Introduction
On this New Year's Eve, I decided to do some historical research before putting into writing something which I find myself coming back to repeatedly. Repetition of thought is usually my prompt or trigger for writing.
One of the common questions of those new to the concept of the lawfull de jure Assembly is, “Why haven't you done anything yet?” Well, first, we have! Second, we are limited while we are “interim”. That's a little tougher to explain. So before I help answer that a little more completely, let's take a little trip down American History Rabbit Trail Lane.
“A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” ~ James Madison
So join me for a few minutes, learn something you probably didn't get in school, get a reminder of what you probably did, and then look at the brief answer to that question above with a little more perspective and comprehension. Ready? Let's go!
History of the “Declarations of Rights and Grievances of the Colonists, in America”
In March of 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act. It required colonists to pay taxes on every page of printed paper they used. The tax also included fees for playing cards and dice. This was supposed to cover the costs of the British troops who protected the colonies (while also taking advantage of their private resources). This was not received well, because as we all know, the colonies had no sitting representatives in the British Parliament. It's hard to accept someone forcing you to give them money when you didn't agree to that.
Previously, in 1764, James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer, wrote in “Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved” that “the very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.” He popularized the phrase “taxation without representation is tyranny” in a series of public arguments.
In May 1765, Patrick Henry wrote the “Virginia Resolves”, which laid out the “taxation without representation” argument. Talk of opposition spread and lead to “Committees of Correspondence” in the colonies to further the protest. Massachusetts called for a meeting of all the colonies. They called it the “Stamp Act Congress” or the “Continental Congress of 1765”, and 9 of 13 colonies sent reps to New York that October for this purpose (Otis served as one of the delegates from Massachusetts-- can't imagine why! Ha!). Some of the men who went would also go on to sign the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But as you might have noticed, this meeting is ten years before those historic days.
It took them more than two weeks to approve of a document, drafted by six delegates, on Saturday, the 19th of October, 1765: “Declarations of Rights and Grievances of the Colonists, in America”. At this point, they still felt a connection to England, but the colonies were maturing and they wanted protection of their rights as well as their properties.
While on the one hand describing themselves as “subjects” to the Crown, 27 of the colonial delegates also declared, in part:
III. That it is inseparably essential to the Freedom of a People, and the undoubted Right of Englishmen, that no Taxes be imposed on them, but with their own Consent, given personally, or by their Representatives.
IV. That the People of these Colonies are not, and from their local Circumstances cannot be, Represented in the House of Commons in Great-Britain.
V. That the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature.
VI. That all Supplies to the Crown, being free Gifts of the People, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain to grant to His Majesty the Property of the Colonists....
XI. That the Increase, Prosperity, and Happiness of these Colonies, depend on the full and free Enjoyment of their Rights and Liberties, and an Intercourse with Great-Britain mutually Affectionate and Advantageous.
Committees were put together to draft the three petitions (which are also on record— see links at the end of this article) to the King, House of Lords and House of Commons for Congressional approval on the following Monday. The petitions asked for a repeal of the Stamp Act. As you might guess, the request didn't go over well, but under pressure, the British did finally repeal it in March 1766 and then passed the Declaratory Act, which stated its right in principle to tax the colonies as it saw fit. So...yeah.
Another resolution in the Oct 19 Declarations was written because the Stamp Act violations were to be tried in vice-admiralty courts, which had no jury:
VII. Trial by Jury is the inherent and invaluable Right of every British Subject in these Colonies.
In summary, I’m pointing out that this Declarations document was prompted by our Founders’ desire for 1) Proper representation and 2) Trial by Jury.
Declaration of Independence
By July of 1776, our Founders were done with asking. The oppression they had experienced over the previous decade had progressively gotten worse. They were ready to make their stand against the British. As I have heard of law enforcement officers interacting with suspects: “Ask, tell, make.” The first petitions after the 1765 Declarations were an “ask”. The 1776 Declaration of Independence was the “tell”. By that time they had also started fighting for it, but it would be several more years to process the “make” until they had secured the independence they sought.
There are several grievances in the Declaration of Independence which involve legislative and other related issues. One of these which seems quite connected to our discussion here is this:
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
In other words, they were still being subjected to laws they had no ability to either support or oppose, and worse, their own self-government was unable to act properly because of the oppression. Sound familiar?
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury;...”
Does this sound familiar, too? It should. What you see in the corporate courts is not a de jure grand jury trial for crimes. Those juries are not informed as they should be. They're not able to act as or as effectively as they should be. We need to change that, too! We have the same things in common as our Founders! And I'm only touching on two of those grievances in this article.
Once again: In summary, I’m pointing out that this Declaration was prompted by our Founders’ desire for 1) Proper representation and 2) Trial by Jury.
Put It All Together
Put the concepts I have highlighted in this bit of history together. What are we highlighting? Two of the most important aspects our Founders were concerned with were:
1. Representation of, by and for the people in a proper representative self-government.
2. Trial by Jury of the accused's peers, with no appeal to any court, because there isn't one with any higher authority.
Aren't those things we value today, too? Don't we have grievances against the tyrannical powers attempting to control us? Don’t we want proper justice for the crimes against us?
Now put it all together with the lawfull Assemblies...
For the first point:
Do you want lawfull government with reasonable and efficient checks and balances by, for, and authority under, We, THE People? Then we MUST assemble! Why haven't we been able to take actions yet? First, we have. See my last three-part series for more about that. But to be effective and lawfull in the legislative body, we must have the proper jurisdiction first. We can't have that unless we are able to elect representatives in the de jure. And we can't elect people to fill those seats unless we have enough qualified Assembly members (who do the electing) in the de jure. And we can't have Assembly members without a lawfull Assembly!
Michigan has established the lawfull and military-recognized and military-backed process, and is working to grow our numbers and elect those “re-presentatives” in the de jure while we are still “interim”. Every county elects their delegate (old-school term for “Rep”) and every region elects their statesman (senator). There are other de jure seats to be filled at the county, state and national levels also, but you get the idea. Assemble and settle your state and your county so you can hold a lawfull government and tell the “corporate contract service administrators” that they're no longer needed. When we have enough states in the de jure jurisdiction, we can do this on the national level, too! We currently have 16 states lawfully Assembled, that I know of. We need at least 38. Then we can start to achieve the representation our Founders fought so hard for, once again.
To the second point:
A proper trial by jury cannot be held from within the corporation. They've shaped “government” so far from the original jurisdiction that we cannot have that separate, vital, and above-Constitutional grounds branch of de jure governance until we return to the original, lawfull (de jure) jurisdiction. If we are to obtain justice for what I have heard are hundreds of thousands of sealed indictments, we MUST collect our grand jury pools and make them available as soon as possible. This can only be done through the General Jural Assemblies.
In Summary
Two of our most desired and treasured rights were declared, twice, by our Founding Fathers' generation. They fought for, risked and sometimes died for these things. It's our turn to declare, once again, the very same things (though we can do so with far less personal risk!). This time, though, we need to make it stick. When we assemble properly, we can get back on the path they started for us, and clear the way for the next generation to continue on with the greatest political experiment our nation has ever known. Why is it taking so long?
“...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and userpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...”
If you're ready to learn more about our history and especially if you're willing to take action on these same values, visit national-assembly.net. If you're in Michigan, visit michigandejure.org. If you're on Telegram, MGJA members in Muskegon County have set up a channel to help inform the public: t.me/MuskegonCountyGenJuralAssembly.
Source links for some of my research today:
Some brief history on the 1765 events:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/no-taxation-without-representation
The Declaration of Oct 19, 1765:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu65.asp
Oct 19, 1765, “Proceedings of the Congress at New York:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N08166.0001.001/1:1.16?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
Oct 22, the Petitions to “his Majesty” and to the British Parliament:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N08166.0001.001/1:1.18?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
The source of info on the Parody image:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html