Fully Informed Jurors May Be The Most Important Way To Fight Against Slavery

One of the Four Boxes. The third one to be exact. I hope we don't have to resort to the fourth one.

My first exposure to the “Citizens Rulebook” was back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s at a God In Government conference and subsequently with the one that the Florida Patriots had obtained from Whitten Printers. It is a handy little 3”x6” booklet that fits neatly in a shirt pocket and contains the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence and an included 10 page essay on the power of the Jury.

As goes the Jury, so goes the country—but not because the Juror is a representative of the People. He is not. He neither owes any party nor bears any duty to follow the will of any other, but to follow only truth—as God gives him light. To be sure, American freedom has always depended upon the People. But more to the purpose, American freedom relies on that subset of the People called the Jury. America has not a government of men but of law—but not just any law: America is a government of common law, of which the heartbeat is the Jury. Well it used to be. Actually the common law was replaced by Babylonian statutory law which makes many things crimes where there is no victim creating profit for the for profit corporations that have surrounded us. See Fruit From A Poisonous Tree.

See: Dunn & Bradstreet DBA Government of the United States and Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support companies in United States of America

"Without the Jury, protection of our fundamental rights by our Constitution becomes nothing more than ink on paper. In order for freedom to flourish, each American must become aware of the juror's rights of responsibility." —Brent Allan Winters

---

The following is an excerpt from the “Citizens Rule Book”. You can read the complete booklet at that link. You can also purchase bulk copies for a fair price from Whitten Printers. I buy 100 at a time as an offering to educate my fellow man. I hope you will read this and come to the understanding that it elicits. I for one, have and feel it is the only peaceful solution to the tyranny that is upon us. C.L.

Rights Come From God!

JURY HANDBOOK A Palladium of Liberty

Abraham Lincoln said:
“Study the Constitution!” “Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice.”

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
John Adams, Second President of the United States

JURY DUTY!

The purpose of this booklet is to revive, as Jefferson put it, “The Ancient Principles.” It is not designed to promote lawlessness or a return to the jungle. The “Ancient Principles” refer to the Ten Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just plain common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments. In 1776 we came out of BONDAGE with FAITH, UNDERSTANDING and COURAGE. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled our way to achieve LIBERTY. LIBERTY is that delicate balance between the force of government and FREEWILL of man. LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go and live where one wishes; it leads to ABUNDANCE. ABUNDANCE, if made an end to itself, will result in COMPLACENCY, which leads to APATHY. APATHY is the “let George do it” philosophy. This always brings DEPENDENCY. For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are dependent. They delude themselves by thinking that they are still free— “We never had it so good.”—“We can still vote, can’t we?” Eventually abundance diminishes and DEPENDENCY becomes known by its true nature:

BONDAGE!

There are few ways out of bondage. Bloodshed and war often result, but our founding fathers learned of a better way. Realizing that a CREATOR is always above and greater than that which He creates, they established a three vote system by which an informed citizenry can control those acting in the name of the government. To be a good master you must always remember the true “pecking order” or chain of command in this nation:

1. GOD created man . . .

2. Man (that’s you) created the Constitution . . .

3. Constitution created government . . .

4. Government created corporations . .etc.

The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of the government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc. As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system: Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

Our first vote is at the polls on election-day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don’t perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have even had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government. The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of the government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in March 27, 1987, edition noted a purpose of the grand Jury in this way: “A Grand Jury’s purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor.” The third is the most powerful vote: this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, “the buck stops” with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting “Not Guilty!” Any juror can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote “Not Guilty” for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce law.

YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!

As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you are truly answerable to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. THe Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30, 1984 edition, entitled: “What Judges Don’t Tell Juries” stated: “At the time of adoption of the Constitution, the jury’s role as a defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850’s, when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict.” “Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell jurors the opposite.” “Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made . . . Hamilton’s argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court.”

“By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about that power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resolve this paradox.” “More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be made a safety valve way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the ‘conscience of the community,’ jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions.” “Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then citizens called for jury duty could teach the judges a needed lesson in civics.” This booklet is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation’s founders provided to insure that you, (not the growing army of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats) rule this nation. it will focus on the rule of power you possess as a JUROR, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also the validity or applicability of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a JUROR. One JUROR can stop tyranny with a “NOT GUILTY VOTE!” He can nullify bad law in any case, by “HANGING THE JURY!”

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!” Everett Hale

The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!

JURY RIGHTS

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.” Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

“The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...” U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139. (1972)

LAW OF THE LAND

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

A SUMMARY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

The TEN COMMANDMENTS represent GOD’S GOVERNMENT OVER MAN! GOD commands us for our own good to give up wrongs and not rights! HIS system always results in LIBERTY and FREEDOM! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are built on this foundation, which provides for punitive justice. It is not until one damages another persons property that he can be punished. The Marxist system leads to bondage and GOD’S system leads to LIBERTY! Read very carefully:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

6. Thou shalt not murder.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

10. Thou shalt not covet.

Directly above the Chief Justice’s chair is a tablet signifying the TEN COMMANDMENTS. When the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress looks up, his eyes look into the face of Moses.

“The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests.” Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States

“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts of the Bible.” Noah Webster

A SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the “common good,” but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully:

1. Abolition of private property.

2. Heavy progressive income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights on inheritance.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Central bank.

6. Government control of Communications & Transportation.

7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.

8. Government control of labor.

9. Corporate farms, regional planning.

10. Government control of education.

GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR THE “COMMON GOOD”?

Where people fear the government you have tyranny; where the government fears the people, you have liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson

Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of the government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws—even if we have to give up some RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a “FREE CHOICE”! This adds another control. Control’s real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce a perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Pitt of the British House of Commons once proclaimed, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

UNALIENABLE, [INALIENABLE ] OR NATURAL RIGHTS!

NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as life (from conception), LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS e.g. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes, which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they may have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. * Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.

*Lysander Spooner wrote as follows:

“Government is established for the protection of the weak against the strong. This is the principal, if not the sole motive for the establishment of all legitimate government. It is only the weaker party that loses their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger party, in all governments are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves. Legislation is the work of the stronger party; and if, in addition to the sole power of legislation, they have the sole power of determining what legislation shall be enforced, they have all power in their hands, and the weaker party are the subjects of an absolute government. Unless the weaker party have veto, they have no power whatever in the government . . . no liberties . . . The trial by jury is the only institution that gives the weaker party any veto upon the power of the stronger. Consequently it is the only institution that gives them any effective voice in the government, or any guaranty against oppression.

ESSAY on the TRIAL by Jury

JURY TAMPERING?

A JURY’s Rights, Powers and Duties:

The Charge to the JURY in the First JURY Trial before the supreme* Court of the U.S. Illustrates the TRUE POWER OF THE JURY.

In the February term of 1794, the supreme Court conducted a JURY trial and said “. . . it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within our power of decision.” “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” -(State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. 1)

“The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . .” (emphasis added) U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)

Hence, JURY disregard of the limited and generally conviction-oriented evidence presented for its consideration, and JURY disregard for what the trial judge wants them to believe is the controlling law in particular case (sometimes referred to as “JURY lawlessness”)* is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather encouraged. Witness the following quotation from the eminent legal authority above-mentioned:

*Supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, however Behavior is. *Jury lawlessness means willingness to nullify bad law

The Right of the JURY to be Told of Its Power

Almost every JURY in the land is falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court, and that the JURY can decide only the facts of the case. This is to destroy the purpose of a Common Law JURY, and to permit the imposition of tyranny upon a people.

“There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action.” Von Goethe (engraved on a plaque at the Naval War College)

“To embarrass justice by a multiplicity of laws, or to hazard it by confidence in judges, are the opposite rocks on which all civil instructions have been wrecked.” Johnson (engraved in Minnesota State Capitol Outside the Supreme Court Chambers)

“Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers.” (emphasis added) (Dougherty cited above, note 32 at 1130)

“. . . The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” II Corinthians 3:6

“It is error alone which needs the support of government. truth can stand by itself.” Thomas Jefferson

The JURY’S options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. “The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the ‘judge.’ There is informal communication from the total culture—literature; current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition.” (Dougherty cited above, at 1135)

LAWS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE!

Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable, JURIES cannot be a protection to the accused. If people acting in the name of government are permitted by JURORS to dictate any law whatever, they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent the WHOLE TRUTH from being considered. Thus if government can manipulate and control both the law and the evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually irrelevant. In reality, true JUSTICE would be denied leaving us with a trial by government and not a trial by JURY!

HOW DOES TYRANNY BEGIN? WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LAWS?

Heroes are men of glory who are so honored because of some heroic deed. People often out of gratitude yield allegiance to them. Honor and allegiance are nice words for power! Power and allegiance can only be held rightfully by trust as a result of continued character.

When people acting in the name of government violate ethics, they break trust with “WE THE PEOPLE.” The natural result is for “WE THE PEOPLE” to pull back power (honor and allegiance).

The loss of power creates fear for those losing the power. Fearing loss of power, people acting in the name of government often seek to regain or at least hold their power. Hence, to legitimize their quest for control, laws and force are often instituted.

Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. It is the JUROR’S duty to use the JURY ROOM as a vehicle to stem the tide of oppression and tyranny:

To prevent bloodshed by peacefully removing power from those who have abused it. The JURY is the primary vehicle for peaceful restoration of LIBERTY, POWER AND HONOR TO “WE THE PEOPLE!”

YOUR VOTE COUNTS!

Your vote of NOT Guilty must be respected by all members of the JURY— it is the RIGHT and DUTY of a JUROR to Never, Never, Never yield his or her sacred vote—for you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as an officer of the court and a qualified judge in your own right. Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be heaped on you by any other members of the JURY with whom you may be in good conscience to disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your own conscience and convictions—and not those of someone else.

YOU ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP!

By what logic do we send our youth to battle tyranny on foreign soil, while we refuse to do so in our courts? Did you know that many of the planks of the “Communist Manifesto” are now represented by law in the U.S.? How is it possible for Americans to denounce communism and practice it simultaneously.

The JURY judges the Spirit, Motive and Intent of both law and the Accused, whereas the prosecutor only represents the letter of the law.

Therein lies the opportunity for the accomplishment of “LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL.” If you, and numerous other JURORS throughout the State and nation begin and continue to bring in verdicts of NOT GUILTY in such cases where nam-made statute is defective or oppressive, these statutes will become as ineffective as if they had never been written.

“If we love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams

SEC. II GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!

PATRICK HENRY SHOCKED!

Young Christian attorney Patrick Henry saw why a JURY of PEERS is so vital to FREEDOM! It was March 1775 when he rode into the small town of Culpeper, Virginia. He was totally shocked by what he saw! There, in the middle of the town square was a minister tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged like JESUS, with whips laced with metal.

Patrick henry is quoted as saying: “When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve a beating such as this.”

SCOURGED FOR NOT TAKING A LICENSE!

The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license. He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license. A license often becomes an arbitrary control by the government that makes a crime out of what ordinarily would not be a crime.

IT TURNS A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE!

Three days later they scourged him to death.

This was the incident, which sparked Christian attorney Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later would become the rallying cry of the Revolution. ”“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!” Later he made this part of his famous speech at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia.

JURY OF PEERS

Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it is obvious that a JURY of “PEERS” must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be able to judge motive and intent?

“PEERS” of the defendant, like RIGHTS of the JURY have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of “equals in station and rank,” (Black’s 1910), “free-holders of a neighborhood,” (Bouvier’s 1886), or “A companion; a fellow; an associate. (Webster’s 1828).

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO SIT ON A JURY?

Patrick Henry, along with others, was deeply concerned as to who has a right to sit on a JURY. Listen to our forefathers wisdom on the subject of “PEERS.”

MR. HENRY “By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life.” Patrick Henry (Elliot, “The Debates in Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579)

Patrick Henry also knew that originally the JURY of PEERS was designed as a protection for Neighbors from outside governmental oppression. Henry states the following, “Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents that hand of oppression from cutting you off . . . THis gives me comfort—that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me.” (Elliot, 3:545, 546).

MR. HOLMES

Mr. Holmes, from Massachusetts, argued strenuously that for JUSTICE to prevail, the case must be heard in the vicinity where the fact was committed by a JURY of PEERS. “ . . . a jury of peers would, from their local situation, have an opportunity to form a judgement of the CHARACTER of the person charged with the crime, and also to judge of the CREDIBILITY of the witnesses.” (Elliot, 2:110).

MR. WILSON

Mr. Wilson, signer of “The unanimous Declaration,” who also later became a supreme Court Justice, stressed the importance of the JURORS knowing personally both the defendant and the witnesses. “Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses—where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and view—I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict’ but their errors cannot be systematical.” (Elliot, 2:516)

FREEDOM FOR WILLIAM PENN

“Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants.” William Penn Edward Bushnell and three fellow JURORS learned this lesson well. They refused to bow to the court. They believed in the absolute power of the JURY, though their eight companions cowered to the court. The four JURORS spent nine weeks of torture in prison, often without food and water, soaked with urine, smeared with feces, barely able to stand, and even threatened with fines, yet they would not give in to the judge. Edward Bushnell said, “My liberty is not for sale,” though he had great wealth and commanded an international shipping enterprise. These “bumble heads”, so the court thought, proved the power of the people was stronger than any power of government. They emerged total victors.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

The year was 1670, and the case Bushnell sat on was that of William Penn, who was on trial for violation of a “Conventicle Act.” This was an elaborate Act which made the Church of England the only legal church. The Act was struck down by their not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was established and became part of the English Bill of Rights and later it became the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the Right to peaceful assembly was founded, Freedom of Speech, and also habeas corpus. The first such writ of habeas corpus ever issued by the Court of Common Pleas was issued to free Edward Bushnell. Later this trial gave birth to the concept of Freedom of the press.

Had Bushnell and his colleagues yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the judge and prosecutor, William Penn most likely would have been executed as he clearly broke the law.

HE BROKE THE LAW!

There would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no city of Philadelphia, and no state called Pennsylvania, for young William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of the Bible than that of the Church of England. This appears innocent today, but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. He had broken to government’s law, but he had injured no one. The four heroic JURORS knew that only when actual injury to someone’s person or property take place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. Many imposter laws were repealed as a result of this.

IT IS ALMOST UNFAIR!

The trial made such an impact the every colony but one established the jury as the first liberty to maintain all other liberties. It was felt that the liberties of people could never be wholly lost as long as the jury remained strong and independent, and that unjust laws and statutes could not stand when confronted by conscientious JURORS. JURORS today face an avalanche of imposter laws. JURORS not only still have the power and the RIGHT, but also the DUTY, to nullify bad laws by voting “not guilty.” At first glance it appears that it is almost unfair, the power JURORS have over government, but necessary when considering the historical track record of oppression that governments have wielded over private citizens

JEFFERSON’S WARNINGS!

In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!

“The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury.”

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.” (1820)

“. . . the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.

. . . when all government . . . in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (1821)

“The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. “. . . judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the Republic. . .”

What else can be said? I may be repeating myself a bit here, but let this sink in. This NEEDS to be understood.

Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution to bind and control government... The[y] knew that government could not be trusted with power to enforce its laws over the people and that the jury could be the protection the people must maintain to remain free... But what happened? We abrogated our responsibility to education by giving that responsibility to employees of the state. And do they WANT us to be able to nullify their laws that they make to profit off of us with via fines and imprisonment?

"We the people" will let government create criminal and civil statutes but the people did not trust the government with enforcement power. The people reserved enforcement power to themselves and retained for themselves the right to judge [in trial by jury] whether government created law was just and proper. If for any reason at all the people don't like the government-made law, they have the right and duty to nullify the law and refuse to enforce it.

Remember, ... if the vote in the jury room is eleven to one for conviction, that one "NO" vote has more power than the eleven "yes" votes to give the government a conviction. ...the juror who uses his one vote on the jury to nullify law has absolute sovereign immunity and that individual juror cannot be impeached or prosecuted for his vote.

Most of the people who live in this nation do not know or understand that the people have the power to nullify law. The government schools have not taught about the vote on the jury. Very few know the government controls the schools so the perception of how our system works is molded and formed the way government dictates.

John Adams, the second President of the United States wrote of a juror: "It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court." Thomas Jefferson likewise wrote: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." And, in 1794, in the first jury trial held before the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, the first Chief Justice instructed jurors thusly: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Well, that was two hundred years ago, what about now? you ask. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided," so wrote Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1941. More recently, in 1972, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law."

Ira Hansen, Reno radio talk show host, in his guest editorial in the Sparks Tribune (Sparks, Nevada, March 22, 1995) explained: "American history is full of examples --good and bad --of juries exercising this right. Perhaps the best example is the refusal of New England juries to convict people who had clearly violated a federal law --the Fugitive Slave Act. People who assisted slaves in any way in their attempts to escape to freedom were criminals under this law. Yet, brave New Englanders found the law morally repugnant and numerous hung juries, with individual jurors voting their conscience rather than following the law, were the result. Government judges and lawyers, to circumvent this, began demanding that jurors take an oath to uphold the law and judge only the facts of the case --not the law itself. Anyone refusing to so swear was excluded from the jury. The government attempted to pack the juries with people favorable to the prosecution. This circumvention of a constitutional right was largely ignored --men would swear, yet vote their conscience. This veto power against the law still remains today."

That Constitutional right of the jury has not been rescinded in the last 200 plus years, only abrogated by an unscrupulous judicial system. The Fully Informed Jury Association, in their pamphlet "True or False," ask: "Why do most judges tell you that you may consider "only the facts" --that you are not to let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant affect your decision? (MOST? C.L.)

"In a trial by jury, the judge's job is to referee the trial and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, beginning with a full and truthful explanation of a juror's rights and responsibilities.

"But judges rarely "fully inform" jurors of their rights, especially their power to judge the law itself and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Instead, they end up assisting the prosecution by dismissing any prospective juror who will admit to knowing about this right --starting with anyone who also admits having qualms with the law.

"We can only speculate on why: Distrust of the citizen jury? Disrespect for the idea of a government "of, by, and for the people?" Unwillingness to part with power? Ignorance of all the rights and powers that trial jurors necessarily acquire upon assuming the responsibility of judging a case? Actual concern that trial jurors might "misuse" their power if told about it?"

For more freedom ammo go to FIJA.

Matthew Hoover was caged because the “Judge” told the jury, if the ATF says this is a machine gun, it is a machine gun and you can’t judge the law.

Watch this to see what the “Judge” called a machine gun! See if you agree…BTW…who should CARE if it WAS a machine gun? Where is a VICTIM with mere possession? Why can “they” have them but for us to have one, we have to pay thousands of dollars to possess one due to supply and demand. Does being rich make you less likely to use one in a crime where there is actually a victim?

ADDED 3/24/2026 Well worth watching.

---