"Leaders pronounce judgment for a bribe.
Our current court system has made a mockery of law and justice. Our judges have become mere pawns in the game of destroying our freedoms and making us indentured servants. Perhaps we should ponder for a few moments on these words from our Declaration of Independence: "He has made Judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices and the amount and payment of their salaries." I say unto you that these same words hold just as true today, as they did when our fore-fathers declared them over 200 years ago.
The Judicial system no longer represents the people. Instead it protects the system from the people. When former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, asked the question, "Who will protect the public when the government violates the law?" Did he also give us the answer? The Sovereign is of course, the highest authority as to the interpretation of the spirit of the law, or as to questions concerning its enforcement. We The People through our power of the Grand Jury and Trial Jury are the two most important branches of our lawful government. We are the final check and balance of our government. We must judge not from the appearance of the law. We must judge with righteous judgment. We must judge whether the law itself is righteous.
The current jury selection process opens the door to stacking the deck (jury). The lawyers question the prospective jurors and each decide which ones would be more likely to convict or acquit the defendant.
A prime example of this occurred in Dallas, Texas. Whereas, a prospective juror, Dianna Brandborg refused to answer questions regarding her income, religious beliefs, the kind of T.V. programs she watches, and the kind of books she reads. Ms. Brandborg felt the questions were an invasion of her privacy and did not have anything to do with the murder trial. Apparently the judge disagreed and sentenced her to 3 days in jail for contempt of court. The judge felt these questions were necessary in order to assure a fair murder trial. (San Diego Union-Tribune, May 6, 1994)
The following is the oath the jury takes: Code of Civil Procedure, Section 232 (b), "As soon as the selection of the trial jury is completed, the following acknowledgment and agreement shall be obtained from the jurors, which shall be acknowledged, `I do':
Do you * * * and each of you understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before the court, and a true verdict rendered according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court." Why don't they take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution?
As we can see from the juror oath, the judge sits there in his black robe with his gavel in his hand, and allows only what evidence, he decides will be admitted in his court. He strikes from the record statements made by witnesses and instructs jurors to disregard such statements. He gives instructions to the jury and tells them they can only judge the facts and evidence (that he allowed) and he will determine the law. His power over evidence and jury instructions can convict the innocent and acquit the guilty. If this is not "Jury tampering", then I wish someone would write to me and explain the difference.
To illustrate the power of the judge over the jury, let us take the widely published Rodney King trial and how jury instructions could be used to acquit the police officers. For example, if the instruction to the jury was as simple as, "If the officers felt they were using reasonable force, you must acquit them." What choice would the jury have other than acquittal? The officers defense was "they thought they were using reasonable force" and the jury was under oath to follow the instructions of the judge. Like it or not, this is the kind of injustice we have in America today, because that was part of the jury instructions given by the judge.
Ladies and gentlemen, too many good people are being jailed as they try to battle the "kangaroo courts" on the court's terms. Worse yet, some are being murdered by the government without even being given a chance of a trial by jury. As the old saying goes, "How much justice (bribery) can you afford?"
The County Grand Jury is also stacked. In California each Grand Jury member is nominated by a Superior Court Judge and the Presiding Judge selects the Jury Foreman. The Grand Jury is then indoctrinated by the local District Attorney. The jury foreman screens all correspondence from the citizens to the grand jury. He alone determines what shall go before the different grand jury committees. In short, by plan and design the government, acting through the U.S. Attorney's office, the District Attorney's office, and the Department of Justice, has converted the Grand Jury and Trial jury procedures into acts of total oppression against the people, and in total destruction of their constitutional rights.
Now, let us look at how the judicial system for trial and/or grand jury selection is made under the Common Law and the Compiled Laws of California; Acts of the Legislature passed at the Sessions of 1850-1851-1852-1853: The names of 50 people are taken from the assessment roll of the county, each name is written on a separate piece of paper and placed in a box prepared by the county clerk for that purpose. In the presence of the county judge and sheriff, the county clerk draws the names of 12 persons to serve as jurors. The sheriff summons the 12 persons and the jury is seated. These legislative acts have never been repealed. I think you will agree, it would be hard to stack the jury using this method.
Under the Common Law the judge sits there with gavel in his hand to keep order in the court, to act as a referee and to answer any questions from the jury regarding the law.
Since the jurors are the ones who judge whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, all the evidence is submitted directly to the jury. They determine as individuals what evidence is relevant or irrelevant to the case. Not the judge! This simple common sense, Common Law prevents the judge from withholding (tampering) evidence from the jury.
The jurors, as individuals, determine what statements made by the witness are relevant, and have the right to question the witness. The jurors will make the final judgment of innocence or guilt. So, it only makes common sense that they have the right to leave no question go unanswered.
Finally, under the Common Law, the jury instructions given by the judge empowers the jury to judge not only the facts and evidence, but the power to judge the law. For example, if a law is passed that reads, "Police officers may strike any suspect up to 50 times in their head with a lead pipe and it shall be deemed to be reasonable force." Of course this is a ridicules law. Under the common law the jury has the power to bring in a guilty verdict against a police officer who only strikes a suspect 49 times. The jury is the final check and balance. This power is secured under Article 1 Section 9 of the California Constitution (1849), ". . . and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
The Supreme Court had this to say about the power of the jury, ". . . it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision . . . You [the jury] have a right to take upon yourself to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the facts in controversy." (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford)
In U.S. vs. Dougherty, the court declared the jury as a, ". . . constitutional thorn in the flesh . . ." to the court because one Juror, standing firm, saying NOT GUILTY can strike down ANY law. The Court has ruled that the Jury has the power, but they are NOT being told of their power and right. The court went on to say, "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard to the instructions on the law by a trial judge . . . The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . . Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers."
Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."
Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, "Jurors should acquit even against the judges instructions . . . if exercising their judgment with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."
Lord Denman declared, "Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take as law that which is given to them, or that they must bring on a certain verdict, or that they can only decide the facts of the case."
As John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, put it, "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." In other words, the jury can find a man NOT GUILTY of breaking a bad law. It is called "jury nullification."
"The jury who shall try the cause shall have the right to determine the law and the fact, under the directions of the court." (Sect. 3, of The Act of Congress of July 14, 1798, C 74)
The power of jury nullification is confirmed by the courts in the case of U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969): "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury [one juror] feels the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or the exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision."
"The common law right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts remains unimpaired." (State vs. Croteau, 23 Vt, 14, 54)
John Adams said, "It is not only . . . [the trial juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."
"It seems that the court instructs the juries, in criminal cases, not to bind their consciences, but to inform their judgments, but they are not in duty bound to adopt its opinion as their own." (Lynch vs. State, 9 Ind 541)
"The jury have a right to disregard the opinion of the court, in a criminal case, even on questions of law, if they are fully satisfied that such opinion is wrong." (People vs. Videto, Cr. R. 603)
Lysander Spooner maintained, "For more than six hundred years - that is, since the Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws." ("An Essay on the Trial by Jury", 1852)
"It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issue of guilty or not guilty." (Hansen vs. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, 172)
"In criminal cases, the jury are the judges of the law as well as the facts; and it is error in the court to restrict them to the law as given in charge by the court." (McGuthrie vs. State, 17 Ga. 497)
Let us take a look at what how Webster's Dictionary defined the word "Jury" in 1828 and how Black's Law Dictionary defines it in 1994.
Jury - "A number of freeholder's, selected in the manner prescribed by law, empaneled and sworn to inquire into and try any matter of fact, and to declare the truth on the evidence given them in the case . . . consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions." (Webster's, 1828)
Jury - "A certain number of men and women selected according to law, and sworn to inquire of certain matters of fact, and to declare the truth upon evidence laid before them . . . see jury instructions." (Black's Law, 1994)
Jury Instructions - "A direction given by the judge to the jury concerning the law of the case; a statement made by the judge to the jury informing them of the law applicable to the case in general or some aspect of it; an exposition or the rules or principles of law applicable to the case or some branch or phase of it, which the jury are bound to accept." (Black's Law, 1994)
Isn't it amazing how the lawyers have changed the definition?
We refer to the trial judge as "the judge" but, this cannot be the case in a jury trial. In a jury trial the judges are twelve in number and, are seated in the jury box. They are the ones who will judge the facts and evidence as they see it, not as somebody else sees it.
Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence had this to say, "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts." (Horning vs. D.C.)
Harlan Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court declared, "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decide."
The Honorable Parsons had this to say at the Massachusetts convention in 1788, "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms [revolution]. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is NOT law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they're his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not ALL the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."
"If a juror accepts the law that which the judge states to them that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizens safeguard of liberty. For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that which is lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time." (2 Elliot's Debates)
Thomas Jefferson proclaimed, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them."
"If the Government dictate the standard of trial . . . it dictates the results of the trial." L. Spooner (An Essay on the Trial by Jury)
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the power of the jury. The following memo was issued to all jurors by Presiding Judge Donald Londer, Fourth Judicial District, Multnomah County:
"As you entered the courthouse you may have been given a handout by a person on the sidewalk. That material suggests that as a juror, you have the legal right ignore the judge's jury instructions in your deliberation.
This information is absolutely wrong.
As a Juror, you will take an oath that you will `render a true verdict according to the law and evidence given you during the trial'
This is a solemn pledge which binds each of you to follow established legal procedures that have existed for over 200 years.
The jury system is the most precious component of our democratic society. It is based upon the fundamental belief that citizen jurors should evaluate the trial evidence and then apply to that evidence the law as given to them by the trial judge.
As your presiding Judge, I urge each of you to conscientiously abide by your jurors oath."
Perhaps someone should tell this tin god of a judge about the plaque near courtroom number 5 of Old Bailey in London, the memorial has the following words inscribed:
"Near this site William Penn and William Meade were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly . . .
This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the jury . . . who refused to give a verdict against them although they [the jury] were locked up without food for two nights, and were fined for their final verdict of not guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court which established the right of juries to give their verdict according to their convictions."
In Mayville, New York, Chautauqua County Town Justice Edward Misfud told us in plain language how his court feels about following the Law, "I may be breaking the laws, but that is the ruling of this court." With justice like this who needs tyranny?
I think things would be quite different if, Americans would take on the spirit that our ancestors had back in the Old West. In the 1800's, when a judge came to town and heard a case and decided the case with righteous judgment, he jumped on his horse and rode off to the next town. If he decided the case with the same attitude as our current judges decide cases, he never made it to the next town. Consequently, the judges of the Old West were very careful about tampering with the jury or in the rendering of their own verdicts.
Isn't the current system of justice demonstrating contempt for Americans by not telling the jurors what true powers they possess, and flagrantly breaking the law? It really does not seem to matter to them, they think they are above the law?
Doesn't all this make you wonder why judges wear "black" robes? Black is a symbol of deception and darkness.
Abraham Lincoln said, "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
In his book "HOW COURTS GOVERN AMERICA", Judge Richard Neely, of the West Virginia Supreme Appellate Court probably summed up our current judicial system best, when he wrote these words, "Lawyers, certainly, who take seriously recent Supreme Court historical scholarship as applied to the Constitution also probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny."
Judge Neely goes on to write, "Police officers routinely lie, particularly to save their own skins, and when they do, they make credible witnesses."
More recently, at a campaign meeting for District Attorney candidate, Mr. Paul Pfingst of San Diego, his spokesman made the following speech: The police officers must drum up additional charges so during plea-bargaining, we will have some leverage. Imagine a candidate for the office of District Attorney who supports this kind of flagrant abuse of power by officers of the law who have sworn to uphold the law, not to pervert the law. He will make one hell of a D.A., he'll fit right in with the rest of the low-life corrupt judges and politicians. San Diegan's should be proud to have a D. A. with such fine ethics and honesty prosecuting the lawless criminals.
Ladies and gentlemen, the current system of justice has nothing to do with justice, it has become nothing more than another source for collecting revenue from the people. This revenue collecting enterprise has even gone as far as creating "Victimless Crimes." Think about it! How can someone possibly be guilty of committing a crime without there being a victim to the crime? I think you will agree, if there is no victim, then no crime could have been committed. Isn't that the way it should be? Yet, the good old lawyers and politicians found a way to get around the necessity of having a victim. They made the criminal the "Victim" to the crime.
* Victimless Crime - "Term applied to a crime which generally involves only the criminal, and which has no direct victim."
* Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition
A wise man once said, "You can only protect your liberties by protecting the other mans freedom. You can only be free if I am FREE." When We The People are guarding the chicken coop, we can enforce any precept that should be our will. So, if you are chosen for jury duty, remember, you have the final say. YOU ARE THE SUPREME AUTHORITY and THE FINAL CHECK and BALANCE AGAINST TYRANNY!
If you are selected for grand jury duty, call for an investigation of the Federal Reserve, the judicial system, the District Attorney's office etc. USE YOUR POWER TO INDICT!
If you are called for trial jury forget what the Judge has to say, he is only there as a referee, and to answer questions concerning the law. Say "NOT GUILTY" to bad laws and indict those who seek to usurp the Constitution. Be faithful to your countrymen and become a thorn in the flesh to those who seek to overthrow your liberties. Remember, you are free only when your fellow countrymen are free. Do not let them know, you have the power. Otherwise, they would never let serve on the jury to guard the chicken coop.