"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about...." ~ John Adams
If This Box Fails...
A number of years ago, I came into a new understanding which I had never realized. Of course, being a product of the gooberment school system, it only stands to reason that I would not have learned of this particular power that the people have, to help, if not completely rein in out-of-control government agents.
Thank goodness for alternative education and the efforts of men like Red Beckmen to alert myself and others to this lost truth. This truth apparently cannot be put to work unless you are registered to vote. As far as I can tell, no state agents are allowing anyone to participate in this activity unless you are. At one time, many state agents used to use other venues to glean names from people so they could participate, such as the phone book.
What is it that I am getting at? Being picked for a criminal jury and sitting as a juror to judge someone for an act of omission or commission that they may or may not have committed in violation of a 'law.'
I have been thinking about this a lot lately since I have had my name removed from the voting rolls for many years, especially as I hear of people being railroaded into prison and put on parole after being convicted of 'felonies' that are basically pretend crimes. I have been wondering if we should make a last ditch effort to stop this from happening in a peaceful manner or if we should just skip this step and go straight to the last box. I think you can figure out what box that is. Yes, the THOUGHT has crossed my mind that maybe Claire Wolfe is WRONG and it IS time . . . . But wait . . . maybe not. Maybe since most of the 40% of the populace that is not registered to vote that could be, were to realize that they have a last ditch chance at saving this republic before violence erupts big time, they might consider what I am saying.
At this time, the major reason, I am sure that the gooberment agents prefer registered voters is because registered voters obviously still believe in the system. Of course since they really don't know what to do anyway, thanks to their brain being indoctrinated into state worship in the gooberment schools, it really doesn't matter, now does it?
But what if WE, the informed and disgruntled, were to use the system against itself to at least get back to a reasonable facsimile of liberty again? What if WE refused to convict people of thought crimes or violations of 'law' that are obviously immoral?
The reason that this has really been bugging me is because the state of California's citizens have decided, along with a number of other states, to let people who have certain ailments use marijuana for medical purposes. And of course, since the Federal government now believes that its 'law' trumps state law, it is raiding folks who somehow believe in 'we the people' and were following the new laws that California had passed. Then the Feds were pulling crap like this . . . arresting doctors for following California law and then not allowing the doctor to use as his DEFENSE the fact that the LAW of California allowed what he was doing! What kind of shit is this? Anyhow, FEDERAL as well as state juries are drawn from the pool of registered voters. What if we unregistered ones were to take this knowledge into the courtrooms of America and start freeing our fellow citizens from these travesties by hanging the jury or better yet giving not guilty verdicts? What if I resided in California and had been picked for jury duty in that doctor's case? Just my understanding of the constipation . . . errr . . . Constitution would have allowed me to nullify that crap! Or at least HANG the jury so that they would have to retry to get a conviction!
And then what about the case where a man dies in his own vomit because of his inability to obtain marijuana legally due to a federal judge's order? Never mind the facts surrounding the controversy. It all amounts to control. Control of OUR bodies and what WE think we should be able to do with them.
Well, friends, maybe it is time we began to think of ways to use the system against itself. If enough of us started nullifying all their bull crap laws they have on the books that make criminals out of otherwise totally law-abiding people, we at least could get a semblance of liberty back. OR they will show their hands, do away with juries on some 'terrorist' pretext and then we will have every reason in the world to show these traitors WHY the Founding Fathers left the people of this nation armed. That is exactly what went on at Concord Green over 200 years ago. For a refresher, read the Declaration of Independence .
So what do you think? Should we make a last ditch effort to keep this from happening? If called to serve on a jury, let's serve and vote against ANY law that is an obvious affront to our liberties and freedoms.
Here are a few I can think of just for starters. I am sure you can add a few hundred more to this list . . . For one thing, let's end the War on Drugs by finding EVERYONE who is using them NOT GUILTY. What you put in YOUR body is no concern of ANYONE except YOU.
How about gun control laws? Mere possession of a tool should not cause someone to end up in the gulag for 10 years. NOT GUILTY, YOUR HONOR. YOUR rule book says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means EXACTLY what it says. What part of that statement don't you understand, 'judge'? Our right to DEFEND ourselves from the likes of you, 'judge,' isn't given by some black robed 'priest' in a courtroom; it is a right we receive at birth. It is a right that is antecedent to any earthly government.
Not GUILTY for carrying a concealed firearm. NOT GUILTY for having a firearm while under a restraining order. NOT GUILTY for having a firearm after serving time for a so-called felony, which of course is almost ANYTHING nowadays . . . NOT GUILTY for having a firearm in a bank. NOT GUILTY for having one on school property. That's right! Unless SOMEONE has been DAMAGED by the act, we are VOTING NOT GUILTY. PERIOD. End of story.
Not GUILTY for driving without insurance. NOT GUILTY for driving without a license. ESPECIALLY if it is because the one charged was driving with an expired license due to the new 'intelligence bill.' Missouri charges people with a felony who are caught three times driving without a driver's license. NOT GUILTY for not filing for the Selective Service. NOT GUILTY for refusing to be dragged back into an undeclared UNCONSTITUTIONAL war somewhere.
How about someone who defends himself from a 'law enforcement' officer who is violating his oath of office by arresting someone for a law that is OBVIOUSLY against his oath? An UNLAWFUL arrest is an unlawful arrest.
And just in case you think that I am off my rocker about this subject, the following is information from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) website explaining more about juries in general:
In the past few years, at least 50 law review or scholarly articles that discuss the concept of jury power and jury nullification have been published. The Case Western Reserve Law Review, the Washington and Lee University Law Review, Military Law Review, the American Criminal Law Review, and others have carried these articles, more than half of which discuss FIJA as well as academic aspects of nullification.
Constitutions of Maryland , Indiana , Oregon and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to 'judge' or 'determine' the law in 'all criminal cases.'
Article 23 of Maryland 's constitution states:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.
Art. I, Sec. 19, of Indiana 's constitution says:
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.
Art. I, Sec. 16 of Oregon's constitution says:
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
Art. I, Sec. 1 of Georgia's constitution says:
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.
Twenty other states currently include jury nullification provisions in their constitutions in the free speech sections, in regard to libel cases. Typical language: '. . . in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court.' New Jersey , New York , South Carolina , Utah and Wisconsin omit the phrase 'under the direction of the court.' Delaware , Kentucky , Pennsylvania , North Dakota , Texas and Tennessee add the phrase 'as in other criminal cases.'
South Carolina 's constitution states:
In all indictments or prosecutions for libel, the truth of the alleged libel may be given in evidence, and the jury shall be the judges of the law and facts.
The phrase 'under the direction of the court,' where it appears, means that the judge is to explain to the jury what the law says, but the jury may or may not choose to follow these directions.
Governors of 13 states have signed 'Jury Rights Day' Proclamations at the request of local activists, as have the mayor and city council of Philadelphia and several smaller towns and cities. And more and more prominent organizations and individuals are endorsing FIJA: the Libertarian Party, the Congress on Racial Equality, the Republican Liberty Caucus, the Republican parties of Nevada , Iowa , and Montana , the South Carolina NAACP and Gun Owners of America. Editorial boards of the Phoenix Gazette, the Arizona Republic , and the Las Vegas Review Journal have formally endorsed FIJA. So have prominent individuals, including former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William C. Goodloe and retired Arkansas Supreme Court Justice John I. Purtle.
So you see folks, we may have a chance if we can start saying NOT GUILTY to these out of control 'laws' that are on the books.
What do you think?