In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
We point out, here, that suits at common law when the value exceeds twenty dollars shall be tried by jury. Whether it be a person suing a person or the State suing a person to impose fines. It did not say “twenty dollars based on the value of a dollar.”
Jury duty is rarely explained properly. I have found that juries have been composed of six- or twelve-jurors of your peers. A woman cannot, technically, be on my jury because she does not see the world, or the Constitution, as I do—in many cases. A Democrat cannot try a Republican, theoretically. Of course, we are jumping hoops, here, for fun.
The fact remains, though, that jury nullification has been given a bad name, but is an important part of our jurisprudence. It is the main block that citizens have to bad government. That is why trial by jury was to be preserved. Even if a person has “broken the law,” one juror can vote not guilty simply because he does not think the law is Constitutional. We expect that jurors will use common sense. If a man is clearly guilty of violating the rights of a five-year old girl through sexual abuse, he must be found guilty. Other wise, you risk the safety of other five-year old girls.
However, if you have a man on trial for an Internet site derogatory to John McCain, he should be congratulated rather than punished. McCain and Feingold came up with the legislation preventing “character ads” within ninety-days of an election, for example. You might believe that is the best time to run them. So you can say not guilty to someone accused of just such an offense.
In Arizona, you have the right to defend yourself, but the various county attorneys will drag you into court anyway. They don’t have to pay for it, after all. If people keep voting not guilty—and voting those county attorneys out of office—the law may remain on the books, but they will discontinue trying to enforce it because they cannot get a guilty verdict. Again, if it is an obvious case of murder, you should vote your conscience. You will be responsible if that person murders again.
And finally, the double-jeopardy clause. As we have seen, you may be found innocent in one court, only to face another. They may try you until the “get you” or have exhausted all recourse. Again, the government does not pay for it. You do.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
Speedy trial? No problem. Gotta keep those beds full to keep the budget up for the revolving-door prison system.
Impartial jury?1 On an episode of Becker, Dr. Becker—played by Ted Danson of Cheers—is called to jury duty. He finds out that one person has made a business of jury duty by using three or four identities to get called in simple because he does not have to work to get paid. After all, they rarely ever actually do jury duty or there are ways of getting out of it during the interview. Becker is determined to actually get selected for jury duty, even though he is called away from his flourishing medical practice, because he does not want to see justice turned into a scam. Yet every time that he mentions that he is a doctor and educated, or that he has read a newspaper or book, we hear, “Denied.”
Finally he comes in and just sits there like a public school student at a civics examination and is finally picked for jury duty.
Oh, great. Let me just get my coat and book…
“Denied.”
As for, “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” in Arizona and many other States, Child Protective Services, acting under “color of law,” can take your children without a court order and without telling you why. You do not find out until you get into court. So much for the “best defense.” You do have a “compulsory process for obtaining a witness” in your favor. But if that witness happens to be an “expert,” expect to tack on another ten-grand to your “best defense.”
…and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence2. This last statement deserves some investigation. Notice that it says the “assistance” of counsel for defense. It does not say Ignorance to the law is no excuse or Anyone who defends himself has a fool for a lawyer. That is simply because the law was never intended to get so confused and contorted that you had to pay some high-priced attorney to defend you. That is not to say that they do not have a purpose and it is wise to have an attorney when serious charges are levied against you.
Pro se legal representation refers to the instance of a person representing himself or herself without a lawyer in a court proceeding, whether as a defendant or a plaintiff and whether the matter is civil or criminal. Pro se is a Latin phrase meaning “for oneself”. This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to “pro per“). In England and Wales the comparable status is “litigant in person”. According to National Center on State Courts in 1991-92 71% of Domestic Relations cases had at least one unrepresented party. In 18% both parties were pro se litigants. In the United States, many state court systems and the federal courts are experiencing an increasing proportion of pro se litigants. In San Diego, for example, the number of divorce filings involving at least one pro se litigant rose from 46% in 1992 to 77% in 2000, in Florida from 66% in 1999 to 73% in 2001. California reports in 2001 that over 50% of family matters filings in custody and visitation are by pro se litigants. In the U.S. Federal Court system for the year 2007 approximately 27% of actions filed, 92% of prisoner petitions and 10% of non-prisoner petitions were filed by pro se litigants. Defendants in political trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues.—Wikepedia
Lawyers were used, throughout our history, to make sure legal paperwork—such as deeds and wills—were written and filed in a legitimate fashion. They were, most likely, hired when serious charges were levied against an individual. No serious, Constitutional judge would have allowed the transfer of private property to a private corporation under the provisions of the Fifth Amendment, though. So most people could represent their case on their own because laws were very specific and easily understood by the average person. Lawyers were consulted when questions arose concerning what evidence might be acceptable to a case.
PRO SE HANDBOOK
The Manual for the Litigant Filing Without Counsel Pro Se Handbook
1 You can order the Citizens Rule Book in bulk by calling Infowars at 1-888-253-3139.
2 That is not a spelling error, by the way. It used to be spelled defense. Part of the problem is that new speak dictionaries have twisted the spelling and definitions of words so much over the years that people do get a twisted meaning of the Constitution. Keep that in mind in any discussion on the Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This month, Bruno Bruhwiler of We Are Change in Los Angeles was arrested and apparently being charged with making a terrorist threat because he made involuntary facial gestures during a court case. As far as I can tell, Bruhwiler was not charged by a grand jury, but a California judge perverting the concept of contempt of court, as they often do. This was done without a Grand Jury hearing under the provisions California Penal Code 422, you can now be arrested and charged without this little due process inconvenience.
You might, also, recall the highly publicized Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the eminent domain clause beyond the Constitutional authority to build post roads and canals. They decided that it was well to steal your private property to give to private commercial concerns. This same concept was used by the railroads to take property owned by the people for the benefit of private railroad barons.
We also learned during the trial of L.A. police officers during the Rodney King episode that the government took the advise of Blondie song One way or another. If the State Courts free you, just take you to federal court.
I do not comment whether or not the initial trial of the police officers were valid or correctly decided. I only point out that Article III., Section 2 of the Constitution clearly provides, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
The Constitution clearly separates State and federal powers in such cases. The trial was held in and for the State of California and—right or wrong—proper acquittals were handed down by a jury. That should have been the end of it. Because of political motivations, however, the Constitution was pushed to the side by the father of the man who said that it was just a EXPLETIVE piece of paper.
These various types of actions were cited in The Declaration of Independence as just cause for our separation from the Crown.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Most people have heard the phrase A man’s house is his castle. This quote comes from one of the least credited revolutionaries from the mid-1770′s. James Otis wrote more about the virtues of revolution than perhaps any of the other founders. He gave us the aforementioned phrase as well as Taxation without representation. The particular quote about a man’s house is his castle is one of the reasons for this very Amendment.
A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire.—James Otis
“This writ” was imposed on the colonies with the “Stamp Act.” It meant that a soldier, or soldiers, could—and often did—write their own search warrant to enter ones home looking for non-compliance with the act. If you did not have the King’s stamp on every legal document, letter, newspaper or any other article requiring it, they could confiscate your home for their own use and throw you out. Continue reading “Day 15: The Fourth Amendment” »
From here out, we examine the unalienable Bill of Rights. We point out that the most important of these to consider is the Second and the Ninth Amendment, as they have the most impact on your personal liberties.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Continue reading “Day 12: The First Amendment” »
[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
The Federalist Papers cover this in detail. It is one of the reasons that they wanted to prevent each state having an army and Navy. If the Southern states, for example, went to war with a foreign government with which the Northern states enjoyed friendly relations, there could be a problem. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are permissions to cross borders to effect reprisals. If States were allowed to issue these separately, they might use them against one another. There is no record of this occurring that I know of while we were a Confederation.
That is the logic for the limitation of the states having their own armies and navies, as well. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution clearly outlines the responsibility of the Central Government in this area. Continue reading “Day 4: Duties of government (the same considered)” »
“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes.”—Andrew Jackson
For Day Three of our Honor America Days, we have decided to look into the those areas of responsibility that the Constitution affords the United States government. The major portion of those duties and responsibilities can be found in Article I., Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America. Let’s examine Article I in more detail. I have added the number of each clause in brackets for clarification.
In evaluating the Constitution, an anti-Federalist who wrote as “Brutus” wrote:
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake constitutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.
Today we begin our kick-off of an important holiday event. No, we’re not referring to Lief Erikson day. That is October 9th (36 USC Sec. 114). We are speaking, of course, about the bane to California, Honor America Days.
You say that you have never heard of Honor America Days? A search of the web revealed only the City of Rome, N.Y. seems to place any emphasis on this holiday, albeit a few days after the official celebration ends. You have probably never heard of Constitution and Citizenship Day or Law Day either. Thus it seems reasonable to educate you on what official patriotic observances are instituted by federal law.
Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies and Organizations are covered in Title 36 Chapter 1 of the United States Code. The “Organic Laws” consists of The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Articles of Confederation and so-on. They can be found here. Title 4 concerns the flag and emblems of the government. I offer the last two references only in observance of the Honor America Days that we are now discussing.
Honor America Days is outlined in 36 USC Section 112 which designates “The 21 days from Flag Day through Independence Day is a period to honor America.” The Statute states that,
“Congress declares that there be public gatherings and activities during that period at which the people of the United States can celebrate and honor their country in an appropriate way.”
This seems to be a great time to spread the word about these 21 days and garner the participation of the people. We are going to do our part by trying to provide 21 days of information for your edification. Unfortunately, we have started this project a little late, so some of the information might be lacking.
Here are some suggestions that might be in line with this national event.
1. Display an American and/or State flag at your home.
2. Watch movies such as The Patriot, Red Dawn and other movies with a patriotic theme. Find videos of a patriotic theme on the web and watch them together with our family once each night.
3. If you are so inclined, gather at your church and pray for forgiveness for America and that we return to the Organic Law of the Constitution of the United States of America. The National Day of Prayer (36 USC Section 119) is on the first Thursday in May, “…on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.” It was declared unconstitutional in one federal court. Amazingly, Obama did issue a proclamation for National Prayer Day.
4. Gather the family together and review the Constitution and the important first Ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Note that they are The Bill of Rights and not a few suggestions that we really think that you should consider.
5. Attend a Tea Party or Coffee Party, or whatever, sometime during this period. A parade would not be out of order. Some marching bands with American and State flags waving might be just the distraction. Allow Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, whatever party to participate. Seek participation by military, police and fire heroes. Continue reading “Day 1: Honor America Days” »
By Terence Kealey 12:00AM BST 19 Jul 2001
From the Telegraph
THE World Health Organisation, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the UN environmental programme and its development programme, USAID, and almost all the other international representatives of the great and the good now campaign against DDT.
But, perversely, the Third World still uses it. To those who believe that America under George W Bush and his gas-guzzling, permafrost-drilling accomplices is the source of all global pollution, this Third World defection is disappointing. Where are the virtuous blacks when we need them?
DDT was introduced as an insecticide during the 1940s. In Churchill’s words: “The excellent DDT powder has been found to yield astonishing results against insects of all kinds, from lice to mosquitoes.”
And astonishing they were. DDT was particularly effective against the anopheles mosquito, which is the carrier of malaria, and people once hoped that DDT would eradicate malaria worldwide. Consider Sri Lanka. In 1946, it had three million cases, but the introduction of DDT reduced the numbers, by 1964, to only 29. In India, the numbers of malaria cases fell from 75 million to around 50,000. Continue reading “DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years” »
May 22, 2012 1813 Richard Wagner 1931 Kenny Ball 1950 Bernie Taupin 1859 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1938 Susan Strasberg 1959 Morrissey 1907 Lord Laurence Olivier 1946 George Best 1970 Naomi Campbell
Have a question concerning the Constitution and your rights? You can try our U.S. Succinct Court Office.. WE ARE NOT LAWYERS and we CANNOT GIVE ADVISE on any case that may be pending for or against you. We can, however, provide links to resources that might answer your questions. Feel free to use our Contact Form.
The Constitutional Republic Party web site is NOT a non-profit organization for tax purposes. We do not provide candidates for office, but we support candidates with Constitutional views. Our current purpose is to provide education about the true purpose of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other historic documents. We do provide information and news which may have an impact on your Constitutional rights.
We will publish almost any, intelligent articles and opinions that do not contain cursing and do not advocate physical violence against an individual or group of individuals---even if they are belligerent. Those opinions expressed and comments in reply to such opinions are solely those of the authors.
Loading ...
