
                                  TRY THE LAW

               The scene  is a somber federal court room.  The lengthy
          trial on a charge of weapons possession has just ended.
               "Ladies and  Gentlemen of  the jury,  the testimony has
          now  concluded.    We  will  take  the time to determine the
          innocence or guilt of Mr. John Watkins.
               "You have heard all the testimony  from the prosecution
          and defense  attorneys.   You will  soon retire  to the jury
          room for your deliberations.  All the evidence  presented at
          this trial  will be  there with you for your examination and
          use in reaching a verdict.
               "During your deliberations, I charge you with determin-
          ing  the  facts  presented  in this litigation and the facts
          only.  I will now instruct  you on  the law  concerning this
          case and under which Mr. Watkins has been tried."
               "If  you  have  any questions during your deliberations
          concerning what I am  about to  instruct you,  please make a
          written request  to the  Court.  Cite what you do not under-
          stand.  The Bailiff will bring your question  into the Court
          and I will answer it."
               Now, in  a usual  monotonous voice, the judge will read
          his interpretation of the  laws involved.   If  you can stay
          awake and  understand a  small part  of what  'His Honor' is
          saying consider yourself fortunate. 
               This whole setup is called 'Judicial  Supremacy'.  They
          purposely constructed  court rooms  so the judge sits higher
          than everyone else.  That forces you to look up to him.   He
          lords it  over everyone  that he  is only the person who has
          any say-so on the law.
               This is a lie . . .  a  real  legal  fairy  tale.   The
          reason  for  a  jury  has  been turned upside down.  In past
          years  it bears no  similarity to  the true  purpose of your 
          duty as a juror.
               Your obligation  is not only to determine the innocence
          or guilt of the accused, it is also to examine the law!
               Let's get  back  to  basics  and  define  a  law.   The
          supremacy  clause  of  our  Constitution is explicit when it
          says    it  and  only  laws  made  following  its  power and
          restrictions are the supreme law of the land.
               The key  words are laws made following the power in the
          document.  If they  pass  a  law  beyond  the  permission we
          granted, then  what?   It would  NOT conform to the document
          and is no law.  And how would you know?
               The first requirement is that you  know something about
          our  Constitution.    Without  this  knowledge,  these legal
          eagles will continue to make monkeys  of you.   It  would be
          ridiculous to memorize the document and no one expects that.
          Nevertheless, the purpose of the jury is to  safeguard other
          citizens from  an overzealous  government.   You should know
          where to look to see if they have the authority  to pass the
          law under which they are accusing the person on trial.
          
               There are  only four crimes listed in our Constitution.
          These  are  (1)  counterfeiting  of  securities  and current
          coins, (Art  I, Sec  8), (2) piracies and felonies committed
          on the high seas, (Art I,  Sec 8),  (3) treason  against the
          United States (Art III,  Sec 3) and (4) offenses against the
          law of nations (Art I, Sec 8).  That's it!  We gave NO power  
          to Congress beyond these  four to  define a  crime.   Sounds 
          weird . . . but it's true.

               In 1821, Chief Justice  John  Marshall,  of  the United
          States Supreme  Court stated  in an opinion, "Congress has a
          right to punish murder in a fort, or other place  within its
          exclusive  jurisdiction;  but  no  general  right  to punish
          murder committed within any of  the  States."    Further, he
          added, "It  is clear,  that Congress  cannot punish felonies
          generally;"  (Cohen v Virginia, 4 Wheat (US) 264) (1821).
               Unless  you are a  juror in a  case  (federal) charging 
          someone with a violation of one  of the  four listed crimes, 
          there is no criminal law.  And you cannot judge the persons' 
          innocence or guilt.  You have no right to convict.
               That's a heavy statement.  Let's see if it's true . . .
               The  determination  of  crimes  and  criminal acts were
          designated  as  state  functions.    They  are  still  state
          functions today and of no concern to the federal government.
          This is verified by  the  instructions  in  Art  IV,  Sec 2,
          clause 2.
               We have established repeatedly that our Constitution is
          the supreme law of the land.  Nowhere have we given Congress
          the power  to determine  any act by a citizen to be a crime.
          The document is full  of 'thou  shalt nots'  directed at the
          government.   The consensus  of some of our Founding Fathers
          was that the powers  given, limited  as they  are, were much
          too dangerous. 
               The Tenth  Amendment restates the 'thou shalt nots' . .
          "The powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by the
          Constitution,  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, are
          reserved to the States respectively or  to the  People."  It
          is an  absolute bar  to the  federales assuming any power we
          did not grant to them.
               For the sake of illustration, this trial was  about the
          possession of  weapons.   The Second Amendment prohibits the
          Congress from passing ANY law  which  will  infringe  on the
          right to  keep and  bear arms.  And  here the 'justice' dept 
          is after someone for possession of weapons?   It's  no good.  
          The law is a myth.
               Hamilton makes  it clear in Paper No. 83 that the 'thou
          shalt nots'  are  there.    Their  powers  are  specific and
          limited.  These specific powers preclude all assumption of a
          general legislative authority.  Being specific,  it would be
          absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intend-
          ed.  (As before, all references to 'paper no.' are  from The
          Federalist Papers.)   Where  can Congress  find the right to
          assume power to define crimes  if  the  permission  were not
          
          specifically granted by us?
               For the  past hundred  or more years, Congress has been
          busy writing all sorts of laws for which we gave  no permis-
          sion.   The worse period for illegal and bad laws was during
          the period of the  1930's.   This was  when the  exercise of
          control over  the American  people went  wild.   This is one
          reason why the purpose of the jury is so important today.
               The people who work for the government have a job  as a
          result of  our Constitution.   If it were not that we agreed
          to government, their positions would not exist.  There is no
          other way  to look  at it.   It is our right and our duty to
          check on what they are doing.  This  of course  includes the
          laws they are passing.  
               And  what  do  we  check  them  against?  The supremacy
          clause holds the key.  If they do  not conform,  they are no
          good -- they are not laws.  Can't make it any plainer.
               Our Fifth Amendment guarantees you and I due process of
          law.  This is an extremely important statement.  They cannot
          take life,  liberty or  property unless this requirement for
          due process is followed.   Our  basic law  holds the preced-
          ence.    If  the  government  does not obey a command of the
          document, anything that comes  as a  result does  NOT follow
          due process.
               It doesn't  take a  unanimous jury to say the law is no
          good.  It takes only one  knowledgeable person  to refuse to
          convict and  the law,  for that  instance at least, has been
          neutralized.   
               This is jury  nullification  of  laws.    This  was the
          intent of  our jury system from the beginnings of our system
          of government.   The  Supreme  Court  has  agreed  with that
          premise. (Georgia  v Brailsford,  3 US  1) (1794)  There are
          decisions in law books which show  the jury  is to  try both
          law and fact.  These were many years in our past.  The drive
          by federal judges to  establish the  judicial branch  as the
          most powerful  branch of  government has  hidden this point.
          Today the people believe only judges can tell  the jury what
          the law  means.   Surprised?   This is  legal fiction  . . .
          Buffalo chips!
               A phrase nearly everyone is familiar  with is ignorance
          of the  law is no excuse.  What excuse does a judge have for
          not knowing the law?  (Or  do you  think perhaps  he might?)
          How about  all the  lawyers we have in Congress making laws?
          What  about  the  lawyers  in  that  court  room?    If this
          statement has any validity, it applies to everyone. 
               Now what would you do in a situation like this?  Send a
          note with the bailiff to the judge saying the law is no good
          so you  cannot vote for conviction?  This would probably end
          with you receiving a  contempt citation  from the  judge and
          off to  jail you  go without passing go!  After all, the man
          in the black robe has instructed you on  the meaning  of the
          law.   The alternative  is to  refuse to convict.  No matter
          what pressure you feel from the  other jurors.   Knowing the
          national government  has no  power to define a criminal act,
          how can  you  consider  a  persons  guilt  and  perhaps ruin
          
          someone's life?  
               Now your duty as a juror becomes paramount.  The people
          who are passing these laws and those who  are enforcing them
          are guilty of breaking the law.  We have ordered each person
          who works for government to swear  to God  they will support
          our  Constitution.    Another  command of the document which
          Congress ignores in many instances.  More hanky-panky.
               The ease  with  which  they  do  these unconstitutional
          practices reflects  on us.   Sadly,  we don't  know what the
          Constitution says.  We  have paid  no attention  to what the
          government  has  been  doing  to  our  rights and with their
          allotted powers.
               The eternal vigilance recommended by Jefferson has gone
          to sleep.  We have not been watching our elected representa-
          tives.  I assure  you these  people who  exceed their powers
          know exactly  what they're doing.  They know good people are
          reluctant to raise a  fuss to  make it  stop.   Those with a
          lust for greed and power continue on their merry way.  
               Back to  your duty as a juror.  By simply resisting the
          pressure of  other  members  of  the  jury  and  refusing to
          convict,  the  government  will  be denied a conviction.  No
          question this is an awkward position to be in.  You may feel
          this person  is guilty of something.  However, you can't bow
          to pressure to find  a  person  guilty  when  we  denied the
          federal government the power to establish the crime.
               You can  rest assured  if the  person is a criminal, he
          will continue his criminal activity  and  be  back  in court
          again.   The next  time perhaps  in a  state court and not a
          federal court.  
               There has been an assumption  in  this  country  that a
          person  is  innocent  until  proven guilty.  The attitude in
          courts today  is  frightening.    Many  people  feel  if the
          government has  gone through all the work and investigation,
          the person must be  guilty.   Guilty until  proven innocent?
          That  puts  the  cart  before  the  horse.  This position is
          dangerous to the survival of our  Republic and  a task which
          is nearly  impossible to  overcome in court.  Don't let them
          use you in this manner.  That's exactly what they are doing.
               Alexander Hamilton made this  very point  in Paper, No.
          65: "But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of
          judges.    They  are  sometimes  induced   to  find  special
          verdicts, which  refer the  main question to the decision of
          the court.  Who would be willing to  stake his  life and his
          estate on the verdict of a jury acting under the guidance of
          judges who had predetermined his guilt?"
               What about grand juries?  The  only mention  of them is
          in  the  Fifth  Amendment.    This  is  the first hurdle the
          government has to overcome to bring a person  to trial.   It
          is the  obligation of  the Grand Jury to investigate allega-
          tions on it's own.  They should never  simply accept  what a
          government attorney charges.  
               Grand Juries  are completely  independent bodies.  They
          do not belong  to  the  Court  system  or  the  US Attorneys
          office.    The  Court  calls  Grand Juries into session from
          
          lists of names maintained by the  US Attorneys  office.  Yet
          they  are  independent!    They  have  no right to determine
          guilt.  Their only duty is to see  if US  laws were violated
          and  if  they  were,  to  issue  an  indictment  against  an
          individual.
               Some Grand Juries  have  earned  the  name  of "rubber-
          stamp"  juries.    They  have  accepted  what  a US Attorney
          charges  against  an   individual   without   conducting  an
          investigation on  their own.   This is how badly the protec-
          tion of our citizens has eroded in the  past years.   It's a
          sad comment  on American justice and proves how we have been
          bamboozled by our public servants.
               The first investigation conducted has the same require-
          ment as  for the  petit jury.   Does  the law  meet with the
          requirements of  our  Constitution?    Simply  because  a US
          Attorney says  the violation  is of  one of  US laws doesn't
          mean it's true.    In  legal  circles  this  is  called jury
          manipulation.    You  are  being  used by the US Attorney to
          indict a  person  simply  on  his  word.    Charges  must be
          investigated independently. 
               Do  you  know  a  US  Attorney does not take an oath to
          support the Constitution as required?   He has  no authority
          to stand  before the  Grand Jury  and make  a charge against
          anyone.
               The requirement  that  all  officers  take  an  oath or
          affirmation  to   support  the   Constitution  includes  the
          executive branch.  There are no exceptions.  The US Attorney
          works  for  the  Justice  Department,  part of the executive
          branch.  Nonetheless, the US Attorney takes an  oath only to
          perform his  duties faithfully.   This  is in section 544 of
          the Judicial Code, Title 28, United States Code.
               Do you see why the federales don't want  anyone to know
          that juries  have the  obligation to  try the  law also?  If
          there is no power to define a crime,  you as  a member  of a
          Grand Jury have no authority to issue an indictment.
               How can  anyone argue with this premise?  The Constitu-
          tion established that Congress  can  make  no  law  which is
          beyond their specified and granted powers.  The jury system,
          both petit and grand, is  the  basic  protection  for  us as
          citizens  against  overzealous  government and agents.  Jury
          duties and functions have been very slowly curtailed  by the
          government.    That  way  they can exercise control over the
          people as they see fit.
               One great man in history made the statement:  "The more
          corrupt the  state, the more numerous the laws."  (Cornelius
          Tacitus, Roman senator  and  historian.    A.D. c.56-c.115).
          Congress has  been busy  for years writing laws for which we
          gave no  permission.    We  must  get  our  ambitious public
          officials back within the confines of our basic law.
               Are we being led down the road to slavery like sheep? 
               Has this  great country  become a nation of wimps . . .
          people who are afraid  to challenge  the government  when it
          breaks the  law?   Will we wake some fine morning to find we
          are now a minor member of  Bush's  New  World  Order?   It's
          
          closer than any of us dare to imagine.  Wake up, people!
               What will  it be  like in  this country for us, for our
          children and grandchildren if we don't  take control  of the
          government?   Perhaps you or one of your children will be in
          the same position as the man in this story.  Your duty  as a
          juror is  of the  utmost importance  in the guarantee of our
          basic protections.
               This same  principle  applies  to  state  courts.   All
          states must obey the Constitution, either by ratification of
          the document or on being granted statehood.  The requirement
          for officials  to take  an oath to support the document also
          applies to state officials.   Each  reader  should  at least
          know  the   authority  the  state  has  received  from  your
          particular state constitution.  Find a  copy of  it or write
          your state representative and request a copy.  Then you will
          be able to familiarize yourself with its authority.  
               Our  very   survival   depends   on   alert  Americans.
          Ignorance  is  NO  defense!    Languishing  in  prison on an
          illegal conviction is a travesty.  
               You and I are  the sovereigns.   We  must begin  to act
          like  a  sovereign.    Otherwise,  our  birthright  of life,
          liberty and happiness will disappear like a puff of smoke.
          
