The [Judicial] System of Tens and Hundreds

Original author unknown

Edited and submitted by michael-donald, a man

How can someonepretend to promote freedom and independence and

restoration of republican government (which we have ever been prevented from
having by the Constitution), and then tell everyone to support this or that political
party?

Dominance systems are incompatible with freedom (emphasis added)[Political

parties]attempt to dominateopposition. This includes erstwhile parties like the
Libertarians, or the Constitutionalists, or any of the some 150 third parties that
may be found participating in any national election. Any system that maintains
dominance from the top down is wrong. Any system that promotes freedom from
the bottom up is right. This is of course assumes that the participants actually want
to promote freedom. Politicians in general, are hung up on their own ego trips,
rarely seeing beyond their own imagined self-importance.

There is an ancient political structural system that did not aim at dominance.
Whether one wants to credit God or Moses father-in-law for its inspiration is
unimportant. What is important is that it was carried across Europe long ago by the
Celts and served the cause of freedom for many centuries. It worked! It was still
working in Saxon England when the Normans brought in the rival Roman system.

Freedom is merely an absence of barriers created to keep one from being free.
There are physical barriers that one can see and possibly avoid. There are also
invisible barriers in the form of ideas, and these are the worst barriers to ones
freedom. One has to be able to exercise individual discrimination to avoid such
barriers. One has to be able to think (emphasis added). Unfortunately, the
humanoid mentality is too involved with agreement. Most feel that should they
disagree with the group agreements about them, they will be left outside the range
of societys acceptance. Individualism, the basis for freedom, is therefore
commonly shunned. The larger the group with which one feels one must agree, the
more freedom one is abandoning. Little groups like Libertarians may feel they are
supporting freedom, but by the time the group grows to something akin to the D or
R parties, there can no longer be any individual thought. There can only be rigidly
controlled agreement. There can be no freedom!

Anyone involved in any freedom oriented political effort who is not familiar with the
ancient political system of Exodus 18:21 is a fraud (emphasis added). He or she is
just another would-be dominator. The desire to be enslaved is just as important as
the desire to be free. Anyone who wants to live under a totalitarian system should
be allowed to do so, within the limits guaranteed by Exodus 18:21. If this seems
outrageous, it is only because one has never been familiarized with the ancient
political system of Exodus 18:21, which was universally accepted until supplanted
by the subversion of democracy. In other words, anyone who thinks that freedom
may be obtained via the democratic process is a political moron. Voting is NOT
permissible in an appointive republican (real public) system.
As it existed under the Saxons, the basic political unit was called a Tun, consisting
of ten families. The Tun would handle any difficulties which might arise within its
geographic area. Above the Tun there existed Hundreds courts which would
oversee conflict between ten Tuns. Society was largely self-governing. It needed
no unlimited rule making from above, as we have today, to create infinite barriers
to the peoples freedoms. Even with higher judges or kings sitting above, the
people were basically much freer than those within any current society.

There can be found evidence of the understanding of the ancient system in

Bouviers or Blacks law dictionaries, also in Cokes [Jurist Edward] On Magna Carta
[Literatim, the Great charter of Freedoms, also a primary author of The Right of
Petition, 1628] and in the writings of Blackstone. There are also intimations of
understanding Exodus 18:21 in the notes on the 1787 Constitutional Convention,
the best of which Ive found being in John Lansings unedited notes published as The
Delegate From New York.

The ancient system, by the way, also existed under the Iroquois Constitution (or
Algonquin Confederation) which directly influenced the drafting of our 1777 Articles
of Confederation. I dont (sic) know if it came to North America along with very
early emigrants from Europe, or if it just evolved out of the unregulated thinking of
those who I consider to be our real Founding Fathers and Mothers [as opposed to]
the Founding Scoundrels of 1787. In [their] system it was the women of the various
clans who would appoint one man to sit in the first council. From there one might
be appointed to sit in any higher councils, up to the Algonquin Confederation itself.
Had we a similar system today, we could go from the Tun level to the Congress
(again, unicameral, of course) in five or six steps, councils along the way serving as
precinct, ward [authors word], city, county and state councils. No voting needed or
allowed, no politicians or their vote-buying lobbyists permitted, no political parties
or conventions no overwhelming accumulation of sovereignty at the top. Ninety-
five percent of the sovereignty would still reside[with] the Tun and family. We
could go back to where the appointed US Presidents would be unknown entities
[authors word] once again. For instance, [one might ask; what is] the name of the
first US President? Hint: Washington was [number eleven]. [Those prior to the
Constitution are omitted from history and memory.]

Anyone writing or thinking about political reorganization today who still thinks
anything positive may come out of the democratic process is a traitor to the cause.
A vote is a direct surrendering of ones personal sovereignty (emphasis added).
Non-involvement in the democratic process is the only way out. Back to Exodus
18:21 is the only way in. To my knowledgethere has never been a better
alternative. We are all about to lose even national sovereignty to an international
government with all power at the top.