Felons Good, Law Enforcement Bad

In this passage, the authors reveal their contempt for and paranoia over elected officials or anyone in the legal profession - including police officers, sheriffs, state patrolmen, game wardens and even parking meter readers. This paragraph bars all from serving on the grand jury. Interestingly, it doesn't prevent convicted felons from serving. Apparently they're more apt to be impartial than those who swear to uphold the law - and put their lives on the line to do it. In other words, the Special Grand Jury could never include people who enforce our laws. But it could include people who break them.

Our response:

Felons Good, Law Enforcement Bad???

Here is another illustration of the Club's "reverse-180." Evil is good and good is evil. We have already cited in a previous response, Isaiah 5:20 et seq. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil..." etc.

Correctly quoting Amendment E, paragraph 12, last sentence, provides "...except..." Now what does the word "except" mean? Does it mean "including"? What is excepted in paragraph 12 of Amendment E? It is "...previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons." Now how does excepting prisoners translate into "Felons good"? Can anybody PLEASE EXPLAIN? --we'd like to know! If someone said they hated spinach, could that possibly be interpreted that they believe spinach is "good"? Only the Club could come up with such absurdity! Up means down, down means up; left means right, right means left; the lie is the truth, and the truth is a lie; light is darkness and darkness is light. By Amendment E excluding those with mental incapacity, perhaps members of the Club would be excluded on that basis-- they just can't seem to understand logic and reason.

Nowhere in the exclusions of paragraph 12 does it say, or can it be implied, that we love felons! But this is what the Club is attempting to plant in your minds.

Law enforcement bad?? Just because someone has a conflict of interest does not make them "bad." It simply means that they have a conflict of interest. If a police officer arrives on a crime scene and the scene involves that police officer's daughter, does that make the police officer "bad" because he has a conflict of interest? NO! The same would apply to a judge who owns stock in a company who is a party in a case before him.

On the subject of conflicts of interest of those listed as excluded from the Special Grand Jury, it is totally inappropriate for judges to sit in judgment of other judges. Judges have a propensity to cover up for elected and appointed officials, which may include governors who appoint judges, and elected officials who often recommend appointments to judgeships, etc. Judges are or were members of the State Bar which is a qualification for their judicial appointments, and many judges are former prosecutors and their personal friends. These conflicts have nothing to do with paranoia or being evil.

Should prosecutors or police officers serve as jurors examining judges? or as jurors at all? Most everyone with common sense would agree that this would not be practical or appropriate. If it did happen, the results --no matter what-- would be publicly viewed with skepticism and disdain. But regardless of all that --government officials are disqualified on the basis that they are NOT the People and therefore cannot, ipso facto, be members of the Special Grand Jury, on that basis alone!

While police officers "swear to uphold the law," so do judges! Yet, how many do? The legal fraternity knows this all too well. They are spinning from the reality that the People have finally caught on to them. A police officer told the author "Go ahead and sue me. I've been sued before, and no one's ever collected a dime." That's because the judiciary covered up for his police misconduct, and the judiciary claims to be protected by judicial immunity. Then judges cover up for judges. So it's a brick wall for a victim of this tyranny.

Regarding "In other words, the Special Grand Jury could never include people who enforce our laws. But it could include people who break them," ironically, it is often those who are charged with enforcing the law who find it easy to break the law, because nine times out of ten the system will cover up for them. The author has learned this from eighteen consecutive years of practical experience, and has received confirmation of similar experience from many others across the country. Tyranny is rampant everywhere.

As far as convicted felons are concerned, there's a good percentage of them who were wrongly convicted because of our corrupt system. However, those in prison or on parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons are specifically excluded.

The Special Grand Jury is the People, and government officials and those related occupations are public servants of the People and not eligible to serve as the People.

(Back to Confronting)