Are you looking for Solutions for America in Distress

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 8400 articles.
You will find some conflicting views from some of these authors. You will also find that all the authors are deeply concerned about the future of America. What they write is their own opinion, just as what I write is my own. If you have an opinion on a particular article, please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the box at the bottom on that page. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The administrator reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason by anyone. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Additionally we do not allow comments with advertising links in them for your products. When you post a comment, it is in the public domain. You have no copyright that can be enforced against any other individual who comments here! Do not attempt to copyright your comments. If that is not to your liking please do not comment. Any attempt to copyright a comment will be deleted. Copyright is a legal term that means the creator of original content. This does not include ideas. You are not an author of articles on this blog. Your comments are deemed donated to the public domain. They will be considered "fair use" on this blog. People donate to this blog because of what Anna writes and what Paul writes, not what the people commenting write. We are not using your comments. You are putting them in the public domain when you comment. What you write in the comments is your opinion only. This comment section is not a court of law. Do not attempt to publish any kind of "affidavit" in the comments. Any such attempt will also be summarily deleted. Comments containing foul language will be deleted no matter what is said in the comment.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Judge Reportedly Will Misinform Jurors in Bundy Trial

Judge Will Reportedly Misinform Jurors
in the Trial of Ammon Bundy and Six Others 
Greetings Paul,  

We have quite a bit of jury-related news regarding the trial of Ammon Bundy and six other defendants that has gotten under way this week in Oregon.

News sources are confirming what I heard from an observer from courtroom: the judge in the case is reportedly planning to misinform jurors regarding their right of jury nullification. 

According to The Oregonian,

"The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.

Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge's proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will "rob a juror" of the right to serve as a "check and balance'' on the federal government's power."

I understand from a courtroom observer that jury instructions were argued for approximately an hour to an hour and a half. In the event that there is an appeal after this trial is over, this issue may be ripe for litigation.

Despite the judge's stated plan to try and keep jurors in the dark about their right of jury nullification, on the first day of jury selection, defendant Ken Medenbach appeared in court wearing a shirt that the judge apparently did not become aware of until late in the day. As shown in the photograph above, the shirt displays a quote from the case of U.S. v. Dougherty on the back. The famous John Jay quote from  Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) appears on the front.

After becoming aware of the shirt yesterday afternoon, the judge apparently sent the following letter to Mr. Medenbach:

We also have some news for you on the jury selection process. On the first day of jury selection, the judge dismissed 11 out of 31 potential jurors:

Clicking through to the above article will lead you to all the gory details including:
  • dismissal of one potential juror who would not agree to follow the law blindly if he disagreed with it,
  • questioning of jurors to ensure that they would all ignore "pangs of conscience" if they found that they disagreed with the law, and
  • questioning of jurors to determine if anyone had received jury nullification information outside the courthouse.
As frequently happens when high profile cases involving substantial disagreement come up, I am aware that there are many people who have opinions for and against the defendants. There is a larger point here that is independent of any particular case, charge, defendant, or what we might think of any of those:

In every case, ALL defendants have a right to a fair trial before a fully informed jury, who can then decide based on the facts, the law, and their consciences how best to vote in order to ensure a just outcome. 

To stack the jury with people who will ignore their consciences on command and to instruct the jury falsely they are required to uphold the law as the judge instructs them amounts to de facto jury tampering under color of law. This undermines the fundamental purpose of trial by jury, which is to be an independent body empowered judge both the facts and law, and to stand as a protective bulwark shielding individuals and our rights against government.
For Liberty, Justice, and Peace in Our Lifetimes,
Kirsten C. Tynan
FIJA long full color logo

Image Credits
Back of shirt:
Front of shirt:


  1. Well, what do you expect, when the accuser owns the court. They are being accused of violating the bylaws of the corporation.

  2. Five pillars to jury power:
    Fact, evidence, testimony, Law, punishment

    1. Yes in a lawful court, not a corporate tribunal like this one. And Yes the jury has total power over every one of the facets you mentioned, and can refuse to convict on any basis whatsoever as a matter of conscience and without explanation.

    2. I'm pretty sure that a jury of one of these courts, because they aren't real courts at all, is only advisory and have no power to nullify anything. These courts are so far from a real court of record it's pathetic. Bundy should put in a counter claim based on the court not acting as a court of record, and charge the judge with contempt if she still inserts herself in the process. The issues here are between Bundy and this kangaroo court and the judge isn't the court, even though title 28 makes it appear so.


