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.
"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.
Well, what do you expect, when the accuser owns the court. They are being accused of violating the bylaws of the corporation.
ReplyDeleteFive pillars to jury power:
ReplyDeleteFact, evidence, testimony, Law, punishment
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.
DeleteI'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.
DeleteM
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!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone has thought yet to challenge the judges jurisdiction? Make her prove she has it or recuse herself!
ReplyDeleteSET THEM FREE DAMNIT....U ALREADY KILLED A GOOD MAN TRYING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT
ReplyDeleteThe Jury Trial IS NOT a trial by jury
ReplyDeleteWould you please explain the difference?
DeleteEvery 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!!!
ReplyDeleteThat is correct a trial by a jury not a jury tried by a courts martial.
ReplyDeleteTotal respect to you guys from the UK .
ReplyDeleteThis 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 .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDr1VYvUbKw Amazing video on lawful money judge anna would love this WATCH
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteA 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 sovrn_state.national@yahoo.com
ReplyDeletePublic 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.
Intent:
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.
Mission:
CLASI provides a public unincorporated common law alternative to incorporated public statute legal systems.
Structure:
CLASI is unincorporated and established in the common law of The Constitution for the united States of America, ratified June 21, 1788.
Assumptions:
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.