EXCLUSIVE: In-Depth Interview with Terry Trussell of Dixie County, FL - Arrested by a Corrupt Judiciary

Florida is a State where "Common Law" "The ancient law of England based upon societal customs and recognized and enforced by the judgments and decrees of the courts. The general body of statutes and case law that governed England and the American colonies prior to the American Revolution" is still enforceable. However, the State has the delegated authority to write laws that over ride the "common law" and declare same null and void.

The "common law" is very well codified in England, where they kept very good records. So any claim of "common law" should be easily found in the case law of England and citation provided.

Here is a link to the Statutes of the State of Florida as to the grand jury.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&U...

After a review, please tell me what you think a "common law" grand jury would give you that the one established by law does not.

My post was in reply to this quoted request,

"Is the conflict in Florida a case where many people are stumbling around in the dark, whereby no one knows enough about true law to have at their fingertips the true law power?"

I live in Florida and provided you with the applicable laws of the State of Florida for your review and comment. After reviewing the laws of Florida, tell me what a 'common law' grand jury will provide that the grand jury provided for by law does not.

Not sure I understand your comments on a 'trial by jury.'

Yes, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution are applicable law in the State of Florida.

Your comments on 'trial by jury' are noted, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Your last paragraph of the above post, IMHO, would be a good definition of 'common law.'

Per F.S. 2.01 "Common law and certain statutes declared in force.—The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state."

However, our State Legislators have the delegated power to write laws which override the 'common law' no matter how you or I may define it. In Florida they have done so as regards the grand jury. Those laws are promulgated in our Statutes in Chapter 905, noted above. So no matter what the 'common law' may have been, statutory law now applies and is 'lawful fact' in the State of Florida.

So, after defining terms of the discussion, how does your definition of the 'common law grand jury' and it's authority under the 'common law' differ from the statutory grand jury and it's authority?

Are you capable of providing a straight answer to a question?

I guess not.

Clearly a case of "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your BS."

Joe, it's a simple question. What would the 'common law grand jury' give you that the statutory grand jury in Florida does not give you?

There is no 'deception,' just a simple question. Can you provide a simple answer or is that beyond you? You have not provided any 'simple truth,' just BS.

So then Joe, from your answer, "such that 12 people are the jury no matter what label is used to label those 12 people," I gather NOTHING.

So back to the OP. If Terry had worked within the law, instead of trying to write his own, he would not be facing ten felony counts. All to gain nothing that the law doesn't already provide.

As regards your comments about "the law of the land."

From you "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

Sorry Joe, it just ain't so.

"A citizen of this country before he can be subjected to the punishment of treason, or to the disabilities consequent upon it, must be convicted by a jury of his neighborhood, upon the previous accusation of a grand jury of his neighbors; also upon a trial before a Court appointed by law, for the purpose of seeing that he has every legal advantage the law entitles him to. He is not to be deprived of his liberty, or of his rights essential to its enjoyment, but by the law of the land. And what is the law of the land? Such acts of the Legislature only as violate none of the rules laid down in the Constitution—such as allow the citizen the privileges there secured to him—acts inconsistent with the rights of freemen as declared in the Constitution, which take away their constitutional privileges, which, in short, deprive a man of his life, or of the means of protection by an application to the laws of his country for redress of wrongs, without a previous trial by jury and a conviction by them, are not laws of the land—such are acts not authorized by the Constitution—they have no claim to the obedience or support of the citizen as laws—they are void."

From CRUDEN v. NEALE. This is the law of the land.