From ~Jean: Common Law: What I have learned from reading, listening, and talking with some amazing people — to whom I am grateful :)
I
share some thoughts below on the concept of a common law community, the
great difference between the common law jury and the Grand Jury, which
John Darash seems to feel are almost one-and-the-same, and draw a
conclusion as to the effect John Daresh’s plans, if he goes forward with
them, will have on our efforts to prosecute the criminals in our
country. This has been the important factor from the start which
involved me in this discussion. Finally, I share what Neil Keenan’s
actions concerning this situation seem to tell us. . . ~J I have read a lot, listened to some great lectures and interviews, and talked on the phone with several very special people. I have been thinking and trying to make sense of what I am learning, and I thought I would try to write it out for you, my readers, to consider, and, of course, I know you will want to respond to me — for better or worse.
Living under Common Law
(and don’t go after me, please if I am using the wrong terminology here)
is not what I thought it was. Common Law works best when a small group
of people comes together as a community of sorts, agreeing to abide by
the principles of Common Law. These people must each have gone through
the formal process to exit our false matrix, the system under which we
have unknowingly been enslaved. I think the words ‘small community’ are
very important. I had to learn that I I think we are not talking about a
national organization.
Within this community, if a crime is committed, the common law jury, a group of peers in that community handles the situation.
If this country decides to return to
life under Common Law, it looks to me like it needs to be a gradual
process. If we were to take down the total governmental system right
now, we would achieve nothing but chaos. It is the same situation, I
think, as if at this time we were to destroy the entire banking system.
We would suddenly find ourselves living in great turmoil. Any transition
to Common Law – small groups of like-minded people —will likely be
achieved more safely and with less stress over a long period of years.
(This reminds me of the
story of the 40-years-in-the-desert. I think it was Nassim Haramein who
suggested that was a symbolic period of time, but it was time needed for
the people to forget their enslavement in Egypt. I think we will badly
need that kind of time now on our planet for ourselves, and I think it
will take generations.)
Because our education system doesn’t
teach us about Common Law, those of us who want to make such
a shift are going to have to take on the responsibility to go back to
‘school’and educate ourselves. Some will not want to do it, and so they
will remain living in the matrix. No matter what people eventually
decide, I suggest to everyone the wisdom of learning about it, how it
operates, and so on.
This kind of local Common
Law Jury is not the sort of jury that NLA is seeking to establish. They
are seeking to establish a Grand Jury, and that title without the
mention of the words Common Law will suffice. If I understand it
correctly, the Grand Jury is the fourth branch of our government as it
was created by our founders. It was established for us the people so we
could redress any grievances we had. This branch has been quietly swept
under the carpet and out of sight by our slave masters.
The Grand Jury is the
route through which we can address the criminals and the criminality in
our Federal Government and country, in general, something I strongly
believe if we are to maintain our humanity we must do peacefully. This
is the only reason, right now, that I am personally interested in the
discussion that has been going on for about six weeks. Apparently, there
is serious study required to qualify to sit on this Grand Jury, because
it is not about car accidents, or stealing something from a neighbor’s
yard. Members should be selected very carefully. Also, we do not need
dozens of these Grand Juries to try these criminals. Of course, there
can be as many of these juries as people like, but for the purpose that
interests me — it is not necessary.
The Grand Jury, although
not connected directly with Common Law still requires that its members
opt out of the established system, and establish what I have learned is
called ‘standing.’ If NLA chooses to go ahead without establishing
standing — and that is their right, and they are incorrect, then their
Grand Jury members could be in serious trouble.
On my blog, through Eric
Williams wonderful, crystal clear statements, I have done everything I
possibly could to acquaint and inform people of the problems that I
think the NLA is creating for itself, but I realize that is as far as my
responsibility goes.
Neil Keenan is beyond busy now
in Jakarta — and we all need to send lots of light to that spot on the
planet, but even so yesterday I received word from him saying he has
told John Daresh he cannot support him. I suspect this is because I
stamped my foot a bit, so that he finally found time to check out John’s
efforts for himself and realized they are based on a false premise. (I
simply couldn’t imagine that if he had the facts a stellar jurist like
Dr. Aidun would involve himself.) I also suspect that Drake’s comment on
his recent audio
at minute 1:27.5:00 could have been referencing the help that Neil has
subsequently withdrawn, and that when Drake shut my posts off his
Facebook Page he was trying to stop me from becoming involved — maybe
because I do my homework, I try to research things carefully, and
because I totally support Neil Keenan’s efforts, I do try to have
his back.We are all adults, and we must learn to accept and live with the results of our decisions.
My fear was that
if these people go under, the entire Grand Jury idea would fall into
confusion and chaos, exactly when we need it. My recent searching seems
to indicate this would not be the case. All we need to do going forward
is create a small number of grand juries to replace this structure. It
should be quite simple, and I have already spoken to someone whose
thoughts impress me and who is quietly working to do this, totally
separate from NLA. In other words, my fears that we would be caught
short have been assuaged.
I have also talked to
someone you all liked very much, who calls herself Debra, a retired
policewoman and attorney who has lived that of which we are
speaking. Her words resonate deeply with me, and she is willing to give
us a lecture followed by a Q&A period, and this could happen perhaps
by Thursday. Debra is also willing to teach those who are interested in greater depth over a longer period of time, but it would not be on the internet. Her reasons for not doing it on the internet make complete sense to me, but I feel it is up to her to share them with you. Later today, I will speak with another individual who has also volunteered to join in on a conference call, someone who has been teaching Common Law for quite a while, and I will bring the information from that conversation to you if/when I am able.
Suddenly I see that anyone who is serious about moving into the new paradigm needs to learn something about Common Law, and I include myself in this group. Before this situation erupted, I had heard about Common Law, tried to read about it, but found I was not yet interested in it, so the words I read meant little or nothing to me. Since I now believe that this transition we are in appears that it is going to be a slow one — the drama of a quick shift would be far too much for most of humanity — I feel over a period of time we will all have the opportunity to study the subject of Common Law, and along with many of you, I am looking forward to becoming Common Law literate :)
Hugs,
~Jean