297 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
297 lines
19 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
TRY THE LAW
|
|
|
|
The scene is a somber federal court room. The lengthy
|
|
trial on a charge of weapons possession has just ended.
|
|
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the testimony has
|
|
now concluded. We will take the time to determine the
|
|
innocence or guilt of Mr. John Watkins.
|
|
"You have heard all the testimony from the prosecution
|
|
and defense attorneys. You will soon retire to the jury
|
|
room for your deliberations. All the evidence presented at
|
|
this trial will be there with you for your examination and
|
|
use in reaching a verdict.
|
|
"During your deliberations, I charge you with determin-
|
|
ing the facts presented in this litigation and the facts
|
|
only. I will now instruct you on the law concerning this
|
|
case and under which Mr. Watkins has been tried."
|
|
"If you have any questions during your deliberations
|
|
concerning what I am about to instruct you, please make a
|
|
written request to the Court. Cite what you do not under-
|
|
stand. The Bailiff will bring your question into the Court
|
|
and I will answer it."
|
|
Now, in a usual monotonous voice, the judge will read
|
|
his interpretation of the laws involved. If you can stay
|
|
awake and understand a small part of what 'His Honor' is
|
|
saying consider yourself fortunate.
|
|
This whole setup is called 'Judicial Supremacy'. They
|
|
purposely constructed court rooms so the judge sits higher
|
|
than everyone else. That forces you to look up to him. He
|
|
lords it over everyone that he is only the person who has
|
|
any say-so on the law.
|
|
This is a lie . . . a real legal fairy tale. The
|
|
reason for a jury has been turned upside down. In past
|
|
years it bears no similarity to the true purpose of your
|
|
duty as a juror.
|
|
Your obligation is not only to determine the innocence
|
|
or guilt of the accused, it is also to examine the law!
|
|
Let's get back to basics and define a law. The
|
|
supremacy clause of our Constitution is explicit when it
|
|
says it and only laws made following its power and
|
|
restrictions are the supreme law of the land.
|
|
The key words are laws made following the power in the
|
|
document. If they pass a law beyond the permission we
|
|
granted, then what? It would NOT conform to the document
|
|
and is no law. And how would you know?
|
|
The first requirement is that you know something about
|
|
our Constitution. Without this knowledge, these legal
|
|
eagles will continue to make monkeys of you. It would be
|
|
ridiculous to memorize the document and no one expects that.
|
|
Nevertheless, the purpose of the jury is to safeguard other
|
|
citizens from an overzealous government. You should know
|
|
where to look to see if they have the authority to pass the
|
|
law under which they are accusing the person on trial.
|
|
|
|
There are only four crimes listed in our Constitution.
|
|
These are (1) counterfeiting of securities and current
|
|
coins, (Art I, Sec 8), (2) piracies and felonies committed
|
|
on the high seas, (Art I, Sec 8), (3) treason against the
|
|
United States (Art III, Sec 3) and (4) offenses against the
|
|
law of nations (Art I, Sec 8). That's it! We gave NO power
|
|
to Congress beyond these four to define a crime. Sounds
|
|
weird . . . but it's true.
|
|
|
|
In 1821, Chief Justice John Marshall, of the United
|
|
States Supreme Court stated in an opinion, "Congress has a
|
|
right to punish murder in a fort, or other place within its
|
|
exclusive jurisdiction; but no general right to punish
|
|
murder committed within any of the States." Further, he
|
|
added, "It is clear, that Congress cannot punish felonies
|
|
generally;" (Cohen v Virginia, 4 Wheat (US) 264) (1821).
|
|
Unless you are a juror in a case (federal) charging
|
|
someone with a violation of one of the four listed crimes,
|
|
there is no criminal law. And you cannot judge the persons'
|
|
innocence or guilt. You have no right to convict.
|
|
That's a heavy statement. Let's see if it's true . . .
|
|
The determination of crimes and criminal acts were
|
|
designated as state functions. They are still state
|
|
functions today and of no concern to the federal government.
|
|
This is verified by the instructions in Art IV, Sec 2,
|
|
clause 2.
|
|
We have established repeatedly that our Constitution is
|
|
the supreme law of the land. Nowhere have we given Congress
|
|
the power to determine any act by a citizen to be a crime.
|
|
The document is full of 'thou shalt nots' directed at the
|
|
government. The consensus of some of our Founding Fathers
|
|
was that the powers given, limited as they are, were much
|
|
too dangerous.
|
|
The Tenth Amendment restates the 'thou shalt nots' . .
|
|
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
|
|
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
|
|
reserved to the States respectively or to the People." It
|
|
is an absolute bar to the federales assuming any power we
|
|
did not grant to them.
|
|
For the sake of illustration, this trial was about the
|
|
possession of weapons. The Second Amendment prohibits the
|
|
Congress from passing ANY law which will infringe on the
|
|
right to keep and bear arms. And here the 'justice' dept
|
|
is after someone for possession of weapons? It's no good.
|
|
The law is a myth.
|
|
Hamilton makes it clear in Paper No. 83 that the 'thou
|
|
shalt nots' are there. Their powers are specific and
|
|
limited. These specific powers preclude all assumption of a
|
|
general legislative authority. Being specific, it would be
|
|
absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intend-
|
|
ed. (As before, all references to 'paper no.' are from The
|
|
Federalist Papers.) Where can Congress find the right to
|
|
assume power to define crimes if the permission were not
|
|
|
|
specifically granted by us?
|
|
For the past hundred or more years, Congress has been
|
|
busy writing all sorts of laws for which we gave no permis-
|
|
sion. The worse period for illegal and bad laws was during
|
|
the period of the 1930's. This was when the exercise of
|
|
control over the American people went wild. This is one
|
|
reason why the purpose of the jury is so important today.
|
|
The people who work for the government have a job as a
|
|
result of our Constitution. If it were not that we agreed
|
|
to government, their positions would not exist. There is no
|
|
other way to look at it. It is our right and our duty to
|
|
check on what they are doing. This of course includes the
|
|
laws they are passing.
|
|
And what do we check them against? The supremacy
|
|
clause holds the key. If they do not conform, they are no
|
|
good -- they are not laws. Can't make it any plainer.
|
|
Our Fifth Amendment guarantees you and I due process of
|
|
law. This is an extremely important statement. They cannot
|
|
take life, liberty or property unless this requirement for
|
|
due process is followed. Our basic law holds the preced-
|
|
ence. If the government does not obey a command of the
|
|
document, anything that comes as a result does NOT follow
|
|
due process.
|
|
It doesn't take a unanimous jury to say the law is no
|
|
good. It takes only one knowledgeable person to refuse to
|
|
convict and the law, for that instance at least, has been
|
|
neutralized.
|
|
This is jury nullification of laws. This was the
|
|
intent of our jury system from the beginnings of our system
|
|
of government. The Supreme Court has agreed with that
|
|
premise. (Georgia v Brailsford, 3 US 1) (1794) There are
|
|
decisions in law books which show the jury is to try both
|
|
law and fact. These were many years in our past. The drive
|
|
by federal judges to establish the judicial branch as the
|
|
most powerful branch of government has hidden this point.
|
|
Today the people believe only judges can tell the jury what
|
|
the law means. Surprised? This is legal fiction . . .
|
|
Buffalo chips!
|
|
A phrase nearly everyone is familiar with is ignorance
|
|
of the law is no excuse. What excuse does a judge have for
|
|
not knowing the law? (Or do you think perhaps he might?)
|
|
How about all the lawyers we have in Congress making laws?
|
|
What about the lawyers in that court room? If this
|
|
statement has any validity, it applies to everyone.
|
|
Now what would you do in a situation like this? Send a
|
|
note with the bailiff to the judge saying the law is no good
|
|
so you cannot vote for conviction? This would probably end
|
|
with you receiving a contempt citation from the judge and
|
|
off to jail you go without passing go! After all, the man
|
|
in the black robe has instructed you on the meaning of the
|
|
law. The alternative is to refuse to convict. No matter
|
|
what pressure you feel from the other jurors. Knowing the
|
|
national government has no power to define a criminal act,
|
|
how can you consider a persons guilt and perhaps ruin
|
|
|
|
someone's life?
|
|
Now your duty as a juror becomes paramount. The people
|
|
who are passing these laws and those who are enforcing them
|
|
are guilty of breaking the law. We have ordered each person
|
|
who works for government to swear to God they will support
|
|
our Constitution. Another command of the document which
|
|
Congress ignores in many instances. More hanky-panky.
|
|
The ease with which they do these unconstitutional
|
|
practices reflects on us. Sadly, we don't know what the
|
|
Constitution says. We have paid no attention to what the
|
|
government has been doing to our rights and with their
|
|
allotted powers.
|
|
The eternal vigilance recommended by Jefferson has gone
|
|
to sleep. We have not been watching our elected representa-
|
|
tives. I assure you these people who exceed their powers
|
|
know exactly what they're doing. They know good people are
|
|
reluctant to raise a fuss to make it stop. Those with a
|
|
lust for greed and power continue on their merry way.
|
|
Back to your duty as a juror. By simply resisting the
|
|
pressure of other members of the jury and refusing to
|
|
convict, the government will be denied a conviction. No
|
|
question this is an awkward position to be in. You may feel
|
|
this person is guilty of something. However, you can't bow
|
|
to pressure to find a person guilty when we denied the
|
|
federal government the power to establish the crime.
|
|
You can rest assured if the person is a criminal, he
|
|
will continue his criminal activity and be back in court
|
|
again. The next time perhaps in a state court and not a
|
|
federal court.
|
|
There has been an assumption in this country that a
|
|
person is innocent until proven guilty. The attitude in
|
|
courts today is frightening. Many people feel if the
|
|
government has gone through all the work and investigation,
|
|
the person must be guilty. Guilty until proven innocent?
|
|
That puts the cart before the horse. This position is
|
|
dangerous to the survival of our Republic and a task which
|
|
is nearly impossible to overcome in court. Don't let them
|
|
use you in this manner. That's exactly what they are doing.
|
|
Alexander Hamilton made this very point in Paper, No.
|
|
65: "But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of
|
|
judges. They are sometimes induced to find special
|
|
verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of
|
|
the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his
|
|
estate on the verdict of a jury acting under the guidance of
|
|
judges who had predetermined his guilt?"
|
|
What about grand juries? The only mention of them is
|
|
in the Fifth Amendment. This is the first hurdle the
|
|
government has to overcome to bring a person to trial. It
|
|
is the obligation of the Grand Jury to investigate allega-
|
|
tions on it's own. They should never simply accept what a
|
|
government attorney charges.
|
|
Grand Juries are completely independent bodies. They
|
|
do not belong to the Court system or the US Attorneys
|
|
office. The Court calls Grand Juries into session from
|
|
|
|
lists of names maintained by the US Attorneys office. Yet
|
|
they are independent! They have no right to determine
|
|
guilt. Their only duty is to see if US laws were violated
|
|
and if they were, to issue an indictment against an
|
|
individual.
|
|
Some Grand Juries have earned the name of "rubber-
|
|
stamp" juries. They have accepted what a US Attorney
|
|
charges against an individual without conducting an
|
|
investigation on their own. This is how badly the protec-
|
|
tion of our citizens has eroded in the past years. It's a
|
|
sad comment on American justice and proves how we have been
|
|
bamboozled by our public servants.
|
|
The first investigation conducted has the same require-
|
|
ment as for the petit jury. Does the law meet with the
|
|
requirements of our Constitution? Simply because a US
|
|
Attorney says the violation is of one of US laws doesn't
|
|
mean it's true. In legal circles this is called jury
|
|
manipulation. You are being used by the US Attorney to
|
|
indict a person simply on his word. Charges must be
|
|
investigated independently.
|
|
Do you know a US Attorney does not take an oath to
|
|
support the Constitution as required? He has no authority
|
|
to stand before the Grand Jury and make a charge against
|
|
anyone.
|
|
The requirement that all officers take an oath or
|
|
affirmation to support the Constitution includes the
|
|
executive branch. There are no exceptions. The US Attorney
|
|
works for the Justice Department, part of the executive
|
|
branch. Nonetheless, the US Attorney takes an oath only to
|
|
perform his duties faithfully. This is in section 544 of
|
|
the Judicial Code, Title 28, United States Code.
|
|
Do you see why the federales don't want anyone to know
|
|
that juries have the obligation to try the law also? If
|
|
there is no power to define a crime, you as a member of a
|
|
Grand Jury have no authority to issue an indictment.
|
|
How can anyone argue with this premise? The Constitu-
|
|
tion established that Congress can make no law which is
|
|
beyond their specified and granted powers. The jury system,
|
|
both petit and grand, is the basic protection for us as
|
|
citizens against overzealous government and agents. Jury
|
|
duties and functions have been very slowly curtailed by the
|
|
government. That way they can exercise control over the
|
|
people as they see fit.
|
|
One great man in history made the statement: "The more
|
|
corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Cornelius
|
|
Tacitus, Roman senator and historian. A.D. c.56-c.115).
|
|
Congress has been busy for years writing laws for which we
|
|
gave no permission. We must get our ambitious public
|
|
officials back within the confines of our basic law.
|
|
Are we being led down the road to slavery like sheep?
|
|
Has this great country become a nation of wimps . . .
|
|
people who are afraid to challenge the government when it
|
|
breaks the law? Will we wake some fine morning to find we
|
|
are now a minor member of Bush's New World Order? It's
|
|
|
|
closer than any of us dare to imagine. Wake up, people!
|
|
What will it be like in this country for us, for our
|
|
children and grandchildren if we don't take control of the
|
|
government? Perhaps you or one of your children will be in
|
|
the same position as the man in this story. Your duty as a
|
|
juror is of the utmost importance in the guarantee of our
|
|
basic protections.
|
|
This same principle applies to state courts. All
|
|
states must obey the Constitution, either by ratification of
|
|
the document or on being granted statehood. The requirement
|
|
for officials to take an oath to support the document also
|
|
applies to state officials. Each reader should at least
|
|
know the authority the state has received from your
|
|
particular state constitution. Find a copy of it or write
|
|
your state representative and request a copy. Then you will
|
|
be able to familiarize yourself with its authority.
|
|
Our very survival depends on alert Americans.
|
|
Ignorance is NO defense! Languishing in prison on an
|
|
illegal conviction is a travesty.
|
|
You and I are the sovereigns. We must begin to act
|
|
like a sovereign. Otherwise, our birthright of life,
|
|
liberty and happiness will disappear like a puff of smoke.
|
|
|