Time: Tue Nov 12 19:07:44 1996
To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Re: ComLaw> LLAW: LeRoy Schweitzer; Letter to, from Charles Stewart
Cc: 
Bcc: 

The Spooner essay is already
on the Internet, if I am not 
mistaken.

/s/ Paul Mitchell



At 05:56 PM 11/12/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Tuesday, 12Nov96 @ 17:24 Hours CST
>
>TO:         Charles Bruce, Stewart
>FROM:       Dale Robertson (joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.cc.tx.us)
>SUBJECT:    Spooner's Essay on Trial By Jury
>
>Charles:
>
>My compliments for you inovative view of Spooner's Essay on the Trial By
>Jury. Far too little is being discussed in patriot circles respective to
>Spooner and his great insight. You lengthy letter to LeRoy Schwietzer is
>an outstanding exception.
>
>I have just returned from a 10 day trip in celebration of my 33rd
>annaversary and was particularly pleased to read your letter to
>Schwietzer.
>
>I will add to your considerable comments as follows: 
>
>A shadow grand jury, or even a shadow jury will have impact on the
>"defactos". I refer to the simultanious review of public trials (if one
>can be so generous as to call it that) - such a schwietzer - by a shadow
>jury consisting of compurgators who represent the jury as described by
>Spooner which is founded in common law via Magna Carta and it's
>precedents in common law.
>
>The concept of compurgation as discussed by Spooner has historical merit
>beyond the cites in your letter. I am not studied on this - but - your
>letter is by far not the first time I have reviewed the subject. I
>regret to note that it is infrequently mentioned in patriot circles or
>in any other "circle" for that matter.
>
>I will encourage someone - perhaps I should be that someone - to key in
>Spooner's entire Essay on the Trial by Jury and post it to this group.
>Many have neither read nor understand the true meaning of the common law
>definition of "jury" and will benefit from a posting of Spooner's truly
>calssic essay. (I add that Spooner's essay on treason is equally of
>great quality of reason and logic) After all, Spooner has a gift with
>logic and argument and makes the case in the most powerful manner
>possible - - Then or since!! Do you perhaps have the text already keyed
>in now?
>
>
>Further, taping such a jury in action or the results of thier decision
>will make for good public broadcast "video" as you seem to have a talent
>for same. I see such a counter-jury to the "defactos jury" as being a
>news item which will not only communicate to the mass audience another
>point of view but also  carry with it the true meaning and practice of a
>"jury" in the historical sense of the word. Only a very few people
>(sheeple) in this country have a notion of the historical role of a
>juror. That is to say a jury of your peers who sit in judgment of both
>law and fact!
>
>
>Further, only a few in this entire country are aware that the role and
>task of a juror has been transmuted over time into something which is
>quite alien to the original purpose and intent of a juror. That change,
>that perversion and the communication of what a juror really should be
>under the common law is a gread goal for video and for a counter or
>shadow jury - be it grand or ordinary jury. 
>
>Again my compliments on your letter and your posting it to the
>libertynet.
>
>Constitutionally,
>
>Dale Robertson
>joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.cc.tx.us
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your letter to LeRoy Schwietzer of 4 Nov 96 as follows: 
>====================================================
>
>=======================================================================
>LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA
>Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>=======================================================================
>    Chief Justice LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer,
>    CO: Yellowstone County Jail
>    [3165 King Avenue East]
>    Billings, Montana state [59101]
>    Monday, November 4th YOOL 1996
>
>
>Mr Schwietzer,
>
> My name is Charles Bruce, Stewart. I am 42 years old. I am
>the Chief Justice of the Multnomah County Common Law Court, which
>covers 90+ % of the Portland metropolitan area.
> I live in Sandy Oregon, about 3 miles from Christian Patriot
>Association's bookstore in Boaring. The largest bookstore of it's
>kind in the world they claim. The owner of CPA, Richard Flowers,
>has a commonlaw scholar/pastor as his chief assistant at CPA,
>named Jeffrey Weekly. Pastor Weekly has been instrumental in
>setting up our common law court, and I frequently attend services
>at his "God's Remnant Church". I am an ex-Jehovahs Witness who is
>glad to find that the common law has solid biblical linkages.
> I also run an email list on the Internet called
>commonlaw@teleport.com. And I ran a radio show here in the
>Portland Oregon are called "Common Law Radio Forum". I had Randy
>and Kevin on a number of times, during the standoff.
>
> I have been studying the Common Law for 18 years or so.
>Lyasnder Spooner's "Essay on the Trial by Jury" is what got me
>primed. I have been involved in the Libertarian party, and see
>similarities between the Libertarian philosophy of non-
>initiation of force, and the common law maxim of "no victim, no
>crime" under the "Corpus Delicti" principle.
>
> I produce lots of broadcast quality television for our
>local cable access facilities. I visualize that video may be a
>key ingredient in the strategies we may eventually want to adopt.
>
> I have just completed a weekend seminar here in Portland
>with the Right Way Law staff Rick Schramm, Mary Keane and Jeannie
>Collins. I recorded broadcast quality videotape of about 40 hours
>with them involved. Right Way also has a radio show at frequency
>3.215 shortwave which I am scheduled to appear on Friday, the 6th
>of November, between 3 & 5 pm pacific time. I believe I will
>discuss this letter concerning your case on that show. I think
>the entire national Right Way Network could get behind this
>effort. We may be able to focus on it regularly on the radio show.
>I know Jack Smith talks highly of you.
>
> I have reviewed copies of your video tapes, the most recent
>and informative of which were shot by a close friend and fellow
>Justice on our court here in the Portland area named Mike Raymer.
>It seemed that your dissertation was quite expanded and improved
>in that current version from your earlier presentations. I noted
>that you stated "These videotapes are my Habeas Corpus". Well we
>are trying to get your Habeas Corpus enforced here, sir.
> A respected colleague named Paul Mitchell with whom I have
>interacted with here on our email lists on the Internet quite
>extensively has, I believe been in recent contact with yourself
>and your men in at the Freedom Center near Justice Township in
>efforts at putting together a non-violent battle plan for getting
>you and the others out of jail. Together with Mr Mitchell, Tom
>Clark,  Myself, and numerous talented others, we have
>established this liberty-law email list for the specific focus of
>pooling our intellectual resources towards the ends of finding
>just solutions to the predicament of yourself and your followers.
>This was the stated reason why Mr Clark founded this list.
> We all come from a broad base of patriotic unorthodox
>backgrounds, each with our own strategies for administering
>justice in the alternative to the defacto court systems which we
>all have been oppressed by. The resurrection of the commonlaw is
>a frequent topic of discussion.
>
> I have voiced a number of strategies, which I will here
>again briefly outline to you and everyone on this list. These
>strategies were put on a back burner as Mr Mitchell and Mr Clark
>and others perused their own particular strategies.
>
> It now sadly appears to me that their efforts have
>floundered. I had truly hopped that they would be successful.
>However, my earlier reservations, based upon my observance that
>there was a failure to harmonize with the essential principles of
>true common law, proved well founded. Not that my strategies will
>have any guarantee of faring better either, but it seems as
>though the others are at a point of desperation in pursuing our
>mutually agreed-upon mission, that they are now more willing to
>seriously consider giving my innovative commonlaw ideas the
>support they need to take a serious shot at getting you out.
>
> And the first thing I want to secure, is that you be in the
>drivers seat for all major decisions. I think that we on this
>list should keep you fully informed of every major decision,
>sending you a paper copy of a summation of our discussions every
>day. I would hope that Kevin and Randy could be entrusted with
>that duty. If not, I am sure we can find other volunteers,
>myself if need be. I would like to be in contact with you by
>phone if possible. I will record and transcribe your statements
>for the whole list.
>
> You might like to think of our list here as your own
>personal law firm. We do have a lot of talent here. Perhaps Mr
>Clark can provide you with a copy of our subscription list. I am
>sure you will recognize a number of prominent names.
>
> I would especially like for you to communicate out to our
>whole list exactly what your perspectives are on the different
>strategies presenting themselves to us. I have gained great
>respect for your expertise in the essential principles of the
>common law. You were doing fine work sir.
>
> The strategies the others have been pursuing seem to me to
>be at a divergence from the common law solutions which you
>advocated at your lectures. We are all on a learning curve with
>respect to the common law, and it seems that it was destined that
>our non-commonlaw solutions would be exhausted first.
>
> But with your endorsement, I would like to hammer out a more
>true common law solution to your predicament. Hopefully, what we
>learn can benefit all.
>
> On a national level, I feel that we need to eventually
>establish a common law governing body. I am partial to just a
>national 12 person Common Law Jury, taking on the larger more
>complex cases as Moses was counciled by to do by his father-in-
>law. Your case could be the first one.
> However it may be more beneficial to explore resurrecting
>the 25 Barons option. Or the Barons could be supplemental. But we
>could pursue the preliminary stages of the Magna Carta 61
>solution. I bet that would get their attention.
>
> Again, your preferences should gain the utmost
>consideration. I have trouble understanding how you apparently
>approved of Mr Mitchell's brilliant but fruitless efforts to
>invoke an obscure form of federal court proceedings under article
>3, because of your statements on your tapes, that no federal
>judge could hear your case, because you wouldn't grant the venue
>pursuant to the 11th. I would appreciate it if you could shed
>light here.
> And related, in our efforts at narrowing and defining our
>options, can we get a statement here for the whole list as to
>whether you wish for us to pursue our own home grown common law
>remedies in preference to working within any version of any court
>in which a chancery priest has any influence whatsoever?
>
>Other questions:
>
>1: Do you agree that as much as possible, you should be in the
>drivers seat for all major decisions?
>
>2: Do you believe that you will be able communicate out to our
>list on a regular basis what your perspectives are on the
>deferent strategies presenting themselves to us, either by phone
>or by mail?
>
>3: Can you be reached by telephone, or can you call out by
>telephone?
> If either, please outline options available.
>
>Strategy Issues:
>
> I visualize that a number of commonlaw strategies could be
>brought to bear in placing pressure on the defactos to release
>you.
>
> First, I am generally inclined that we should pursue a
>strategy wherein the defactos are presumed to have some degree of
>respect for the commonlaw, and are continuing to operate under it
>as "Color of Law" under the UCC as you frequently mentioned. But
>obviously the FBI and the Department of Justice are stretching
>this envelope way out of any realistic proportion.
>
>1: I visualize that there is a high probability that we can get
>the defactos to respect our judgement if we can get a respectable
>commonlaw verdict out before they try your case. Heck, they may
>never even try you if they know they don't have the venue. But
>anyway, if we target trying to get them to respect a home grown
>commonlaw decision pursuant to the 7th amendment, I feel that
>this is our best overall general strategy.
> Do you agree?
> If not what would you prefer that we do?
>
> Do you think the DeFactos would be motivated to negotiate a
>settlement if we work out some form of compromise with them on
>how our grassroots common law courts are evolving? I mean it
>seems to me that the chancery priests may have held some secret
>star chamber meeting with other establishment types who were
>inclined against that evil radical action which was taken against
>yourself and Justus township.
> I mean, we know they operate under a rule of necessity, and
>the way your liens were hot on their tail undermining their whole
>NWO plans, they could have plead necessity to others who may not
>have gone along with these plans without such a pleading.
> I visualize that if we ratcheted back on the commonlaw
>courts lien process to some degree where the judgments were not
>cutting so drastically deeply and quickly into their economic
>system of elitism (to the point to where they couldn't even do
>courtroom battle with us) that the true devil worshipers may
>loose the support they need to oppose our growing shift towards
>re-establishing common law dejure governing structures.
> I think it is good strategy to try and divide their ranks
>from their apparent presently united opposition to us.
> Do you agree with these points?
> If so is it acceptable to you that we adopt a policy of
>working under these points as guidelines?
>
> Commonlaw court rules could be encouraged to be adopted
>across the nation at local levels agreeing that liens should be
>signed off on only by 12 jurors, even under default judgments,
>rather than just the clerks issuing the default judgments, as you
>guys were doing.
> And we may want to include at least some of their "peers" on
>the commonlaw juries before the judgement against these
>defendant/respondents would be recognizable as valid under
>universal "Common Law".
>
> The term "Compurgators" may play a critical role here. I
>don't know if you are familiar with Spooner, but he mentioned it
>in his "Essay" and it was also in Webster's 1828. It says
>basically that any time 12 men of good standing testify as to the
>innocence of a man charged with a crime, that he should go free.
>It's very similar to trial by jury of your "Peers", with the
>exception that with the "Peers" they are still undecided.
>Webster's says that the Compurgators "Instify" the defendant of
>alleged crimes at that instant. It could brought forth on behalf
>of both us or them. Here are the cites I know of:
>
> "The trial by comprugators was one in which, if the accused
>could bring twelve of his neighbors, who would make oath that
>they believed him innocent, he was held to be so. It is probable
>that this was really the trial by jury, or was allowed as an
>appeal from a jury. It is wholly improbable that two different
>modes of trial, so nearly resembling each other as this and the
>trial by jury do, should prevail at the same time, and among a
>rude people, whose judicial proceedings would naturally be of the
>simplest kind. * * * "
> From the Book: "An Essay on the Trial by Jury." By Lysander
>Spooner, 1852; Chapter 2, The Trial by Jury, as Defined by Magna
>Carta, .. 20; Section 2. The Language of Magna Carta, .. 25
>Subheading (Page-36): "Whether Magna Carta allowed of any other
>trial than by jury. Footnote, p-37:
>
> "Comprugation; n. (L. Compuro; con and purgo, to purify) In
>Law, the act or practice of instifying a man by the oath of
>others who swear to their belief of his veracity; wager of law,
>in which a man who has given security to make his own law,
>brings into court eleven of his neighbors, and having made oath
>himself that he does not owe the plaintiff, the eleven neighbors,
>called comprugators, avow on their oaths that they believe in
>their consciences he has affirmed the truth. - Blackstone"
> "Compurgator; n. One who bears testimony or swears to the
>veracity or innocence of another."
>American Dictionary of the English Language- Noah Webster- 1828
>
> The use of "compurgators could be really powerful. I
>visualize that it may be the easiest way to get you out. It
>would be easy to find 12 men to testify as to your innocence from
>our list here.
>
> But this would probably necessitate compromises for when we
>wanted to lien corrupt defacto officials in the future. I
>visualize that we would be obligated to abstain from leaning them
>if they presented 12 of their fellow crooks to testify as to
>their innocence. Of course we could develop filters which would
>purge out those who refused to affirm loyalty to the essential
>principles of the Constitutional Republic. And we could insist
>that they enter into good faith televised discussions, of an
>exhaustive nature, explaining how they logically concluded that
>their crook peers were innocent, before they would be allowed to
>have their corrupt judgement to stand.
> If they agreed to use this process, this would set a great
>precedent. It would be a significant indicator that they should
>also allow us to have any person released from jail and/or
>absolved of any crime or judgement upon the testimony of our own
>compurgators, civil or criminal. I would really like to push
>forward in these areas.
>
> At that point maybe the commonlaw would probably take a new
>evolutionary step forward (or it would resurrect some forgotten
>past process) in that the 2 sets of "Compurtgators" would be
>obligated to discuss compromises as to what laws should be
>observed in "Common" between these two warring jurisdictions.
>  Maybe that's how Christ got away with overturning the
>moneychangers table, by the fact that his 12 disciples may have
>accompanied him on a mission and that none dared oppose a 12 man
>body so united in spirit. Maybe in times past, any time 12
>upstanding men got together, this evidences a separate nation,
>under biblical law. Maybe the word "Grand Jury" originally meant
>just two 12 person juries of compurgator/peers coming together to
>discuss what laws were to be held in "Common" between their
>separate jurisdictions.
> Spooner clearly states: "It is wholly improbable that two
>different modes of trial, so nearly resembling each other as this
>and the trial by jury do, should prevail at the same time". This
>seems to me to indicate that we are on the edge of discovering
>some form of procedure which could have profound influence on our
>common law movement.
>
> I would visualize that if we challenged the DeFactos to
>bring in 12 of their "Compurgators" to meet with 12 of our
>"Compurgators", in an innovative "Grand Jury" to discuss who are
>the real criminals, and who really deserves to go to jail, that
>they would be motivated to preform. We could make great video. We
>could wage a media war behind this, without holding out TV
>audience to the intellectually stressful concepts of "Holders in
>Due Course" and "Fractional Reserve Banking".
> If the defactos cowered from the debate, we could present it
>to the public as prima facia evidence of bad faith. We could push
>forward on it till something broke loose. We on the outside here
>could start leaning the government officials who were cowering
>from the public debate and who were refusing to release you from
>prison.
>
> We also may want to consider inviting 6 defacto persons in
>to sit on our juries, or 12 on a grand jury, without their titles
>of nobility of course. We could roll the TV cameras. We could
>make them pledge to uphold the essential principles upon which
>the country was founded upon, and if they refused to so pledge,
>to let the chairs remain vacant or fill them in with our own
>default jurors. TV, radio, the internet and various patriot
>newspapers could all push forward on it.
>
> And under the concept of two groups of 6 or 12 peers each
>being warring factions, we could all sit down in front of TV
>cameras to discuss what laws should be held in "Common" between
>our two opposing jurisdictions. It may truly lead to non-violent
>resolution of all issues.
> They could bring in their best lawyers. Their lawyers could
>milk their treasury and gain national prominence. And we would
>clean their clocks on points of law. All right on TV.
>
>Another option is that:
>1: We can try to form a common law Jury form the area
>surrounding Justus township. I visualize that this is most in
>harmony with the essence of the commonlaw in that we are focusing
>on the area in which the alleged crime was committed, as the
>commonlaw precedents indicate to be proper.
> Problems being that our budget is zero, and that this would
>take our activists on the list going out to knock on doors
>surrounding justus township to request people to volunteer for
>commonlaw jury duty. Unless your crew from Freedom Center can
>volunteer to accomplish this work, I don't see it happening.
> But it would be very strong.
>
>2: Another option is that we here at the Multnomah County
>Common Law Court could assume jurisdiction of the case, with a
>proper petition from yourself. We could shoot video right here,
>showing the merits of the claims, and stand in barr under the
>7th.
>
>3: We can form a common law jury here on the internet. We can
>take testimony from all parties and render judgement from each
>juror when he is willing to certify that he: "has become
>sufficiently informed to render a just verdict with regard to the
>facts of this case". I think this may be the most efficient
>strategy to adopt. It would be easy to assemble 12 fully
>competent peers here for you.
>
> But of course these decisions are yours to make. That's my
>best for now, sir. I sam looking forward to your response to my
>propositions here.
>
>
>
>Charles Bruce, Stewart
>[deleted]
>Sandy Oregon [97055]
>1-503-668-(deleted)
>Call Collect Anytime.
>
>
>
>
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail