The Citizens Rule Book: JURY HANDBOOK
Anyway, I shared this site with a friend, and she encouraged me to post it. So here it is Mary, and thanks for the suggestion!
JURY HANDBOOK
LINCOLN said "Study the Constitution!""Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."
RIGHTS COME FROM GOD,NOT THE STATE!
"You have rights atecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
John Adams,
Second President of the United States
TABLE of CONTENTS
Section I
A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS
JURY DUTY
YOU ARE ABOVE THE "LAW"!
JURY RIGHTS
LAW OF THE LAND
TEN COMMANDMENTS
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
GIVE UP RIGHTS?
JURY TAMPERING?
Section II
GIVE ME LIBERTY...
PATRICK HENRY SHOCKED
JURY OF PEERS
FREEDOM FOR WILLIAM PENN
JEFFERSON'S WARNINGS!
Section III
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
INDEX TO THE DOCUMENTS
Index to the unanimous Declaration
Index to the Constitution of the United States
Index to the Amendments to Constitution of the United States
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
THE CONSTITUTION
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Copies of this information are available from Whitten Printers
Links to Related Subjects
Some of my FAVORITE PARTS:
The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.
As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American Citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.
Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.
The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: "A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor."
The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.
YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!
As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:
"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."
{snip}
One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUILTY VOTE!" He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!
Everett Hale
The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!
"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.
Please take the time to read it ALL! IT IS AWESOME!!!!
posted by Straight Up with Sherri at
9:42 PM
3 Comments:
Sherri, you must be the most prolific person I know! What an amazing person you are - your ability to absorb, digest and - well - restate volumes of information for us is so great! Thank you.
I understand this so much better now.
Yes, my other two votes are the grand jury and trial jury service.....but here is my question. I know, I need to read it all, but without time yet to do so (I am commenting during lunch without much more time available...) -
Is there anything we can do to rectify this in our nation?
I know, first jurors need to be told their rights in the first place! We need to understand again that juries are a limit on tyranny!
But what about having juries, again....I mean, in my mind of little knowing (and I sure need help here), why for instance could there not be a jury in Terri S.'s trial? And why and how in particular did it get to be that way? How could it be made so that someone being judged to have a feeding tube removed for instance, could get a jury again? Where are the juries in these situations? I am *not* knowledgable about law, so my little bit of knowledge only tells me that there are different kinds of courts, etc. - but why don't they have juries in these cases?
Anyone who knows more could help me out, and that is probably many....
By
Anonymous, at 1:49 PM
Yeah, Sherri, I want to know that, too, just in case it can be of use to us--where HAVE all the juries gone??? And I agree, you are most prolific. mary et. al.
By
Anonymous, at 6:44 PM
I have an attorney friend that tried to explain this to once before- I was picking his brain over the Terri Schiavo case...
Anyway- I have emailed him and asked him to put it in writing for me- to be sure the facts are right...
Meanwhile, I have been searching for answers and I came across this- (it doesn't make me feel any better- but it a nugget to chew on and start with-- I see no reason to not have juries for everything (unless a criminal waives this right- or both sides of a civil case.) It seems clear to me that the forefathers intended for juries to be exactly as this "handbook" explains.
HERE is what I found so far:
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that parties in most civil suits are entitled to a jury trial; however, both parties can agree to waive that right and have the case heard solely before a judge. Certain types of civil cases are almost always presented before judges without juries: family matters, such as divorce and child custody, for example, and matters dealing with probate (legal provisions of a will). This is called a “bench trial.” Courts are often called upon by parties to issue injunctions that will prevent or halt imminent harm or damages. Such requests, such as an injunction to halt pollution by a factory, also would be heard by a judge without a jury.
By
Straight Up with Sherri, at 8:09 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home