading edge of "constitution-ists" around the nation. At that time, the following language was sacrosanct:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger[.]"
Murder is a capital offense (in the traditional meaning of "capital," a death-penalty offense). He wasn't serving in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, in actual service in time of War of public danger. So, there was no reason, at all, that he not be indicted in order to be "held to answer for" any charge of murder.
It happened that while the O.J. Simpson case was still a hot topic, there was a continuing legal education seminar (there in Houston) on "Media and the Law." One of the closing sessions was a panel discussion. On that panel was a judge who handled high profile cases, a defense lawyer (with high profile clients), and two journalists, one of whom what the CNN anchor on the O.J. Simpson case and the other the anchor on the Susan Smith case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith (killed her own sons, claiming that a black man had kidnapped them) (huge, huge, huge media case, equal to the O.J. Simpson case). Someone really did well to get that panel together.
At the question/answer session at the end of the panel discussion, this author asked his question. He started by suggesting that the panel would agree that "capital" means "death penalty," and that murder was a "capital" offense, and that such cases require Indictments. With that intro, the question was posed as to why the fact that O.J. Simpson had never been indicted never made the news?
The carpet in that meeting room was the long-fiber shag, popular in the 60's and 70's in the "hip" apartments and social clubs, and one could still have heard a stick pin hit that carpet. It was that quiet in that room.
The CNN anchor, who was "the" fellow who anchored "everything" about the Simpson case for CNN, through whom went everything that aired over CNN in that case (and who had at least attended law school), had his jaw dragging the table he was sitting behind. It would have been great to have had a picture of the panel at the immediate moment of posing the question. The room was silent so long that the moderator had to say something, and he said, "Well, looks like you've stumped the panel."
Sometime after that, one of this author's objections was received by another who (still) claims to be a "constitution-ist" and who swung away at this author for this author's not being aware of the Hurtado case. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/110/516/case.html. In the Hurtado case, what we learn is that there is no "federal" requirement that anyone be Indicted in or by any state system. Hurtado was not Indicted. If the Fifth Amendment were "admissible evidence of law" in California, Hurtado would have been popped right out of jail. But, the Supreme Court upheld that no-Indictment-based conviction! In the face of the so-called Fifth Amendment, how can that be? Where the Fifth Amendment is so plain, who in the world would even think of a need to look for something like the Hurtado case? How can this be? The answer is the exact same answer as learned in The Terre Haute Litigation. The "constitution" is just flat out irrelevant. We learn via the 1884 Hurtado case that there really is no Indictment requirement. Thus, the Fifth Amendment isn't really a limit on any STATE. It applies to the "national church," but, despite the fact that the States allegedly created that system, binding themselves to it, by oath (certainly by the judicial officers), it just simply is not Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to STATE processes and procedures.
Now that we understand the basics of the Hurtado case, we come back to the statement "claims to be a 'constitution-ist.'" To "justify" the Hurtado case, i.e., to accept that lesson as true and reliable, is to be a "realist," not a "constitution-ist." So, while that same person still is quite active as a "constitution-ist," there'll be a day when his own "lessons" will ring true in his own mind, and he'll become a full-time "realist;" hence, he'll stop being a "constitution-ist," and he'll stop promoting the "constitution," altogether.
To the point about the "constitution," if the Fifth Amendment language were binding by oath on the STATE judiciary, then there could be no Perry-Mason-esque "preliminary hearings" that substitute for a Grand Jury. There could be no "homicide" prosecutions initiated by any charging instrument other than a Grand Jury Presentment or Indictment (on each Count charged).
Why is it Ok that Simpson was never indicted? Because that Fifth Amendment language just simply doesn't exist, for purposes of its application to the STATEs. The Supreme Court taught us this reality circa 1884. The national system is bound by that language, but the STATEs are not bound by it, i.e., the language that purports to bind the judges in the "States" by oath of office to those concepts is equally non-existent, equally void, equally of no legal effect.
To solidify this notion about the myth of the "constitution," generally, via proof that there is no Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Indictment protection, in particular, it was also at or about the time of the O.J. Simpson case that Col. "Bo" Gritz was facing kidnapping charges (clearly, an infamous type of charge) in CONNECTICUT. What is that STATE's motto? Right, "The Constitution State." Really!?! Is it because CONNECTICUT is "The Constitution State" that CONNECTICUT went to very deliberate effort to remove the entire notion of "Grand Jury" from that STATE's "constitution?" "Constitution State?" Really?? Gritz was held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime in that STATE court system without having been indicted.
"Well, Harrumph! Harrumph!! 'Constitution' this, and 'constitution' that," is the incessant mantra from a great many (very) intelligent people.
But, what "constitution?"
We do not now have and have never had a "constitution." Therefore, that language in no way created the national system, and, by that very reason, in no way limits that national system.
"But, but . . . the Supreme Court use that label all the time!"
Yes! They sure do, as do state and national courts around the nation. To do otherwise is to allow the lid to blow off the top, and the nation (well, think "the bank") doesn't benefit by that. The "bank" benefits by our proving our continuing unawareness of just exactly how this evil system of theirs actually functions (always remember that "federal" means "federal," and that they really don't want very many people to start putting 2 and 2 together down that path). In other words, this author has the privilege, and the duty, to be extremely frank. This author esteems himself as working for YAHUWAH, as a "teacher of Israel," for the benefit of His Kingdom, thus, for the benefit of Americans (and those around the world who prefer to live free from tyranny). The Court (and all the STATE high courts, and all appellate and trial courts in both system) doesn't have that luxury. They realize they work for the "bank." And, the Supreme Court has, on a per-case basis, recognized a few phrases from the "constitution" and incorporated those concepts as doctrines into the operative principles in and for this present system. Therefore, our duty, on the learning side, is to put together the "hints" made in every single Supreme Court ruling as to where the limits are on how far the "bank" may press the people. The reflective mind doesn't need to see that many instances where the "constitutional" language would produce one conclusion and the actual ruling goes the other way. There must be thousands and thousands of examples on which to draw to make that very point. To understand the realty is to apply the reality so as then to be able to argue reality meaningfully. That means letting the courts come up with whatever "cover story" may be suitable for that case. The reality is that there is no such thing as a "constitution;" the "cover story" uses labels and doctrines that perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing. To buy into the myth is to avoid full access to the efficiency of our present legal reality.
In time, as wicked a paradigm shift as it is, the minds of those called to learn the reality well enough to apply it adjust to the reality that "the" reason why there's such a mismatch is that the "constitution" simply "never was." One of the hardest concepts to accept, for anyone, is having "been had." We'll, we've "been had." If it helps, this particular "Beast" system is the ultimate of "Beast" systems. Rome would blush with envy. Rome would bow to these people out of pure Machiavellian respect. So, there's never been a more advanced "Beast" system, and this is the one we're up against. Yet, in those areas where the "Beast" roars the loudest, we find the "Beast's" greatest weaknesses. For example, the wars going on in the Middle East as we speak exist because this "Beast" is insisting that the world use is "funny money," and those going "rogue" in the view of this "Beast" system are being attacked, militarily.
Want the troops home? Stop using "funny money." They're "over there" to set up a "branch office" of the Fourth Reich's "funny money"-issuing bank. They're being blown to bits, shot to hell, vaccinated with all kinds of potions, and exposed to today's level of horrors, in order that the "bank" set up a "branch office" in a place where the people there just simply don't want that.
This is the same "banking" system that is shoving in our faces the fact that Zimmerman is being tried for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without having first been indicted.
Thus, this author's having been through that ringer, and in particular on this very issue of Indictment by a Grand Jury, via his in depth study of the O.J. Simpson case (where were all the "birthers" and "constitution-ists" when O.J. Simpson was being held to answer for a capital crime without having first been indicted?), it's somewhat surprising that this author wasn't cluing in on, wasn't snapping to, the reality from much earlier that Zimmerman was never indicted.
http://theweek.com/article/index/226580/no-grand-jury-for-george-zimmerman-what-does-it-mean
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/george-zimmerman-grand-jury_b_1445714.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-no-grand-jury-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin-is-a-positive-sign/2012/04/09/gIQAkE1H6S_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case-will-not-go-to-grand-jury/2012/04/09/gIQABDZG6S_story.html
http://polipundit.com/?p=37424 (1st sentence, 2d ¶: " The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling.")
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/16/the-zimmerman-indictment-reactions/
Reaction by "Bmaz" -- "The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but [also for] the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible."
(If we're talking "affidavits" and magistrate participation, then we're talking "Perry Mason"-esque "preliminary hearing" activity, which is pretty close to the exact anti-thesis of a Grand Jury Indictment. As a nation, even with the "constitution-ists," are we so far "gone" that we no longer recognize the difference?).
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/zimmerman-to-be-charged-by-special-prosecutor/story-e6frg12u-1226324418536 ( Zimmerman to be charged by special prosecutor; NewsCore; April 12, 2012 3:58AM
http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/49200/Zimmerman-indicted?page=1
When the O.J. Simpson homicide case first started, this author seemed to be a committee of one, in the nation, raising the roof that O.J. Simpson had not been indicted.
Exactly as is "taught" by "Perry Mason" and such tv "programmes," what CALIFORNIA does, instead of Indictments, on a "When we want to" basis, is file a Felony Complaint.
At the time, this author was still a "constitution-ist," and, frankly, at the leading edge of "constitution-ists" around the nation. At that time, the following language was sacrosanct:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger[.]"
Murder is a capital offense (in the traditional meaning of "capital," a death-penalty offense). He wasn't serving in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, in actual service in time of War of public danger. So, there was no reason, at all, that he not be indicted in order to be "held to answer for" any charge of murder.
It happened that while the O.J. Simpson case was still a hot topic, there was a continuing legal education seminar (there in Houston) on "Media and the Law." One of the closing sessions was a panel discussion. On that panel was a judge who handled high profile cases, a defense lawyer (with high profile clients), and two journalists, one of whom what the CNN anchor on the O.J. Simpson case and the other the anchor on the Susan Smith case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith (killed her own sons, claiming that a black man had kidnapped them) (huge, huge, huge media case, equal to the O.J. Simpson case). Someone really did well to get that panel together.
At the question/answer session at the end of the panel discussion, this author asked his question. He started by suggesting that the panel would agree that "capital" means "death penalty," and that murder was a "capital" offense, and that such cases require Indictments. With that intro, the question was posed as to why the fact that O.J. Simpson had never been indicted never made the news?
The carpet in that meeting room was the long-fiber shag, popular in the 60's and 70's in the "hip" apartments and social clubs, and one could still have heard a stick pin hit that carpet. It was that quiet in that room.
The CNN anchor, who was "the" fellow who anchored "everything" about the Simpson case for CNN, through whom went everything that aired over CNN in that case (and who had at least attended law school), had his jaw dragging the table he was sitting behind. It would have been great to have had a picture of the panel at the immediate moment of posing the question. The room was silent so long that the moderator had to say something, and he said, "Well, looks like you've stumped the panel."
Sometime after that, one of this author's objections was received by another who (still) claims to be a "constitution-ist" and who swung away at this author for this author's not being aware of the Hurtado case. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/110/516/case.html. In the Hurtado case, what we learn is that there is no "federal" requirement that anyone be Indicted in or by any state system. Hurtado was not Indicted. If the Fifth Amendment were "admissible evidence of law" in California, Hurtado would have been popped right out of jail. But, the Supreme Court upheld that no-Indictment-based conviction! In the face of the so-called Fifth Amendment, how can that be? Where the Fifth Amendment is so plain, who in the world would even think of a need to look for something like the Hurtado case? How can this be? The answer is the exact same answer as learned in The Terre Haute Litigation. The "constitution" is just flat out irrelevant. We learn via the 1884 Hurtado case that there really is no Indictment requirement. Thus, the Fifth Amendment isn't really a limit on any STATE. It applies to the "national church," but, despite the fact that the States allegedly created that system, binding themselves to it, by oath (certainly by the judicial officers), it just simply is not Supreme Law of the Land when it comes to STATE processes and procedures.
Now that we understand the basics of the Hurtado case, we come back to the statement "claims to be a 'constitution-ist.'" To "justify" the Hurtado case, i.e., to accept that lesson as true and reliable, is to be a "realist," not a "constitution-ist." So, while that same person still is quite active as a "constitution-ist," there'll be a day when his own "lessons" will ring true in his own mind, and he'll become a full-time "realist;" hence, he'll stop being a "constitution-ist," and he'll stop promoting the "constitution," altogether.
To the point about the "constitution," if the Fifth Amendment language were binding by oath on the STATE judiciary, then there could be no Perry-Mason-esque "preliminary hearings" that substitute for a Grand Jury. There could be no "homicide" prosecutions initiated by any charging instrument other than a Grand Jury Presentment or Indictment (on each Count charged).
Why is it Ok that Simpson was never indicted? Because that Fifth Amendment language just simply doesn't exist, for purposes of its application to the STATEs. The Supreme Court taught us this reality circa 1884. The national system is bound by that language, but the STATEs are not bound by it, i.e., the language that purports to bind the judges in the "States" by oath of office to those concepts is equally non-existent, equally void, equally of no legal effect.
To solidify this notion about the myth of the "constitution," generally, via proof that there is no Fifth Amendment Grand Jury Indictment protection, in particular, it was also at or about the time of the O.J. Simpson case that Col. "Bo" Gritz was facing kidnapping charges (clearly, an infamous type of charge) in CONNECTICUT. What is that STATE's motto? Right, "The Constitution State." Really!?! Is it because CONNECTICUT is "The Constitution State" that CONNECTICUT went to very deliberate effort to remove the entire notion of "Grand Jury" from that STATE's "constitution?" "Constitution State?" Really?? Gritz was held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime in that STATE court system without having been indicted.
"Well, Harrumph! Harrumph!! 'Constitution' this, and 'constitution' that," is the incessant mantra from a great many (very) intelligent people.
But, what "constitution?"
We do not now have and have never had a "constitution." Therefore, that language in no way created the national system, and, by that very reason, in no way limits that national system.
"But, but . . . the Supreme Court use that label all the time!"
Yes! They sure do, as do state and national courts around the nation. To do otherwise is to allow the lid to blow off the top, and the nation (well, think "the bank") doesn't benefit by that. The "bank" benefits by our proving our continuing unawareness of just exactly how this evil system of theirs actually functions (always remember that "federal" means "federal," and that they really don't want very many people to start putting 2 and 2 together down that path). In other words, this author has the privilege, and the duty, to be extremely frank. This author esteems himself as working for YAHUWAH, as a "teacher of Israel," for the benefit of His Kingdom, thus, for the benefit of Americans (and those around the world who prefer to live free from tyranny). The Court (and all the STATE high courts, and all appellate and trial courts in both system) doesn't have that luxury. They realize they work for the "bank." And, the Supreme Court has, on a per-case basis, recognized a few phrases from the "constitution" and incorporated those concepts as doctrines into the operative principles in and for this present system. Therefore, our duty, on the learning side, is to put together the "hints" made in every single Supreme Court ruling as to where the limits are on how far the "bank" may press the people. The reflective mind doesn't need to see that many instances where the "constitutional" language would produce one conclusion and the actual ruling goes the other way. There must be thousands and thousands of examples on which to draw to make that very point. To understand the realty is to apply the reality so as then to be able to argue reality meaningfully. That means letting the courts come up with whatever "cover story" may be suitable for that case. The reality is that there is no such thing as a "constitution;" the "cover story" uses labels and doctrines that perpetuate the myth that there is such a thing. To buy into the myth is to avoid full access to the efficiency of our present legal reality.
In time, as wicked a paradigm shift as it is, the minds of those called to learn the reality well enough to apply it adjust to the reality that "the" reason why there's such a mismatch is that the "constitution" simply "never was." One of the hardest concepts to accept, for anyone, is having "been had." We'll, we've "been had." If it helps, this particular "Beast" system is the ultimate of "Beast" systems. Rome would blush with envy. Rome would bow to these people out of pure Machiavellian respect. So, there's never been a more advanced "Beast" system, and this is the one we're up against. Yet, in those areas where the "Beast" roars the loudest, we find the "Beast's" greatest weaknesses. For example, the wars going on in the Middle East as we speak exist because this "Beast" is insisting that the world use is "funny money," and those going "rogue" in the view of this "Beast" system are being attacked, militarily.
Want the troops home? Stop using "funny money." They're "over there" to set up a "branch office" of the Fourth Reich's "funny money"-issuing bank. They're being blown to bits, shot to hell, vaccinated with all kinds of potions, and exposed to today's level of horrors, in order that the "bank" set up a "branch office" in a place where the people there just simply don't want that.
This is the same "banking" system that is shoving in our faces the fact that Zimmerman is being tried for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without having first been indicted.
Thus, this author's having been through that ringer, and in particular on this very issue of Indictment by a Grand Jury, via his in depth study of the O.J. Simpson case (where were all the "birthers" and "constitution-ists" when O.J. Simpson was being held to answer for a capital crime without having first been indicted?), it's somewhat surprising that this author wasn't cluing in on, wasn't snapping to, the reality from much earlier that Zimmerman was never indicted.
http://theweek.com/article/index/226580/no-grand-jury-for-george-zimmerman-what-does-it-mean
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/george-zimmerman-grand-jury_b_1445714.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/why-no-grand-jury-in-killing-of-trayvon-martin-is-a-positive-sign/2012/04/09/gIQAkE1H6S_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case-will-not-go-to-grand-jury/2012/04/09/gIQABDZG6S_story.html
http://polipundit.com/?p=37424 (1st sentence, 2d ¶: " The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling.")
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/16/the-zimmerman-indictment-reactions/
Reaction by "Bmaz" -- "The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but [also for] the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible."
(If we're talking "affidavits" and magistrate participation, then we're talking "Perry Mason"-esque "preliminary hearing" activity, which is pretty close to the exact anti-thesis of a Grand Jury Indictment. As a nation, even with the "constitution-ists," are we so far "gone" that we no longer recognize the difference?).
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/zimmerman-to-be-charged-by-special-prosecutor/story-e6frg12u-1226324418536 ( Zimmerman to be charged by special prosecutor; NewsCore; April 12, 2012 3:58AM
http://theerant.yuku.com/topic/49200/Zimmerman-indicted?page=1
|
The Washington Post Updated: 2:32 p.m. Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Posted: 2:19 p.m. Wednesday, April 11, 2012 Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey plans to announce as early as Wednesday afternoon that she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, according to a law enforcement official close to the investigation. It was not immediately clear what charge Zimmerman will face. Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, did not charge Zimmerman, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law. Corey told reporters Tuesday night that she would hold a news conference about the case within 72 hours. A news release from her office said the event will be held in Sanford or Jacksonville, Fla. Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, said this week that Corey’s office had asked where Trayvon’s parents would be each day this week. They arrived Wednesday in Washington for a civil rights conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where they are scheduled to speak. The announcement of a charge against Zimmerman would come a day after Zimmerman’s attorneys withdrew from the case, citing their inability to contact Zimmerman. Lawyers Craig Sonner and Hal Uhrig on Tuesday expressed concern about Zimmerman’s emotional and physical well-being, saying he has taken actions without consulting them. They also said they do not know where Zimmerman is. “You can stop looking in Florida,” Uhrig told reporters. “Look much further away than that.” Corey said Monday that she would not bring the case before a grand jury, which was expected to convene this week. She said her decision to forgo the grand jury should not be viewed as a factor in determining whether charges will be filed. Corey has indicated in recent weeks that she might not need a grand jury to bring charges against Zimmerman. The lawyers said they stand by their assertions that Zimmerman acted in self-defense when he killed the 17-year-old, who was unarmed, but they acknowledged that they formed their impressions without meeting Zimmerman. |
|||
|
******************* |
|||
If the "constitution-ist's" "constitution" is so easily rendered asunder, what, then is their "constitution?" If it may be so easily rendered asunder, it's not a "package deal," which it must be, if it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Since it's clearly not a "package deal," an "all or nothing" set of ideas, then it simply is "nothing."
Where are all these 2d Amendment Sheriffs groups while Zimmerman is being "held to answer for" a capital offense, in flagrant despise of the Fifth Amendment language?
Where's the ACLU?
Where's the Heritage Foundation?
On and on and on. Where are these big "constitution-ist" voices decrying the fact that Zimmerman was never indicted?
They're silent.
Is that because they've read the Hurtado ruling and are "realists" on this issue? Or is it because the concept of Grand Jury Indictment is presently so foreign to the mind that the difference is simply no longer recognized?
And, if they're "realists" regarding the situation that no STATE has to indict in order to try someone for any capital or otherwise infamous crime, why does not perspective not spill over into any other matters, into all other matters?
Being played out before the nation, as happened with the defiance of the Grand Jury Indictment in the O.J. Simpson case, as happened with the defiance of, and turning on the ear of, the concept of extradition in the Murrah Building bombing cases (which cases were literally exported away from the one State having jurisdiction of the alleged crimes), as happened with all the "war on terror" executive decisions to send military troops without any legislatively-asserted Declaration of War, as happened when "funny money" replaced Money (gold and silver Coin), as happened with the handling of the investigation of the JFK assassination (the one investigative body in the nation with authority to investigate that murder is the Dallas County Grand Jury; there is no authority in any Warren Commission), as happened with the fact that the obama-nation truly was born in Kenya, as has happened with the replacing of the "electoral college" with this quasi-popular vote election mechanism for the executive officers, and as is happening in the case against Zimmerman, what we're witnessing is systemic "bragging" about the non-existence of any "constitution."
For so long as our minds are in the prison of myths promoted by the "bank" and their yellow propagandists, the "bank" doesn't even have to engage the debate on the point. The sooner we come to terms with our reality, the sooner we're in a position to turn the tables on the "bank" that pretends also to be providing "governmental" services. They don't like "the" debate, the argument that exposes the fundamental legal mechanism in operation at the moment. To draw "them" into that debate is first to marshal all relevant commercial FACTS in favor of oneself (and one's business enterprises). Once the commercial FACTS are mastered and are pointing in the exact opposite direction from that which benefits the "bank," that's the time to engage "the" debate. To engage the debate without first learning and applying the reality so as to know which FACTS to marshal and how to do so is to ask to get clobbered.
To realize that there's no problem in the eyes of this system over the fact that Zimmerman has not been indicted is to realize that there is no "constitution." To realize that there is no "constitution" is to come to terms with the fundamental concept driving this present system, which is this: "federal" means "federal." That system functions "by agreement."
That should make good and perfect sense in light of the reality that we're not dealing with a "government." We're dealing with a "bank" that pretends to provide "governmental" services.
Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas
