This FREE legal forum is supported by participating lawfirms in your local area.
The information contained in this public forum, and any comments made by the administrators, it's appointed mediators, or members of the public are of a general nature and may not be regarded as financial or legal advice in any way. We recommend that you seek formal advice from a practicing solicitor or licensed financial advisor regarding your particular situation. By registering to use this forum you meet the above criteria and agree to abide by all of the above rules and policies.
Trial by Jury
Topic: Trial by Jury
Posted: 10/May/2011 at 17:37
I thought we all lived in a constitutional democracy but as it turns out this is not true at all.
Our Constitution emplaces Trial by Jury as the sole system for all civil, criminal and fiscal lawsuits; and institute the right and Duty of Jurors to acquit as Not Guilty, according to the Juror’s conscience,citizens tried under law which the Juror judges to be oppressive or unfair (i.e. Jury Nullification); and the Jury (not judges) are required to review all evidence to decide on its admissibility. Jurors decide the Verdict not simply on whether evidence indicates a defendant broke the law: in Trial by Jury, Jurors have the Duty to decide the Verdict by judging also whether the law under which the defendant is tried, is Just.
However complicated the facts of a case are (and it is for the plaintiff to make his cause clear), it is axiomatic that,literate or not, all sane adult men and women can recognise injustice. It takes no special learning for an adult to know when a law is just. This is the special virtue of our Constitution: (in addition to determining
innocence or guilt, and apportioning retribution)Trial by Jury is emplaced to protect citizens for all time from unjust laws and arbitrary government.
Neither in Britain, the U.S. or australia have legislatures ever been invested by the People with authority to remove the Right of the accused to a Trial by Jury, to impair the powers, to change the oaths, or abridge the jurisdiction of jurors. In democratic societies, the trial of a citizen is by fellow citizens who comprise the Jury. Trial is not “trial-by-government,” which could never be fair where the government is also one of the contesting parties.
Prosecutors, judges, police and prison service are employed to enforce governments’ laws and should never be asked, nor relied on, to decide impartially whether laws are just, for they must fulfil their task or face the fury of the government, their employer.
Judges themselves comprise a branch of government,and they are in the pay of government. For these reasons, government, politicians and the judiciary are incompetent to require the conviction or punishment
of any person for any offence whatever.
The Constitutional Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System intentionally takes a person out of the government’s hands and places the accused under the protection of his or her equals (the jury) and the Common Law alone: Trial by Jury allows no man or woman to be punished unless the indiscriminately chosen equals of the accused consent to it, following Trial in which Jurors try: the facts of the case, the law, and decide on the admissibility of evidence. Anything less, or different, is not Trial by Jury, but trial by someone else.
Other nations, such as the United States of America when independent, adopted Trial by Jury. President John Adams, lawyer, pronounced about the Juror:
“It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
(Yale Law Journal.)
The Principle is explained as follows: 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 was once the Citizen’s safeguard of liberty.
The following is also poignantly relevant:
The saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a
saving hand while there was time. In this matter, good men and women who stand up against tyranny are of one mind:
Today, a government-contrived legal obligation bans lawyers/barristers from presenting evidence which exonerates defendants, if it “disputes the law.” Judges forbid the accused likewise. Judges exclude official
exonerative evidence, academic and scientific, and tell jurors to consider only that evidence which he or she allows.
As a juror, expect the judge to forbid you to judge on justice.
Judges instruct jurors: to ‘uphold the law’ regardless; and not to allow conscience, their opinion of the law, or a defendant’s motives, to affect their decision. Thus, judges’ jury-tampering produces innumerable false guilty ‘verdicts’.
WHY do judges not instruct Jurors of their Duty to
judge the law? and, WHY do judges deny juries their right to see and decide which evidence is admissible ?
— disrespect for citizens’ ability to make fair judgements?
— the judge is the willing servant of undemocratic
oppressive government ?
— unwillingness to part with his or her power to
prejudice the verdict ?
Whatever the judge’s motives, the judge is wrong not to inform jurors of their Right and Duty to do justice:
e.g., State of Georgia v. Brailsford, a supreme court forfeiture trial, the facts having been ascertained, U.S. Chief Justice John Jay instructed jurors that it remained only for them to judge the law itself, saying: “The Jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
Under Constitutional Trial by Jury, jurors not only render the verdict according to their conscience, but also decide the sentence for criminals. The Jury’s powers are nowadays illicitly destroyed by court decisions, procedures, and by the creation of illegal ‘laws’ which
deny jury trials for the accused. When judges instead of juries run trials, innocent citizens are persecuted under unjust laws; prisons are filled with harmless and innocent people, while dangerous criminals go free.
Removal of justice/equity issues from jurors transforms Trial by Jury into the inherently unlawful trial-by-the-government-judge, by which Nazi, Stalinist, fascist, and communist systems all operate, and primitive tyranny thrives. This uncivilised system is now in place in the former democracies of the West, to enable enforcement of every persecution, stealth-tax, oppression, money-motivated subterfuge and injustice the state introduces, and which judges then lawlessly claim is the ‘law’.
Never let it be forgotten that throughout the History of the World right up to date, ALL the greatest CRIMES have been and are being perpetrated by, and in the name of, government.
If the authentic Constitutional Trial by Jury were extant and functioning, there would be no political prisoners; no commodity prohibitions(half as many prisoners); no innocent people in jail; no privately owned banks involved in the issuance of national currency and credit; no interest on the same; no National Debt‘; and no foreign wars. (Just for starters.)
|Quote Reply Posted: 14/September/2011 at 19:34|
"Never let it be forgotten that throughout the History of the World right up to date, ALL the greatest CRIMES have been and are being perpetrated by, and in the name of, government."
Disagree, I would put religion as the worst.
BSL lawyers: leeches in suits and wigs.
Blood Sucking Lawyers - The Law Firm
|Forum Jump||Forum Permissions
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum