Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1True or False?

Expand Messages
  • Allan D Hampton
    May 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      True or False?

      The (authentic) Trial by Jury British Justice System is revered at
      home and respected abroad as the finest and most democratic form of
      law enforcement ever devised. Worldwide honour derived from one
      phenomenon: Constitutional Law Magna Carta, the Great Charter of
      English Liberties, first passed in 1215; for this emplaces the
      definitive Trial by Jury. This Trial by Jury is also enshrined
      within the U.S. Constitution, reaffirmed by every president by oath
      at inauguration. Magna Carta is law throughout Britain, being
      ratified thirty-five times, including by Head of State Queen
      Elizabeth II, and applies in perpetuity.

      Our Constitutions emplace Trial by Jury as the sole system for all
      civil, criminal and fiscal lawsuits; and institute the Right and
      Duty of Jurors to acquit as Not Guilty, according to the Juror's
      conscience, citizens tried under law which the Juror judges to be
      oppressive or unfair (i.e. Jury Nullification); and the Jury (not
      judges) are required to review all evidence to decide on its
      admissibility. Jurors decide the Verdict not simply on whether
      evidence indicates a defendant broke the law: in Trial by Jury,
      Jurors have the Duty to decide the Verdict by judging also whether
      the law under which the defendant is tried, is Just.

      However complicated the facts of a case are (and it is for the
      plaintiff to make his cause clear), it is axiomatic that, literate
      or not, all sane adult men and women can recognise injustice. It
      takes no special learning for an adult to know when a law is just.
      This is the special virtue of our Constitution: (in addition to
      determining innocence or guilt, and apportioning retribution) Trial
      by Jury is emplaced to protect citizens for all time from unjust
      laws and arbitrary government.

      Neither in Britain nor in the U.S. have legislatures ever been
      invested by the People with authority to remove the Right of the
      accused to a Trial by Jury, to impair the powers, to change the
      oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors.

      In democratic societies, the trial of a citizen is by fellow
      citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial is not "trial-by-government,"
      which could never be fair where the government is also one of the
      contesting parties.

      Prosecutors, judges, police and prison service are employed to
      enforce governments' laws and should never be asked, nor relied on,
      to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil
      their task or face the fury of the government, their employer.
      Judges themselves comprise a branch of government, and they are in
      the pay of government. For these reasons, government, politicians
      and the judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or
      punishment of any person for any offence whatever.

      The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System
      intentionally takes a person out of the government's hands and
      places the accused under the protection of his or her equals (the
      jury) and the Common Law alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman
      to be punished unless the indiscriminately chosen equals of the
      accused consent to it, following Trial in which Jurors try: the
      facts of the case, the law, and decide on the admissibility of
      evidence. Anything less, or different, is not Trial by Jury, but
      trial by someone else.

      Other nations, such as the United States of America when
      independent, adopted Trial by Jury. President John Adams, lawyer,
      pronounced about the Juror:

      "It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict according
      to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in
      direct opposition to the direction of the court." (Yale Law
      Journal.)

      The Principle is explained as follows: "If a juror accepts as the
      law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the
      exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has
      surrendered a power and right that was once the Citizen's safeguard
      of liberty." Elliot's Debates; 94, Bancroft, History of The
      Constitution, 267.

      The following quotation is also poignantly relevant:

      "The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished
      liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch
      forth a saving hand while there was time." Ibid.

      In this matter, good men and women who stand up against tyranny are
      of one mind:

      Viz. U.S. Chief Justice Samuel Chase: "The Jury has the Right to
      determine both the law and facts." Viz. U.S. President Thomas
      Jefferson, Democratic Party Founder: "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." More recently, Chief
      Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Jury has the power to bring a
      verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." And viz. U.S. Chief
      Justice Harlan F. Stone, "The law itself is on trial quite as much
      as the case which is to be decided." In 1972, D.C. Circuit Court of
      Appeals ruled: "the jury has unreviewable and irreversible power to
      acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial
      judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's
      exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."
      WHY is the Citizen-Juror's judgement on the law so important a part
      of any fair and competent Justice System? See THE REPORT OF THE FCDA
      EUROPE, ISBN: 1902848152, endorsed by academics and US & UK judges:
      All governments are capable of passing oppressive, i.e. illegal
      laws, and organising enforcement of such laws. Juries limited to
      deciding innocence or guilt only on evidence produced by the state
      prosecutor of whether the accused has broken a law, would not be
      able to protect good Citizens from oppressions of the state. Juries
      instructed to judge on the justice of law and its enforcement can be
      relied upon to protect people from the state, when the state
      breaches correct behaviour in attempting to enforce injustices."

      Today, there are scores of unjust, persecutory British, European and
      U.S. laws and regulations being routinely and illegally enforced by
      judges.

