ACTION

Many parents are concerned with the direction of education in the nation today. Children are not being taught what they need to learn.

In the past, American textbooks were always picked by local school districts who have the responsibility of assuring that they textbooks use met criteria in the basics of education principles.  Involved in the selection of textbooks was the local school boards elected to their position, and the local community including the parents of the children involved. This is no longer the case.

The United Nations has targeted our children to be indoctrinated into a globalist mindset through such UN entities as UNESCO.  Not only here in the United States but throughout Africa and beyond, the socialist controlled UNESCO have targeted textbooks that they feel are not politically correct. A few months ago they issued a “Global Education Monitoring” report that declared  textbooks in Africa did not meet the requirement on the subject of “global citizenship. UNESCO declared that if failed the promote  “ Homosexuality, lesbianism, global warming alarmism and transgenderism”. They have already made it quite clear that even “Private schools must be made to submit to the requirement of International law”. They are now trying to push another scheme called the “World Core Curriculum” a radical socialist scheme pushing everything from a revision of history to meet its needs and the sexualization of the children.

 They have an agenda of dictating textbooks that will be used  to shape an agenda, and attitude and the ethics of our children. This is being done to move forward with their Agenda 2030 and the sustainability within that agenda.

http://intellectualconservative.com/agenda-21-soon-to-become-the-2030-agenda/

In Connecticut, a group of United Nations “human rights” experts have forced a change in textbooks because they we not happy with how slavery in the Northeast was written about in a history book  “Connecticut Adventure”. They proclaimed that the textbook must be changed because  it was insensitive to the plight of slavery.

The “experts” were from the” United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent”. The expert in charge is Sunga III from the Phillippines,.  This is the same group that last year came to the United States and demanded reparations for slavery, lobbied for gun control, and an end to voter ID laws.  This is the same group that turns a blind eye to the rape and terrorism set loose on the countryside of African nations, but feel it is more important to push their way into our education system to implement the agenda that have created.

At a summit held in Korea the UN adopted a global action plan that demands a worldwide “education regime” to transform the youth of the world into social justice warriors. In this plan the UN wants the responsibility of shaping our children in ethics, values and spirituality. It is being implemented for the purpose of making our children “green warriors” and  a part of the war for the “common good”. This summit, organized and run by the UN Department of Public Information (UNDPI) and through Agenda 2030 has as a goal, having the NGO’s worldwide working to implement its idea of global citizenship. In a portion of this report it was made clear what they consider a “civil society. Our children may need to be taught the fundamentals but the education they receive must also advance the cause of global citizenship. It declares that all facets of education, physical, spiritually,, ethically, and intellectually which would normally be the realm of the family, community and churches have been thrown to the sidelines to further the agenda of the globalists. The education they would receive would work toward assuring our youth are forced to believe the roles, right and responsibilities that will be allowed to keep or given to them by the globalists through the auspices of the United Nations.

Among the agenda as being driven by the United Nations, much is made of “Human rights” as written in Article 29 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The UN foundation for many of the plans that are moving forward. Using this article when read ensures that the UN and the tyrants who run the human rights council claim the your human rights can be limited by law for the purpose of “public order and the general welfare”. This line was first used by Hitler in the late 1930s. In essence you have no right, only privileges as given to you by the United Nations.  Your rights are not yours and in any case not be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

If the traditions and cultures of the individual sovereign states run afoul of the agenda the United Nations has set, it states that education will be “enhanced”.

Where does it all start? This could never happen here you say. Actually it already has. It started with the implementation of “Common Core” financed by Bill Gates and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) that was mentioned above on the intrusion of textbooks being used in this country. The objective is to make our children all good little globalists and to be transformed to be able to contribute to the global sustainable market. Common Core is the first step, a nationalizing of the curriculum that is meant to lead to a top-down planned society  that does not consider the Constitution, individual liberty and the God given rights that this country is founded upon. It is founded on teaching our children to be a part of the “globalist group” meant to take away the individualism and rights given to the American people and replace with global collectivism.

Through Common Core the effort is being made to “dumb down” the peole of the world.UNESCO has made it quite clear in the “Education for Sustainable Development report that “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people who tend to have lower incomes. More education increases the threat to sustainability.” Does that help to make sense to why Obama is bringing the poor from all over the world, and wages being stagnant for almost nine years?

Obama is an advocate of this agenda as is the Education Secretary Arne Duncan. It typical political doublespeak , Duncan stated  “Our goal for the coming years will be to work closely with global partners, including UNESCO, to promote qualitative improvements and system strengthening”

 The United Nations, in their minds has the authority to override families and has the collective right to shape the values of our country’s children. They speak of sustainable development but neglect to mention that parts of the development agenda include population control, central planning, and global governance. It is through the education of the children, and the indoctrination of those children into becoming good children fitting into the global citizenship world of the new order. It is the intention of the UN agenda to restructure human civilization into a centrally planned global economy under the control of the progressive socialist globalists and the UN.

Even home schooling is not safe. Under the guise of “human rights” and equality, even home schooling, private schools and religious schools must be put under UN purview. Understanding that they can move forward with the global socialism that they envision if they can induce enough people using the buzzwords of “equality and rights”, the envision a “group of change” involving children and young adults taught in the system they will implement to create an activism for even further goals in the agenda they have set.

INTRO: With "common law" grand juries currently gaining popular attention,and various attempts to "institute" and apply these occurring across the country, these issues are obviously increasing in frequency, and should be examined.   Some current examples are the case in Dixie County Florida, where Terry Trussell is facing 14 felony charges for "Impersonating a Pubic Officer" and "Unlawful Use of Simulated Legal Process", among other charges, now facing the possibility of the remainder of his life behind bars, or the Nevada common law grand jury claiming to have proved the "missing" 13th Titles of Nobility amendment was actually ratified by Virginia and thereby an actual amendment to the Constitution, or  National Liberty Alliance's own "Quo Warranto" (pdf) petition to various federal judges.

ARE SO-CALLED "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES VALID?

Some have claimed that Common Law Grand Juries are supported by the Constitution itself, and even cite  Supreme Court decisions, particularly United States v Williams (1992), as supporting these ad hoc common law grand juries.  However these claims do not appear to have any actual truth to them.

The only place the U.S. Constitution specifically references "common law" is the 7th Amendment, where it is an incidental reference in regard to legal suits, and then is only to affirm the right to trial by jury, not affirming the "common law" as any sort of guiding philosophy of this country, nor referencing "common law" grand juries in any way.

In 1992, Antonin Scalia made citations to the Grand Jury in United States v Williams, and referenced a few Supreme Court cases in doing so:

Of note, all of the above references are specifically to “Grand Jury” and nowhere particularly indicating “common law grand jury”, thereby not serving to validate those common law grand juries, contrary to claims.   In fact the idea of an ad hoc common law grand jury being formed entirely independently of the the judicial system is undermined by Scalia’s above statement, “in the courthouse and under judicial auspices”.  These Supreme Court references in no way serve to validate “common law grand juries”, as they are currently being envisioned and formed, but rather provide cause to question their validity.

The claim is made that these common law grand juries actually have precedent in American history, which is somewhat true, but overall inaccurate.  During America's early history, when there were municipalities or districts without any established court of their own, circuit judges would indeed travel from district to district and rely on the presentment "charges" of such common law grand juries in order to hold trials.  However these grand juries were not formed from hand-picked jurors, resulting in a stacked jury, nor did they involve claims of absolute authority above any existing courts, as is currently being done.  There is no validation for what is currently being done in America's past, or Britain's common law either. 

Attorney Leo Donofrio, who led two of the earliest court challenges to Obama's qualification to hold the Presidency in New Jersey and Connecticut, has also been an early proponent of using Grand Juries to pursue government wrong-doing. In fact Donofrio wrote an early article titled "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government", in which citizens use these Grand Juries to counter and correct government wrong-doing and corruption. However Donofrio later removed that article from his blog when a Georgia Grand Jury, allegedly inspired by Donofrio himself, indicated it had authority to confiscate people's property, and even take their homes, which would be criminal acts.


That article is still available on the Internet "Wayback" archive site here:
 The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

Take note, in that article title Donofrio specifies that it is the "Federal" Grand Jury that is the 4th branch of government, not just any Grand Jury, and notably not "common law".

Donofrio then wrote an article titled, "The Georgia Citizens Grand Jury Must Be Condemned" in which Donofrio made the following clarification of his previous discussion of FEDERAL Grand Juries:

Here Donofrio indicates that there is no such authority for people to independently form their own "common law" Grand Jury, under the belief they might prosecute "at will".

Unfortunately we have very extreme, ill-formed, and even dangerous beliefs held by these common law grand jury proponents, none of which are valid. 

The  National Liberty Alliance indicates (pdf) that the source of authority for these common law grand juries is the common law itself, stating, ""The Common Law is the jurisdiction that our founders set in motion when creating the United States of America" and "Common Law is Natural Law, America was founded on Common Law."  None of these claims are even remotely true.  This country's original foundation in British common law, did not involve any separate jurisdiction, and that common law was not actually relied on by the Constitution, which brought the United States of America into existence, but rather profoundly rejected by that Document.  Furthermore, "common law" is not at all the same thing as Natural Law and, in fact, the two considerations are entirely separate from one another, even by definition!  While the States originally utilized some terms, principles and practices inherited from British common law, that common law was never a founding principle of this country, and the Constitution in no way relied on common law.

Perhaps the biggest irony of NLA's "Quo Warranto" asking "by what authority" those federal judges act, is questioning the very authority by which NLA itself demands those judges fill out their questionnaire, and demands they provide a "surety bond", or else provide their detailed financial statement, with the obvious presumption being that NLA itself will act entirely illegally to confiscate that bond, or those financial assets, when NLA deems they have not adhered to unspecified common law principles that do not exist, and are not a part of this country!

The Nevada "Superior Court Common Law Venue" indicates its own jurisdiction to to be "Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction", and prominently declares ahead of its findings that, "Its decision cannot be reviewed by any other court of the land."  Oh really? It is impossible that a grand jury formed in 2014, without any authority under law, to have any "original" jurisdiction at all, much less "exclusive" jurisdiction.  Furthermore, every single American should be disturbed by any group willing to declare itself entirely UN-contestable, above any law and court, and unable to even be questioned, much less challenged.

"COMMON LAW" VERSUS "NATURAL LAW"

There is a gross misunderstanding of what the "common law" is on the National Liberty Alliance site, and by "common law grand jury" proponents generally.  The Common Law is not something sacrosanct in this country, and is NOT at all synonymous with our own understanding of Natural Law unalienable rights. 

British common law is nothing more than the cumulative decisions, practices and general principles of the British courts that were never codified into law.  That's it!

In fact that British common law is founded on Feudal philosophy of noblesse oblige wherein a person is born into a position in society with obligation to those above them. British common law actually also uses the term "Natural Law", in representing this "natural" feudal obligation to those above oneself in society, as discussed at length in Lord Coke's decision in Calvin's Case, 1608.  It is "natural" for persons to be subservient to those above them.   These feudal common law principles result in the doctrine of "Perpetual Allegiance," an indelible obligation to  Crown, country and one's superiors that can never be broken, never severed by one's own choice, unless by death itself.   As Americans, we specifically rejected that feudal common law doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance in the War of 1812.

These  common law foundations are entirely antithetical to our own Natural Law understanding of rights being innate to the individual, unalienable, and coming from "Nature's God", certainly not allowed us by others in a caste society. 

Under British common law, the law of the Creator is conflated with the law of England and being lain down via edict to the common man from that divine Crown through the judiciary. The King is viewed as both head of the Anglican church and state as well.   By this,  under common law,  anyone in disagreement with the state is viewed as a hostile, with Jews being recognized as enemies with no real standing in Court, and having little assurance as to property rights. 

Natural Law is recognized, by definition, as being entirely outside of man-made Positive Law.  That man-made Positive Law consists of "statute", those laws that are codified and written down, and those things that are not codified as any singular law but still recognized as directing principle, "case law", with this generally including what is referenced as "common law." However "common law" is not necessarily recognized as being binding.  Common Law is a part of that man-made Positive Law, and entirely outside of Natural Law.

Natural Law and Common Law really have nothing to do with one another.

Given these facts, the claim that "common law" grand juries have some overriding authority, and are founded in American principles protecting individual rights, is a stunning ignorance demonstrating a failed understanding of both this country, as well as the issues these groups claim authority regarding.

IMPLICATIONS OF "COMMON LAW" GRAND JURIES BEING VALID

If such a thing were ever recognized, it would eventually result in citizen's grand juries being formed at a whim, and "stacked" with people intending to reach a pre-ordained conclusion, resulting in presentments or indictments for things that really are not all that legitimate.   Someone might even be criminally charged for eating a pastry into the shape of a gun. 

Then there's always the old cliche, "a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."

Imagine the pure Hell that would be unleashed if the angry mobs in Ferguson could legitimately form their own "common law Grand Jury", and then pronounce a true bill presentment charging Officer Wilson with First Degree Murder, overruling the previous Grand Jury, and  the Missouri State Attorney would then be obligated to follow up on that charge, by arresting and trying Wilson for his very life. This could still happen despite a Grand Jury having already resolved that there was no evidence to charge Wilson.

Why wouldn't a grand jury formed by and from the angry mobs of Ferguson be valid? There is no special process involved in forming or validating those "common law" grand juries, and certainly everything inviting them to be "stacked" with people of whatever belief. That "angry Ferguson mob" could form their own "common law" grand jury, every bit as legitimate as any other common law grand jury.

Seriously, pause and consider if this were true,  any group of people could go off and form their own legitimate "common law" grand jury, and suddenly you yourself might have to answer to that jury's charges in an official court of law.

Or WORSE!  If they can do their own charges (presentments), why not their own convictions too?  We might have to answer to some unknown body of people, formed under unknown terms, acting entirely outside of the legal system, perhaps not even convening inside a courthouse, perhaps with a serious grudge against us for whatever reason, and they would be able to actually put us on trial for  something, anything, perhaps having us fight in their fabricated court for our very lives!

If such things were allowed, none of us, not-a-one, would ever be safe from wild charges coming out of nowhere, or trials for our very life, liberty, and property in "no holds barred" makeshift courts in the middle of nowhere. No one would ever be truly safe.

This is not how we fix things. It is how the justice system and society itself would become forever broken, subject to mob rule, and America lost in absolute Anarchy, never to be a Republic again.