Maurice Kellett
2007-06-06 02:46:57 UTC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ardeshir Mehta" <***@mac.com>
To: <***@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "jhwilson Wilson" <***@acay.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Trial by jury - The Ultimate Protection
Trial by jury - The Ultimate Protection
by Ron Paul (1988) "Freedom Under Siege", pp 23-27
According to Lysander Spooner, a mid-nineteenth-century writer, there
are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government
laws: The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive, the
Courts, and the Common-Law Jury. He maintains that all are important
but that the ultimate protection of our liberty must be placed in the
hands of our peers. His "Essay on the Trial by Jury" (1852) deserves
close study by all twentieth-century students concerned about the
future of freedom in America.
The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of
government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta
(1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle
and incorporated it into our Constitution.
John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with
this principle. In his first jury trial in 1794 (Georgia vs.
Brailsford) he stated: "You had nevertheless a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the
fact controversy." Jefferson was in agreement as well: "To consider
judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a
very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy. "
The twentieth century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of
this principle. Since 1895 (Sparf vs. United States), the right of
the jury to rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law, as
well as the facts in the case, was seriously undermined. Also the
lack of concern and understanding for individual rights has affected
jurors, just as it has representatives, senators, judges, and
presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of
ignoring the principle of equal rights as have our representatives in
our legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government.
These two factors have greatly diminished the value of the jury in
the twentieth century.
Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the
judiciary -- and there is certainly good reason for frustration --
must consider educating potential jurors as to the importance of the
common law jury and the principles of individual liberty.
An awakened citizenry, participating in juries around the country,
could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportions,
reversing the sad trends of the twentieth century. The jury today is
a weak institution, as are all the other institutions designed to
guarantee individual liberty. The right effort could revitalize the
jury and restore it to its rightful place in curtailing the endless
growth of an all-powerful state.
Several legal events needed to occur in order for big government to
thrive. The de-emphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive
powers of the omnipresent state. Judging the moral intent and the
constitutionality of the law is no longer even a consideration of the
jury. Today the judge instructs the jury to consider only the facts
of the case, and then the becomes the soul arbiter of evidence
admissible in court. The jury today has become progressively weaker
over the past ninety years.
In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for
society. Judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies.
A major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people
placing it in administrative branches of government. The agencies of
government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the
Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy,
independent of the legal judiciary.
Regulations are written yearly by the thousands of pages, read by
few, and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to keep the
peasants humble and to harass the people. It is used as a political
tool for selective prosecution. Regulations can favor certain
industries while destroying others, providing great accumulation of
wealth for the beneficiaries. . . .
Spooner argues eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final
judgment on all laws, the moral intent of the law, the
constitutionality of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral
intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for allowing such
responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating
responsibility only to the representatives in Washington was fraught
with danger. He was convinced that all government officials were
untrustworthy and susceptible to bribery and that removal of our
representatives in the next election was not sufficient to protect
the people from unwise and meddling legislation.
. . . Spooner begins his essay on trial by jury by clearly stating
the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well
as the facts in the case before them:
For more than six-hundred years, that is, since the Magna Carta, in
1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American
constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases. It is not only the
right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the
law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but it is also
their right and their primary and paramount duty to judge the justice
of the law and to hold all laws invalid, that are in their opinion,
unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or
resisting the execution of such laws. Spooner was highly critical of
the phrase "according to the evidence" in the oath of jurors,
claiming it violated the classical common law. He states:
If the government can dictate the evidence, and require the jury to
decide according to that evidence, it necessarily dictates the
conclusion to which they must arrive. In that case the trial is
really a trial by the government, not by the jury. The jury cannot
try an issue unless they determine what evidence shall be admitted.
The ancient oath, it will be observed, says nothing about 'according
to the evidence.'
If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely
because it's a law written by our chosen representative, the
government can give itself dictatorial powers. And that's exactly
what has happened with the massive powers delegated to the President
under the Emergency Powers Act -- power sitting there to be grabbed
and used at the hint of a crisis.
Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the
people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. It is up
to us to restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place
of importance.
-------------------------------------
Footnote from a victim of blatant UK establishment crime Maurice Kellett.
The Judicial Oath of fairness to all manner of people, sworn by all UK
judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown. is a fraud of massive
proportions and amounts to a treason being used against the UK public.
http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com
http://www.masonsatwork.50megs.com
http://www.mauricekellett.com This website is presently down but will be
running again shortly.
From: "Ardeshir Mehta" <***@mac.com>
To: <***@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "jhwilson Wilson" <***@acay.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Trial by jury - The Ultimate Protection
Trial by jury - The Ultimate Protection
by Ron Paul (1988) "Freedom Under Siege", pp 23-27
According to Lysander Spooner, a mid-nineteenth-century writer, there
are five separate tribunals protecting us from abusive government
laws: The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive, the
Courts, and the Common-Law Jury. He maintains that all are important
but that the ultimate protection of our liberty must be placed in the
hands of our peers. His "Essay on the Trial by Jury" (1852) deserves
close study by all twentieth-century students concerned about the
future of freedom in America.