      Today, a government-contrived legal obligation bans
      lawyers/barristers from presenting evidence which exonerates
      defendants, if it "disputes the law." Judges forbid the accused
      likewise. Judges exclude official exonerative evidence, academic and
      scientific, and tell jurors to consider only that evidence which he
      or she allows. As a juror, expect the judge to forbid you to judge
      on justice. Judges instruct jurors: to `uphold the law' regardless;
      and not to allow conscience, their opinion of the law, or a
      defendant's motives, to affect their decision. Thus, judges' jury-
      tampering produces innumerable false guilty `verdicts'.

      WHY do judges not instruct Jurors of their Duty to judge the law?
      and, WHY do judges deny juries their right to see and decide which
      evidence is admissible?

      — disrespect for citizens' ability to make fair judgements?
      — the judge is the willing servant of undemocratic oppressive
      government?
      — unwillingness to part with his or her power to prejudice the
      verdict?

      Whatever the judge's motives, the judge is wrong not to inform
      jurors of their Right and Duty to do justice: e.g., State of Georgia
      v. Brailsford, a supreme court forfeiture trial, the facts having
      been ascertained, U.S. Chief Justice John Jay instructed jurors that
      it remained only for them to judge the law itself, saying: "The Jury
      has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
      controversy."

      Under Constitutional Trial by Jury, jurors not only render the
      verdict according to their conscience, but also decide the sentence
      for criminals. The Jury's powers are nowadays illicitly destroyed by
      court decisions, procedures, and by the creation of illegal `laws'
      which deny jury trials for the accused. When judges instead of
      juries run trials, innocent citizens are persecuted under unjust
      laws; prisons are filled with harmless and innocent people, while
      dangerous criminals go free.

      Removal of justice/equity issues from jurors transforms Trial by
      Jury into the inherently unlawful trial-by-the-government-judge, by
      which Nazi, Stalinist, fascist, and communist systems all operate,
      and primitive tyranny thrives. This uncivilised system is now in
      place in the former democracies of the West, to enable enforcement
      of every persecution, stealth-tax, oppression, money-motivated
      subterfuge and injustice the state introduces, and which judges then
      lawlessly claim is the `law'.

      A cause for Repeal of the infamous crime-producing U.S. Alcohol
      Prohibition law was that prosecutions failed to obtain guilty
      verdicts. In the last four years of Prohibition to 1933, juries
      nullified around half of all unjust prosecutions of producers',
      stockists' and traders' normal traditional commercial activities, by
      pronouncing the Not Guilty Verdict. THE RIGHT OF JURORS TO JUDGE ON
      THE JUSTICE OF LAW. The Commemorative Plaque.Old Bailey Law Courts,
      London.

      Penn was later Founder of Pennsylvania. Like the Trial by Jury, this
      plaque will be removed if the dissolute have their way.

      Though Penn and Mead broke the law, the jury's authority to acquit
      supersedes government and court. Reviewing the case, Chief Justice
      Vaughan confirmed the Right of Jurors to judge the justice of laws,
      upholding this defining Safeguard of Democracy, sine qua non, an
      indispensable Principle for all time.

      "If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence
      is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-
      given unalienable or Constitutional rights, then it is his duty to
      affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that
      the violation of it is no crime at all for no one is bound to obey
      an unjust law." 1946; U.S. Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone.

      ATTENTION ALL CITIZENS: RESISTANCE to tyranny is the duty of every
      citizen who wishes to live in a free country. Unresisted and
      emboldened, E.U. and U.K. politicians/bureaucrats now plan to remove
      the Trial by Jury. Furthermore, adoption of the E.U. `constitution'
      would also eliminate Trial by Jury, and instead install in the U.K.
      the overt tyranny of the state-inquisitorial Continental system.
      It is time to act against growing injustice ! Campaign with us for
      RESTORATION.

      To become an FCDAE-FIJA Educational Activist today, print-out,
      photocopy and give this leaflet to family, friends and media.
      ~
      THE FCDA EUROPE incorporating THE FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION.
      Directors: Kenn d'Oudney and Ms. Astra d'Oudney.

      EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION SERIES PRODUCED AS A PUBLIC SERVICE. EIS 3.
      The Fully Informed Juror.

      True or False?

      The Juror has the Right and Duty to find the Verdict according to
      his or her judgement on whether the law is just.

      True.

      Introducing:
      The FCDAE-FIJA International Campaign for RESTORATION and UNIVERSAL
      ADOPTION of Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury.
      The FCDAE-FIJA is a non-profitmaking organisation. The Campaign is
      financed by sales of FCDAE-FIJA educational publications which are
      endorsed by a Nobel laureate professor emeritus Official Adviser to
      U.S. government; a Fellow of the Royal Society; by eminent authors,
      academics, doctors of jurisprudence, medicine, psychiatry and by
      ecologists and judges (U.S. and U.K.).

      Be sure to visit the books' section of Amazon.co.uk to see FCDAE-
      FIJA Publications and read the Synopses.

      On site, enter ISBNs (numbers only):
      1902848152 1902848748 1902848063 1902848012
      For details of direct orders (48-hour despatch)
      E-mail: fcdae-fija(at)tiscali.fr Replace (at) with @.
      Or write to: THE FCDAE-FIJA,
      8, RUE DE LA BRASSERIE, 55700 OLIZY, FRANCE.