YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY
Trial by government is prohibited for real people.
A trial by A JURY OF YOUR PEERS IS A TRIAL BY 12 PEOPLE
WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.
The writers of your Constitution had a strong distrust
of government tyranny. A trial
by a jury of your peers was intended to replace the inherently unfair trial
by government. A trial by
government does not fulfill the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process of
law. You have a right to a fair
trial. Trial by government
cannot be fair. Inquisition is
trial by government.
The book Elliot's Debates On The Adoption Of The
Constitution quotes (Vol 3,
page 579) Patrick Henry as stating; "By the bill of rights of England,
a subject has a right to a trial by his peers.
What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors,
and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life."
Also in Elliot's Debates we can read (Vol 2,
page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the
Declaration of Independence and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us
that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you:
"Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and
the witnesses -- where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge
and their view -- I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial
by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the
words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge
of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious
manner of distributing justice. There
is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed
return a mistaken or il-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be
And again, in Elliot's Debates, Vol 2, page 110,
Mr. Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the
local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the
character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.
That's right! Your
Constitution was ratified on the reassurance that a jury of your peers would
always be 12 people who know you.
Here is further proof that a trial by jury is not a
trial by government: The
Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted
Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California
ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals' - that
is, trial by country - or by the people, as distinguished from trial by
Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist was being quoted
in the US Supreme Court's case Sparf & Hansen v. US, 156 US 51 (1895)
at page 119:
the judge's opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted
to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless."
Much of your law comes from the English system.
The US Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes
Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People:
hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will
you be tried?' he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and
my country, not by God and the King, or the King's Deputy
In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice
Chase in 1805, your US Government itself fought for the right of the jury to
judge the law as well as the facts. They
impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial
that they can judge the law. -- Perhaps
juries today do not have the right to judge the law. Perhaps juries have waived their rights by registering to
vote. All of their rights.
[Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and
registered voters have consented to be governed].
Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the
Declaration of Independence, was impeached for
endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear
argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of
Your US Government itself, in the Chase Transcript
Article 1, section 2, clause 4, argued that Justice Chase did this
the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation
of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which
ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people."
In 1969 in US v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 at page 1006:
recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit,
even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and
contrary to the evidence. ... the jury has the power to acquit and the
courts must abide by that decision."
|1st Corinthians 4:3 (NIV): I care very little if I am
judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge