The goal of any court system is to set conflict resolution in a society in an orderly fashion, thus preventing social chaos, unrest and private vendettas.
When the court system does not fulfil those functions and, in and of itself, starts to spread injustice and personal vendettas of the administrators and insiders of the system against non-insiders, the natural thing occurs, the natural thing being appearance of alternative ways for people to seek legal remedies.
That is done by speaking out in public forums - with the hope that the public becomes aware of the issues, that exposure of perpetrators of abuse of public office will be brought to justice or at least shamed into changing their ways.
Yet, I will remind my readers that in the United States and in every state of the United States the sovereign is We the People, by the state and federal Constitution and by our Declaration of Independence, and this collective sovereign may rule either through its representatives (the government) or directly.
By the way, we have a U.S. Supreme Court case stating that directly in no uncertain words, putting the direct exercise of sovereign power actually ahead of exercising it through a government representative.
I took this quote, actually, from the filing of a common law grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. They did pretty legal good research of the subject matter.
Yet, when people who become desperate to fight the impenetrable wall of injustice created by the "justice" system, start participating in such alternative-court programs, exercising their rights to directly govern as a popular sovereign, they are:
1) targeted as "domestic terrorists" - see my blog about it here and here;
2) criminally charged, convicted and sentenced for fraud and "simulating legal process" as it just happened in Texas;
3) mocked as "nuts", and their pleadings as "comic" - see even such a respectable legal blog as Jonathan Turley's blog to sink as low as calling the actions of the Texas woman "comic" pleadings; and
4) blocked from access to court, as the candidate to become new Chief Judge of the State of New York Gail Prudenti did - without any authority - in blocking court filings of a movement called "the common law grand juries", and blocking access to court only aggravates the problem, not resolves it.
Prudent claimed that "there is no authority for a grand jury to be formed outside of the auspices of the court".
Yet, the law clearly says otherwise. Here is an excerpt from a federal filing by the same entity.
See also the decision of the Greene County Supreme Court on the issue of New York Common Law grand jury (from a federal filing).
In the above decision the court:
1) mocked the common law grand jury's filings by calling it an application in quotes;
2) claimed that the application could not be entertained for the only reason that:
a) it did not comply with CPLR 3013 and CPLR 3014; and
b) did not state a "cognizable cause of action".
Yet, the filing was not for a civil lawsuit, but was a summons to a criminal grand jury, so no "cause of action" needed to be stated there.
Now, despite the accusations that these organizations are terrorists, criminals and nuts, all they are doing is asserting their rights found in the laws of this country.
Thus, the honest way of dealing with them is to oppose their arguments not with blunt force of the government,
- not by putting them on the "domestic terrorist" watch list - as the FBI did with the "common law sovereign movement";
- not by blocking their access to court as our candidate for the Chief Judge A.Gail Prudenti did, without authority, in New York, after reportedly calling a SWAT team to protect court officials from simply filing papers in court calling them to appear in front of "common law grand juries", and
- certainly not by convicting them criminally for "simulating legal process".