  3. This is the trouble with Lawlessness... If they were smart, they would try to appear to give a rip that it looks fair because it is so high profile, but it's clear, they are more interested in their greed, perceived power and control, than what it "looks like". I feel sorry for all if them, but I see this as another necessary step in waking up People that are not yet awake to all of it....I aporeciate the helping hand they are giving....idiots! PS Ken, I loved that shirt!

  4. I wonder if anyone has thought yet to challenge the judges jurisdiction? Make her prove she has it or recuse herself!


  6. The Jury Trial IS NOT a trial by jury

  7. Every American (not "citizens" or "persons") should read the lengthy but on point 3 articles by Preston James James of Veterans Today.The 3 articles are entitled; " Subjects and Serfs of the lesser God". They were published on: 8/26/16, 8/31/16 &9/7/16.These three articles describe the depth of evil we are dealing with. PLEASE READ1!!!

  8. That is correct a trial by a jury not a jury tried by a courts martial.

  9. Total respect to you guys from the UK .
    This corruption of true law must be stopped at any cost . The day is coming when they many will over throw the few who appear to think they are above the people . Good luck we are looking out for you .

  10. Amazing video on lawful money judge anna would love this WATCH

  11. This is typical judicial tyranny that needs to be addressed vigorously. All involved with this trial should be out there handing out nullification brochures every day. These traitors need to be challenged to the Nth degree or they will continue to get away with this domestic terrorism. The only thing that needs "nullifying" is their failure to obey our standing laws and quit usurping jurisdiction and authority.

  12. A plan to rapidly apply common law into regions infested with foreign renegade corporate statute legal systems. Deem this document a draft copy and edit, add, improve, and use as open source information. The common law court is abandoned legal technology with promise to free us all from the statute slavery matrices all around us. Would appreciate your comments and suggestions to

    Public Declaration Recorded in local county record
    Common Law Arbitration Systems Institute (CLASI)
    A free institute under common law

    This is statement of intent, mission, structure, assumptions, and operation.

    We the People of the united States of America, to establish Justice and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do establish the Common Law Arbitration Systems Institute (CLASI) for XXXXX County, XXXXX State, for the united States of America.

    CLASI provides a public unincorporated common law alternative to incorporated public statute legal systems.

    CLASI is unincorporated and established in the common law of The Constitution for the united States of America, ratified June 21, 1788.


    1. Trial by jury for all criminal cases is guaranteed in the 6th amendment. Trial by jury for all civil cases, exceeding $20, is guaranteed in the 7th amendment.

    2. Common law juries are established on five inviolate pillars of jury powers and decision.
    a. Power to decide fact.
    b. Power to decide law.
    c. Power to decide punishment.
    d. Power to decide evidence.
    e. Power to decide testimony.

    3. A judge and bailiff exist, singularly, to protect a jury in its duties. Judge and bailiff responsibilities are confined to issues of jury retaliatory protection from outside government, legal, corporate, military, religious, and economic disruptions that overly influence and interfere with jury ability to unbiased exercise of its full spectrum of powers and decision. Any outside influences are deemed harmful by jury unanimous decision only. Judges and bailiffs are also not to interfere or influence jury decisions in any and all matter of fact, law, punishment, evidence, and testimony.

    4. Jury has full power to organize itself internally, in whatever manner it deems necessary, to accomplish the tasks and decisions required. Jury has full power to expect, determine, and solicit judicial and bailiff protection from outside influences deemed disruptive of their ability to perform their duties.

    5. All lawful establishment of fact, law, punishment, evidence, and testimony, by a jury, is by unanimous consent of the jury. All other decisions, not unanimous, are recorded, for future reference or review, as unestablished decisions of the jury. Any documented unanimous jury decision has full power of law in respect to the case being heard. If the jury unanimously decides to replace the judge and bailiff, such decision has full authority of law.

    6. There are two tenants of common law, freedom and liberty:
    a. Freedom is the natural state of everyone who equally respects the freedom of others.
    b. Liberty is naturally gained through proper respect of other's property, person, and freedoms.
    Liberty is naturally lost through violation of other's property, person, or freedoms.

    7. A jury is final word, protection, and power that over rides all human established government, corporate, legal, military, religious, financial, social, economic, and political systems. Human inventions of government, corporation, law, finance, religion, military or other social, economic, and political organizations are subordinate to the will of jury, and, at best, provide lawful consensual suggestive input to a jury.


Place your comment. The moderator will review it after it is published. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason.