Last Peaceful defense of your rights against government power - Please read

[witchy1]

Quite obviously, the justice system is terrified of this power, which is all the more reason for us to know about it. We can legally judge the law as well as the facts!

The last peaceful defense of our liberties is the jury. Writers of our Constitution understood that power always corrupts. The people must retain, understand and use all the processes to defend themselves from the greatest threat to liberty: one’s own government. Informed grand jurors and trial jurors can protect you from bad government laws. (Who owns your body:http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/)

BTW: Judges and prosecutors will often outright lie about the existence of this power, but centuries of court decisions and other evidence prove that jurors can vote their consciences.

Download the fully Informed Jury Flyer:http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm (http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijaintr.htm)


History
In order to guard citizens against the whims of the King, the right to a trial by jury was established by the Magna Carta in 1215, and it has become one of the most sacrosanct legal aspects of British and American societies.


We tend to believe that the duty of a jury is solely to determine whether someone broke the law. In fact, it's not unusual for judges to instruct juries that they are to judge only the facts in a case, while the judge will sit in judgment of the law itself. Nonsense. Juries are the last line of defense against the power abuses of the authorities. They have the right to judge the law. Even if a defendant committed a crime, a jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict.

Some of the earliest examples of jury nullification from Britain and the American Colonies were refusals to convict people who had spoken ill of the government or who were practicing forbidden religions, such as Quakerism. Up to the time of the Civil War, American juries often refused to convict the brave souls who helped runaway slaves. In the 1800s, jury nullifications saved the hides of union organizers who were being prosecuted with conspiracy to restrain trade. Juries used their power to free people charged under the anti-alcohol laws of prohibition, as well as antiwar protesters during the Vietnam era.

The second US President, John Adams, wrote: "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." Similarly, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton declared: "It is essential to the security of personal rights and public liberty, that the jury should have and exercise the power to judge both of the law and of the criminal intent."


Legendary Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay once instructed a jury: ... you have nevertheless the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

In more recent times, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in 1969: "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic and passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision."


Three years later, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals noted: "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge."


In a 1993 law journal article, federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein wrote: "When juries refuse to convict on the basis of what they think are unjust laws, they are performing their duties as jurors."

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is the best-known organization seeking to tell all citizens about their powers as jurors. People have been arrested for simply handing out FIJA literature in front of courthouses.


During jury selections, FIJA members have been excluded solely on the grounds that they belong to the group. FIJA also seeks laws that would require judges to tell jurors that they can and should judge the law, but this has been an uphill battle, to say the least.


In a still-standing decision (Sparf and Hansen v. US, 1895), the Supreme Court ruled that judges don't have to let jurors know their full powers. In cases where the defense has brought up jury nullification during the proceedings, judges have sometimes held the defense attorney in contempt. Still, 21 state legislatures have introduced informed-jury legislation, with three of them passing it through one chamber (ie, House or Senate).

THE INDEPENDENT JURY'S SECRET POWERhttp://www.ibiblio.org/fija/doigart.htm (http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/doigart.htm)
FIJA Bills Introduced in various state legislatures http://www.ibiblio.org/fija/fijabill.htm

http://fija.org/


Depending on feedback will post other docs.

[AlkaMyst]

Great post......I'm glad I could help you!!!

I knew a lot of this stuff already....look at Robert Menard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE&playnext=1&list=PL3F9DA9D31EF8FD8C&index=20), this guys knows all about this stuff. He's a "Freeman On The Land"....research that and you'll be amazed at what you find (I have lot's of material on the subject inside the FTP).

[witchy1]

Thanks Alkamyst - I wonder why its not used more often......... clearly people just dont know about it or we would be putting those big firms out of court and ruling against them. What a great power to have. Imagine being a juror on a case against the pharmas or codex 21 GM etc with this information. You can make a rule with your conscience. Of course this might explain why the try to settle out of court - so the jury does not have a say in it!!!!

¤=[Post Update]=¤


For clarity Juror nullification occurs when a juror refuses to convict a person because of bad or misapplied law.


Many bad laws are based on government’s falsely-assumed ownership of your body.

Refusing to enforce bad laws by nullifying them is the highest duty of a juror.

Jurors can defend your ownership and management of your body, and thus all your other rights.

Jurors have the authority to judge the law and its application, and to veto bad laws by “not guilty” verdicts.
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.

[AlkaMyst]

I agree fully with you witchy1....but you must understand that one don't even need a jury if one educated themselves with the law "Peopel in this country (US) have no clue on to how much power they have"....it's all about knowing the law and using their tools against them "THEY REALLY DON"T LIKE THAT".

I know my rights and I the cops have learn to to mess with me for minor stuff like traffic tickets and parking violations, if you know the law they can't touch you.

Do you understand that I judge can not even begin trial unless he has jurisdiction over the person....and it's very easy not to give any jurisdiction but you have to know how to do it (You may be hold in contempt or get thrown out of court, but legaly they can't touch you,)

This stuff fascinates me and I can talk about it all night, but seriously just Google or YoTube "Freeman on the land" and start your research from there......you'll be amazed at what you find out :)

I have studied some law in my own time and have a copy of every law dictionary....must of which are in digital form and on the FTP (Black Law's Dictionary is the standard). One must understand that even the letter "A" means something completely different in law......Amazing subject, GREAT POST!!!!

I just love it when I see people learning something new....it's fascinating seeing the self express itself in so many ways :)

Peace, Love & Eternal Blessings,
AlkaMyst

[witchy1]

Liberty exists only among reasoning people who are tolerant of human diversity. Tyranny thrives on intolerance. Reasoning jurors defend liberty when they refuse to convict fellow citizens who are maliciously accused of crimes.

Reasoning jurors stopped:


the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 and

freed tax protesters during the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794.

Juries refused to convict under the


Fugitive Slave Act in 1850,

during Prohibition 1920-30,

Vietnam Objectors 1960-1970,

Tax Protesters,
Medical Marijuana Users, and others.

Repeated refusals by juries to convict effectively informs legislators and prosecutors that the law is NOT supported by the community.

Acquittals and hung juries are politically embarrassing to the power craving prosecutors, legislatures, bureaucrats and most judges.

Do not underestimate the effect that acquittals have on the currently out-of-control law and regulation writing process.
http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/. Jury protection for 2nd amendment


I think I'm banging on a bit much - sorry people
W

[AlkaMyst]

Very well said and completely agree with your point of view, I'm glad to see more people interested in this! :yo:

[witchy1]

Do you understand that I judge can not even begin trial unless he has jurisdiction over the person....and it's very easy not to give any jurisdiction but you have to know how to do it No I didnt know that. It is a great topic when you understand the concepts. I used to have to read, understand and then apply the law in personal cases in NZ and then go and defend that decision at tribunal type hearings (before it went tocourt) It gives you an understanding of what the real issues are.........and its all about the law as written and appeal court precedence. Nothing really about the person...AND of course winning

I find this empowering.........why arn't people lining up for jury duty??????????? What a difference an informed person can make!!! The prosecutors dont like to loose!!!

This is called playing them at their own game - lol

[PHARAOH]

Great thread. I have studied much of this myself and tried unsuccessfully due to my lack of overstanding and procedure but I will allways give them a run for thier time and my money. I too am a fan of Rob.

[AlkaMyst]

PHARAOH

Great thread. I have studied much of this myself and tried unsuccessfully due to my lack of overstanding and procedure but I will allways give them a run for thier time and my money. I too am a fan of Rob.

I completely understand where you coming from, but all that's holding you back is FEAR......the fear that you maybe arrested and not be able to represent yourself correctly is something that we all come across when we face those situations. One must eliminate the fear factor to act with a clear and conscious mind.

Remember, you're doing battle with powers which your believe system looks at in a way where it can't win but it's all an illusion. Check Fear at the door, put the ego on timeout and go in believing that you are going to come out victorious and your whole perspective will change. "Remember that they are just people like you and I" and all you're doing is playing a game with them.....sometimes you win & sometimes you loose, but that's just the way it is.

See most people don't even understand that hiring a lawyer is the first mistake. One must understand that an "Attorney or Lawyer's" first responsibility is to the court and then to it's client which therefore guarantee's you to loose. Also if you hire an attorney the court and Judge look's at you like a 5 year old child that had to hire someone to speak for them because they can't speak for themselves. Understand that what happens is that you just gave not only jurisdiction to the judge over you, you just surrender all your rights and threw yourself at the mercy of the court "That's why must people can't win in court", cause they are thought that if they don't hire a lawyer that they'll never win in court and that's a bold lie when all a person has to do is educate themselves enough and go and speak for themselves.

I hope this helps some!!!

Blessings,
AlkaMyst

[PHARAOH]

AlkaMyst, appreciate your comments but it was they who feared me in our court battle. In fact they confiscated my recording device and stopped recording the hearing all together. Kindda preaching to the choir. Unfortunately they have brainwashed society to believe that we are all guilty before we even get to the court house. What we need to do is educate the masses and have jury's (we the people) render "not guilty" verdicts for all non violent civil, infractions and the house of cards will collapse overnight.

[witchy1]

What we need to do is educate the masses and have jury's (we the people) render "not guilty" verdicts for all non violent civil, infractions and the house of cards will collapse overnight.


Absolutely Pharoh. Heres a wee quiz, to get people thinking about their power........

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. The primary purpose of the jury is to prevent oppression by the government..............True
2. The jury is an independent arm of government................True
3. The defendant is innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty by the government................True
4. The judge can require the jury to find the defendant guilty.,,,,,,,,,,,False
5. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, even if the defendant broke the law..................True
6. If the jury finds a defendant not guilty when he is clearly guilty, the judge can punish the jurors.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,False
7. The judge decides all questions of law...................False
8. The jury is not required to reach a verdict......................True
9. The jurors can vote according to their consciences................True
10. The jury must take the law as the Court gives it, whether they believe the law is right or wrong............False
11. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, because they believe the law is unjust.................True
12. Ignorance of the law is no excuse..............False
http://fija.org/document-library/brochures/ Masterset in Word

[AlkaMyst]

PHARAOH

AlkaMyst, appreciate your comments but it was they who feared me in our court battle. In fact they confiscated my recording device and stopped recording the hearing all together. Kindda preaching to the choir. Unfortunately they have brainwashed society to believe that we are all guilty before we even get to the court house. What we need to do is educate the masses and have jury's (we the people) render "not guilty" verdicts for all non violent civil, infractions and the house of cards will collapse overnight.

I am sorry I misunderstood you and I'm glad that you have enough knowledge on this to defend yourself in a court of law to that extent.....my hat goes off to you :yo:

But I think that you also misunderstood me because I am trying to make you guys see is that the jury is pointless if one knew and understood how not to give anyone including a judge any jurisdiction over you, if people mastered that and it's all done within the law that they wrote and are actually trying to use against you (citizens) then there would not even be a need to go to trial therefore eliminating the jury completely!!!

Maybe I'm not making myself too clear, but I will try to explain better if I'm being misunderstood!!!

Sorry for the confusion, but I love the debate and this is one of my favorite topics....just trying to express myself :)

Blessings to All,
AlkaMyst

[witchy1]

Hiya Alk, so how does one actually not give jurisdiction of oneself????

[AlkaMyst]

Hiya Alk, so how does one actually not give jurisdiction of oneself????

Well my dear friend, to accomplished this one must understand the difference between the "Human (Man/Woman)" and the "Person" in legal terms because they are not one of the same, but the illusion is that they have everyone believing quite the opposite. One must understand that the name of the "Person" that is written on every legal document including (Driver's License, Passport, Birth Certificate <----this is the most important, etc) is not you. Your BC actually is what makes you a legal corporation and not a "Man/Woman" which you really are!

This is very hard and complicated to explain but to shed a bit of light, the government has created a company on your name and the only way they can prosecute anyone is if you agree that you are that company.....if you can prevent this relation from happening in a court then the judge has no choice but to dismiss the case!

Please watch Robert Menard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE&playnext=1&list=PL3F9DA9D31EF8FD8C&index=20) as he really explains this very good on this videos!.....This is assuming you live either in the US or Canada, but most of the world operates on Admiralty & Maritime Law (http://www.marlegal.com/law.html) which is the law of the ocean or the law of commerce. Court's are nothing more than a business and their business is to put us in jail and fine us.....it's how they make money, so one must know how to play the game legally which means you have to study the law on your own time.

I have lots of material on this inside the FTP if you're interested, watch Menard and pay close attention at all the stuff his making reference to and then look for them in the FTP.....I have must of the info there!!!

PS
Also research the term "Freeman On The Land" on google and once you get familiar with that then find must of the stuff in the FTP :)

[witchy1]

Gotcha, I understand, but have never heard it before to be honest. A corporation eh?????? that means if you disagree that you are that corporation they cant do anything. When do they actually ask this?? (Im guessing it worded somewhat differently than this) or is it a verbal thing??

[gripreaper]

Good Job Myst, initiating this thread. The rabbit hole is quite large and takes an extensive amount of research to understand, but well worth it.

I see the first point your trying to make is jurisdiction, as well as the sovereign man as opposed to the fictional entity. Very good place to start.

I've been deep in this rabbit hole for almost two years and I feel I understand it fairly well, yet one must really want it and own it personally for it to be of any value.

A claim should never make it to court and should be killed in the administrative process. One must get a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary, but also understand Common Law, Admiralty, Commerce, Administrative Law, Jurisprudence, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and of course, how to draft a Response.

My hat Goes off to Menard and the other pioneers such as Carl Miller, Jordan Maxwell, Winston Shrout, Tim Turner, etc.

And of course Eustice Mullins, may he rest in peace.

[AlkaMyst]

witchy1

Gotcha, I understand, but have never heard it before to be honest. A corporation eh?????? that means if you disagree that you are that corporation they cant do anything. When do they actually ask this?? (Im guessing it worded somewhat differently than this) or is it a verbal thing??

Yes, you have to know the law and how to use it in your favor......look into "The Strawman" and you will understand everything. I have lots of material on the subject inside the FTP.

gripreaper

Good Job Myst, initiating this thread. The rabbit hole is quite large and takes an extensive amount of research to understand, but well worth it.

I see the first point your trying to make is jurisdiction, as well as the sovereign man as opposed to the fictional entity. Very good place to start.

I've been deep in this rabbit hole for almost two years and I feel I understand it fairly well, yet one must really want it and own it personally for it to be of any value.

A claim should never make it to court and should be killed in the administrative process. One must get a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary, but also understand Common Law, Admiralty, Commerce, Administrative Law, Jurisprudence, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and of course, how to draft a Response.

My hat Goes off to Menard and the other pioneers such as Carl Miller, Jordan Maxwell, Winston Shrout, Tim Turner, etc.

And of course Eustice Mullins, may he rest in peace.

Thank you gripreaper for helping me clarify things a bit more, I'm glad to come across somebody that knows as much as I on the matter.

Everyone interested on this subject, please take a look at the list of names provided above by gripreaper as this people will teach everything you need to know to be a free human independent from government. Also the dictionary mentioned "Black's Law Dictionary" is a must is you are to endeavor on this matter. I have every edition of Black's Law Dictionary and almost other Law dictionaries inside the FTP Account available for download.

And most importantly, like gripreaper said "A claim should never make it to court and should be killed in the administrative process" therefore eliminating the need for a jury completely!!!

Blessings to All,
AlkaMyst