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 2800 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 unwarranted personal attacks. Use the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Thursday, September 8, 2016

THIS IS HOW THEY DO THEIR TYRANNY IN THE CORPORATE TRIBUNALS.

Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

https://www.oathkeepers.org/elias-alias-jury-selection-bundy-trial-already-rigged/

Jury selection/rejection began today, Wednesday, September 07, 2016, in Portland, Oregon, for the Bundy trial. I am not surprised to read accounts of the judge’s bias against jury nullification. The Oregonian/OregonLive website posted an article which quotes a few of judge Anna J. Brown’s opinions about protecting the government’s assumed power to railroad defendants.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/oregon_standoff_trial_for_ammo.html >
A passage from the article:
“Jury selection is something of a misnomer,” said Jeffrey T. Frederick, director of jury research services for the National Legal Research Group. “It really is jury rejection.” That’s because the practice is meant as a filter, to keep unqualified people from sitting in judgment, he said.
Further down the article we read:

Potential jurors will almost certainly face questions on their opinions about federal control of public land, militias, law enforcement, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights.  ...
... 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. ......

-----------------------------------------------
Editors Note

Embracery

The crime of attempting to influence a jury corruptly to one side or the other by promises,persuasions, entreaties, entertainments, and the like. The person guilty of it is called anembraceor. This is both a state and federal crime, and is commonly included under the offense ofobstructing justice.
In order for the offense of embracery to be committed, it is essential that the accused individualhave an improper intent. If an individual makes statements that would be likely to influence theverdict of a juror while the individual is unaware that such juror is present, such conduct is notembracery.
It is not generally a prerequisite for the juror to have been impaneled and sworn, provided theperson's name has been drawn and published as a juror or grand juror.
The intent to influence a juror must be coupled with an attempt to use improper influence, whichcan be through word or conduct and is the only Overt Act necessary. The juror can either beapproached personally by the individual or through an agent. Words intended to influence a jurorneed not be spoken to the person directly but can be communicated in a manner designed to beoverheard by the juror and prejudice his or her decision.
party to the action, an individual under-going Grand Jury investigation, a witness, or anindividual who has no connection with the proceeding can be charged with embracery.
Since the crime of embracery itself only constitutes an attempt, there is no such crime as theattempt to commit embracery. It is, however, a crime to solicit another to commit embracery.
Embracery is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both, depending upon statute.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

21 comments:

  1. Look up penendis in asisis maybe the sheriff should be organizing a jury of his peers. Maybe that judge is guilty of embracery? Who knows

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like Jordan Maxwell has plainly explained: CRIMINAL Justice System. It's set up for the criminals (the powers that shouldn't be).

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's obvious who this court is intended for. the judge says: "...whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights". We all should know by now that a a "person" has no rights, and as the defendant is a person, this is to be expected. If the defendant had any idea of who he was, and the judge was taking over like this, he could bring forth a counter claim in which he could, right then and there on the record, correct his nationality, and establish that this court does not exhibit the 4 requisites to be a court of record...it takes more than a mere transcript to be one. They advertise they are a court of record, but few actually are.

    M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell it to the Bundys and their lawyers. You are preaching to the choir here Margy.
      You are right of course but there will be no such action by the Bundys. The are not that well informed about jurisdiction, or they would have done something about their situation when Anna told them what to do several time early on.

      Delete
    2. Your person is your property, they only presume control of it and if you don't object then they control your person.

      Delete
  4. Enbracery.or jury tampering found fathers had an acute disdain for judges restricting.them to under 20 dollars.the creep back in in the arrangement that they created.
    A good lawful mind would demand the judge leave the court room while trial by jury is in session

    ReplyDelete
  5. And pay attention to semantics jury trial or trial by jury? Is their any affinity between the judge and the other lawyers in the court? Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where is Judge David Wynn Miller? The Bundy's are in desperate need.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I always say...there are more criminals behind the bench than in front of it...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Most people dont realize that in this system, even if you get a good jury, one that actually aquites you, the judge still has the last say and can always overide the jurys decision saying that the verdict wasnt..."reasonable". My brother just read a recent foreclosure case where a couple took the bank to court(with their attorney) all the way to a jury trial where the facts were so obviously clear against the bank, that the jury awarded the couple a judgement for them of $5 million plus their house. No sooner did that judgement was read, the attorney for the banks walked up to the judge and asked him.."you honor, can we just recind this order and go to mediation or arbitration...and the judge said OK. !!!! This is the system i tried so hard to tell people why i was always fighting my cases, and so should you. When people stop fighting for their rights this is their destiny. Its been that way through millinium. And the only reason it gets to this point is because the study of "law and money" is too important to be left to the individual to study...it has to be force feed to them at an early age through our school system until at least high school....mandatory!!! You cant pass elementary or high school without knowing both.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Look up penendis in asisis maybe the sheriff should be organizing a jury of his peers. Maybe that judge is guilty of embracery? Who knows

    ReplyDelete
  10. Common law is based on jury power:
    Law
    Evidence
    Testimony
    Punishment
    Fact

    ReplyDelete
  11. Most people dont realize that in this system, even if you get a good jury, one that actually aquites you, the judge still has the last say and can always overide the jurys decision saying that the verdict wasnt..."reasonable". My brother just read a recent foreclosure case where a couple took the bank to court(with their attorney) all the way to a jury trial where the facts were so obviously clear against the bank, that the jury awarded the couple a judgement for them of $5 million plus their house. No sooner did that judgement was read, the attorney for the banks walked up to the judge and asked him.."you honor, can we just recind this order and go to mediation or arbitration...and the judge said OK. !!!! This is the system i tried so hard to tell people why i was always fighting my cases, and so should you. When people stop fighting for their rights this is their destiny. Its been that way through millinium. And the only reason it gets to this point is because the study of "law and money" is too important to be left to the individual to study...it has to be force feed to them at an early age through our school system until at least high school....mandatory!!! You cant pass elementary or high school without knowing both.

    ReplyDelete
  12. First of all its not just a "jury" you want. The constitution makes it pretty clear that it be "a jury of you peers" meaning either someone who actually knows you or someone that has the same understanding of law and money that you have. Otherwise, all you have is a jury of their(the courts) peers. Which are a dime a dozen. Tell me where our peers are....they are almost non-exsistant. Its very to test this theory if your ever called for jury duty and dont want to sit on it without making totally ridiculous excuses to the judge why you cant seat on the jury(ive heard them all). But the simplist one of all escapes them because they dont know law or care because if they did all they would have to say to the judge is..."your honor if i sit on this jury, i can and will judge both "the law" and "the facts" according to many case law that has already said i have that right, othewise, why impannel a jury, when all we are here for is to judge only the facts which can always be made up by both sides. Why dont you just tell me to vote according to who is lieing the least, because no one in this courtroom is here for the "TRUTH". When you take away the right to judge the law from me, you in effect are committing "jury tampering" and you want all of us to go along with it. Is my understanding of the "jurys right", right your honor...??? Not only will you not be on the jury, they will probably personally escort you out of the court itself and take you permanetly out of the jury list completely. It used to be an honor to sit on a jury when this country was young. Now its nothing but a pain in the ass to most people, and some of them actually hate you for demanding a jury trial. ...How rude of you. Why didnt you just let the judge decide your case like the rest of us. Thats the mentality of jurys picked like this out of the blue by the courts. Can you blame them.???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well how can it be a jury of your peers if you are not a US Citizen?

      How can the judge be impartial if he has affinity with the lawyers and is paid by the same court, sometimes twice with bonuses and incentives?

      Who knows?

      Delete
  13. Like I always say...there are more criminals behind the bench than in front of it...

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDr1VYvUbKw great video on lawful money if you havent seen it yet proves what judge anna is saying about the true dollar

    ReplyDelete
  15. Here is where are remedy has been all along...we all missed it except Rod Class...https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/title-12-section-411/

    ReplyDelete
  16. David merrill why didnt you mention this before!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. The site i posted above is about our "right" to demand "lawful money" by REQUESTING it at 12 USC 411. That way you never sign anything, checks, drafts, whatever. You can actually use a "stamp" to use on every "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE" to convert their private script into "United States Currency Notes." Thereby, creating no liability with any Taxing agency, or anyone else, because you are "paying" for things, instead of "discharging" them. Please go to the site. This makes getting a name change unnessisary. I cant believe judge Anne isnt aware of this. Appearantly, we always had this right, but never informed of it. You can even demand to put it on your signiture card at the bank when you first open an account. That way, the bank cannot fractionilize your account or deposits. You can also write a simple letter to the IRS informing them that it was never your intention to use FRN. If i had known that i jad a right to demand "lawful money" with a formal request at 12 USC 411 I would have done so years ago. Some people have gotten back 3 to 7 tax returns back using this. Please read the site i posted above. I got the information from another site im joined to called "soverign warriors", a blog run by a guy called Jaro. Its a good site for info. If you join the site, you get undates just like this site all the time. They really have good info.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This corruption in our courts MUST end. Jury nullification of bad/evil/vindictive people and laws is valid. The "judge" will face judgment herself... soon!!!

    ReplyDelete

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