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

Retired Lt. Col. gives FBI an Earful on Jurors Oaths

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    July 23, 2012 Agent Jim Langtry Office of the FBI 736 Medical Center Drive Wilmington, NC 28401 Dear Agent Langtry: I am writing this letter so that you have
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment

      July 23, 2012

       

      Agent Jim Langtry

      Office of the FBI

      736 Medical Center Drive

      Wilmington, NC  28401

       

      Dear Agent Langtry:

       

                  I am writing this letter so that you have a hard copy of the matter I intend to discuss with you at our meeting in your office on July 24, 2012.  I am also providing you with a copy of the U. S. Constitution; a copy of Article VI, Clause 3, of that document; and a copy of Article VI, Section 7, of the NC Constitution.

       

      The subject of this letter, and our meeting, is Oaths of the jury.  I have tried for years to get the judicial system and the executive branch to take note of this issue and have been ignored and silenced repeatedly.  The fact is, no trial court in this State has been properly set due to this lack of a proper oath since 1971.  I may be wrong about this date, but it goes back at least 25 years.

       

      I am talking about the oath of the jury not being in accordance with the statutes, the Constitutions or the common law.  Pursuant to the US Constitution, all judicial officers of the States must take an oath to the US Constitution.  I assume you have sworn that oath, similar to the one I swore in 1970 when I was sworn in to the U. S. Army.  Pursuant to the NC Constitution, all judicial officers must take the oath prescribed in NCGS 11-11 to the federal and State Constitutions.  Per NCGS 11-7, a second oath to the State and federal Constitution is required.  Lastly, NCGS 9-14 prescribes the oath of jurors pertinent to the impartially deciding of all cases according to the evidence presented.  Juries are only given the last one.  They are not sworn to “support and defend” either the federal or the State Constitution.  This failure by the judicial system is in direct violation to the Constitution, is an interstate issue and is a federal crime against the Constitution.

       

      The States are commanded in Article VI, Clause 3, of the federal Constitution that:

      “[A]ll Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution;…”

      Jurors are “judicial officers” and are required to take the oath mentioned above.

      To accomplish this federal mandate, Article VI, Section 7, NC Constitution, states:

      “Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:

      ‘I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as ________________________, so help me God.’”

      NCGS 11-11, “Oaths of sundry persons: Forms”, states in part:

      “The oaths of office to be taken by the several persons hereafter named shall be in the words following the names of said persons respectively, after taking the separate oath required by Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina:

       

      Oath for Petit Juror

       

      “You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God.”

                 

      The only Oath to Petit Jurors given is that provided in the AOC Manual:

       

      “You and each of you solemnly swear that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in Criminal actions which come before you during this session of Court and true verdicts render according to the evidence offered therein, so help you God.”

      It would appear from a cursory reading of NCGS 11-11 that the oaths taken by juries misstate and omit very important areas of a proper oath for “judicial officers” of this State.  The courts are improperly set in that the oaths given to the jury pool and the trial jury by the clerks are defective. A correct oath for a juror must contain the three statutory oaths, in order.  The State appears to completely ignore the inclusion of the Article VI, Section 7, oath required by the Constitution, and the statutory oaths required by NCGS 11-11 and 11-7.  The only oath they are given is the one dictated by NCGS 9-14 and administered by the AOC in its procedures manual.  I have personally queried clerks of court as to why they don’t administer the proper oaths.  They say they are only allowed to give the oath prescribed by AOC.  When I ask them if the AOC trumps the statutes or the Constitutions, they say “No”.  They continue to refuse to give the proper oath in fear of upsetting the status quo

       

      I believe the reason the oath has been truncated is both simple and nefarious:  By only giving the oath to the juries which dictates that the verdict be given based solely on the evidence, the court (judges and prosecutors) is able to cunningly steer the jury toward the desired outcome.  For example, if the juries were given a proper oath, the judge would not be able to say, “I have given you the law.  You must now decide, based solely upon the evidence presented during the trial, if the defendant has violated the law as I have given it to you.  If you find from the evidence that the defendant has violated the law as I have given it to you, then you must find the defendant guilty.”  It is obvious that, had the jury taken an oath to the Constitutions, they would have a higher obligation than just to the evidence presented.  They would also have to render their verdict based upon the protections of rights contained in the Constitutions and based upon whether the law as it is given to them is in contravention to either of the Constitutions.  This simple act places the jury exactly where it has always supposed to have been, in a position superior to the prosecutor, to the judge and to the court.

       

      As you can see, the improper oaths given to the juries have resulted in the judicial system in this State and country evolving into judicial tyranny.  The courts and the judges have gotten far afield from the Constitutions and the law.  In my own personal experience at trials, I have seen judges refuse to allow the Constitution to be presented as evidence in a trial totally concerned with constitutionally protected unalienable rights.  I have witnessed a judge instruct a jury that they would be held in contempt of his order if they so much as looked for a copy of the Constitution, “because the Constitution is not in evidence in this trial.”  The Constitution was not in evidence because the judge had denied a notice of filing of evidence by this writer which included the federal and State Constitutions.  Had the juries been given the proper oath, the Constitution would have been de facto and de jure “in evidence” at every trial.  In another instance, the presiding judge only instructed the jury on that part of the law which condemned the defendant, not that part of the law which exempted him from the law.  When an objection was raised, the jury was sent out prior to discussion, and the judge overruled the objection.  Of course the defendant was found guilty based upon “the law as it was given to them.” The charges:  Refusing to answer the questions of a LEO (right against self-incrimination) and no NC registration.  The defendant was a legal resident of Michigan with a valid Michigan license!  There are other, more egregious, cases but their stories are too long for this missive and would distract from the subject at hand.

       

      The lawyers involved in the courtrooms don’t say anything about this defective judicial system.  They all go to the same school, and apparently fear the judges who apparently like things just as they are.  I have educated several lawyers on this improper oath issue, but none of them is willing to raise the issue to a judge, a clerk or anyone else.  They also fear for their careers and seem very happy with the “status quo”.  LEO’s scoff and snicker when I mention the subject of rights.  Prosecutors sneer when someone attempts to claim they have constitutional rights and cry about abuse of judicial resources.  While prosecutors/DA’s relish in oft repeating the phrases, “No one is above the law”; “The law is for everyone”; and “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, the entire judicial system of this State and others is operating criminally outside the law.  The whole judicial system is corrupt, because it can be:  The juries are improperly sworn and not imbued with the responsibility and accountability provided them in the Constitution.  Thus, the “judicial officers” (excluding jurors) of the court exude a sense of impunity, immunity and arrogance punctuated with an air of superiority over all others in the courtroom, including the jurors. 

       

      There has been no “fair trial” in this State, or any other to my knowledge, for at least the past 25 years.  As you are probably aware, the States’ judicial system mimics the federal system in rules and procedures.  The feds have created the States’ Justice Institute (SJI) to make sure that the States’ judicial systems toe the line.  In appearance, the SJI is merely in place to assist the State courts, but you and I know better.  The federal government wants the State courts to be all the same so they can be better controlled when the time comes, in my opinion.  To my knowledge, only Louisiana courts have survived this conversion to commonality.  Louisiana follows Napoleonic Law.

       

      I contacted the gatekeeper on the AOC website and asked for the oath of jurors.  The gatekeeper responded with the segment of NCGS 11-11 which calls for the truncated juror’s oath.  When I replied with a reminder that the first paragraph of NCGS 11-11 commands the juror be given the oath in Article VI, Section 7, of the NC Constitution, I received no further reply.  I sent a follow up e-mail, but again no reply.

       

      You can see that I have researched this issue to its fullest.  I am convinced the State courts are acting unconstitutionally with regards to the oaths of juries.  Although the solution is obvious, the implementation of the solution is not so simple.  When convicted defendants learn that their juries were willfully and knowingly compromised, tampered with, prejudiced, misled, and improperly instructed, they will no doubt feel that they were denied due process and just treatment under the law.  Who knows what effect such a revelation will have on this State’s judicial integrity, not to mention all the other States as well.

       

      I would appreciate it if you would review this concern honestly and let me know what you determine to be the truth.  I have taken it as far as possible, up to and including the Supreme Court of North Carolina.  All the courts at all levels are complicit in this fraud. 

       

      Sincerely,

       

       

      Donald Sullivan

      Lt. Colonel, USAF(R)

      PO Box 441

      Atkinson, NC  28421

      910-617-2559

       

      encl:  “Citizens’ Rule Book”

                  Copy of Article I, Clause 3, US Constitution

                  Copy of Article VI, Section 7, NC Constitution

       

       

       

       

      Call me at: 720-675-7230

      On Skype: legalbear

      Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST

      Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:

      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      My blog: legalbearsblog.com

      Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com

      (formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)

       

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