ADDENDUM: Who Was Innocent – T.Martin, G. Zimmerman
PLEASE READ THE FIRST BLOG POST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THIS ONE (BELOW THIS) AND THEN RETURN HERE FOR THIS FOLLOW UP –
ADDED NOTES…. I am thinking back to perhaps the greatest murder case in history – the President JFK assassination. There, prominent and now historic Attorney Mark Lane accepted hire from Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother for Lee H. Oswald. Now, he was and is a prominent Attorney and well versed and talented and so there HAD TO BE the legal basis to do this or he OBVIOUSLY would not have rendered legal services – to defend or give defense of a dead suspect in a case happening as charged, and being charged, not reaching trial or even arraignment on charges.
And so here we have Judgment in Florida that George Zimmerman is innocent and Trayvon Martin is then charged and judged as in the act of Attempted Homicide. It was incredible that this was not addressed with all the original rush of support to the Martin Family. Perhaps it has been, and perhaps there was needed first a judgment rendered to then take action. In effect, the trial occurred without Legal Representation for Trayvon Martin. OBVIOUSLY prosecution in the case did not and could not act as Assistance of Counsel for Trayvon Martin. They represented the Law and District as bringing charges against George Zimmerman. Nevertheless, President Obama has just recently now said there should be or will be a review into this event and or the Florida Laws concerning it. It may well be the case was NOT tried appropriately, and seems to be so by a large majority of Americans.
So see and understand that T. Martin was accused and convicted of Attempted Homicide as it is the only reason G. Zimmerman was found “Not Guilty” or he would be guilty of Murder by degree. The only way he could be “innocent” using deadly force is if he was defending his life against deadly force. And so the Verdict convicts T. Martin of Attempted Homicide – murder in degree – and declares Trayvon Martin as Guilty in the act of committing a Capital Offense (criminal charge which is punishable by the death penalty) as Judgment declared G. Zimmerman Not Guilty in Self Defense via Homicide making lawful “justifiable homicide” as a death penalty committed without due process of trial ….. which is an obscure allowance as only the President of the U.S. has power of response as engaging war without Congressional Declaration in cases of Imminent Danger (Invasion) to the Nation and similarly the State Executives for defense of State Invasion. Obviously war declared or made against the United States is Treason and capital offense with deadly force against same in National scale where necessary.
[AND THERE IS NO LEGALITY FOR ANY STATE TO DISMISS THE DEATH PENALTY AS THE US CONSTITUTION DECLARES THE RIGHT TO PUNISH CAPITAL OFFENSES AND ALL STATES ARE BOUND TO A REPUBLICAN FORM OF STATE GOVERNEMNET OF THE US CONSTITUTION ONLY – NOT CONTRARY TO OR DISMISSING THE US CONSTITUTION IN ANY POINT. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND NO STATE UNDER IT MAY PASS ANY BILL OF ATTAINDER WHICH MEANS STRIPPING ANYONE OF THE RIGHTS AND LAWS OF THE US CONSTITUTION. THEREFORE ANY STATE DISMISSING THE DEATH PENALTY IS GUILTY OF ISSUING AN UNLAWFUL BILL OF ATTAINDER IN THE MEANING OF GENERALLY STRIPPING RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF THE RIGHT OF PUNISHMENT FOR CAPITAL OFFENSE. MANY PUBLIC INTERPRETATIONS LACK VERITY AS THEY OPPOSE THEMSELVES SAYING AMERICA CAN NOT CONVICT FOR TREASON WHEN DESCRIBING LIFE OF ATTAINTED AND ARE RAMPANT AND PERHAPS RATHER THAN IGNORANCE – INTENTIONAL DISINFORMATION/
Article Three, Section 3 “….The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
/YOU SEE THE US CONSTITUTION HAS THE POWER TO CONVICT VIA ATTAINDER OF TREASON. HOWEVER, IT DECLARES NO ONE ACCUSED MAY BE FORCED A SPIRITUAL CHANGE (CORRUPTION OF BLOOD OR TO SAY DEATH OF EXISTING SPIRIT) OR FORFEITURE OF LIFE (PUT TO DEATH) BUT ONLY AND ONLY AFTER CONVICTED BY DUE PROCESS OF LAW AT PUBLIC TRIAL (ATTAINTED – JUDGED, CONVICTED IN COURT – LIFE OF THE ATTAINTED/CONVICTED LEGALLY). LOOK AGAIN AS IT READS – CORRUPTION OR FORFEITURE OF BLOOD. PUT TO DEATH CAN NOT MEAN BOTH CORRUPTION AND FORFEITURE AS IT SAYS “OR” , THEY ARE WRITTEN INTO LAW AS TWO DIFFERENT ACTS. ONE IS SPIRITUAL AND THE OTHER PHYSICAL OR SIMILAR – TEMPORAL AND CORPORAL. BLOOD FROM THE CHRISTIANITY BIBLE MEANS SPIRIT OF LIFE AND COMMANDED NOT TO EAT THE BLOOD MEANING THE OBEDIENT SHALL NOT EAT/INDULGE IN THE DISBODIENT LAW BREAKING SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST – THE CORRUPTED BLOOD/SPIRIT – COMMANDED TO POUR IT OUT ON THE GROUND OR TO SAY TREAT IT AS FORBIDDEN FORNICATION OF SPIRIT AND DISMISS IT COMPLETELY, AS COMMANDED IN THE DAY IF THOU SHALL EAT FROM THAT TREE (SATAN) THOU SHALL DIE (SPIRITUALLY, AND ALSO AS PUNISHMENT OBTAINED THE CURSE OF PHYSICAL DEATH TO DIE ONCE FOR SIN IS THE CURSE WHICH PHSICAL DEATH DID NOT EXIST PREVIOUSLY. ADAM AND EVE WERE IMMORTAL UNTIL THEY COMMITTED SPIRITUAL FORNICATION WITH THE DEVIL IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN.)
NOW CORRUPTION OF BLOOD WAS SUSPECTED AGAINST SIRHAN SIRHAN WITH THE HYPNOSIS PERFORMED AFTER HIS ARREST FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF US SENATOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ROBERT F. KENNEDY IN SUSPECTING THEY ATTEMPTED TO CORRUPT HIS SPIRIT INTO SAYING HE ALONE SHOT RFK. ]
….and see here now in the Law what was denied T. Martin as convicted by Verdict as guilty of Attempted Homicide, Murder by degree…..
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
In this type case as a self defense homicide and this case particularly, it is apparently natural that a COMPLETE investigative inquest into the two individuals (Martin, Zimmerman) and ALL EVIDENCE is NECESSARY to determine how the death occurred – as being NECESSARY – as the ONLY testimony is one person’s word against the other as a statement as to what happened, the other silenced as perished. There was no Assistance of Counsel for Trayvon Martin. There was no cross examination of statement and evidences on Trayvon Martin’s behalf. The right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor was denied. And Trayvon Martin was convicted of Attempted Homicide never receiving a lawful Trial or Legal Representation for that. Was there even a phsychiatric examination performed of George Zimmerman ?
PERHAPS ATTY. MARK LANE WILL RETIRE WITH THIS CASE. HE SPOKE AND CONDUCTED AS THE FEARLESS LION OF NEW YORK IN THE JFK CASE. Don’t kid yourself, this may be the rave of this decade ending in so much new Legislation, even, totally concerning all laws and Proceedings for self defense Trials in America – and necessary. It will probably go as recent tradition that the opposition to guns as legal for self defense and the public bearing them etc will come from all the gun supporters and associations – perhaps ignorantly at first. They most likely in the end will see eye to eye on most if not all of proposed Legislation for new Laws that may indeed be coming, even imminent. This is all may be a new eye opener and complete wake up call to this event of self defense in America and the way it is and has been handled in American Law.
The current Law seems completely deficient as rendering any Judgment in the case of self defense whereby one is alive as survivor and the other dead with only the survivor’s word as statement plea testimony that the other was in the act of committing Attempted Homicide etc. George Zimmerman and all these like cases of history and that shall occur should NOT have the right to not Testify in Open Court under Cross Examination citing the Fifth Amendment as, “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” . Having George Zimmerman TAKE THE STAND would not be the suspension of the Fifth Amendment but the employment of it in this and like cases…..
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
George Zimmerman’s “police statement” WAS NOT SWORN/UNDER OATH/Affirmation TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC TRIAL. Making the similar or same sworn/under oath/affirmation testimony in Public Trial is NOT compelled testimony against self. It is TESTIMONY FOR SELF – NOT AGAINST SELF. Since when is a Police Statement SWORN/UNDER OATH/Affirmation TESTIMONY IN PUBLIC TRIAL? This is a complete EPIPHANY here – A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something, a comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epiphany
When anyone is pleading Not Gulity in any case in America they should legally be required to make their full statement as to why and how they are saying they are not guilty – NOT TO SIT THERE SILENT CITING THE FIFTH AMMENDMENT AS JUSTICE. They should be required to make a full statement and testimony sworn/under oath/affirmation saying HOW THEY ARE INNOCENT AS PLEA. The Fifth Amendment provided for the Law, Judges, Court and Officers to have their charges and case made and presented – NOT having the defendant do their work for them in court as being forced to testify against themselves – BUT that they have been elected and sworn into duty and appointed and at the Taxpayer’s expense, a good salary for a good job, not even mentioning the very integrity and honor expected demanded and earned. A FULL SWORN TESTIMONY AND STATEMENT BY THE DEFENDANT STATING IN FULL HOW AND WHY THEY ARE PLEADING GUILTY IS NOT COMPELLED TESTIMONY AGAINST ONE’S SELF – IT IS VOLUNTARY STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY FOR THEIR SELF! Of course as such, ALL Immunities and Privileges prevail preserving ALL right of the Fifth Amendment in all cases obviously.
BOTTOM LINE – THE ACT OF LETHAL DEADLY FORCE SELF DEFENSE HOMICIDE BY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND ALL LIKE CASES DECLARE THIS ACT AS A CAPITAL CRIME OFFENSE….. AND THE ENTIRE FIFTH AMMENDMENT APPLIES. A CAPITAL CRIME IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. KILLING SOMEONE BY SELF DEFENSE IS THEREFORE CONDEMNING THAT PERSON AS A CAPITAL OFFENSE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE DUE PROCESS AND REGULATION BY CONGRESS AS THE BEARING OF ARMS TO DO SO. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW ALREADY TO DO THIS TO A TREASONER WITHOUT TWO OR MORE WITNESSES….. (and remember from my blogpost http://christianeministry.com/2012/12/18/sandy-hook-gun-control-act-proposal/ of how it was proposed to place gangs under the RICO ACT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act which places them as under FEDERAL JURISDICTION and being armed illegally places them under the law of Treason as INSURRECTION) …..
Article Three Section 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The Instruments of the Law include Abstentia and Posthumous Award as relative for Foundation in a legal manner of opening the (JFK and now Trayvon Martin) to Public Trial, and particularly here, for those perished, silenced, defenseless and RE-TRIAL seems warranted.
I AM NOT SAYING AMERICA SHOULD GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. I AM SAYING IN THE PUBLIC TRIAL OF THE ACT THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE A JUDGMENT OF INNOCENT – BUT THAT A HOMICIDE HAS OCCURRED AND THERE BEING NO STATUE OF LIMITATIONS THAT THE CASE SHOULD REMAIN OPEN AND THAT ONLY NO EVIDENCE HAS CONVICTED ANYONE OF MURDER AND HOMICIDE IN DEGREE. THE PERSON COMMITTING THE ACT SHOULD BE CHARGED AND IS GUILTY OF THE HOMICIDE (KILLING SOMEONE) BUT THAT THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED OR PROVEN AS MURDER IN DEGREE AND THEREFORE REMAINS AN OPEN CASE UNTIL THAT COULD BE PROVEN. THE STATEMENT AND PLEA OF NOT GUILTY IS NOT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OF INNOCENCE THOUGH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED. AS IS – PLACES THE COURT IN ENTRAPMENT OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY, COMPELLING AND FORCING THE COURT TO SURRENDER ALL DUE PROCESS OF LAW CLOSING THE CASE AGAINST DUE PROCESS OF PUBLIC TRIAL GUARANTEED TO ALL OF AMERICA. SIMPLY SAYING THEY COULD NOT FIND EVIDENCE TO CONVICT OF MURDER IN DEGREE DOES NOT MAKE THE DEFENDANT INNOCENT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW OR CITIZENS AND YET AGREED THE PERSON IS NOT HELD FOR IT AS GUILTY OBVIOUSLY. THE CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED – JUST THE DEFENDANT – AS NOT HAVING EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES TO HOLD THEM FURTHER – NOT, NOT RENDERING A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY UNDER ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION AS THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT, ONLY LACK OF PROOF TO THE CONTRARY.
I believe these are some of the lines of thought with Atty. Mark Lane and the Lee Harvey Oswald case in similar vein.
The In Absentia is as an instrument in law and US Law that mostly refers to defendants and trials and the defendent’s rights to be at the trial. There are events that have rendered acceptable exceptions. The rest is dealing with a deceased person who can not appear of the case. In Absentia demanding no trial without the defendent present the basis untold or explained is that based on the US Consitutional rights of Americans, who being a defendent charged with some crime, have the right to Assistance of Counsel (lawyer). This means anyone charged is responsible for their own defense conduct of the trial and that what they lack in legal knowledge is supported by their lawyer, so that all things are equal for both sides as being equally represented.
The MAIN operative word is “Assistance” of Counsel. Not their lawyer conducting their defense for them. The defendent is responsible for their defense and may at anytime have the lawyer speak for them in legal terms neccessary and, without saying otherwise, are agreeing that their lawyer speaking is speaking for them as they would speak if they had the neccessary legal knowledge of how to so speak. If at anytime a defendent disagrees that their defense lawyer is not speaking correctly as they would, they are repsonsible for that, whatever is necessary to correct things. The Assistance of Counsel may ONLY speak as the defendant has allowed and is so agreeing to all things said. Naturally a defendent may not, being found guilty, say they want another trial with another lawyer because they did not like the outcome and want another lawyer for a different one – but not dismissing that if their is an appeal against the judgment lawful, they are guaranteed the right in the US appelate jurisdiction, right to lawfully appeal a decision.
ACCORDING to the accepted EXCEPTIONS of In Absentia, and are rendered decisions of record, a defendent charged and is deceased does not preclude the defendent has no right to Assistance of Counsel defending their person, effects, and life etc in trial – much as a defendent who may be medically or physically incompetent or may have one as in the area of Legal Guardian for them and so forth as Juvenile etc – the exceptions allow for the deceased to be represented in trial as by their “guardian” as next of kin (family) etc so choosing their Assistance of Counsel for the deceased on their behalf legally such as even in cases of some court ward etc even necessary by the Court. And so in juvenile cases the under aged receive any Assistance of Counsel via their parents or Legal Guardians etc or Court appointed where necessary and lawful.
It is OBVIOUSLY conflict of interest or absenst therein that the District bringing charges of murder in degree is as well the designated legal Assistance of Counsel for the Affiant. In short, the Affiant (one pressing charges) may bring Assistance of Counsel to the District to begin the arrest proceedings to insure they are reporting the crime(s) appropriately by the law, seeking the proper legal proceedings appropriate and having sight of the proceedings, everything as of record legally as sworn statements made by them etc.
And so, again, I believe these are some possible thoughts of, or arguments even, made by prominent Attorney Mark Lane hired by the Oswald Family and pursued all the way to the LBJ Presidential Commission as the Warren Commision or Report. Here the similar is the unfortunate unprotected Trayvon Martin.
We can look to some fantasy example as some Life Insurance company hires to kill some client who may be ready to die and thus under Policy death will afford them the monies due at death, but has some clause that they are not responsible for death by murder only accident, and thus the deceased must be represented by the Assistance of Counsel to pursue the claim as not some incidental random homocide but a murder to avoid due compensation. That is not the best example and complex to the event here as the death of T. Martin. Trayvon Martin being convicted by Verdict in the case as guilty of Capital Offense was denied Assistance of Counsel to clear his name, person, effects, and record etc. – to legally defend him against such charges as the District was bringing charges against defendent G. Zimmerman and NOT the Legal Guardian and NOT Counsel representing T. Martin, as his Parents were present. The District could NOT speak on behalf of Trayvon Martin being a juvenile (not orphan) – with his lawful Parents as living, alive, and legal parents and guardians of the juvenile deceased being his lawful representation before and after.
I AM CERTAIN A RE-TRIAL IS IN ORDER! The real can of worms here is the epiphany realizing in all States who have dismissed the Death Penalty and unlawfully as the US Constitution provides for Capital Offenses as Law of the Land – that in those States then they have unlawfully stripped the rights of Self Defense – the using of deadly force to stop deadly force and is then defined as the deceased was committing a Capital Offense (crime worthy of death penalty) and therefore in effect has made it ILLEGAL for their State citizens and residents to defend their lives with deadly force against deadly force. THIS is what is meant by (paraphrased) “Congress may pass no Bill of Attainder…” meaning Congress can NOT pass any bill into Law that removes existing rights of American Citizens or the Goverment itself. The US Constitution as Law of the Land as well makes and is Law that EVERY State shall have a State Government modeled after (republican form of governemt) the US Constitution ONLY. The “republican” form of government means an inferior or lesser servant of serving the greater – republican – and of course means ALL states are inferior to Federal Law. States may NOT prevail over Federal Law. However, Federal Law PREVAILS over ALL States WITHOUT EXCEPTION. This is the meaning of “Law of the Land” – Federal authority of ALL the United States and EVERYTHING THEREIN. No State may act independently of the Law and pass their own form of Bill Of Attainder that dismisses the Law of the Land – the United States Consitution IN ANY POINT being a State with a required Republican Form of Government.
CAN OF WORMS 2…. What needs be preserved is that murder is unlawful and is a punishable crime in America. To say only the guardians or family etc of the deceased may bring charges and not the Court and Officers (Police, Militia, etc) in effect is legalizing murder in some degree were charges are not pressed. THIS is obviously not any result of legislation proposed or acceptable as virtually the entire world views murder as unlawful and is a punishable crime expressly no matter who commits it.
As the President suggested Review, I think here there may possibly be new Legislation necessary to preserve equality and balance and justice as to ammend Trial to indeed include that seperate right of the Assistance of Counsel of Affiants to have right to the exact charges and accusations made by the District and so is preliminary to Proceedings as being in agreement first. This same as well applying to Defendants appropriately and equally as in the unique cases here – as Self Defense via deadly force against deadly force attack where there are no witnesses other than the living survivor of the event.
The troubling result has been with the Verdict in the T. Martin – G. Zimmerman case that the Nation is left with T. Martin was convicted without due process of murder in degree by reason of the innocent Verdict of G. Zimmerman using deadly force Self Defense against whom he accused (T. Martin) without witnesses of attempted murder, to say was found as guilty of deadly force attack against G. Zimmerman with no contesting of those charges and judgment by the accused Trayvon Martin represented by right of Assistance of Counsel of the act of murder in degree – apparently the Court declaring as not a premeditated act of murder (1st Degree) even with dismissing certain evidences as inadmissable and was not in effect legally tried as such. To say, the Court pronounced charges of assault and murder against Trayvon Martin without a jury trial of said accusation and charges by reason of rendering Verdict. The Court tried G. Zimmerman only, by action, and declared him not guilty by reason of self defense by his statement and word only and medical evidence presented – basically as centerpiece only in the trial – of which medical evidence did not prove guilt of the accused T. Martin but rather was presented as the innocense of G. Zimmerman…. physical injuries that were NEVER proven as occurring at the time and place of his use of deadly force (homicide) against T. Martin. The medical injury evidence was apparently only tried for the verification that those injuries sustained may have been suffered in a deadly force attack. That was it. To suggest that T. Martin had and or was able to perform them leads to supposistion and leading the jury to a conclusion unlawfully. How many Americans could similarly fit that description as being able to perform those type injuries – were they accusing all of America that day? (Animal House, “…We’re not going to sit here and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America…”)
Disturbingly, these cases seem to legalize murder and should and can not continue in that manner. Reminds me of an old 1960s era Rock N Roll band named Vanilla Fudge if you get the dual meaning. That’s what they said about Lee Harvey Oswald ….. Case closed. Hmmm….
HOW MAY THE US CONGRESS TAKE THIS CASE IN REVIEW AND RETRIAL?
Article IV, Section 1:
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
…This is too many times misconstrued and even intentionally as misinformation and interpretation – Full Faith and Credit shall be given…. is what and by whom? Full Faith and Credit is given by the Federal Government to each State as being trusted in as the honor system, or blind faith, by promise, etc they are and will remain in compliance of putting forth into Law a republican form of government of the United States Constitution ONLY dismissing nothing, not denying and not disparaging any rights of American Citizens as citizens and residents of that State that are guaranteed all Rights as United States Citizens.
It includes State to State by State examination of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings and to compare as to the same equal justice being necessary. Judicial Proceedings can prove a more true judgment arrived in one State to Judicial Proceedings in another to be compared to – of course not infringing upon the profession and talent and income of Attorneys etc, to say how a judgment was reached lawfully. However ONLY Congress by laws may prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. ONLY Congress has the right and overview and is Law of the Land as to how Judicial Proceedings are proved. ONLY Congress may render opinion and fact as to the EFFECT of any Judicial Proceeding in the States.
ALL THE ABOVE WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OPINIONS BY ME SHOW THE BOTTTOM LINE THAT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS MAY TAKE FULL POCESSION OF THIS CASE TO EXAMINE AND PROVE THE CASE AS LAWFUL AND INCLUDING BY RENDERING THE EFFECT OF THIS CASE AS TO WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN ANY FEDERAL LAWS VIOLATED OR STATE LAWS OR DISTRICT. THE US SUPREME COURT MUST REFLECT THIS – THE POWER OF THE US CONGRESS – IN ANY PROCESSION.
This then includes the Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI)…” In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law….”
…. This is to say then that “…which district shall have been previously ascertained by law…” shows the Federal Authority and to have oversite of Proof and to Prove the District (where this case was tried) is and was “previously ascertained by law” and is part of that FULL FAITH AND CREDIT GIVEN by the Federal Goverment (that blind faith, honor system, etc) that Florida is indeed in compliance with a state republican form of goverment of the US Constitution and this IS NOT the “double jeopardy” violation, to say the case can not be tried again or reviewed. The District in the State (county, town, etc) or State itself has NO power to stop the US Congress from this. The US Congress may show the effect of a flawed Judicial Proceeding in a State and prove any “mistrial” etc and declare it a void judgment and case be retried. Which is to say perhaps this is the route as opposed to “take it all the way to the US Supreme Court” – always assumed as the only way to get justice in cases via lawful appeal etc. The case retried then is NOT in violation of the Fifth Ammendment (“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”) .
PODCAST SHALL FOLLOW SHORTLY – AUDIO VERSION COMMENTED.