by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
Think about this. When the bad guys realize that someone has witnessed their crimes or possesses incriminating evidence of their crimes, they kill that person. You know, like they knock off whistle blowers left, right, and center.
Why do they do that? It’s because THEY FEAR THE LAW.
I even recall Pres George W Bush going to Congress to seek new legislation that would make one of his crimes be no longer criminal. Talk about obvious fear of the law!
(Unfortunately, the silly legislature obliged him. The matter had something to do with surveillance.)
Know Your Weapons
Instead of getting ready to die, thanks to the pumped-up boldness of government crooks — GET ’EM. Golly, it’s so easy. And, as I said, they know it.
This article will inventory only the legal ways to collar your crim. Let’s leave aside the indirect manner of suing him, getting a restraining order, and all that. We want him to be wearing an orange jumpsuit and making licence plates a.s.a.p., OK?
By the way, forget about ombudsmen. That’ s a trick to make you feel like a fighter, but it’s one-sided. The recipient of your intended punch doesn’t feel a thing.
I’ll now list the legal weapons in ascending order of aggressiveness, light ones first, but in the eyes of the beholder (the crim) they are all equally worrisome. Put yourself in their shoes and you will agree. Could be diarrhea time in the old town tonight.
One: File a Criminal Complaint
One day soon, now that I am in America, I am going to waltz into the appropriate police station and file a complaint saying that the FBI killed a certain man in custody. I know the name, date, place, etc. They have to act on it. A criminal complaint is a criminal complaint. They must investigate, summon the offender, and – as appropriate – arrest his arse.
We tend to forget that the public can do this. We have become used to thinking that the police are the initiators of “bringing charges.” Or, should I say, we have become used to thinking that if it’s not the kind of thing the police want to press charges about, they will ho-hum it out of existence.
I do want to make one suggestion, as it is probably scary to approach the police. I suggest you go with a panel (did I say a posse?). One individual can be dismissed as a nutter or a pest, but it’s harder to say “You six citizens are nutters.”
And by the way, dress to the nines. “Wealth intimidates.” “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.” Etc.
Two: Inform Your Grand Jury
Please, please believe me when I say that the power of the grand jury, in the US anyway, is in the hands of the people. In early days there was no question about that. A grand jury is “grand” owing to its size — 23 peeps. It is “empanelled” for a period of time. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, two years was the norm.
The grand jurors were supposed to look around for wrong-doing. And any citizen could go to them with a specific charge or even just a suspicion or rumor. That is still how it should be, but you-know-who has tried to move the initiative into the hands of a district attorney or attorney general. That is especially rampant in the federal-criminal area.
I pass over the fact that there really is no “federal” criminal area in America – except counterfeiting, piracy, and the good old much-neglected crime of treason, but never mind that for today. The point is, if you see in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that grand-jurying is NOT a citizen function, tell the authors to wash their mouth out.
A cousin of mine, who was a grand juror a few years ago, wanted a certain crime to be treated as a murder but the DA insisted that it be considered manslaughter. My cousin pushed hard and was defeated but you shouldn’t really blame the DA. It was my cousin’s 22 brethren who were slack.
How Is a Presentment Distinct from an Indictment?
I do want to offer you an authority on this matter. Start with the fact that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”
The word “presentment” means a grand-jury initiated accusation which precedes an indictment or “true bill”.
One purpose of this is that persons accused of crime should have had a grand jury look at it to see if there “is a case to answer.” If the evidence is flimsy, the accused should not be dragged through the mud of a trial. The matter will be dropped before his reputation gets harmed.
But if they do present the case for indictment, it should then lead to a trial.
What is the opportunity here for the government to prevent officials (or any apparently “protected persons”) from being brought to trial? Easy, the government prosecutor can refuse to sign the indictment. Tsk, tsk, this was never intended by the Founding Fathers. A judge must try a case that the grand jury independently sends to it, not under the auspices of a DA or US Attorney.
Blaming Note 4 of Rule 7
Donald Sullivan, in an article entitled “Right to a Grand Jury” shows how Congress usurped the power of the people by enacting, in 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This law omitted the word “presentment.” Needless to say, legislation does not override the Constitution, so the FRCP enactment stands as voidable.
Sullivan points out that the offending item is actually Note 4 to Rule 7. That Note (which is not itself a law) is from the Advisory Committee. They had the chutzpah, not to mention the disregard for the Fifth Amendment, to say:
“Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
Who gave them the authority to declare it OBSOLETE? If the item had never been changed by Constitutional amendment, it has not been abolished. Maybe it went out of style but it can come back into style. So there.
The Authority for a People’s Grand Jury, Stated by Scalia
Writing the majority opinion in US v. Williams (1992), Justice Antonin Scalia ruled:
“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, … the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’ [T]he grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside.
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people…. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length.” [Emphasis added]
Also, as Bill Windsor of “Lawless America” has pointed out, you can file a lawsuit to challenge the practice of a government office keeping out of the hands of the grand jury any criminal complaint that the citizens wish to have investigated.
’Nuf said.
Three: Citizen’s Arrest
I said I would put, in ascending order of aggressiveness, what you can do if the government won’t act on a criminal complaint. Here we get physical. You can arrest the criminal. “Citizen’s arrest” is legal under common law and none of the 50 states has repealed it. Some states have altered it, for example to provide that security guards in stores can hold someone they suspect of shoplifting.
You will be safe as long as you are aware of certain hazards:
A. Your quarry may not recognize that you are acting legally and may injure you.
B. If you rough him up, even gently, he will have a civil action against you if it turns out that he did not meet the criteria for being arrested.
C. Third, those criteria are; that you saw him perform the felony, or know that he performed it, or you can see that he is about to perform it. A felony is a crime that carries a prison sentence as opposed to a misdemeanour which does not.
D. As soon as you have captured him you have to try to hand him over to police.
Four: The Law of Outlawry
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is at this moment a perfect example of an outlaw. An outlaw is a person whom the law cannot reach. This could be based on an ability to hide in the hills, or that he has money to bribe every cop and it’s well known that every cop in town has taken his bribes.
Or it could just be that maybe for a strategic political reason the government refuses to arrest and prosecute him. In the case of Hillary it is very well known that she has committed major crimes (related to the Clintion Foundation and probably to child-trafficking), and that the current president of the US has said he would have her arrested, yet has not done so.
The law of outlawry provides for the capture of such a person by any member of society. Not only can you capture an outlaw, you can kill him. If you do the opposite, if you try to shield him, you are committing a crime. Even to give him food is a crime.
Such a concept was normal in the old days. Paid, regularized police date only as far back as 1820 — when London got its “bobbies.” In America’s Wild West, which lasted till almost the 20th century, citizens had to do whatever they could if they wanted to stop the depredations of highwaymen or the like.
The law of outlawry is part of common law and as such it continues wherever it has not been repealed. I note that one of the states of Australia, Tasmania, repealed it when it was writing its Criminal Code Act of 1924.
Five: Self-Defense Is a Defense
The right of every person to protect himself – and those around him – from being hurt is unquestionable. If a man comes at you with a baseball bat and you respond with a gun, you may get arrested — but you will win an acquittal in court based on self-defense.
We have heard of children being snatched away to be sold or possibly to be killed, such as for the purpose of making a snuff movie. It is hard to imagine a child having the strength to kill the offending person, but if he did, he would be exercising his right to self defense.
In fact, Cheryl Hersha, co-author of the book Secret Weapons, admits to having stabbed to death a man, the local butcher, who was scheduled to chop her up in a ritual.
It is unthinkable that we would instruct Cheryl to “obey the law” and let herself be killed.
Anyway there is a law maxim that says “Necessity has no law” – Necessitas non habet legem. She was in a situation of necessity as well of self-defense.
Six: Pre-Emptive Strike and Predictive Crime
I do not know what the position is if you go after, with a gun, someone who you feel sure is planning a future act of violence against you. In normal, happy times you would go to the police for protection, but – as Fiona Barnett has proven in Australia – that is a pipe dream for some.
The police refrain from acting against various protected persons – or maybe just persons whom they themselves fear. What a crying shame!
In any case, since I don’t know of a standard concept in law, I point to legislation that seems to give the government the “right;’ to kill people based on a belief that they might do harm. I call this taking a “pre-emptive strike.” President Obama boasted of having done it to at least one American citizen, suspected of terrorism – the old chestnut — by using a drone. No arrest, no Miranda’s, no trial, just Bang!
Moreover, in Australia, the police of the state of New South Wales have announced their intention to “predict crime” and apparently prevent it lethally. China also uses that policy of predictive crime, but we usually think of Chinese law as the opposite of what we would want.
Predictive crime involves something like profiling, although not necessarily racial or ethnic profiling. It is based on a peron’s habits – or something.
To call this the thin end of the wedge would be putting it mildly.
Bushranging
I end with the 1834 opinion of the New South Wales Supreme Court in R v Elliott:
“The Law of England makes every man an officer to arrest a Traitor or Felon, and all persons of Competent Age, who are present where treason or felony is committed or a dangerous wound is given, are bound to apprehend the Offender on pain of being fined and imprisoned for their neglect; they are also bound to raise Hue and Cry, and pursue him; and every private person is bound to assist an officer demanding his help for the taking of a Felon suppressing an affray or apprehending the affrayers.
In such cases they are under the same protection of the Law as Officers of Justice; if they are resisted and killed, it is Murder in the party resisting and Slaying;
“If the Offender flees and cannot be otherwise apprehended, and is killed, it is in them Justifiable Homicide, but in all these cases it is essential that a Felony should have been committed, or that a Hue and Cry has been raised.
Private persons are also permitted by Law (but not enjoined) to arrest without Warrant, upon sufficient causes of suspicion of Treason or Felony, but in such cases if an innocent person has been arrested, and it be proved that no Treason or Felony has been committed, the party arresting or causing the arrest does so upon his own responsibility…, [what did I tell you?]
“Private Persons are also permitted by Law to arrest others upon their own authority for the prevention of a Treason or Felony, or any act which would manifestly endanger the life of another, and may detain him until it may be reasonably presumed that he has changed his purpose.” [Emphasis added]
Finally, to bring us up to date – but this belongs in the category of self-defense above – Australia’s High Court ruled on homicide as follows in 1987 in the case of Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions:
“The question to be asked … is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it … then he is entitled to an acquittal.”
And there it is, the black-letter law from the top authority.
Go ye forth and raise the hue and cry.
(Note: If you find anything incorrect in this article please advise me in comments, or write to me at mary.maxwell@alumni.adelaide.edu.au.)
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Prosecution for Treason
(photo – maxmag.gr)
If you ask “Quora” whether vigilante stuff is legal, you will get these 20 different answers:
https://www.quora.com/Is-being-a-vigilante-illegal
— including a writer who reckons “Logically, it is literally not worth the time nor the effort, nor is it reasonably sensible to brutally maim and kill a person just because they cut you in line in a grocery store, for example.”
Anyway the title of my article is “If You DON”T Feel Like Doing Vigilante Justice, Do This .”
Does it look like I am saying someone should kill Hillary? I definitely do not want any of them killed.
i want the “justice employees” to do their job. And I am pointing out to anyone who thinks we have to buckle under to their shirking of their job that we do not have to buckle under.
The law provides for everything.
Furthermore I have a reason to wish the perps would stay alive so we( not me but some talented, sympathetic persons] can do outreach.
Were the perps hurt in childhood? Probably.
I also am trying to make Seppos (in particular) remember how the damn thing is supposed to work.
Gentle reminder: Charge is laid, case goes to the right body for indictment, person is arrested with full bells and miranda whistles, the accused is given a trial, a jury makes a decision, the person goes free or is fined or imprisoned or, in some states, executed.
What a system! What a beautiful society! Yay.
Message to someone who is in a spot of trouble at the moment, not mentioning any names:
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
You’re living in a miasma of lawyer’s con-jobs, Magnificent Mary. Many people over many years have brought properly executed legal claims against high level traitors to the commonwealth of citizens that have been summarily buried and ignored by the Secretocracy. Have a flick through this lot with all sorts of “legalistic” arguments and justifications.
https://larryhannigan.com/
And Brian Shaw has filed many legal depositions against high ranking politicians for treason according to Constitutional Law to no effect.
I think you are flogging a red herring. The Secretocracy has all the “legal” options well and truly in their pocket and they care nothing for the general welfare of any Nation, State, Culture, Laws or family.
https://larryhannigan.com/videos/dvd-2the-united-nations-trap/
Oldavid, as much as it pains me to admit it, you are 100% correct. During my time with such legal niceties, I always had to produce a submission which the Clerk Of Court would accept or reject. If rejected, no explanation was forthcoming as why it was rejected, simply rejected and dismissed.”Go away, do it again and resubmit it.” So a layman had to take it away and agonise over it, trying to suss out what part the Clerk did not approve of and correct it. This usually required COSTLY LEGAL advice. Rewrite submission and resubmit, again rejected without explanation or reason. This went on for months, until finally, at great cost for the legal advice a submission was accepted. That was only the beginning. Then it was up to the Judge of the day to make a decision in the matter. If he disagreed with the contents of the submission, BANG, end of story. Start all over. If he agreed, a hearing date would be set acceptable to all parties. However, it must be said, such dates could be more than 12 months down the track, during which many things change, and sometimes by the time it is heard, it’s basicly out of date, and the judge’s reaction is not supportive when this happens.
Our legal system is deliberately designed to make it incredibly difficult for the layman to negotiate, I believe our lawyers/judges and our M.P.’s have designed the system in this manner to serve themselves rather than the people.
Actually it was designed to the express purpose of maintaining British royalty, hence the word “court”.
Everything certainly has gone from bad to worse since Her Highness was kicked out but as far as I’m concerned that’s the whole point. Only a complete fool would set foot in such a place with the idea of getting some sort of personal gain; calling down fire is another matter altogether
What interests me is that Hannigan’s article on local government was published a mere 6 days after my claim against the City of Albany was thrown out:
https://larryhannigan.com/2018/09/09/9-sep-2018-land-tax-rates-issued-by-state-government-councils-you-dont-really-believe-taxes-are-to-run-the-country-do-you-cmon/
Most of what he says is pretty accurate, but so far as I’m concerned his failure to counter-in what goes on behind closed doors is significant.
Most interesting discussion in a society which seems to shy away from penalising culprits.
Gaz, prisons in America are jam-packed, or as you would say “chockers,”
So it’s not that we shy away from arresting the low-down men. I think the human spirit has plenty of vengeance and of course plenty of sense of who is over or under them in the hierarchy.
Surely we have a huge reluctance — UNCONSCIOUSLY — to refrain from punishing the rich and titled.
My mantra is: get over this reluctance. It is the cause of our misery. and the written law will support us completely in that noble endeavor. Yay.
What you seem to be overlooking is that “law” by definition is a consensus.
Which means it’s at odds with the very concept of imprisonment
“and the written law will support us completely”
https://gumshoenews.com/2018/06/19/review-of-australian-law-and-its-decline/
The legal system is part of the CONTROL system, it is not a JUSTICE system. I have seen heaps of people naively believe that they could take on the system in the courts only to end up being ground into the dirt.
The government has unlimited funds to keep a case going and they will use that advantage to bankrupt a litigant. They also have the ‘judges in their pockets’ as George Carlin once said. The result is always ugly, but people will give it a go because they believe that it shouldn’t be that way.
I’ve done numerous cases where I stepped in to try and save some dumb-ass from the mess he has got himself in.
Go ahead, prove me wrong, quit talking and writing about it – put your butt on the line with your own litigation.
I have to agree with you Terry Shulze.
I have a 9+ years stalking problem by a sick psycho ex-coworker from The Victorian Electoral Commission, whom I never even dated.
This has developed into a physical assault by a bikie thug on 1 July 2018 in which I suffered a concussion, a permanent scar on my face and PTSD.
I am a 60+yo Business Analyst, minding my own business.
I would never mix with the kinds of thugs who have been free to make my life hell for their entertainment or possibly to experience power for free. Because Victoria Police have refused to investigate, and then declared “no evidence” for the stalking incidents and “insufficient evidence” for the assault.
Even though I called 000 twice and waited for 40 minutes in vain when I was assaulted, and then provided photos of the bikie as well as his registered motorbike. Victoria Police refused medical evidence substantiating my injuries and let the bikie thug walk free with nothing to worry about.
AFAIK there is absolutely nothing I can do. I know, going to the ombudsman or making a complaint with Victoria Police is a waste of time at best.
What do you suggest?
Move to the United States in a ‘concealed carry’ jurisdiction. If you get stalked again or assaulted – kill the SOB in self-defense – problem solved.
In Oz, you poor women aren’t even allowed to carry pepper spray or even a pen knife. All courtesy of the PC crowd endeavoring to make Oz ‘safer’.
Terry Shulze, you are spot on.
As a woman in Australia I am not permitted to carry anything to defend myself against bikie thugs a LOT taller, heavier and younger than I am. Bikie thugs who know, they can do as they please with nothing to worry about.
People have told me since the assault how lucky I am, not to have suffered permanent brain damage or worse. It appears that random physical violence against women and the police being a law unto themselves having the liberty to choose what laws they enforce and when are accepted as the norm in Australia.
The bikie thug (licence plate 8 HOG) expertly used his helmet as a weapon causing concussion and a permanent scar. I doubt he even knows what PTSD is, let alone worry about causing it.
He acted with the ease and confidence of someone, who follows a routine. He was not worried for even one second about being seen to physically assault a 60+yo unarmed woman.
Next time I will be a lot better prepared though, whether legal or not.
I’d rather get a fine or apologise for having used excessive force in self-defence than suffer any more permanent injuries.
I will not occupy my hands and waste my time dialling 000 either.
Until the would be offender needs an ambulance. Maybe.
The written law supports Martin Bryant and Jahar Tsarnaev — beautifully.
But if defense attorneys John Avery and Judy Clarke are working for someone else, the written law can be “gotten around.”
If Judges Cox and O’Toole are hellbent to put the person in jail, the written law cannot jump up and hit those two judges on the head.
‘Sfar as I know.
And the appellate system is a joke. It is judges reviewing their fellow judges in the good ol’ boys club.
I discussed it with a judge once and he told me the judges will ask the trial judge what was going on during the trial. Forget the transcripts and tendered evidence, they want to know what agendas might have been going on that led to the result.
They will ‘cover’ for a judge in a heartbeat, gotta keep the illusion of justice alive – what with all the ceremony, the silly garments, the officious titles, the impressive surroundings, the heightened position of the judge in the courtroom as he/she pontificates about a special understanding about the ‘Rule of Law’. – If you substitute the waffle about the Rule of Law with waffle about a direct line to ‘God’ it could be a religious ceremony (well, might have to throw in a few alter boys).
The significance of said ceremony is borne out by the extreme reluctance to determine anything “on the papers”.
Or even via audio link.
The prohibition on making personal audio records and the restrictions on transcript publication also stink to high heaven.
From 35 to 1.07 seconds, Mary keeps insisting that the law works:
.
For what it’s worth, Folks:
.
Just ask Fiona Barnett and Rachel Vaughn how they get/got on pressing charges against institutional crooks. Fiona has described how she was stalled, given the run-around and financially and emotionally exhausted by the corrupt secretocracy. Look it up for yourself; it’s on her website. There are many, many more who have suffered similar fate but the aforementioned just happen to be topical on the Gumshoe diversion factory.
The corrupt system is happy to create a smokescreen by locking up heaps of small-time wretched, disoriented and disordered criminals who do not have the “friends in high places” that are united in perverse ideology and fetid “oaths” of secrecy and mutual protection.
I still say that the only human redress against institutional corruption is for ordinary people with, at least, the vestiges of honesty and decency to bypass the Political Party institutions and elect well supported people of integrity to positions of influence; initially, to the government.
So then, Mary, I challenge you to get together a band of your most loyal sycophants and do a citizen’s arrest of Julie Bishop (or take your pick of dozens of others) for treason, or take your pick of other possible crimes. I will wager real money that you would end up being crimed for “deprivation of liberty”, assault, and a host of other charges.
Darling, if Gumshoe is a diversion factory, what y’all doin’ here?
What is her problem. We chicks want men to be stronger than us.
.
Y’ don’t have a clue, do you?
S’ long as they smile beguilingly and confidently proclaim all the politically correct platitudes they’re all darlings of the New World Order, and the New Man, and the New Age, even if none of that is consistent with the nature of Being and Purpose of human Society, Culture, Nation and Family.
If there is no human Being with a Purpose then you have nothing to complain about,,, it’s “survival of the fittest” and those who can must prevail… all notions of morality and law are just tools of the elite. The Secretocracy have that well established… who are you to complain and on what grounds?
Oh! and what am I doing here?
Originally, I though that Gumshoe might have been an outpost of political reason but more recently I’m stuck here to defend natural, cultural, national reality against fantastic assumptions.
[quote=MM] We chicks want men to be stronger than us. [/quote]
The “New Age” “chick” just wants a “sensitive new age guy” to be a hit man or “goon” for their narcissistic feminism.
Well Mary, I’m here because i like the stories you post and the information your team will posit.
That’s very sweet. Let’s meet at the Casbah.
i am guessing the correct response is ‘we’ll make beautiful music together’?
I’m here because I’m learning more about this way out world than I can on Mainstream Media! Speaking of citizens arrests, here in Murderlaide we have a man named Rich Warner who did a copycat of the UK pedo hunters. He pretended that he was a young girl online & procured to meet up with her for sexual purposes. He was shocked to discover over 100 paedophiles attempted this young ‘girl’ within an 8 km radius of his own house. Rich grabbed this guy that he had just met by the scruff of his jumper collar to restrain him & called the police. It was an hour later that they ‘bothered’ to arrive. Rich has since had numerous court hearings after being charged with assault & harassed. It’s almost cost him his job after having to take numerous days off of work & him being seen on the News. It all looked so easy on tv & apparently in the UK the real monsters ARE prosecuted! ps I am NOT a feminist!!!
While many of the methods outlined above will no doubt work in America, are there any similar methods for those in the penal colony known as Australia?
We have none of the protections afforded to you, such as a US-sentric constitution written by Americans (not by British peers and pollies), a Bill of Rights etc..
Well, Alex, those “protections” aren’t exactly afforded to Americans either. What is written in the Constitution gets overridden in two ways: by statute — which is illegal and the statute is actually void but unless a complainer can get to the US Supreme Court the law does not get officially voided.
The other way the Con gets overridden is by bad practice. The 4th Amendment in Bill of Rights says No unlawful search or seizure and “stay the hell out of my castle” but nowadays cops go in to a home at 3am with guns drawn. Also on the street they throw a person on the ground. Recall the search of Boston when “terrorist” Jahar Tsarnaev was “on the loose.”
So in both Oz and US the job is for the people to overcome that lawlessness by govt.
How do we do that though? What are our legal avenues where we do have a fair chance of achieving anything?
Given how poor our educational outcomes are, when it comes to logic and critical thinking, I don’t like our chances to start with.
Social media is a double edged sword too.
I am wondering if ‘fake news’ are sometimes thrown into online discussions to fragment the audience, and to divert from real issues we could/should tackle. Those, who throw these fake news into the mix can be just bored kids enjoying the mayhem, or actual political players who benefit from the status quo.
[…] week Gumshoe published my article “If You Don’t Feel Like Doing Vigilante Justice, Do This.” It listed six ways that are […]