The Privileged “SELECT” Few… The Government established to serve the people becoming THE ELETE SERVED!
Why is it that when The Democratic Speaker of The House is accused of insider trading, a felony for you and I, she can only respond “The – y – I – I don’t know what point is of your question. Is there some point that you want to make with that” so arrogantly and above the law? How is it that a City Building Inspector can build a retaining wall right out to the curb of the road on city variance, backfill to the road covering the public sidewalk and building a fence right out to the curb and his neighbor who constructs a fence six feet from the road has to take that fence down because the city won’t allow him to encroach on “its” property? OH, but don’t forget you must keep the property looking well groomed and you must shovel the snow on the city’s property when it snows - SLAVE!
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
How did the entity that was created to serve the people turn the tables and make its citizens the servants. How did they establish themselves “ABOVE THE LAW” which the “common “citizen must follow? HOW DO WE GET OUR COUNTRY, OUR STATE AND OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES BACK?
Some of the things our government does are considered acceptable “graft” however, if the common citizen were to do the same he/she would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It appears that all of the “self-imposed’’ governments that “we the people” established to protect our FREEDOM,( inalienable rights), have hamstrung us and stolen our freedom. The Constitution was created to put vertical and horizontal checks in place to keep the government from getting too big and powerful. There are a couple of additional checks our forefathers put in place to prevent the establishment of a run - away central government, which most of us should review and start instituting.
In this country the people are to be stronger than the government. We establish the government and have a right to abolish it if we so desire. All the federal government was supposed to do is protect our borders and ensure we live free, and can pursue life, liberty and happiness. The twist comes when they divide us, pit one against the other: be it racially, by sex, religion or by class, and then steal some of our freedoms to protect one against the other.
Worse yet, the paradox of the entire dilemma we have allowed to become the norm in this country, they are using our own money, (the citizens) to impose restrictions on our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. The federal and other governments of this great land are living by other rules than we the people are held accountable to live by. The fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws for all of us however, government officials seem to be doing as they please, from small violations of the law to grotesque exhibits of arrogant “royal” superiority. The fourteenth amendment makes it mandatory that “states" treat everyone equally. It is called the equal protection clause of the fourteenth.
Don’t you think that ALL governmental entities should be required to follow the equal protection clause? The feds try to buffer themselves from this amendment. Why should they NOT have to treat ALL citizens the same? Why should federal state and local governments treat themselves differently than they treat the “general public”? Aren’t public servants citizens also, or are they royalty allowed additional rights above the “regular citizen”? They MUST treat everyone the same!
As a federal politician you can get away with insider trading among other things. You have a special health care program better than any “regular” American citizen, and you have a “special” retirement, better than any “regular” American however “WE THE PEOPLE” pay for it all. As, say a city employee you may be able to build your front lawn and fence across the city variance however your neighbor, not a city employee cannot. As a president you can commit purgery and suffer no consequences but as a “regular citizen you’d go to jail. As a President you can steal investor money and reallocate that share of stocks to others without any recourse against you however if a common American would do the same he would find himself behind bars for a very long time.
Now that we are subject to our governments and not “our governments subject to us”, we must look back to some of the checks our forefathers meant to be in place to keep this exact scenario from occurring. Of course we have three three branches of government, the executive, the judiciary and the legislative however, even with these checks the government can run away from us and take our freedoms. There had to be a way for the general public to check this run away government that got too power hungry. We are subject to the laws they make, and are tried for breaking these laws by a jury of our piers. We will now explore the first of two checks that our forefathers put in place specifically to prevent a large central government for stealing our rights. This fist check can be used to keep our state and local governments in check as well.
He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in all well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers. If they exceed these powers, the judiciary "WILL" declare it VOID, or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT to DECLARE it VOID". George Nicholas (See also : THE VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS WHERE THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JAMES MADISON DO THIS BY ACTUAL EXAMPLE)
Did you know that until powerful corporate entities and high powered attorneys pushed to keep judges from advising jurors, jurors also had THE RIGHT to determine the validity of the law that the accused was accused of breaking? We actually still have that right but now we need to prove WHY we have that right. That right puts the authority back in our hands, not the CROOKED politicians. It is the common sense final check for honest citizens to check the power hungry central government, or even a local government. Thomas Jefferson stated;
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
We must learn and remember our rights and responsibilities as AMERICAN PEOPLE, nor black Americans, white Americans, Hispanic Americans, American Indians, Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans, etc... We are Americans first and if we all don’t take care of each other the governments will take our rights and tell us what to do “to protect us” from each other!
A juror, no matter what his education or training in regard to the law must use common sense when;
1) EVALUATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE
2) DETERMINING IF IN FACT THE LAW IS VALID OR INVALID.
