July 18, 2002
J.A.I.L. received the below editorial by Don Harkins (observer@...), Editor of the
Idaho Observer and an Idaho JAILer. Due to our volume, we were unable to put it
out when received, however that does not diminish the importance of this
serve to, among other things through judicial accountability under
constitutional rule, restore our jury system as it is intended to be, "the voice
of the People." It is the judiciary that is responsible for tampering
with jury rights. The People must do something about
Constitution Ruled Inadmissable as Evidence
23 Mar 1998 13:30:51 PST
Judge upholds government motion to redact defense
exhibit of the
Citizens Rule Book
by Don Harkins
In a court document dated February 18, 1997, U.S. Attorneys
Pflaumer, Susan Dohrmann and Gene Porter filed a motion in
Western District of Washington U.S. District Court calling for the
"Government's redaction of defense exhibit F14, the Citizens Rule Book Jury
The motion to have the Citizens Rule Book removed as evidence
had been presented by John Pitner, et al, who were on trial for
"militia activities,") came after the judge and the federal attorneys had
censored the defense exhibit by removing some of the pages of the handbook in
way so that the jury would not know that the evidence had been
The government's reason for wanting the Citizens Rule Book
inadmissible as evidence: Because it contains quotes from
our framers and founders which clearly explain the intent of the jury
system and the rights and responsibilities of jurors. The federal attorneys
"...the jury needs `no jury handbook' because the only
legal guidance are in the Court's instructions which the
jury is required to
It is the position of the federal
government and judges that jurors must follow judges' instructions only. It
was the position of our Founding Fathers and Supreme Court justices that jurists
were to follow their conscience in the full knowledge of their rights and
responsibilities as jurors.
One position attempts to empower government
entities to control the
outcomes of trials by juries of one's
The other position empowers citizens to use their own minds
determine the outcomes of trials by juries of one's peers.
there any reason to question why the government does not want fully
jurors to sit in judgment of their peers? Is there any reason to question
why the government has found it important to have the Citizens Rule Book
disallowed as evidence?
Can you see now why there has been a growing
movement to discard
the jury system as dysfunctional? Can you see now
that the jury system has been sabotaged by judges (the state) so that
people will be fooled into discarding it all by themselves?
As a juror,
as the jury system was intended by the Founding Fathers,
you are more
powerful than the president. That is why the state wants you to demand
that the jury system be replaced with something
Excerpts from the Citizens Rule Book: Jury
The purpose of this article is to revive, as Jefferson put
it, "The Ancient Principles." It is not designed to promote lawlessness or
a return to the jungle. The "Ancient Principles" refer to the Ten
Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just
common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments.
In 1776 we came out of BONDAGE with FAITH, UNDERSTANDING
and COURAGE. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled
our way to achieve LIBERTY. LIBERTY is that delicate area between the
force of government and FREEWILL of man.
LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go
wherever one wishes, it leads to ABUNDANCE, ABUNDANCE, if made
an end in itself, will result in COMPLACENCY which leads to APATHY. APATHY
is the "let George do it" philosophy. This always brings DEPENDENCY.
For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are
dependent. They delude themselves by thinking that they are still free
--"We never had it so good" -- "We can still vote, can't we?" Eventually
abundance diminishes and DEPENDENCY becomes known by its
There are few ways out of bondage. Bloodshed and war often
result, but our founding fathers learned of a better way. Realizing that
CREATOR is always above and greater than that which He creates, they
established a three vote system by which an informed citizenry can control
those acting in the name of government. To be a good master
you must always remember the true "pecking order" or chain of command in
1. GOD created man ...
2. Man created the Constitution
3. Constitution created government
4. Government created
The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but
unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of
government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.
As a result America began to function like a democracy
instead of a
REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote
system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes
to check tyranny, not just one. American citizens have not been informed of
their other two votes.
Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick
those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be
done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or as
expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which
the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those
appointed to serve them in government.
The second vote comes when
you serve on a Grand Jury before anyone can be brought to trial for a
capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission
must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis
Star Tribune in the March 27, 1987 edition, noted a purpose of the Grand
Jury this way: "A grand
jury's purpose is to protect the public from an
The third is the most powerful vote: This is when you are
acting as jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops"
with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the
President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined!
Congress can legislate (make law), the president or some
other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may
instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for
"Not Guilty." Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the
instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote.
one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is
no conviction and
no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of
government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a
law. As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it
comes to your individual vote of
innocent or guilty, you truly are
answerable only to
The First Amendment to the Constitution was born
out of this great
concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform
JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star Tribune in a newspaper article
appearing in its November 30, 1984 edition, entitled: "What
judges don't tell
the juries" stated:
time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against
political oppression was unquestioned in
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
"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,' juries 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.
"Perhaps the community should educate
itself. Then citizens called
for jury duty could teach judges a needed
lesson in civics."
Our thanks to Don Harkins for writing this
editorial and to Sherree Lowe, our Florida JAILer-In-Chief (sherree@...) for forwarding
it to J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L. is an acronym for Judicial
Accountability Initiative Law
JAIL's very informative website is found at www.jail4judges.org
JAIL proposes a
unique new addition to our form of government.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is
dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is spreading across America like a
fast moving wildfire!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal
JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA
To subscribe or be removed: add-remove-jail@...
E-Groups may sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
what J.A.I.L. can do for me, but ask what I can do for J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail,
but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's
minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of
evil to one who is
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau