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

** Ending The Mockery **

Expand Messages
  • jail4judges
    J.A.I.L. News Journal _____________________________________________________ Los Angeles, California September 28, 2002
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 28, 2002
      J.A.I.L. News Journal
      Los Angeles, California                                  September 28, 2002
      HotSeat4Judges/M-Th/5pmPT   TheJAILerMakers   What?MeWarden?
                      FedJAIL4FedJudges                   E-mail&hosting
      Ending The Mockery
      Of The Jury System
      "Opponents say the measure would cripple the legal system."  It's high time, after years of the legal system crippling the people!
      Our thanks to Dave Nevers, dmnevers@... for sending the below article to J.A.I.L.

      Legal uproar over possible S.D. jury rule
      September 23, 2002

      PIERRE, S.D.--A measure on the South Dakota ballot this November would allow defendants to tell juries they can disregard a law if they don't like it--a prospect that has the legal profession aghast.

      Amendment A would let people accused of crimes argue that a law should not apply to their circumstances or that it has no merit. The practice is known as jury nullification.

      The proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution was put on the ballot after more than 34,000 signatures were gathered by a group that includes at least one advocate of legalizing marijuana use. The idea could also appeal to the libertarian right, tax protesters, gun owners and abortion foes.

      Opponents say the measure would cripple the legal system.

      ''It is very offensive to those of us who believe in the constitutional form of government and common law,'' said Robert Miller, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court.

      Miller said the measure may be unconstitutional.

      ''I think it has a lot of appeal for the small segment of our population that has no trust for government and especially no trust for courts and lawyers,'' he said.

      Jury nullification is not a new concept. Over the years, juries refused to convict people who harbored runaway slaves before the Civil War, sold alcohol during Prohibition or resisted the draft during the Vietnam War.

      But according to legal experts, no state has a statute allowing jury nullification. At least three states--Indiana, Maryland and Georgia--say in their constitutions that juries can judge both the law and the facts. But none of those states makes use of the practice, which fell into disfavor after an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that frowned on jury nullification.

      Among those who helped get the measure on the ballot in South Dakota is Bob Newland, a Libertarian candidate for attorney general who favors marijuana legalization.


      Open letter to Robert Miller, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, regarding Amendment A (South Dakota)
      (Quoting Robert Miller, speaking of Amendment A): ''It is very offensive to those of us who believe in the constitutional form of government and common law,'' said Robert Miller, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court.
      Quite the contrary, Mr. Miller. Jury nullification goes to the heart of
      constitutional government and common law. As many people realize today, we no longer have government based on the Constitution and common law. That's exactly why this country is headed deeper and deeper into a totalitarian regime. This fact is self-evident by the way society has been taken over in America by the usurping force in power, operating under the guise of government.
      Mr. Miller, as a former chief justice of the state supreme court (I presume of South Dakota), are the people expected to look to you as a spokesman for constitutional government?  Considering the track record of our court system over the past several years, I hardly think so. J.A.I.L. (Judicial Accountability Initiative Law) has been created because we no longer have constitutional government, thanks to the tyranny coming from our judiciary. From personal experience, I can say that Due Process of Law no longer exists in practice when seeking redress of grievances in our courts. I have learned this over a period of eighteen years, dealing with courts at all levels, both state and federal.
      Mr. Miller, you say ''I think it has a lot of appeal for the small segment of our population that has no trust for government and especially no trust for courts and lawyers.''  The only part of that sentence that is NOT true is the word "small."  Mr. Miller, you're going to have to realize the fact that it's quite a LARGE segment of our population, and growing, that has no trust for government, and especially the courts and lawyers. There are a number of national organizations that have developed in recent years that attest to that fact. And the distrust of government is based on empirical evidence, accumulated over the years by this LARGE segment of population who have become victims of judicial tyranny. Mr. Miller, I'm not referring to mere whining and complaining, but to evidence in writing forming a clear record for anyone to see of what the courts have done to destroy what the people hold dear-- our LIBERTY.
      Yes, Mr. Miller, instead of the rhetoric put out by you and others responsible for destroying the American people, the people have a written record that cannot be refuted of their destruction at the hands of our judicial system.  We have names, dates, places, material facts and specific references that testify to the truth of the "long train of abuses and usurpations [that has] reduced [our liberty] under absolute despotism." (See the Declaration of Independence).
      This is not some strange phenomenon, Mr. Miller. Our founding fathers suspected this despotism would develop in time and they instructed the people what to do in that event. They said it is not only the right of the people, but it is their DUTY "to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."  And that certainly does not mean "Homeland Security" created and run by the abusers of our security.
      As you say, Mr. Miller "Jury nullification is not a new concept."  However, as you say also, states do not follow the practice and it has fallen into disfavor by the courts. What this boils down to is, are the people sovereign and allowed to exercise their right to judge both the law and the facts, or have the courts usurped the power of the sovereign people, dictating to them as if they were slaves. 
      The system has coerced a concocted "slavery" onto the people through fraud and deception which invalidates the scheme. This country has been founded upon a free people, based on the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Although it has taken a long time, the people (now the posterity) have become damaged enough by judicial tyranny to finally make them realize that, for the sake of survival of freedom, justice, and liberty, we MUST take steps necessary to enforce our God-given inherent rights, and restrict government to its rightful purpose as protectors of our rights rather than destroyers of them as it has become. Amendment A in South Dakota is one such step.
      Yes, Mr. Miller, this has become a war in this country between the people and the ruling tyrants. We have come full circle from what the conditions were when the Declaration of Independence was established. Government, and particularly the final decisionmakers (the judiciary) must be held accountable directly to the people under constitutional principles. This must be done through the use of the jury system which must remain autonomous and independent of government. As Thomas Jefferson stated "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." 
      Juries controlled by prosecutors and judges defeats its purpose. Juries have become mockeries of the purpose for which they were established. The people realize that we must put an end to this mockery of the jury system, and right now, Amendment A is only a start toward that goal.  Mr. Miller, the people are sick and tired of being the brunt of tyrannical derision-- of insulting, contemptible, and impertinent imitation of truth. Amendment A in South Dakota is just one means of putting an end to this insolence. We've had enough!
      Ron Branson

      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 accountability!
      JAIL may be supported at P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
      To subscribe or be removed:  add-remove-jail@...
      E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
      Open forum to make your voice heard JAIL-SoundOff@egroups.com
      Ask not 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 root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.