One Judge or A Jury of Judges?

Which is best?

One Judge or A Jury of Judges?

Which is best?

Seems that fraudulent election results can be ignored if they are brought to the attention of a Judge as in the case of Kari Lake and her obvious conclusion that the Arizona governor elections where skewed by the opposing party, due to a conflict of interest as well as a number of out of ordinary strange anomalies surrounding the election process in specifically two or three counties and cities that had the most Republican votes involved. This is the issue that needs to be resolved.

Her claims went before ONE man.

Judge Peter Thompson has rejected Republican Kari Lake's attempt to overturn her election loss in the Arizona Governor's race, affirming Democrat Katie Hobbs as the winner in last month's election, according to multiple reports.

A Maricopa County judge denied a motion to sanction Kari Lake and her lawyers over election fraud claims, saying such claims weren't "groundless," but ordered her to repay $30,000 in expert witness fees. If they weren't "groundless" than what the hell was going on with this Judge?

Governor Katie Hobbs (D) and Maricopa County filed a motion to sanction Lake and her lawyers, claiming that her election fraud lawsuit was brought forward in bad faith. What a crock. Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson ruled against them, claiming that although she lost the case, there was some basis to Lake's claims. Gee, so some basis was not good enough to go forward instead of shutting her down? However, she was still ordered to pay $30,000 in expert witness fees. She will not have to pay any other fees. Justice shouldn't be for sale and she shouldn't have to pay for anything. Why would she sue in the first place unless it was OBVIOUS that she had a case? There are too many coincidences in her case to just sweep them under a rug.

Hobb's conflict of interest being first and foremost that even a novice in jurisprudence can see as a big wart on the nose of "lady justice".

I mean REALLY? Bad faith? Katie Hobbs was the one that COUNTS THE VOTES from the election and questioning that is "bad faith"?

Well this is the problem I see. NO ONE MAN should be able to decide something as important as this. No one man should be able to crap on the thousands of disenfranchised voters in the state of Arizona or in any other state or situation. The suit should of at the least been before a PANEL of Judges, in my opinion of at least 3 preferably 6 or more. Since our JURY system is based on 6 for misdemeanors and 12 for felonies, you would think that for something like this it would be AT LEAST as many as the 6 member jury. AND they should not have the least bit of conflict of interest. PERIOD. And by the way, in the beginning ANY criminal charge against you, gave you the right to have 12 jurors of your peers. It was later in our history that misdemeanors where assigned six jurors.

Do Judges typically have a conflict of interest? Most likely YES in all cases. A "judge" is supposed to be a disinterested neutral referee in a case of say the "state of Arkansas" prosecuting someone for a violation of a "law". Here in is where the dilemma lies. Who pays the judge's salary? The taxpayers of the State of Arkansas. Who pays the prosecuting attorneys salary? The taxpayers of the State of Arkansas. Who pays the "public defenders" if you are unable to afford an attorney to "defend" you? The taxpayers of the State of Arkansas. Say you do end up with a jury? Who pays the jury fees that are paid for you to attend the conflict between the "state" and yourself? Why, the taxpayers of the State of Arkansas. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I have been blessed with a small amount of ability to utilize my reason, logic and common sense to come to conclusions. Is it just ME or is there a conflict of interest here for all parties involved? The late George Gordon, who was an expert and well informed in the common law that our nation was founded on, said that a LAWYER as well as a public "offender" as he liked to call them, where both beholden to your adversary. Was he right? Obviously.

Did Judge Peter Thompson have a conflict of interest? Does Katie Hobbs have a conflict of interest? Is the judicial branch of our so called governing system a boon or something that is actually a detriment to the average person who gets caught up in the web of millions of "laws" that have to do with nothing but revenue collecting? Doesn't it boil down to just that? Smoke a bit of Mary Jane, get caught, pay $1500 do not pass go and do not collect $200. Hmmmmmm....multiply that by THOUSANDS of "violators" of that "law" and cha ching cha ching...the coffers of the enemies of freedom are filled to overflowing.

First off, we need to get rid of thousands upon thousands of "laws" on the books that make criminals for innocuous acts. Yes, there should be a damage to SOMEONE before something can be called a crime. Are you damaging someone by smoking Mary Jane, other than yourself? And unless you get to the point of addiction, I’d hardly say you are harming yourself even. Are you damaging someone by possessing a rifle with a barrel length of 12" instead of 16"? A rifle that is black and ugly? A magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammo? Having an open can of beer on your front porch? Catching rainwater for personal use? Oh heck, I could write a 5000 page article about all of the “crimes” that are on the books for only one purpose. To raise money for the law enforcement growth industry.

Now I do realize that some "laws" may be there because of the threat of damage or danger involved. For instance texting while driving is DANGEROUS and there needs to be some sort of deterrence to keep you from doing something that is so dangerous that is is obvious. Would you text while operating a table saw? A plow? A tractor? An airplane? While riding your horse if you had one? Some sort of deterrent needs to be enforced as I see it. Acts such as these may be considered a misdemeanor for engaging in such stupidity. Standing out in front of your house on New Years at midnight or on the 4th of July and firing a weapon into the air would be such an act.

Driving while intoxicated would be another such issue. However, you couldn't be considered a "felonious" drunk driver unless you actually harmed someone due to your foolishness.

One "judge" should NEVER have have such power over a city, county or state. It HAS to be more than one. It is too easy to corrupt one individual. And you don’t even have to corrupt them, they could, in abject ignorance rule in a way that just would make no sense to the rest of the population.

In my mind it should be a group of citizens, that are picked from the population at random of at least six who are then sworn in as judges. To judge the law as well as the facts presented before them. They should be compensated in some way from some sort fund that is put together to be drawn from. Not a fund taken by force. Maybe if we had a system like that folks would donate to such a fund because they could see the benefit of having judges made up of the average Joe Sixpack and Sally Housewife to have an unbiased view to address a violation of a "law". Maybe voting them in by some method would be a good idea, if the vote was unable to be skewed.

There could be citizen groups that job is to oversee the local police in your jurisdiction made up of citizen judges to decide if an officer overstepped his authority in any given situation made up of people who have NO conflict of interest. Such as being the wife of a police officer or direct relative. Or someone that profits from police activity. Reason, logic and common sense would dictate who could be a judge in this type of situation. The whole idea of "qualified immunity" needs to be crap canned.

Before I close down this post, I do want to say that in the case of the supreme Court, there has to be some way for their decisions to be enforced. Otherwise we don't have a 4 tier form of "government". I know, you've only ever been "taught" that we have three branches of government. Well that is not true. In reality the first branch is mentioned in the first three words of the Constitution. Without THEM the other three branches wouldn't even exist. We also need to understand our POWER as jurors to judge both the LAW and the facts in ALL cases, not just civil.

This is the definition of JURY found in Websters 1828 dictionary:

JU'RY, n. [L. juro, to swear.] A number of freeholders, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case. Grand juries consist usually of twenty four freeholders at least, and are summoned to try matters alleged in indictments. Petty juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.

Notice BOTH THE LAW and the FACT in criminal prosecutions. A not guilty verdict could stem from the fact that the LAW is unjust. Putting someone in a cage for 10 years and fining them $250,000 for having a rifle with a barrel length of less than 16" is a law that is unjust. AND the penalties violate the 8th amendment totally. There are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of unjust laws on the books. Why don't we KNOW about the power of the jury?

Because of the government school system where we are indoctrinated into being good slaves. Slaves don't go against their masters and the masters are surely not going to teach the slaves how to defend themselves against their unjust edicts. Karl Marx thought so highly of government schools that they are listed as the 10th Plank of the Communist Manifesto.

You might wonder what a "freeholder" was or is. Here is the definition in that same 1828 dictionary... FREE'HOLDER, n. One who owns an estate in fee-simple, fee-tail or for life; the possessor of a freehold. Every juryman must be a freeholder.

WHY? because non property owners would be able to "vote" away the property of property owners. And the majority of all people are NOT property owners in the sense of an estate. And HAVE the non property owners voted away the rights of the property owners? Who has an estate owned in fee simple? We don’t. And that is the FIRST plank of the Communist Manifesto. Abolition of all right to private property.

What do you think? Am I off the wall? Does it make sense? ONE Judge or a JURY of Judges.

By the way, for lots of information about the TRUE power of the jury, which we were not instructed about in government school, check out http://fija.org .

~ Courageous Lion