Publik Skewl II
by Joe Kelley
4-27-2022

DISCOVERY

Not visible are those things hidden until discovery brings light to the darkness imposed by Treasonous Frauds.

All eyes, ears, and voices are required. No child LEFT in the dark.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

VALIDATION

One is limited compared to two cooperatively sharing the cost of discovering hidden threats. 25 active agents for defense balance the need to increase perceptive power sufficient to validate threats without becoming a threat to expedience. If everyone is focused on protecting everyone all the time then no one is ever prosperously employed. Are 25 valid validators per County Jurisdiction enough?

The People's Panel
The Grand Jury in the United States, 1634 - 1941
Richard D. Younger
Page 3
"They proved their effectiveness during the Colonial and Revolutionary periods in helping the colonists resist imperial interference. They provided a similar source of strength against outside pressure in the territories of the western United States, in the subject South following the Civil War, and in Mormon Utah. They frequently proved the only effective weapon against organized crime, malfeasance in office, and corruption in high places.
“But appreciation of the value of grand juries was always greater in times of crisis, and, during periods when threats to individual liberty were less obvious, legal reformers, efficiency experts, and a few who feared government by the people worked diligently to overthrow the institution. Proponents of the system, relying heavily on the democratic nature of the people's panel, on its role as a focal point for the expression of the public needs and the opportunity provided the individual citizen for direct participation in the enforcement of law, fought a losing battle. Opponents of the system leveled charges of inefficiency and tyranny against the panels of citizen investigators and pictured them as outmoded and expensive relics of the past. Charges of "star chamber" and "secret inquisition" helped discredit the institution in the eyes of the American people, and the crusade to abolish the grand jury, under the guise of bringing economy and efficiency to local government, succeeded in many states.”

A validated discovery of a threat to all life on earth is not THEORETICALLY more or less valid than a validated discovery of a threat to one single newborn life. One may have the power to discover the other one, but once the discovery is validated the threshold has passed and the clear and present danger warrants a probable cause to act in defense of one and all. We may want to protect the one that protects all if we don't kill that one due to misleading or false information.

"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime.”
Englishman’s Right, John Hawles, 1762

Discovering and validating those best able to focus defensive power on validating discoveries requires one and all maintaining vigilance because one might mislead another one before and after one validates.

The Security of Englishmen's lives, or, The trust, Power and Duty of Grand Jury
By Baron John Somers
“Our ancestors thought it not best to trust this great concern of their lives and interests in the hands of any officer of the king’s, or in any judges named by him, nor in any certain number of men during live, lest they should be awed or influenced by great men, corrupted by bribes, flatteries, or love of power, or become negligent, or partial to friends and relations, or pursue their own quarrels or private revenges, or connive at the conspiracies of others, and indict thereupon. But this trust of enquiring out, and indicting all the criminals in a country, is placed in men of same county, more at least than twelve of the most honest, and most sufficient for knowledge, and ability of mind and estate, to be from time to time at the sessions of assizes, and all other commissions of Oyer and Terminer, names and returned by the chief sworn officer of the sheriff, who was also by express law anciently chosen annually by the people of every county, and trusted with the execution of all writs and processes of the law, and with the power of the county to suppress all violences, unlawful routs, riots, and rebellions. Yet our laws left not the election of these grand inquests absolutely to the will of the sheriffs, but have described in general their qualifications, who shall inquire and indict either lord or commoner. They ought, by the old common law, to be lawful liege people, of rope age, not over aged or inform, and of good fame amongst their neighbours, free from all reasonable suspicion of any design for himself or others, upon the estates or lives of any suspected criminals, or quarrel, or controversy with them: They ought to be indifferent and impartial, even before they are admitted to be sworn, and of sufficient understanding and state for so great a trust. The Ancient law book, called Briton, of great authority, says, The sheriffs bailiffs ought to be sworn to return such as know best how to inquire, and discover all breaches of the peace; and lest any should intrude themselves, or be obtruded by others, they ought to be returned by the sheriff, without the denomination of any, except the sheriff’s officers.”

One must be empowered to share the cost of discovery, to exclude one from the duty of discovery probably causes less power to discover the worst to least threats to life, leaving opportunity for one to choose an evil path. Leaving an infant in a dark alley known to be traveled by human traffickers potentially entraps two, the infant and one who may consume the infant, both may then be taken from the path of true discovery, not simply the path of discovering threats, two are also moved off the path of discovering prosperity for one and all.

“If sinners entice you, Do not consent.
If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause;
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit;
We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil;
Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse,"
Do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path,
For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood.
Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird;
But they lie in wait for their own blood;
They ambush their own lives.
So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence;
It takes away the life of its possessors."

All are charged with the duty to discover. All are charged with the duty to validate. Some are better than most at both discovery and validation, so all are charged with the duty to discover and validate those among us who have unique abilities in both discovery and validation, to increase the power of defense against all enemies of one and all, foreign and domestic.

Treasonous Frauds confess when they choose by their power of will internally their ACT to cause injury to one and all, including oneself. All, including oneself, are rendered defenseless by one willful misleading choice to refuse to see, hear, or speak the truth, and remove that choice from the targeted victims of Treasonous Fraud.

No greater injury I can see so far is done by one upon all, including oneself, than the willful destruction of one's power to discover and validate threats to the power to discover and validate. Infants remain infantile by the last generation of misled parents.

The Blind, Deaf, and Dumb misleadingly Blind, Deafen, and Dumb Down all, on purpose, for Treasonous Fraud.

Idiocracy in a Theater near YOU.

"There is no question of the general doctrine that fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments" United States v. Throckmorton, 98 US 61-1878.

“Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird;”

All eyes upon those building nets for the purpose of entrapping victims of Treasonous Fraud lead to all discovering that net.

What is PUBLIK SKEWL?

The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto
[filmsforaction.org]
“By dissecting the history and presenting you with the references, you're left at the end of each hour with a copious amount of information from which you can continue your own personal journey of discovery.”

One would like to propose a test to another one here and now, and it matters not who offers the proposal because the one discovering the proposal is the target of concern internally. Is there a reasonable explanation for someone to groom someone else? If the word “groom” is contentious, then pick a word that works to describe an effort by someone to plant false and misleading information into someone targeted by the groomer who grooms someone. Is there a reasonable explanation for the fraud who defrauds someone, or the criminal who consumes someone? Whichever words work for YOU, does reason drive a cause to act in defense of oneself and each other?

If you can discover the reasonable explanation for someone perpetrating Treasonous Fraud or grooming, then can you then discover a way to validate your discovery for cause?

Is there probable cause to validate your discovery of Treasonous Fraud?

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.”
Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner, 1852

Who among US, if not YOU, can validate a cause to act in defense of oneself and all?

Is it reasonable to discover that no one is validating and there are now over 7 Billion of US, and is it reasonable to suggest that someone should validate a cause to act in defense of all injured by Treasonous Fraud sooner rather than after omnicide?

Caveat Emptor