So the gaggle of wingnuts at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada decided to set up a camera and get up one by one to speak their minds. The results are highly amusing. Especially the “private attorney general” who explained that you can break any law you want if you’re prepared to rebut it.
Videos posted online show the scofflaw rancher’s supporters explaining their ideologies in lengthy lectures, such as one posted earlier this month that shows “private attorney general” Jeff Ball explaining that laws don’t apply to individuals if they understand how to rebut them.
“I want to give you guys the basic chain of command, all right?” said Ball, of the Citizens Action Network. “Up at the top of this tree is the creator, whoever your creator is, that’s where the creator’s at. The one below that is you, okay? So your original contract was with the creator.”…
“The earth is our inheritance, OK, but what these guys are trying to do is third-party their way into it,” Ball said. “So here’s how they want you to believe the chain of command goes: God, the Vatican, Washington, D.C., the city of London.”
Ball claimed London controlled the world’s finances, while Washington created war and kept slaves in line by “taxing them to death,” and he argued that the Vatican interfered with an individual’s contract with the creator.
“You guys have a contract with the creator and this earth is your inheritance,” he said. “That’s it; there is no more. You’re not subject to anybody, as long as you don’t hurt anybody. If you create injury on somebody, then that’s a different story.”
Ball argued that the state could not be a claimant under common law, but he said government prosecutors unlawfully did so in nearly every criminal proceeding.“There’s no claimant,” he said. “The state’s not allowed to be a claimant, yet they do that every day. If you don’t rebut it, then that means you consent to it, and they move forward with it and they subjugate you to it.”
Well okey dokey then. I went to the website of the Private Attorney Generals Group and they apparently like to lie through their teeth. The front page includes this quote:
“People have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding.
~ United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) ~
So I looked up that ruling. Here’s the syllabus, the majority opinion and the dissent. That quote appears nowhere. In fact, the words “unbridled” and “empanel” can be found nowhere in the text. The case had nothing to do with those “citizen grand juries” that these people are so fond of, it deals with the question of whether a court should dismiss charges from a grand jury if the prosecutor fails to reveal exculpatory evidence prior to indictment (and the answer was no).