Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
Judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS and DUTIES
.
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its
November 30, 1984 edition, entitled:
"What judges don't tell the juries" stated:
"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's, when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."
"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law.
While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite."
"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made ... Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court."
"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about that power?
The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resolve this paradox."
"More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions." [more like it JURY TAMPERING]
"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then citizens called for jury duty could teach the judges a needed lesson in civics."
One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUlLTY VOTE!"
He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! Everett Hale
The only power the judge has over the JURY is their, ignorance!
JURY RIGHTS
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice. 1796, Signer of The unanimous Declaration
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902.
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme
Court, 1941.
"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . ." U.S. vs. Dougheny, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)
LAW OF THE LAND
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not me rely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
16 Am Jur 2d, See 177 late 2d, See 256
JURY TAMPERING?
A JURY'S Rights, Powers and Duties:
The Charge to the JURY in the First JURY Trial before the supreme Court of the U.S. illustrates the TRUE POWER OF THE JURY.
In the February term of 1794, the supreme* Court conducted a JURY trial and said “... 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 have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. I "The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge ...” (emphasis added) U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
Hence, JURY disregard of the limited and generally conviction-oriented evidence presented for its consideration, and JURY disregard for what the trial judge wants them to believe is the controlling law in any particular case (sometimes referred to as "JURY lawlessness")" is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather encouraged. Witness the following quotation from the eminent legal authority above-mentioned: "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 deter- mined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers." (emphasis added) U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
"Supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, however Behavior is. Art. III.
*Jury lawlessness means willingness to nullify bad law.
The Right of the JURY to be Told of Its Power Almost every JURY in the land is falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court, and that the JURY can decide only the facts of the case. This is to destroy the purpose of a Common Law JURY, and to permit the imposition of tyranny upon a people.
"There is nothing 'more terrifying than ignorance in action.” Goethe - engraved on a plaque at the Naval War College
“To embarrass justice by multiplicity of law, or to hazard it by confidence in judges, are the opposite rocks on which all civil institutions have been wrecked.” Johnson- engraved in Minnesota State Capitol Outside the Supreme Court Chambers
“...the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.” II Corinthians 3:6
"It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Thomas Jefferson
The JURY'S options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the 'judge.' There is the informal communication from the total culture -- literature; current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)
"The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to over- throw the men who pervert it!" Abraham Lincoln
''Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties:
But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?
It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford1.
The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. [Anytime a Jury is present, the Jury NOT the Judge IS the COURT! anything less is a due process violation and infringement on all parties AND the Jurors rights and duties to THEMSELVES as well as the litigants] And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.
As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge....2
Or as this same truth was stated in a earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and
1 (3 Dall 1)
2 US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)
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 feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."3
The government cannot deprive anyone of "Liberty", without your consent!
Jurors Must Know Their Rights:
3 US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)
You must know your rights! Because, once selected for jury duty, nobody will inform you of your power to judge both law and fact. In fact, the judge's instructions to the jury may be to the contrary. Another quote from US vs Dougherty4
```but the Dougherty decision conforms to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. In Sparf vs US5, the court ruled that although juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions on the law, they don't have to be made aware of the right to do so.
Is this Supreme Court ruling as unfair as it appears on the surface?
It may be, but the logic behind such a decision is plain enough.
In our Constitutional Republic, note I did not say democracy, the people have granted certain limited powers to government, preserving and retaining their God-given inalienable rights. So, if it is indeed the juror's right to decide the law, then the citizens should know what their rights are.
They need not be told by the courts. After all, the Constitution makes us the masters of the public servants.
Should a servant have to tell a master what his rights are? Of course not, it's our responsibility to know what our rights are! The idea that juries are to judge only the "facts" is absurd and contrary to historical fact and law. Are juries present only as mere pawns to rubber stamp tyrannical acts of the government?
The first problem with this justification is that it proceeds on a premise that is no longer generally true. Contrary to the Dougherty court's assumption about what a criminal trial judge would "never" do, the United States Judicial Conference has instructed federal judges to tell every criminal jury that "if you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty." 92
Several courts have formally approved similar instructions telling the jury they "must" convict.93
Indeed, one Circuit Court of Appeals recently went so far as to state (in an unpublished decision) that instructing jurors any other way -- for example, that they "should" convict -- is at least "arguably" forbidden by the
90 United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 97 (1993).
91 473 F.2d at 1135 (emphasis added)
92 Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Jury Instructions 21 (1987).
93 See People v. Bernhard Goetz, 73 N.Y. 2d 751, 752, 532 N.E.2d 1273 (N.Y. 1988).
Mr. Duane, associate professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia
http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf
Since I have been seeing so many constitutional and legal debates recently and now the TvZ ordeal I think this may be of interest to some.
You see if the people do not have the final say so on law it is NOT government by the people.
That is the key, not fucking tea bags, not voting the dumb asses out, you all tied that and hows that working out for you? LMAO
What needs to be done is every state and the feds need to pass a statutory requirement that not only juries but also notaries must be informed of their FULL power and duties to "we the people".
We the people can kill anything the legislature OR the judge courts do, all we need do is wise up and realize they are lying if not outright bold faced by omission, hence the decisions fall upon them and THEY KEEP THE POWER because we do not know any better! (and absolutely do not stop at criminal, insure that civil cases are included as the courts have become one gigantic extortion racket)
Thats right we have the power, start running petitions and get it black and white so you can cure the cancer that has eroded this country.
Yep they dismissed me from jury duty so fast it would make your head spin and I got 12er they never call me again LMAO (they love getting the power reduced to ZERO!) honest they do! LMAO Now what if everyone called to jury duty took my approach?
The pen has more power than the gun! So who is going to vote for their "leaders" next time around? Why not scare the shit out of judge instead by knowing what YOUR power is. LMAO
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 7/12/2013 7:54:21 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
>YOU< ARE ABOVE the law! - 
Profile
RE: >YOU< ARE ABOVE the law! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread