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

Facing Double Jeopardy

Expand Messages
  • JAIL4Judges
    Facing Double Jeopardy By Glynis Bethel From: Glynis Bethel [mailto:prophetessglynisbethel@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:03 AM To: JAIL4Judges
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 8, 2008
      Facing Double Jeopardy
      By Glynis Bethel

      From: Glynis Bethel [mailto:prophetessglynisbethel@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:03 AM
      To: JAIL4Judges
      Subject: The 5th Amendment; Double Jeopardy; Trial De Novo


      Mr. Ron Branson;

      GOD bless you for your work.  I have a question for you.   Here in Alabama, my husband and I preach the gospel on the public property and in other states, too. We noticed that in the  State of Florida and Georgia they immediately give the person, at their criminal proceedings, the choice of having either a BENCH or JURY trial.

      On the contraryin the state of Alabama, we and the citizens are ALWAYS forced into a BENCH trial with a chance to appeal to yet ANOTHER court which would then allow a choice of either a JURY or a BENCH trial. 

      More still, the person is forced into the bench trial, but the bench judge tells the people that they have a right to an attorney to be appointed (problably one of his friends) according to the sixth amendment. The judge doesn't say that this is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment, but lets the people know that it is a "right." The same Sixth Amendment which states that a person has a right to counsel ALSO states that the person has a right to a JURY TRIAL for ALL criminal proceedings, but they seem to ignore this truth.

      Even worst, according to the Fifth Amendment the person has a right to be free of Double Jeopardy or being trial TWICE for the SAME charges. This is my issue with the Southern good ole' boys' court system.

      In the State of Alabama they have what they call a TRIAL DE NOVO in which seems to be highly unconstitutional. It is written in the Alabama rules of civil procedures. The Trial De Novo entails a person being tried through a bench trial WITHOUT the option of a jury or the availability of the chance to select a jury over a bench trial. After the judge rules a person guilty, he then tells the person that he could post or pay yet ANOTHER bond in order to "appeal" his decision.  If this person chooses to "appeal," the person has to pay a surety or bonds man and all of the judges decisions will be canceled out and he loses "jurisdiction" and the case is moved to yet ANOTHER court to be heard once again by another judge of this time by a jury. If the person fails to show up for the court hearing, the criminal charges or verdict will be "remanded" back to the lower Municipal court.


      If this is not legal according to the Constitution, I would like to start some sort of campaign alerting people of their rights to not only a JURY trial, but also to the fact that their civil rights are being taken away from them by a corrupt court system.


      For years now, my husband and I have been taken advantage of by this system including paying out multiple fees, etc.

      (Please pray: Father, GOD in the name of JESUS, I repent for my sins. I believe that JESUS died and rose again for me. Please fill me with the gift of the HOLY GHOST, with the sign of speaking in “new” tongues. I receive JESUS by faith in JESUS’ name. Amen.)

      Greetings, Glynis! 
      Applying the U.S. Constitution to the the facts you have stated regarding juryless trials in Alabama, the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, states, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury." A criminal trial without a jury is totally void unless the criminal charge is one of impeachment. Impeachment never applies to citizens, but only to public servants exercising an office of public trust. Therefore, in the criminal circumstances to which you refer, we do not even reach the issue of double jeopardy because the trial is void.
      Applying this issue to that of J.A.I.L. the judges have objected to the wording of J.A.I.L. because it denies them the constitutional right to waive a jury trial. What they mean is that they do not want to be judged by a jury, but rather want to be judged by their fellow judicial brethren. But I came back with the challenge, where in the Constitution do they conceive the idea of a constitutional right to a bench trial. There are two sides to every criminal action, the defense and the prosecution. In the current system, no prosecutor would ever object to a non-jury trial, but under J.A.I.L. the prosecutor is the Special Prosecutor working for the Special Grand Jury. He can only proceed against against a judge through a jury, which jury will also impose the sentencing against the judge found guilty by them.
      You raise an interesting point regarding subjecting one to a second trial since the state considers that you have been already been tried on the criminal charge. The Fifth Amendment states, "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Either the state has to deem the "first trial" a constitutional mockery in order to offer a "second" trial by jury, or alternatively they must deem the "second trial" on the same charges a violation of the double jeopardy provision of the U.S. Constitution. Either way, the Constitution has been violated big time.
      So Glynis, what is the answer? God, in His mercy, has provided one, but men just will not not accept that remedy. God has raised up J.A.I.L. as their Ark of Security, if they will receive it. If not, America shall only witness the judgment of God!
      -Ron Branson



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.