Joby Weeks

More About: Criminal Justice System

My summary of WALLS IN OUR MINDS by M.J.'Red' Beckman 

 My summary of WALLS IN OUR MINDS by M.J.'Red' Beckman 

There is an important difference between politicians and statesmen.  The former scheme to force citizens into servitude to the government; the latter to insure that the government does the serving.  The writers of our Constitution intended that the government work for us. 
         It is wise to vote for those whom we hope will be statesmen rather than politicians.  We cast our ballots on the precinct level, then the county, the district, and the state level for candidates and delegates we believe in.  At a national convention we may vote once more before casting our final ballot in November.
         Yet, after all that, we find the politicians back in office, term after term, breaking their campaign promises and passing horrible laws.  And it becomes harder to differentiate between politicians claiming to be Republicans and those claiming to be Democrats.  It appears that both parties have discovered a relatively new constituency which gives them the winning edge - that growing number of  uneducated, self-centered, short-sighted, unproductive and ever more frequently illegal voters seeking more handouts and more entitlements. 
         So, government grows bigger, less responsive, more aggressive.  How can we retain our rights in the face of the horrible laws being proposed and passed?  Will it come down to the bloody revolution which Jefferson anticipated?  It need not, if we realize, as our ancestors did, that we still have two additional votes.  These are our most important ones!  However, they are not well understood and rarely exercised properly.  This is partly due to those in positions of power who need to have us vote as they wish rather than on principle in accordance with our own values.  But, these two special votes can make all the difference in the world and turn everything around!
         You get to vote when you serve on a Grand Jury and you get to vote when you serve on a regular Trial Jury.  Big deal?  These two votes are much more important than most citizens realize because they permit a juror to nullify bad law, referred to as ‘Jury lawlessness.'   In US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1130 we read, "Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration.  The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly confronted kings and ministers."  Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."
         The honorable Theo. Parsons at the MA convention of 1788 answering concerns that the proposed US Constitution had as yet no Bill of Rights replied: "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms...Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." (2 Elliot's Debates, 94; Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 267).  
         This principle was put into action before the Civil War when some who helped slaves escape to freedom were brought to trial having violated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  The juries back then knew that the Constitution gave them the right to judge the law as well as the accused person.  When jury after jury responded "NOT GUILTY" in spite of the evidence, the judge's hands were tied; they were thus prevented from assessing penalties!  Even the US Supreme Court can not over-ride the ruling of a jury.  Congress got the message and the laws were changed. 
         In the first jury trial before the Supreme Court (Feb of 1794) the Supreme Court judges told the jury, " is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law.  But still both objects are within your power of decision... You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."  (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall.I).
        John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (1789) summarized it thus, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." This was echoed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice (1902), "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact" as well as by Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, US Supreme Ct. (1941), "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."  US vs Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969 instructs, "If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the evidence."
         This is a fortunate thing arising from our Founding Fathers' distrust of any type of government or any of its branches with or without checks and balances.  They therefore made sure that guilt would be decided only by fellow citizens, not by judges, not by politicians!  If the people are the creators of the Constitution, they must also be the enforcers of the law they created.  Fortunately, nothing has changed since then, except that most jurors today let themselves be dictated to by the judge or by the attorneys during a trial.          Our ignorance here makes it easy to scam us, to get away with lying to us.  You see, we have not only the right to judge the accused individual, we have the right to judge the law the individual is accused of breaking!  However, "If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states then that juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty." (Elliot's Debates, Bancroft, History of the Constitution, 1788)
         Those being the facts of the matter, if jurors are ignorant of their supreme power would a US Attorney remind a Grand Jury about their lawful authority over any US Attorney?  No, because a US Attorney cannot prosecute an individual without a Grand Jury indictment.  And would a judge admit that jurors can disregard his clear and limiting instructions?  Of course not.  Instead, the judge will likely accept a motion ‘In Limine' from the prosecution which denies the accused the right to use the US Constitution in his defense.
        Nothing will be said to jurors as to their responsibility to judge the quality of the law.  It all becomes a show trial if officials can count on jurors acting like sheeple, like a rubber stamp.  Part of the problem is that we are more poorly educated than previous generations in terms of civics, economics, and the philosophies of government - 85% of us believe our rights come from the government!
         Samuel Chase signed the Declaration of Independence and served our country well.  But he made one mistake which got him impeached.  As a US Supreme Court Justice (1796), he told a jury that he would decide the law and the jury would decide the facts.  During his impeachment trial, Chase apologized and assured the Senate that he knew that juries also had the right to judge the law as well as the facts of a case.  Those statesmen in Congress back then knew that if jurors follow erroneous instructions of a judge, our lawful form of government would be subverted and changed.  Then politicians could take over.  In 1800, if politicians had written the IRS code to put citizens in bondage, jurors across the land would have trashed that bad law with their votes as unconstitutional (Art.1, Sec.9, Clause 4).
         Surprisingly, jurors are beginning to trash bad laws again.  Jurors are successfully fighting back and not even the IRS can appeal a ‘not guilty' jury verdict.  The IRS does have the option of intimidating the media in order to keep its defeat out of the news.  It could harass, audit and attempt to destroy any reporter who might publish a victory for us taxpayers.  So, today the public has no idea of the great number of cases which the IRS and other agencies have recently lost.  The number grows as citizens get sick and tired of repressive measures moving us toward a one-world government.
         It may be hard to believe that the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified, but 16,000 certified documents collected from all 48 states by 1984 finally proved that to be the case (google The Law That Never Was).  It may be hard to believe that filing a form 1040 is voluntary for an individual (unless he is a non-resident alien), and that there is no law requiring US citizens to do so, but investigation will prove that true (check:
        Why are such things so hard to believe?  Because for years we've been misled by politicians and our (tax supported) public schools.   Remember back to when you got your first paycheck years ago.  Did you even ask someone whether or not you had to file income taxes?  Or was this belief based on assumptions?  Oh, we do get in trouble confusing belief with knowledge, no matter how sincere.
         One knowledgeable patriot on a jury can educate the others and if need be cast the lone ‘NO' vote.  It is the voters on a jury who must decide if the law is bad or is the defendant bad.  If the law is unjust, the jury has the right and duty to protect their fellow American from that bad law - to enforce the Constitution and secure our inalienable rights.  In this fashion, a government is controlled by the citizens rather than visa-versa.  One voter, on a jury, can hang a jury with a ‘not guilty' vote.  It could be eleven to one for conviction but that one ‘not guilty' will stop the IRS or any other agency in its tracks.  Because of this, America became the first choice of immigrants, the greatest nation on earth in  less than two hundred years.  Our government remained servant to the people.
         The Constitution supersedes all other law and because it is based on Scriptural principles, it is the supreme law of the land.  That's what makes our nation a Republic rather than a Democracy.  Thomas Paine said, "A democracy is the vilest form of government there is!"  James Madison, Father of the Constitution, said that a democracy would lead to "loss of property rights, contention and chaos."  Our Founding Fathers believed that all democracies rot into ‘mobocracies' where the majority can cram their will down the throats of minorities.  They made sure that the Constitution guaranteed every state a republican form of government (Art.4, Sec.4).
         We, like Jesus and our tax-protesting Founding Fathers, should only support a government which does good and maintains justice and order.  If you are a slave then as Paul cautioned in Titus 2:9, act like a slave and pay tribute - that which a conquered people pay to the conquerors.  But if you are a free people, do not become slaves of men (1 Cor 7:23).  You may pay taxes but not tribute.
         A misinterpretation of Rm 13:1-7 would have Mary & Joseph give up their baby to Herod's slaughterers rather than flee to Egypt.  During the American War of Independence, many born-again ministers became soldiers and officers against their former government realizing this passage is in reference to a Christian government (v.4) which good people would have no reason to fear (v.3).  To such a government, one could pay taxes (v.6).  However, more evil and wicked than anything King George did would they have considered a government that pays doctors to murder the unborn, makes prayer illegal, promotes homosexuality, prohibits Bible reading and the posting of the Ten Commandments, but funds vulgar, sacrilegious art.  Exercising these two votes could stop all that without blood shed.
         The right to freedom of religion was first established, without blood shed, by a trial jury.  In 1670, William Penn went on trial in London, accused of violating a law thought up by a politician.  The jury found the law to be unjust and refused to convict.  It was also a jury that first established freedom of the press.  In the 1730's, John Zenger printed the truth about his NY governor.  He was tried for the crime of sedition and found innocent because the jury found the law bad.  When a government violates God's laws of morality, integrity, responsibility and common sense, someone needs to speak out.  It only takes one person on each jury to prevail. 
         Consider other court rulings in disregarding instructions by a judge.  US v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972) instructs, "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge...The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."  Jury disregard for what the trial judge wants them to believe is the controlling law in any particular case (‘Jury lawlessness') and is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather encouraged.  "Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instructions...if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong." - Alexander Hamilton, 1804.  "Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must take as law that which has been given to them, or that they must bring in a certain verdict, or that they can decide only the facts of the case." - Lord Denman, C.J. O'Connel V.R.., 1884. 
         We can save our country if we refuse to be manipulated.  If we believe stealing is wrong, how can we condone theft by the government?  Parasites who live off entitlements confiscated from working people may argue that the government cannot survive without the individual income tax.  They are absolutely correct.  Do we want this government to survive?  It is inefficient, wasteful, unstable, corrupt and it is devastating our nation.  This nation grew and prospered for over 130 years without an individual income tax.  Since the income tax, our government has prospered and our nation has been robbed.  A better new and better government won't hurt our nation.  Germany is better off today than it was under Hitler.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: