On Getting The Fully Informed Jury Amendment Passed In New Hampshire
On Getting The Fully Informed Jury Amendment Passed In New HampshireBy Ron Branson
Recently, I forwarded the message of Julian Heicklen on "The Jury Trial," cited below. I received many responses thereto. For many years going back to the latter 70's I have been a strong advocate in power to the People through the independence of the Jury as intended by our Founding Fathers.
Ironically, when we accomplished getting JAIL4Judges on the ballot in South Dakota in 2006 for the People to vote upon, I was assailed by the enemy, which was the entire government of the state that I was an enemy of the People, that I hated America, and our Founding Fathers, and I wanted to let all the felons out of prison to go after the jurors that convicted them, and place these People in prison. It was also propagated that I was of the elk of those who shot and killed a federal agent in North Dakota. (Not identification of who they were talking about).
This whole scenario would be humorous except 89% of the voters accepted their lies, and voted against bring about judicial accountability. They have no idea of what their resistance of the truth, and believing the lie caused as it pertains to the glorious future that would have been for America. It was America's version of, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Matthew 23:37, 38.
America would already be a much different place had the People accepted the truth and refused to believed a Lie. II Thessalonians 2:11 & 12 says of the Last Days, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth..." God is now judging America for its refusal of the truth. "Righteousness exalteth a nation:" Proverbs 14:34.
Just days ago New Hampshire State Representative Dick Marple contacted me with the following words,
During my three terms as a elected member of the New Hampshire General Court, I sponsored legislation for enacting a "Fully Informed Jury" as I have been the New Hampshire State Rep for FIJA for over 25 years. I had other Reps introduce the same Bill for me on many occasions, and many would get passed by the House, but die in the Senate, which has been dominated by attorneys and lawyers, thus they had the numbers to stay their course.
Two years ago, I had my good friend, Lars Christiansen introduce my FIJA Bill and you can see what happened by studying the Docket History on the N.H. Legislative site.
In short, I joined the Senator who was favorable to the Bill with minor language change, an we did an hour long TV show explaining the need. This, as well as that fact that I had Proclamation Support from our Governor for the Jury Rights Day, (September 5th each year), so when the Conference Committee approved the language change, we finally got it to the Governors desk, and he signed it June 16th.
Accordingly, New Hampshire is the first Republic to enact such protection for the inhabitants.
I hope other states will follow our lead. I understand there are over 8 stated doing so."
So Mr. Branson,
What else is the judicial system hiding? And where are we on convening our own grand jury? Dr. Zernik has stepped up to the plate…. (Thank you Dr. Zernik)* * *
Arnie, all the work has been, and is entirely accomplished. All that is needed is sponsorship. This foundation has been provided since 1995, and is awaiting the populace to execute it. A new Rolls Royce in the driveway is of no value other than providing a shady spot without fuel.
THE JURY TRIAL
by Julian Heicklen
Organizer, Tyranny Fighters
Amendment VI of the U. S. Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury....” It does not say: “may enjoy.” It does not say: “if the accused chooses.” It does not say: “unless the accused declines.” It does not say: “if the judge agrees.” It does not say: “unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.” It says that there shall be a jury trial.
Everyone in the criminal legal system knows that if a defendant declines a jury trial, it is because his lawyer thinks or knows that his client is guilty. It is no longer possible for the judge to be impartial.
The reason a defendant’s lawyer declines a jury trial is because he hopes to win the case in one of three ways:
1. He has some obscure legal argument that the
jury (and maybe even the judge and/or
prosecutor) do not understand.
2. The judge owes the defendant’s lawyer
something. The lawyers and the judge all know
each other and have opinions, grudges, and
obligations with each other.
3. The defense lawyer or the defendant may be in
a position to help the judge’s career if he wins
This is particularly true if the defendant holds a
relevant government job.
Consider the case of the killing of Sean Bell. He was killed by police on his wedding day. His bride-to-be received his corpse as a wedding present. The incident is described in detail at:
“The Sean Bell shooting incident took place in the New York City borough of Queens on November 25, 2006, in which one Latino and two African-American men were shot at a total of fifty times by a team of both plainclothes and undercover NYPD officers (two of whom were themselves African-American), killing one of the men, Sean Bell, on the morning of his wedding day, and severely wounding two of his friends. The incident sparked fierce criticism of the police from some members of the public and drew comparisons to the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo. Three of the five detectives involved in the shooting went to trial  on charges ranging from manslaughter to reckless endangerment, and were acquitted.” (see the web page for references).
The three detectives involved in the shooting were
indicted by a grand jury for manslaughter, reckless
endangerment, and assault. They waived a jury trial. The bench trial started on March 16, 2007. All three detectives were found not guilty of all charges by Justice Arthur J. Cooperman.
Apparently the police department did not agree with
the judge’s decision. Although the detectives were
acquitted, the three of them and their commanding officer were fired or forced to resign on March 24, 2012. If there had been a jury trial, the detectives were likely to have been found guilty of something—probably not first degree murder, but at least criminal negligence. However, even it did find the police not guilty, its verdict would have been more credible.
On the other hand the judge desperately needs the
police to protect him. They may save his life. There are lots of ex-criminals in the county that would like to kill him.
In a courtroom trial, there is only one impartial
participant. That is the jury
-- Ron Branson VictoryUSA@... www.JAIL4Judges.org www.SD-JAIL4Judges.org