In 1794 in a US Supreme court jury trial, the court instructed the jurors;
It is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of fact; it is on the other hand presumed that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are within your (the juries) power of decision. Citizens Rulebook, pg. 11
In the case of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et.al. it was stated;
You have the right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Ibid.
In US vs. Dougherty it was stated;
The jury has an unreviewable and unreversable power …. To acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by trial judge. Ibid.
It is almost certain that since the courts stopped instructing jurors of this fact, inherited from our English heritage of “natural rights as men”, that almost all people who participate in jury duty do not know that they have this right and RESPOSABILITY. In this way the citizens will be the final decision makers as to the validity of any and all laws that are established to restrain their freedom and liberty. Unfortunately judges will not tell you of this right and responsibility, BUT WE ALL HAVE IT.
In an article published in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, entitled, "What Judges Don’t Tell the Jury," it was stated,
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury’s role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This notion survived until the 1850s 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 abused 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 permit 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 jurors 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 a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic right 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. The citizens called for jury duty could teach the judges a needed lesson in civics. Minneapolis Star and Tribune, November 30, 1984
As presented in Citizen's Rulebook.
The issue of jury rights and responsibilities was featured on CBS Evening News, June 10, 1995. Anchorman Dan Rather stated,
A jury is supposed to decide facts. Before a jury begins deliberating, the judge gives instructions about what the law is and how to apply the law to the case. But some jurors are now getting instructions from another source, and the message is that they should ignore any law they don’t agree with.
Reporter Peter Van Sant commented,
These people reporting for jury duty in El Cajon, California, are being told they have an absolute power: the power to simply vote not guilty if they don’t like the law that’s been broken.
Van Sant was reporting upon the activities of an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association. Van Sant described the organization as—
a collection of patriots who simply want jurors to know that they have power to judge the law as well as the defendant, that they can vote their conscience, even if it grieves the evidence and the judge’s instructions.
An unidentified judge was quoted as telling a jury,
You may not question the wisdom of any rule or law that I have announced to you.
The convictions of the founding fathers of the American nation were on the side of the Fully Informed Jury Association, not that judge.
An article in The Washington Times prescribed a rather ambivalent view of the concept of jury nullification. In the article, Ron Christie addresses the issue raised by unnamed legal scholars who advocate jury nullification [of a law] as a moral alternative to sentencing criminals guilty of non-violent crimes. Christie acknowledges the valid role of jury nullification in past history, e.g. in the cases of those who violated the 1793 and 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts. Thus many guilty of breaking the law were found not guilty by compassionate juries who determined that the particular law was unfair. Christie then asks, Is an unfair law a law at all? While this is a good question in theory, in practice a bad law is law until overturned by Congress, a court or a jury. (Ron Christie, The Washington Times, July 22, 1997)
A republic is a three-vote system of government. It is the three votes, viz., of the ballot box, of a grand jury and of a regular jury, that are meant to safeguard, as well as is humanly possible, the civil and religious freedoms of the citizens of the nation.
In a free society, the first vote is at the election of chosen legislators: the right to cast a vote in terms of those who will represent the citizens in the legislative bodies of the nation, state, city, or county. In many places, citizens possess the right to vote for those who will be the judges and law enforcement leaders of the people. The second vote comes, when in a major criminal trial, a grand jury is elected.
A grand jury’s purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor. Minneapolis Star and Tribune, March 27, 1987
The third and final vote in a free society is that of the jury. A "not guilty" verdict is the final disposition of a case from which, under normal circumstances, there is no review. Thus in this sense, it is the juries of the nation which finally define the laws. This places the power of the jury, in this respect, above that of the supreme court of the nation. (Sundaylaw. net )
Maybe this is the way we can put our governments on notice, ENOUPH IS ENOUPH. If they can do things contrary to the law they make us follow we can just acquit our fellow citizens of the same “crimes”. Why should mere citizens be punished when “governmental citizens” can get away with breaking these very same laws.
If we can’t prosecute them we can aquit others. This should begin to effect some change. If not we can file against them and if we can get them before a jury, we can convict them of crimes we would normally be held accountable for. We can convict them even though they may hide behind other unconstitutional rules/laws that exempt them.
Remember the equal protection clause of OUR constitution. If it is good for them, it is also good for us. Why should they have greater freedoms than we, their employer? All state and local governmental bodies should absolutely have their feet held to the fire on the 14 th. There is absolutely no reason the federal government should not be held to the same standard. If they will not do their job correctly we can by forcing an inditment, trial and conviction against them or simply finding “regular citizens “NOT GUILTY” of laws we do not believe are lawful in these free United States.
We, the citizens must remember to stand together, no matter what individual differences we have – racial, ethnic, sex, and religious or class. If we do not allow the government to divide us and start using our own LAWFUL judicial activism through our JURY RESPONSIBILITIES we can take back our country and reduce the size of an adversarial government. After all, WE MUST ALL REMEMBER, WE ARE AMERICANS first. Here are a few issues we can start to consider and might be able to effect a change of;
- Is the income tax system constitutionally lawful?
- Is insider trading lawful for government officials but not regular Americans?
- Is this country a Constitutional IMPERIALISTIC power or were we supposed to be a republic established only to fight DEFENSIVLY not offensively?
- Is it constitutionally lawful for our government to sign away our freedoms to the United Nations?
- Is the operation of the FEDERAL RESERVE Constitutionally lawful?
- Is it constitutionally lawful for any governmental body to treat one individual or group different than any other?
- Do citizens have an inalienable right to defend themselves and their property from harm?
- Do citizens have CONSTITUTIONAL protections against unlawful search and seizure?
- Is Sharia Law CONSTITIONAL in this country?
- Does a citizen have a CONSTITIONAL right to arm themselves in this country?
- Does a citizen have the CONSTITIONAL right to freedom of speech in this country?
- Does the federal government have the CONSTITIONAL right to own and exercise police powers on large masses of land within individual states?
- Does the federal government have the lawful authority to run over States rights?
- Is it constitutionally lawful for the government to have created the split estate in the western US, while in eastern states the mineral rights are intimately tied to the land and go to the land owner?
- Does eminent domain actually mean you can “plight” an older neighborhood in which some low to middle income people might live, so the government can build a more expensive community or a large mall to increase the tax base of the community?
- Is The Endangered Species Act Constitional?
- Is it Constitional for a state to peacefully secede from this union called The United States if the government is not amicable to the State or States? (James Madison: “If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defense”).
- Is the draft,( involuntary servitude, slavery, etc.) Constitionally lawful?
We will now discuss the second check our forefathers put in place to keep a centralized government from getting too big and infringing on our freedoms. The Civil War may have clouded this RIGHT up a little. Re writing our history has also made us lose sight of this, however our forefathers would have never entered into this union we now call The United States of America if they didn’t first ensure that is right existed.
Why are the States allowing the federal government to run rapidly all over their rights (10th amendment) also? Almost every person at the Constitional Convention and the subsequent ratifying conventions assumed the right to peaceful secession. The point was made numerous times at the Virginia ratifying convention. James Madison states;
If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defense.
The president of the Virginia convention Judge Edmund Pendelton, when discussing the recourse they would have if the Constition they finally instituted did not live up to its standards stated;
…we will assemble in Convention, wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them to prevent s such abuse ….,
New York, Mass. and Virginia made formal ratification statements to the same effect stating that a government freely entered into by the people could be freely left. Even Alexander Hamilton and James Madison conceded this right, not necessarily because they liked it, but because they wanted the Constitution ratified.
New England states discussed secession in 1814 - 1815, (Hartford Convention) well before the southern states for two main reasons. The Embargo Act of 1807, under President Thomas Jefferson hindered business as usual in the New England states and upset those states. Then when James Monroe proposed to Congress that they introduce conscription, a draft to force the militias of the several states to fight,( because some state militias would not fight an “aggressive war “against Canada in the War of 1812) the New England states became extremely disgruntled. Congress, outraged at this proposal ultimately defeated this proposal. This along with the victory we obtained against England at New Orleans again pacified the northeastern states
Remember the Boston Tea Party, when the colonists wouldn’t even tolerate a very minor, but unjust tax on tea. As James Madison said:
“The people of the United States owe their independence and their very liberty to the wisdom of protesting against a minute tax on tea and recognizing the underlying oppression in that tax.”
“If there be a principle that ought not to be questioned within the United States, it is that every man has a right to abolish an old government and establish a new one. This principle is not only recorded in every public archive, written in every American heart, and sealed with the blood of American martyrs, but is the only lawful tenure by which the United States hold their existence as a nation.” — James Madison
“To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.” — William Rawle, the author of the leading constitutional-law treatise of the early-nineteenth century, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825).
Before this country was ever established a humble backwoods senator from Virginia, responding to The English Stamp act imposed against the colonies, gave a speech that stunned the highly educated boisterous senators and rang around the world. Summarized that speech boils down to “GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH”.
We are Americans, born with inalienable rights given to us by our natural creator, and:
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.(declaration of Independence, July4,1776)
If you don’t think the future of your children, grandchildren and their progeny is worth it…, If you don’t think their Freedom is worth it…, if you don’t think the quality of their lives is worth it…, keep letting the government keep separating you and dividing you by race, sex, ethnicity, religious, and class groups…, Keep letting the government tell you “you don’t need to know this, YOUR RIGHTS, we’ll take care of that for you”, DON’T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I HAVE JUST REVIEWED WITH YOU. No don’t try and prove me right or wrong. Don’t learn what your INAILIABLE rights as an AMERICAN are. Don’t get to know and love your “DIFFERENT” neighbor, who is an American also… no, don’t bother, THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU!
A Concerned Citizen
5/20/12
