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