History, Writ of Jury Impanel (Green is Hansen’s comments)
I do not agree with the below article/INFO 100%, but it is an interesting read, I’ll make more comments on it as time provides.
The “sheriffs” we presently (different from various sheriffs throughout history) have are pure US sheriffs, they are paid by the US system, they are elected by a US election process, they are elected by US citizens, they are US employees, yet can only lose office due to lack of votes.
My perspective is that if the jury can be called to meet the satisfaction of a jury, if/when challenged, it stands, just as the jury determines the law and the facts of the case, so also, American Juries have authority over jury selection. And this can be challenged by any God-honoring Jury. Note if a jury is not God-honoring it is not a jury. Lawyer Hansen 2017
99) Ponendis In Assisis.
A Writ, at one time referred to as an Old Writ, but potentially becoming a usable process again as it becomes better known about, directing a sheriff to impanel a Jury for an Assize (see Assize) or Real Action (see Real Action). Voir Dire. . . From the French – to Speak the truth. This phrase denotes the preliminary examination which the court and attorneys make of prospective jurors to determine their qualification and suitability to serve as jurors. Peremptory challenges or challenges for cause may result from such examination.
The TRUTH about Voir Dire. Only the county’s sheriff has the true right to impanel a Jury, whether for an Assize, as pertains to a criminal form of case, or a Real Action, which pertains to civil form of case. The convoluted practice involving today’s Voir Dire by a direct use of the same by judges and necessarily in courthouses is a sign, or evidence, of the corruption at Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, Phrase 1, combined with the Sixth Amendment itself.
By these understandings, it becomes inexcusably evident that the corrupted procedures involved the question of who the Constitution has actually authorized to Control the Courts altogether, has extended itself to the removing from sheriffs the lawful authority and responsibility that was once theirs exclusively.
The sheriff was, and is an elected official whose first duty to both law and justice (God’s law, God’s justice) is to the people; then to the courts second. As an elected official, to whom the people can hold responsible and accountable for the performance of his office, whose duty to ensure a truly Impartial Jury made the very role of the Jury more important than it is now (as contrasted to the Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s 1937 political conspiracies authorization against Juries), and made the people more responsive to the knowing of the law itself than the Cardozo conspiracies caused to become a distant practice of the people in the past.
STRONG PUBLIC NOTICE TO HISTORICAL FACT. In the earlier days of our nation, inclusive of each State thereof, judges were Not everywhere to do everything that they do now. This being the truth of the fact, we are to understand that we are to look at certain procedures, such as this procedure for a Writ of Ponendis In Assisis, in order to determine how the same was originally established to work for such cases as were to be for its use. By necessarily excluding any availability of any judge for any case purpose, it becomes IRONCLAD that the said Writ could not be used in connection to such an impossibility as that, leaving us to consider what other forms of officials we might discover to submit the Writ to, and how that Writ – of Ponendis might be properly structured and submitted.
Bearing in mind that the said Writ could not be submitted to any judge, then it would hold under the Common Law, which may not be done away with by any alleged procedure of a legislature, that the Writ of Ponendis In Assisis would go, instead, to the same official of government, within the Administrative or Executive branch, whose job it was to execute it as a matter of known Common Law Practice, the sheriff alone, and none other.
The procedure of the Writ would address the Sheriff of the county wherein jurisdiction for either Assize or Real Action was vested, stating the purposes of the Writ action, whether as to an Assize (Trial by Jury) or Real Action (also by Jury), and the nature of the Jurisdiction, or the breaking of the law, under which the action as contained in the Writ was to be brought forth by. The names of the parties were stated, both plaintiff, or accuser, and defendant, or the accused, were also included in the Writ, and the Writ, when completed, was finally signed by three competent witnesses to the Writ, along with the name of the plaintiff, or accuser, calling for the action upon which the Writ was based, following which the Writ was submitted directly to the Sheriff (or Deputy Sheriff assigned to receive Writs), the same providing some form of docket number for identification purposes, and from that point it became the Sheriff’s duty to see to it that the Case proceedings were on their way with the local court, for either the Trial by Jury or the Trial for a Real Action as the case may have been.
This did not mean that every civil case went through the Sheriff for an official determination of the case; only those important ones involving property and estate rights (see Real Property), but all criminal case mandating a Trial By Jury – judge not included – did go through the Sheriff’s office for further processing. IMPARTIAL Jury. In the infamous Simpson, O.J. criminal case, where a challenge was raised for the potential of racial discrimination involved with certain members of law enforcement, there existed an immediate duty to not choose as jurors members from either Caucasians or African Americans; this is the United States, we have a number of separate races here, living together; the duty was to impanel the Jury from among any other persons of different races than the two in question. This being the truth of the matter, the Jury being impaneled having not excluded persons for either of these two races altogether, but impaneled by citizens who constituted other ethnic interests than either of these, we must conclude that such case, or any case similar to the conditions that existed in that case, that has not or does not seek to impanel the Jury precisely impartially so, constitutes the potential for a Partial Jury, not an Impartial Jury, due to the potential of certain bias or certain prejudice within the members of such nonimpartial Jury so mis-impaneled. The final truth about a Ponendis In Assisis . Ponendis In Assisis shows us, in part, the fact that we have lost out legal way, not only because this was a practice under the Common Law, which cannot be abolished by legislators “just like that” at all, but because it provided the people of the several States with a connection to their roots of elected government, and made the people more wholesome because it was their actual duty (opportunity), in the event they should be called to Jury Duty, to know the law, and not let judges get away with the claim that it was only they for whom the law was intended to discern, altogether, and the Jury members, not at all. The Writ of Ponendis In Assisis, and full scope and reality of the Trial By Jury, in all criminal cases, and in civil cases where Trial By Jury shall be Preserved, is the only lawful form of court to be held in the United States – of America. © 2006 First American Public Law School ALL Rights Reserved as to form and/or content.
