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.
