The Destruction of the Jury System or How the Government Conned You into Thinking You Could Still Get a Fair and Impartial Trial

You Were Lied To

The American System of Justice is based on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is what they claim.  There is more to it, much more, which they do not wish you to know or understand.  As a member of a jury you are tasked with judging the guilt of a person whom the government has said violated a law.  Notice that the “GOVERNMENT” has made the charge with the claim the person has violated some law they have decided to pass (whether through a representative form of passage, a fiat passage where non-elected persons “make” law, or through popular vote it matters not).  There are crimes which need to be enforced such as murder, robbery, and a whole assortment of crimes.  These are crimes which have always been considered a violation of the code of conduct of any grouping of people.  

What duties lie with each member of the jury?  What has the prosecutor, judge, and legislature attempted to hide from those who site on a jury?  I claim no expert knowledge to answer these questions.  As a matter of fact, I’m just starting to realize how bad things really are.  It would appear the government in its zest for power and in an effort to keep the population ignorant of their rights and duties has done an amazing job. 

A Fundamental Duty

In our jury system we all know our job as jurist is to determine the guilt or lack of guilt a person has.  We cannot, in our system, determine the innocence of a person.  We hand the verdict to the judge and it is either guilty or not guilty…it is never “innocent”.  Innocent is what a person is until they a proven guilty but a jury cannot declare a person “innocent.”  That is the thing we know, the thing we have been told is the duty when on a jury.

BUT they lie to you each and every time you sit on a jury.  How so?  They neglect, intentionally, to tell you two things:  1)  The Grand Jury is charged with determining if there is sufficient evidence to hand down an indictment along with judging if the law itself is valid and 2) As a jury member YOU are charged with first determining if the law is Constitutional and, if so, ONLY then can you debate the guilty or not guilty verdicts based on the evidence.  The evidence is NOT restricted to what was presented in court but is in addition to your experience and your understanding.  They don’t want you to understand this.

Why?  I believe, like most things about government, the reason is to gain power.  People are essentially pre-disposed to a desire to empower themselves and usually at the expense of others.  This is as fundamental to human nature as the desire to survive.  In the links below you will find statements of people who make it clear the Grand Jury no longer has a function because of the lack of education the “government” has provided to the people.  There are those who make it clear that there is no reason to have a Grand Jury anymore since it serves no more use than a rubber stamp to whatever the prosecutor wishes to charge a person with. 

I don’t know everything about this.  I wish I did and wish I could explain it in more clear and concise terms.  What I do know and what I keep learning is that our fundamental rights are not being taken from us…they have BEEN taken from us.  We, today, stand at a cross-road of sorts:  We can continue moving forward and allow our government to become the ruler of us.  We can scream STOP and hold our place, hoping no further damage is done while we determine how to actually change our course.  This is not going to happen.  OR we can stand and say “No more”.  We will no longer allow the government to pass laws which interfere with our rights.  We demand a redress of grievances and the removal of ALL laws which the federal government has passed that are not expressly stated they have the right to regulate by The Constitution.  We can turn and face the enemy of our nation and our Rights.

This has been said many times and it will be said many more times…some have stood, they are usually considered to be lunatics to one degree or another.  Someday you will be asked where you stand:  Be a slave to the government or be freemen.

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w235.html

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/concept72_gleichschaltung.htm

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss5/3/

The Slow, Methodical Erosion of Your Rights

You must pardon me, I was driving along and gave a nice little speech [ignore the ego please] on this and am attempting to write it from memory.  So you think your rights are still around, eh?  When someone says "What rights, I haven't lost any rights!"  Does a slave realize he is a slave if has know no other thing than slavery?  Does he realize that through hard work, perseverance, and a little luck he could actually become the owner of his own estate?  Not if has never read, seen, or experienced freedom.  When our founders first started working on a new government, the people were all about a Republican form of government.  Minor problem, the majority of the population didn't know what form of government that was.  Many knew only monarchy and wanted George Washington to be the King.  The horror which must have crossed his face when he heard this.  The founders realized that a people who knew neither history nor Liberty could not understand Liberty unless they were taught history.  As such, they knew they needed to educate the people on what their rights are and how to protect them.  This is the situation we find ourselves in today.  I am partial to the second amendment and I will focus on this one.  In certain states in this country it is the right of the local police chief to allow you to have a license to own a weapon and carry it if you ask for permission.  The fun part is if a certain town has an anti-gun police chief he can make it almost impossible to get the license.  So, the most fundamental right of a man or women of legal age can be confirmed or denied at the whim of a person who may or may not be elected by the people.  If elected, that means the people, by majority vote can deny another person a fundamental right.  If not, then a politician can deny you that right.  Either way means you do not have the right to keep and bear arms which is a right found in one of the first LAWs of the United States.  So for a person to argue rights have not been removed is rediculous.  But, those people who argue you have your rights turn around and say "Well, what do you need a weapon for.  There are police and stuff like that to protect you and you don't need to hunt for food."  This is a great indication they do not understand the second at all.  The second was not designed to protect you from the common criminal or to hunt for food.  Rather, and this is backed up historically, the second was created to help people responde to a government which behaves in a criminal way by either ignoring the laws of the nation OR by violating the rights of the individual (please do realize there is no such thing a collective rights, that is a communist concept and we all know how that played out over the past 100 years).  Your ultimate job is to protect your family from an abusive government.  A government which slowly nibbles around the edges of your rights is worse than a government which outright takes those rights.  Why?  Because a nibbler will eventually succeed in taking ALL your rights while a grabber will fail because of the knee-jerk response of the people.  Remember, Hitler/Mao/Stalin all made slow, inexorable changes and then, when it was way to late, grabbed it all.  Hitler was excellent at this.  He was able to convince the people Jews were sub-human and to blame for all the problems in Germany (the world really).  It was just one more step to exterminating the "vermin" as he would call them.  This is the situation we find ourselves in today:  A slow, methodical erosion of our rights to the point many people say "Huh, I still have my rights".  Just one more step folks, just one more.