The concept of protecting individual rights from the heavy hand of
government through the common-law jury is as old as the Magna Carta
(1215 A.D.). The Founding Fathers were keenly aware of this principle
and incorporated it into our Constitution.
John Jay, the first Chief justice of the Supreme Court, agreed with
this principle. In his first jury trial in 1794 (Georgia vs.
Brailsford) he stated: "You had nevertheless a right to take upon
yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the
fact controversy." Jefferson was in agreement as well: "To consider
judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a
very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the
despotism of an oligarchy. "
The twentieth century, however, has witnessed a serious erosion of
this principle. Since 1895 (Sparf vs. United States), the right of
the jury to rule on the justice and constitutionality of the law, as
well as the facts in the case, was seriously undermined. Also the
lack of concern and understanding for individual rights has affected
jurors, just as it has representatives, senators, judges, and
presidents. Jurors in recent times have been just as guilty of
ignoring the principle of equal rights as have our representatives in
our legislatures, judiciary, and executive bodies of government.
These two factors have greatly diminished the value of the jury in
the twentieth century.
Those frustrated with changes in the Congress, the executive, and the
judiciary -- and there is certainly good reason for frustration --
must consider educating potential jurors as to the importance of the
common law jury and the principles of individual liberty.
An awakened citizenry, participating in juries around the country,
could bring about a nonviolent revolution of magnificent proportions,
reversing the sad trends of the twentieth century. The jury today is
a weak institution, as are all the other institutions designed to
guarantee individual liberty. The right effort could revitalize the
jury and restore it to its rightful place in curtailing the endless
growth of an all-powerful state.
Several legal events needed to occur in order for big government to
thrive. The de-emphasis of the jury was crucial in the expansive
powers of the omnipresent state. Judging the moral intent and the
constitutionality of the law is no longer even a consideration of the
jury. Today the judge instructs the jury to consider only the facts
of the case, and then the becomes the soul arbiter of evidence
admissible in court. The jury today has become progressively weaker
over the past ninety years.
In addition, judges write into their rulings grand designs for
society. Judiciary bodies have become legislative bodies.
A major part of the judicial system has been removed from the people
placing it in administrative branches of government. The agencies of
government have usurped power unimagined by the authors of the
Constitution. Administrative justice is a great bureaucracy,
independent of the legal judiciary.
Regulations are written yearly by the thousands of pages, read by
few, and understood by no one. This is done intentionally to keep the
peasants humble and to harass the people. It is used as a political
tool for selective prosecution. Regulations can favor certain
industries while destroying others, providing great accumulation of
wealth for the beneficiaries. . . .
Spooner argues eloquently for the right of the jury to pass final
judgment on all laws, the moral intent of the law, the
constitutionality of the law, the facts of the case, and the moral
intent of the accused. Spooner's argument for allowing such
responsibility to rest with the accused peers is that delegating
responsibility only to the representatives in Washington was fraught
with danger. He was convinced that all government officials were
untrustworthy and susceptible to bribery and that removal of our
representatives in the next election was not sufficient to protect
the people from unwise and meddling legislation.
. . . Spooner begins his essay on trial by jury by clearly stating
the importance of the jury's responsibility to judge the law as well
as the facts in the case before them:
For more than six-hundred years, that is, since the Magna Carta, in
1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American
constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases. It is not only the
right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the
law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but it is also
their right and their primary and paramount duty to judge the justice
of the law and to hold all laws invalid, that are in their opinion,
unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating or
resisting the execution of such laws. Spooner was highly critical of
the phrase "according to the evidence" in the oath of jurors,
claiming it violated the classical common law. He states:
If the government can dictate the evidence, and require the jury to
decide according to that evidence, it necessarily dictates the
conclusion to which they must arrive. In that case the trial is
really a trial by the government, not by the jury. The jury cannot
try an issue unless they determine what evidence shall be admitted.
The ancient oath, it will be observed, says nothing about 'according
to the evidence.'
If a law is assumed to be correct constitutionally and morally merely
because it's a law written by our chosen representative, the
government can give itself dictatorial powers. And that's exactly
what has happened with the massive powers delegated to the President
under the Emergency Powers Act -- power sitting there to be grabbed
and used at the hint of a crisis.
Spooner saw the jury as the last guard against such usurpation of the
people's rights. Sadly, that protection is just about gone. It is up
to us to restore the principle of trial by jury to its rightful place
of importance.
-------------------------------------
Footnote from a victim of blatant UK establishment crime Maurice Kellett.
The Judicial Oath of fairness to all manner of people, sworn by all UK
judges and magistrates only to the UK Crown. is a fraud of massive
proportions and amounts to a treason being used against the UK public.
http://www.mason-rule.bizhosting.com
http://www.masonsatwork.50megs.com
http://www.mauricekellett.com This website is presently down but will be
running again shortly.