reply to post by pajoly
S & F Excellent Post. I am already doing most of this but thanks for the clue on credit unions.
Another point. Be aware of what Mutual funds are doing. They use YOUR money to buy corporate stock but THEY vote the shares!!!!!
Good old Monsanto is 85% owned by people who can not vote the shares. AOL/Huffington Post is 56% owned by just ten Mutual Funds!
Pensions and Mutual Funds have been used as a way to separate ownership and control so the large corporations are actually controlled by a small
collection of people who DO NOT OWN THEM!!!!
WASHINGTON -- A recent analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries has revealed that the world's finances are in the hands of just a
few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first clear picture of the global concentration of financial power, and point out the worldwide
financial system's vulnerability as it stood on the brink of the current economic crisis....
Here is one of my suggestions on what we can do to take back our country (and yes I posted this before
HERE IS JUST ONE OF OUR POWERS THAT WE IGNORE!
Please pay attention because THIS is a much more effective way to fight TPTB than protests ever were.
WE THE PEOPLE have the ultimate say on what laws are valid. TPTB has tried to take that power away by cover-ups and keeping us ignorant.
I am talking about TRIAL by JURY.
There is a reason we now see only judges trying cases.
There is a reason why jurors are never told about their Constitutional rights and duties.
There is a reason laws are written in such a way that a person is denied the right to a trial before a jury, even though it is unconstitutional.
A Jury has the RIGHT to judge both the law and the facts
It is called CASE LAW and the Muslims are busy using it to slip Sharia Law into the US legal system. - SEE
The screenplay, We the Jury, is provided on this website.
Case Law (n) Case Law is the decisions, interpretations made by judges while deciding on the legal issues before them which are considered as the
common law or as an aid for interpretation of a law in subsequent cases with similar conditions. Case laws are used by advocates to support their
views to favor their clients and also it influence the decision of the judges www.legal-explanations.com...
Notice in this "legal" definition they LIE. It is not SUPPOSED TO BE "the decisions, interpretations made by judges'
SUPPOSED TO BE decisions by a JURY!
“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State, where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
directed.” -- Constitution for the United States of America, Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 
Trial by Jury, almost hidden away in the Constitution of the United State is one of the most precious freedoms that Americans possess.
The saving grace of William Penn’s trial was to establish a critical precedence, whereby jurors could act on the basis of their conscience. It is a
precedence which in modern day is sorely needed, when public opinion, law enforcement agencies, and the Courts themselves heavily influence the
deliberations of juries to the point of denying justice. [This has been particularly true in cases where there is a great deal of publicity, there is
a serious Scapegoatology atmosphere running about, and where law-enforcement agencies, courts, and governments are seeking new ways to extend their
“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though
in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” -- John Adams
John Adams words are fundamentally important in that every member of every jury must know they have an inalienable right to IGNORE Court-directed
verdicts, public opinion, and/or the letter of the law (however interpreted by law enforcement agencies), as well as to be allowed to search for the
truth in their deliberations.
No judge should dissuade or deny a juror’s right to obtain the truth in whatever way the juror
This search for the truth and the decisions reached thereby must include:
1) The jury having full access to what any member of the jury considers relevant to the case (i.e. not being denied access by the Court,
media, or any other source);
2) The jury being given the respect of being able to discern for themselves between rumor, conjecture, fact, and legitimate evidence, and
3) The jury taking on the responsibility for and being allowed to ask questions, doing independent research, and whatever else the jury
decides to do (in it’s infinite wisdom) in order to discover, to the best of its ability, the underlying truth of any court case. The jury should
not be limited by only what the Court “allows” into evidence or what the Court “decides” the jury should hear.
Every jury must stand up for their rights on the basis of Common Law (and/or the Constitution, Magna Carta, and other documents of liberty), as was
the case in William Penn’s trial. They must actively pursue learning the truth, and then they must use their discernment to make their ultimate
Do you want to know just how POWERFUL this right is????
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)
Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan.
"Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank
had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to
keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the
defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money
"out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin
Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and
credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the
same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which
gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.
The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were
indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend
– a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world....
Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank.
He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.
THAT folks is just how powerful case law is and shows TPTB are scared to death of case law. That is why they killed Justice Mahoney.
WHAT WE CAN DO!
We have a RIGHT to a trial by jury in criminal matters or in civil matters over $20!
Acquaint yourself with the the fully informed jury movement
and pester your state lawmakers into introduce a law
mandating a juror be INFORMED of his RIGHTS and DUTIES!
Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature....
Today, the constitutions of only two states -- Maryland and Indiana -- clearly declare the nullification right, although two others -- Georgia and
Oregon -- refer to it obliquely. The informed jury movement would like all states to require that judges instruct juries on their power to serve, in
effect, as the final legislature of the land concerning the law in a particular case....
Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound,
Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries
of the right, forcing lawyers to argue "the law -- its interpretation and validity -- to the jury." By the latter part of the century, however,
judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not
to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it... prorev.com...