AJI/FIJA Has Requested We Publish The Following (correction of miscredit unintentionally given in JNJ of 9/16/04 Implementation of Fully Informed Juries IsMessage 1 of 1 , Sep 18, 2004View SourceAJI/FIJA Has Requested WePublish The Following(correction of miscredit unintentionally given in JNJ of 9/16/04 "Implementation of Fully Informed JuriesIs Possible Only By The Passage of J.A.I.L.")----- Original Message -----To: VictoryUSA@...Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:19 PMSubject: Commentary attributionSirs:The commentary credited to Martin H. Smith in the article concerning FIJA is actually commentary authored by our Director, Iloilo M. Jones, and can be found on both of our web site home pages. This language is also available by mail in our information packet. Since all instances of the appearance of this language are signed by our director, there could not have been an "innocent mistake."Please provide accurate and truthful attribution immediately.Sincerely,For Liberty and Justice for All,
Linda d'ArcyAmerican Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
Post Office Box 5570
Helena, Montana 59604
www.fija.org <http://www.fija.org> web site
fijamail@... AJI/FIJA email address
Our ApologyTO: Linda d'ArcyAmerican Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury AssociationFROM: Barbie, ACIC National J.A.I.L. AdministrationJ.A.I.L. apologizes, as I do personally, to FIJA Director Iloilo M. Jones,to Linda d'Arcy of AJI/FIJA, and to our readers for the unintentional miscrediting that was done in our recent J.A.I.L. News Journal dated September 16 regarding Fully Informed Juries which I published because of the excellence and importance of the article.Please be assured that this miscrediting was not done intentionally, and for everyone's convenience, I paste in below the article exactly as we received it in its entire original form, without editing. As can be seen, the only name appearing at the end of the entire article is Martin H. Smith, Jr. Nowhere does the name "Iloilo M. Jones" appear. At the end of the first portion of the article, printed in Arial style format, appears the following credits:AJI/FIJA
PO Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570
Websites: www.fija.org and www.americanjuryinstitute.org
Fax: 406-442-9332which was included in full in our news journal exactly as shown. The second portion, printed in Times New Roman style, appears after the AJI/FIJA credits, and is ended with===================
Martin H. Smith, Jr.
stjoesap@...following a list of references which I eliminated for purposes of sending out the substance of the original article itself. However, the only name shown is Mr. Smith's name and his email addresses. The final paragraph, just prior to the listed references (which we eliminated), is the portion that was excerpted and placed at the beginning of our news journal article and credited (or miscredited, as you say) to Martin Smith, since it was his name appearing at the end of the article received by J.A.I.L. (See below).Please accept my sincere apology for my error which was caused as explained above. Mr. Smith's name was the only name appearing. This unintentional error should not take away from the excellence of the article.Thank you,-Barbie
(This is the entire article as J.A.I.L. received it in its original unedited form):http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/aug2004_report_juries_01.htm
Why We Need Fully Informed Juries
The American Jury Institute/ Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA) is the national advocate for the right of individuals charged with a crime to be tried by a jury that is allowed to hear the facts of the case and determine whether the law itself is being applied justly. In other words, for government to deprive a citizen of his or her personal liberty, AJI/FIJA insists that a jury must be fully informed about all aspects of the case, and not be limited to a narrow, one-sided version presented solely by the prosecutors.
How important are these jury rights? An example of todays broken jury system was reported recently in California, where the federal government convicted a man of selling marijuana for medical use. The problem with this conviction was that the man was working under the auspices of a new California law that permits the sale of marijuana for medical use. The jurors, however, were forbidden by the judge from learning that this man was conducting his activities in accordance with the new state law and under a license from the City of Oakland.
After the conviction, the media interviewed the jurors, and the jurors were appalled that they had wrongfully convicted someone of a crime when the state had specifically authorized the activity in question. This man was convicted because the jury was not allowed to hear the fact that this mans activities were legal under California law. The federal prosecutor convinced the judge that the simple fact (that California permitted this activity) was not relevant to this case. Yet, according to the jurors, had they been informed that this man was operating under the auspices of Californias medical marijuana law, they would not have convicted him.
These kinds of atrocities are occurring every day in criminal courts, where facts are being wrongfully denied to jurors, resulting in flawed convictions. Even worse than being deprived of critical facts, juries are denied any opportunity to evaluate the merits of the law. An egregious example of this kind of unbridled prosecutorial power lies within the thousands of pages of law contained in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. By arbitrarily citing any law out of this politically inspired albatross, the FDA can randomly incarcerate virtually anyone who falls under its vast regulatory umbrella. Even individuals who import lower-priced medications from Canada can be criminally prosecuted if the FDA so chooses.
The only barrier to convicting someone of a bad law is a fully informed jury. Todays judges, however, are withholding critical information from juries at the behest of prosecutors. One result of these gross injustices is that there are more people imprisoned per capita in the US than in any other country in the world!
William Penn: Origin of Jury Rights
William Penn was a leader of the Quakers in seventeenth-century London. The sect was not recognized by the English government, which forbade it to meet in any building for the purpose of worship. In 1670, Penn held a worship service that was attended by a peaceful group of fellow Quakers. Penn and another Quaker, William Mead, were arrested on a charge of disturbing the Kings peace and summoned to stand trial.
When brought to court, Penn demanded to know under which law they were being charged. The court refused to supply that information and instead referred vaguely to the common law. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a specific indictment, he was removed from the presence of the judge and jury, and confined in an enclosed corner of the room known as the bale-dock. From there, he could neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions about their charges against him. If convicted, Penn faced execution.
The judge expected the jury to give the government an unequivocal guilty verdict. When the jury failed to convict Penn of practicing an illegal religion, the judge was beside himself. The judge then issued the following edict:
Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed until you bring in a verdict which the court will accept. You shall be locked up, without meat, drink, fire and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court. We will have a verdict by the help of God or you shall starve for it.
Two days passed. The jury had no food, water, heat, tobacco, or bathroom facilities. Nothing. They did not change their minds.
Nine weeks passed. Conditions at the prison were more than deplorable. Jurors were often soaked in their own urine and smeared with their own feces. Finally, Englands high court became involved. A higher court eventually freed the jurors in response to a writ for habeas corpus. It was the first time that the High Court of Common Pleas had issued such a writ.
Penns case, and his jury, changed the law. In the future, jurors would not be required to rubberstamp the agenda of government officials. For the first time, government had encountered jurors whose liberty was not for sale.
William Penn never forgot this outrage. When he came to America and founded his colony, his laws became a model of freedom. Immigrants flocked to Pennsyl-vania. As an example of his approach to government compared to the Crowns approach, Penn reserved the death penalty for murder and treason. At the time, Britain reserved such punishment for 200 separate offenses.
Penn was especially cognizant of the iniquity of Britains draconian laws. By calling religious dissent sedition, the British government had set up an enrichment program for itself. Sedition, a serious crime against the Crown, allowed the government to throw thousands of people into prison and seize their land and property. Penns wife and her family had lost their family estate through such legal shenanigans.
Thanks to William Penn, Americas founders had an exemplary legal model to follow when they wrote the US Constitution. Thanks to the members of Penns jury who endured imprisonment, todays juries can reach a just verdict even when it is not the popular thing to do.
You Could Be the Next Victim
A flagrant example of prosecutorial misconduct occurred in 1995 when the US Postal Service initiated the arrest of a 72-year-old man and a 30-year-old woman who had ordered the supplement dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) from Europe. The postal employees decided that DHEA was illegal to import, even for personal use. They arranged for a local narcotics strike force to set up a sting operation to arrest these two Americans when they came to the post office to pick up their DHEA. The elderly man was handcuffed and forced to sit on the post office steps, where all his neighbors could see him. The young woman was held while her home was searched and her library of health and exercise books seized.
Both victims were members of the Life Extension Foundation and asked us for help. We retained an attorney to document that DHEA is not a controlled substance and had never been so named in the Federal Register. Since DHEA is not contraband, one would think that the charges would have been quickly dropped. The prosecutors, however, were willing only to reduce the charges and still wanted to prosecute these innocent people. Only a massive letter-writing campaign by Life Extension members and subscribers to Dr. Julian Whitakers newsletter forced the states governor to order prosecutors to drop the cases.
Were it not for Life Extension paying an expert attorney and tens of thousands of letters written to the states governor, these two people could have faced a jury that would have been told by the prosecutor that DHEA is an illegal substance, that irrefutable evidence shows that these people imported it, and that they should therefore be convicted and sentenced to jail. The jury may never have had the opportunity to learn the fact that DHEA is not an illegal substance or that no law prohibits its importation. The prosecutor could have censored this information from the jury, and the judge would have ordered the jury to consider only whether sufficient evidence was presented that these two people imported DHEA for their personal use. If the prosecutor proved these people imported the DHEA, then the judge would order the jury to find them guilty.
Under todays flawed system, a prosecutor can present a one-sided story and gain a conviction based on the jury not being fully informed about the facts and not being allowed to judge the merits of the law. Jurors are put into a position whereby judges are ordering them not to consider all the facts or the law, but instead to base their decision on the governments interpretation of events.
Jury Rights Rooted in US Constitution
The Declaration of Indepen-dence defines being deprived of the benefits of trial by jury as absolute tyranny. Having observed the tyranny imposed on Americans when deprived of trial by jury, the Founding Fathers took particular care to ensure this right no less than three times in the Bill of Rights.
The intent of the jury system is to do much more than allow citizens to mete out apt punishment to their neighbors. The jury system particularly provides citizens with the means to protect each other from tyrannical abuses of power by the government.
Thus did the authors of the Declaration of Independence see trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789.
Join the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA)
We invite all Life Extension supporters to join the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association. A tax-deduct-ible donation of $25 buys a one-year membership, which incl-udes a quarterly newsletter. To join, send your check to:
PO Box 5570
Helena, MT 59604-5570
Websites: www.fija.org and www.americanjuryinstitute.org
I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
Thomas Jefferson, 1789
Tyranny, no matter under what guise, has no place in an open society or in a country dedicated to the rule of law. The intent of trial by jury is that of a jurys independence to judge the law as well as the facts in any case. Jurors have the absolute power to decide whether the law being applied is a just law, whether it is being properly applied in each case, and whether the defendant should be found innocent because of a bad law. Jurors have the right to understand the sentence that will be imposed by their verdict. The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking government-authored law, but instead to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical laws imposed by power-crazed government.
Jurors have both a duty and responsibility to ensure that a just verdict is rendered, and they must take into account the facts of the case, any mitigating circumstances, and the merits of the law and its application in each individual case. They must examine the results of their verdict if they are to administer the law as an instrument of justice and of order. The power and right of jurors to assess the merits of the law was established in England before our Constitution was written.
Jurors, as the representatives of the people and the community, hold no agenda during any trial, and most certainly not the governments agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, and arresting officers, as well as the forensic investigators in most cases, are all a part of, and paid by, the government, with their personal power bases to build and their personal careers to protect through the productivity of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors are not at all vested and therefore far less arbitrary.
The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government when expressed through the enforcement of laws that usurp the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyrannical laws by refusing to convict those being unjustly persecuted by government. Thus did our Founding Fathers plan for the jury to do, and expected that jurors would in fact exercise this power without question. Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty.
1. Available at: www.hcvinprison.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.
2. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. The Health Status of Soon-to-be-Released Inmates: A Report to Congress. March 2002.
3. Available at: www.hrw.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.
4. Treadway Robert (#10590-076), Request for Administrative Remedy, Bureau of Prisons document, issued January 20, 2004.
5. Available at: www.aclu.org. Accessed June 7, 2004.
6. Fazlollah M. Inmates will get care for hepatitis. Philadelphia Inquirer. October 31, 2002.
7. Available at: www.bop.gov. Accessed June 7, 2004.
8. Correspondence from Ralph Boyd Jr., assistant attorney general for New Mexico, to Jack Sullivan, county commission chairman.
March 6, 2003.
Martin H. Smith, Jr.
Learn The Truth About The "Income Tax" Fraud!
DEATH TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!
WHY ARE THE BORDERS STILL WIDE OPEN??
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP YOUR FIREARMS!!!!!
It's time to face it: President Bush is no friend of liberty, and neither he is a friend to constitutional government nor national sovereignty. Four more years of a Bush administration could very well mean the death knell of freedom in these United States. --- Chuck Baldwin, 1/13/04 www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." -- Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government
*****************************************************************************************Did They Orchestrate It?
GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.--AND, GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.!!!
Did The Occupation Government Have Prior Knowledge Of 9/11?
Did They Let It Happen To Create An Excuse To Institute Police State Policies?
Check out: www.infowars.com and learn the Truth!!
THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND!!!!!!!!!
Additional Information Links:
Vote for Michael Peroutka,Constitution Party, for President