Thought it would be most helpful to examine
an actual case that was heard by a Natural
Law Grand Jury and subsequently by a
criminal court Natural Law Judge and Jury.
We will start with the inception of the case
of Heirs of Creation Versus U.S. Corporation.
The Law of the Land is the people's law. And the people's law aligns with the laws of creation as, God (the first source of life essence) intended it to be. We call this Natural Law.
For now, colonial rule has made living as nature intended nearly impossible. So now we find ourselves in a transitional phase.
Natural law is perceived at the most basic level of life; sometimes unconsciously for those of us in transition. It is what informs and guides our awareness of self, others, and all living systems. The boundaries of Natural Law, or limits to our freedom, come from honoring the freedom of others and our responsibility to support the regenerative nature of living systems. So fear of anarchy is unfounded because natural law forms its own structure. There is no need for artificial boundaries (although specific communities will likely adopt some).
With Natural Law, necessity for fictions such as money, government, and external authority fall away as we come to understand the tapestry of creation we are "sewn" into. There is more than enough support for abundant life and wholeness in the relationship of all things. We miss this when we look outside ourselves for validation. Being inwardly guided, we meet one another at the center of ALL and each come away understanding our unique contributions to humanity and the universe.
Natural Law helps create the space in our minds to allow what is, to be. We are unaccustomed to being still. We don't yet quite understand the excitement of calm—the everything in nothing. We were programmed to a state of perpetual desire, anxiety, and labor. Now for deprogramming; realigning with deep, abiding peace and joy.
For now, colonial rule has made living as nature intended nearly impossible. So now we find ourselves in a transitional phase.
Natural law is perceived at the most basic level of life; sometimes unconsciously for those of us in transition. It is what informs and guides our awareness of self, others, and all living systems. The boundaries of Natural Law, or limits to our freedom, come from honoring the freedom of others and our responsibility to support the regenerative nature of living systems. So fear of anarchy is unfounded because natural law forms its own structure. There is no need for artificial boundaries (although specific communities will likely adopt some).
With Natural Law, necessity for fictions such as money, government, and external authority fall away as we come to understand the tapestry of creation we are "sewn" into. There is more than enough support for abundant life and wholeness in the relationship of all things. We miss this when we look outside ourselves for validation. Being inwardly guided, we meet one another at the center of ALL and each come away understanding our unique contributions to humanity and the universe.
Natural Law helps create the space in our minds to allow what is, to be. We are unaccustomed to being still. We don't yet quite understand the excitement of calm—the everything in nothing. We were programmed to a state of perpetual desire, anxiety, and labor. Now for deprogramming; realigning with deep, abiding peace and joy.
The Practice of Natural Law
The practice of Natural Law is not necessarily natural, but is appropriate in this moment because we are in process; healing and learning who we are in relation to all others. We are in a correction period; a time of purging the old, making room for the new. There are conflicts to resolve and disputes to settle. So, how does one practice Natural Law?
|
Each living system is an expert at natural law from inception. We automatically operate according to the flow of nature whether we realize it or not. Little children innately understand that for every action there is a consequence and that we thrive when allowed to function freely within natural structures. We intuitively know that our energy is highest when we operate in harmony. It feels better to be in joy than in anxiety. It's easier to live in truth than in falsehood. Living the laws of nature is living unobstructed energy; because that's how we thrive. So we will say, the practice of Natural Law is the maintenance of clean, unobstructed human energy; wholeness.
Introducing Natural Law Procedure
Again, there's nothing natural about writing natural law procedure; but its necessary for now and so we will do our best.
Navigating transition usually requires maintaining some of the "old" while introducing the "new." We will do this by utilizing terms that are familiar such as jury, grand jury, court, crime, charge, indictment, etc. Please refer to the Glossary page for definitions.
What is offered on this site is not based on precedent. In other words, what was done in the past has little bearing on what is done now. Natural Law rulings and judgements are made in present time according to contemporary circumstances by individuals using in-the-moment discernment rather than precedent (past rulings by prior judges) as we saw in Common Law. Of course we will continue learning from the past and utilizing time-honored wisdom; but at the same time, jurors and judges are free to make their own determinations and not bound by the actions of past jurors and judges.
Navigating transition usually requires maintaining some of the "old" while introducing the "new." We will do this by utilizing terms that are familiar such as jury, grand jury, court, crime, charge, indictment, etc. Please refer to the Glossary page for definitions.
What is offered on this site is not based on precedent. In other words, what was done in the past has little bearing on what is done now. Natural Law rulings and judgements are made in present time according to contemporary circumstances by individuals using in-the-moment discernment rather than precedent (past rulings by prior judges) as we saw in Common Law. Of course we will continue learning from the past and utilizing time-honored wisdom; but at the same time, jurors and judges are free to make their own determinations and not bound by the actions of past jurors and judges.
Procedure for Due Process
Sample Case Study
Sample Case: Heirs of Creation Versus U.S. Corporation
We thought it would be most helpful to examine an actual case that was heard by a Natural Law Grand Jury and subsequently by a criminal court Natural Law Judge and Jury. We will start with the inception of the case of Heirs of Creation Versus U.S. Corporation. Inception. Someone, having found a preponderance of evidence, initiated a criminal case against the United States Corporation. This person, from this point on, will be called the prosecutor. Having found the traditional law systems in America to be fraudulent and dishonorable, the prosecutor elected to try the case under Natural Law rather than English-Roman forms of law (Common Law or Constitutional Law).  The Grand Jury clerk facilitated all communication and coordination before, during, and after the hearing. Step Two. A modality for the hearing was chosen. This Grand Jury preferred to hear the case via telephone conferencing; the prosecutor agreed. Step Three. A hearing time and date was agreed upon for July 13, 2014. Step Four: The prosecutor assembled evidence and posted it on the Internet for transparency and to facilitate any private investigations by anyone wishing to follow the case, particularly Grand Jury members. Step Five: The Grand Jury was assembled and roll was called. 28 Grand Jurors appeared for the hearing. This particular Grand Jury had previously "sworn" to perform their duties honorably; however, the practice of Natural Law does not recognize any such "swearing in" process. A natural person's yes means yes and no means no. Step Six: The prosecutor presented evidence. Grand Jury members were allowed to ask questions and clarify any areas of uncertainty. The hearing itself lasted approximately 45 minutes; evidence had been posted for examination in advance.  Step Seven: The Grand Jury foreman took a vote (in roll-call fashion) for "true bill" or "no true bill" which simply meant either "yes, there's enough evidence to indict" or "no, there's not enough evidence to indict." The 28 member Grand Jury voted unanimously to indict. Step Eight. The Grand Jury foremen wrote up a presentment which was posted publicly and also sent via certified email to the World Court and to the Pentagon (USA). The Grand Jury clerk and foreman also requested immediate enforcement based on the seriousness of the findings. Step Nine. A judge was selected by the prosecutor and called to hear the criminal case according to Natural Law. A Natural Law criminal court clerk was called by the prosecutor and requested to assemble a trial jury. The clerk facilitated all communication and coordination before, during, and after the hearing. Step Ten. A modality for the trial was chosen. The court elected to hear the case via telephone conferencing; the prosecutor agreed. Step Eleven. A trial time and date was agreed upon for August 25, 2014. Step Twelve. A summons was send via certified email to the defendant by the prosecutor, along with an offer to participate in jury selection. The website where charges and evidence could be reviewed was also provided. Confirmation that the summons arrived to the intended recipient was received by the prosecutor. Step Thirteen. Additional evidence was assembled and posted on the Internet for public view and investigation. Step Fourteen. At the time of the trial, all parties were assembled and roll was called. 13 jurors participated the trial. The jury verbally agreed to perform their duties honorably as the practice of Natural Law does not recognize any "swearing in" process. A natural person's yes means yes and no means no. Step Fifteen. The defendant elected not to respond to the summons and did not appear for the hearing. Evidence was presented and the jury deliberated anyway.The hearing itself lasted approximately 45 minutes; all evidence had been posted for examination in advance. Step Sixteen. The prosecutor, addressing the Judge, presented a request for remedy. Step Seventeen. The jury foreman took a roll-call vote of "guilty" or "not guilty." The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Step Eighteen. The jury requested to vote for the remedy and were allowed. The jury voted 12 to 1 to accept the requested remedy with a couple of minor adjustments. The final decision, of course, would be left to the Judge. Step Nineteen. After the evidence and remedy were presented, an additional potential juror, who through extenuating circumstances was unable to make the trial on time, called in and requested to register their "guilty" vote as she had heard the evidence. The vote was accepted by the Judge and agreed upon by the prosecutor. This made a 14 member jury unanimous vote. Step Twenty. The Judge deliberated and returned an acceptance of the verdict and remedy as adjusted by the jury. |
Sample Case Discussion
For the sake of simplicity, we will manage this section by addressing questions asked about the case.
Question: From where does the Natural Law Grand Jury, Court, or Judge derive their authority?
Answer: Authority is an interesting concept in Natural Law since the only authority anyone possesses is over oneself. We believe what is meant by this question, however, is how does the court gain compliance with its decisions?
Compliance with a court decision under Natural Law just makes sense. Belonging to a Natural Law based social system is a free-will choice thing; so why would anyone affiliate themselves with a system they had no intention of complying with? If one does not wish to comply with natural law, they exit the Natural Law based system. If the time comes when all of Earth operates according to Natural Law, then belonging with the human living systems of Earth will depend on compliance. This might be a good time to reiterate the Maxims of Love.
Maxims of Love
Question: I don't think you understand what I mean. Let me rephrase the question. Common Law Grand Juries derive their authority from the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights. What can you show as a basis for your actions?
Answer: Natural Law is mostly oral and based in now-time. No written or historic document could possibly provide any sort of "authority" over a free and sovereign human living system. The basis for any action in nature is simply, I am.
Question: In the case of Heirs of Creation Versus U.S. Corporation, how did you handle the issue of jurisdiction? Were all of the jurors Americans?
Answer: The Grand Jury investigation showed that the U.S. Corporation committed crimes against humanity. So while the Grand Jury was composed of North Americans, the criminal trial included one or two international jurors. But again, the concept of "authority" coming from a geographical location makes little sense to us. With Natural Law, both parties select the judge and jury members by agreement. If they want someone from across the pond, then so be it. It's their case.
Question: What are the qualifications of the prosecutor and judge in this case?
Answer: The prosecutor and judge both saw that the people of Earth were being enslaved and tortured. The prosecutor believed she could prove it and created a forum in which to do so. The judge agreed to oversee the proceedings.
Question: What I mean is, are they attorneys?
Answer: No.
Question: Then what makes them think anyone will take them seriously?
Answer: If you look at the case you will see the nature of the work attorneys do in the U.S. Corporation. That speaks for itself. Natural Law provides for no such construct as a career or "profession" in law.
Question: So according to you, anyone could be a prosecutor and anyone could be a judge. That sounds dangerous. A bunch of gang-bangers could get together and convict anybody of anything!
Answer: Remember, there must be disputants. Both parties agree on the judge and jury. If they choose a bunch of gang-bangers, as you say, what is that to anyone else?
Question: It just sounds to me like things could get out of control real quick.
Answer: Then let's play it out. The gang-bangers make a decision and the disputants live with it. What's the worst that can happen?
Question: The gang-bangers might decide to do something like torture the defendant or order some ungodly punishment.
Answer: There is no punishment in Natural Law; only restitution and restoration. But if the disputants chose poorly and were harmed by their judge and jury, they would have a right to protection. The community would intervene if necessary. And the gang-bangers might never be asked to hear a case again.
Question: I see. Okay, so if I wanted to take my bank to court for foreclosing on my house, I could gather my friends together, pick one of them to be Judge and hold a trial. What good would that do?
Answer: Not much. Because you are saying you want to hold the trial by Natural Law while you live by Common Law.
Question: Explain please.
Answer: By Natural Law, if you want to have a bank, you select a trustee to manage your value for you while you learn to manage it yourself. If you select a trustee who proves to be inept, you de-select them and select another. You are responsible for your selection. It appears you have chosen to deal with corporate banks who view you as trustee of their value. You can't have it both ways; you either recognize yourself as a direct heir of creation or you don't; you either live by the laws of nature or you don't. (It might be helpful to review the "Structure" page of this site.)
Question: That seems extreme. We are in a time of transition, you know.
Answer: Yes, true. So we would suggest navigating the changes as guided by your highest wisdom.
Question: How are you going to convince people to adopt this new way, Natural Law?
Answer: Once artificial constraints are released and the people come to understand who they are, they will automatically behave in ways that feel natural. We are simply here to welcome the people, not convince them.
Question: I know a lot of people who like the way things are now. Their free-will choice would be for government to stay the way it is for the most part. What about them?
Answer: Freedom is for everyone, not just a few. If you want to be governed and can find people to govern you, so be it. However, those who would govern themselves are free to do so as well.
Question: From where does the Natural Law Grand Jury, Court, or Judge derive their authority?
Answer: Authority is an interesting concept in Natural Law since the only authority anyone possesses is over oneself. We believe what is meant by this question, however, is how does the court gain compliance with its decisions?
Compliance with a court decision under Natural Law just makes sense. Belonging to a Natural Law based social system is a free-will choice thing; so why would anyone affiliate themselves with a system they had no intention of complying with? If one does not wish to comply with natural law, they exit the Natural Law based system. If the time comes when all of Earth operates according to Natural Law, then belonging with the human living systems of Earth will depend on compliance. This might be a good time to reiterate the Maxims of Love.
Maxims of Love
- All living systems are free.
- All living systems are protected.
- All living systems unable or unwilling to live and act in accordance with the maxims of love correct their behavior or accept the consequences.
- Where the maxims of love are violated forgiveness is offered upon correction.
Question: I don't think you understand what I mean. Let me rephrase the question. Common Law Grand Juries derive their authority from the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights. What can you show as a basis for your actions?
Answer: Natural Law is mostly oral and based in now-time. No written or historic document could possibly provide any sort of "authority" over a free and sovereign human living system. The basis for any action in nature is simply, I am.
Question: In the case of Heirs of Creation Versus U.S. Corporation, how did you handle the issue of jurisdiction? Were all of the jurors Americans?
Answer: The Grand Jury investigation showed that the U.S. Corporation committed crimes against humanity. So while the Grand Jury was composed of North Americans, the criminal trial included one or two international jurors. But again, the concept of "authority" coming from a geographical location makes little sense to us. With Natural Law, both parties select the judge and jury members by agreement. If they want someone from across the pond, then so be it. It's their case.
Question: What are the qualifications of the prosecutor and judge in this case?
Answer: The prosecutor and judge both saw that the people of Earth were being enslaved and tortured. The prosecutor believed she could prove it and created a forum in which to do so. The judge agreed to oversee the proceedings.
Question: What I mean is, are they attorneys?
Answer: No.
Question: Then what makes them think anyone will take them seriously?
Answer: If you look at the case you will see the nature of the work attorneys do in the U.S. Corporation. That speaks for itself. Natural Law provides for no such construct as a career or "profession" in law.
Question: So according to you, anyone could be a prosecutor and anyone could be a judge. That sounds dangerous. A bunch of gang-bangers could get together and convict anybody of anything!
Answer: Remember, there must be disputants. Both parties agree on the judge and jury. If they choose a bunch of gang-bangers, as you say, what is that to anyone else?
Question: It just sounds to me like things could get out of control real quick.
Answer: Then let's play it out. The gang-bangers make a decision and the disputants live with it. What's the worst that can happen?
Question: The gang-bangers might decide to do something like torture the defendant or order some ungodly punishment.
Answer: There is no punishment in Natural Law; only restitution and restoration. But if the disputants chose poorly and were harmed by their judge and jury, they would have a right to protection. The community would intervene if necessary. And the gang-bangers might never be asked to hear a case again.
Question: I see. Okay, so if I wanted to take my bank to court for foreclosing on my house, I could gather my friends together, pick one of them to be Judge and hold a trial. What good would that do?
Answer: Not much. Because you are saying you want to hold the trial by Natural Law while you live by Common Law.
Question: Explain please.
Answer: By Natural Law, if you want to have a bank, you select a trustee to manage your value for you while you learn to manage it yourself. If you select a trustee who proves to be inept, you de-select them and select another. You are responsible for your selection. It appears you have chosen to deal with corporate banks who view you as trustee of their value. You can't have it both ways; you either recognize yourself as a direct heir of creation or you don't; you either live by the laws of nature or you don't. (It might be helpful to review the "Structure" page of this site.)
Question: That seems extreme. We are in a time of transition, you know.
Answer: Yes, true. So we would suggest navigating the changes as guided by your highest wisdom.
Question: How are you going to convince people to adopt this new way, Natural Law?
Answer: Once artificial constraints are released and the people come to understand who they are, they will automatically behave in ways that feel natural. We are simply here to welcome the people, not convince them.
Question: I know a lot of people who like the way things are now. Their free-will choice would be for government to stay the way it is for the most part. What about them?
Answer: Freedom is for everyone, not just a few. If you want to be governed and can find people to govern you, so be it. However, those who would govern themselves are free to do so as well.
Restitution and Restoration
When one experiences harm or loss at the hands of another, whether deliberate or accidental, that one is to be completely restored to whatever extent possible, and then some. It is the offender's responsibility to make restitution. If the offender lacks the resources or is otherwise unable to provide restoration, the responsibility for restitution falls to the offender's clan, band, or tribe.
If harm was committed due to an illness, condition, or incapacity on the part of the offender, the offender should seek restoration to prevent such an act from reoccurring. An example might be a case of persistent drunk driving, consistent irresponsible use of mind altering substances, or a seizure disorder.
Formal punishment is senseless as it, alone, provides no restoration to either party and is shown to lack efficacy as a deterrent to harmful behavior. In nature, all polarizations move toward reconciliation. Formal punishment artificially interferes with this process. Natural consequences and societal pressure to conform to life-giving behaviors provide their own deterrents. It might be helpful to mention the Maxims of Love's law of balance: All living systems unable or unwilling to live and act in accordance with the maxims of love will be given the opportunity to either correct their behavior or accept the consequences.
Who decides what is appropriate restitution? Both parties involved may select a judge and / or jury to investigate and make a decision. If a hearing has already be conducted, the judge may determine what is appropriate at the conclusion of the hearing. A special hearing may be conducted depending upon the wishes of those involved.
If harm was committed due to an illness, condition, or incapacity on the part of the offender, the offender should seek restoration to prevent such an act from reoccurring. An example might be a case of persistent drunk driving, consistent irresponsible use of mind altering substances, or a seizure disorder.
Formal punishment is senseless as it, alone, provides no restoration to either party and is shown to lack efficacy as a deterrent to harmful behavior. In nature, all polarizations move toward reconciliation. Formal punishment artificially interferes with this process. Natural consequences and societal pressure to conform to life-giving behaviors provide their own deterrents. It might be helpful to mention the Maxims of Love's law of balance: All living systems unable or unwilling to live and act in accordance with the maxims of love will be given the opportunity to either correct their behavior or accept the consequences.
Who decides what is appropriate restitution? Both parties involved may select a judge and / or jury to investigate and make a decision. If a hearing has already be conducted, the judge may determine what is appropriate at the conclusion of the hearing. A special hearing may be conducted depending upon the wishes of those involved.
Enforcement
The fourth Maxim of Love deals with the law of intervention: The community has the right to intervene in all situations where the maxims of love are violated regardless of local laws, customs, ethics, or practices. So what form does this intervention take?
An offhanded answer might be, the least of whatever is required.
In this time of transition, humanity calls for some healing in this area. Enforcement has gotten out of control and the concept may carry negative energy with it now. But in this moment especially, it is our obligation to peacefully protect each other, Earth Mother, and all her gifts.
An offhanded answer might be, the least of whatever is required.
In this time of transition, humanity calls for some healing in this area. Enforcement has gotten out of control and the concept may carry negative energy with it now. But in this moment especially, it is our obligation to peacefully protect each other, Earth Mother, and all her gifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment