From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>As ever, I'm open to correction and I hear what Steve says below
>although I would like to see more before I'm convinced.
Jonathan,
You have described what currently goes on in British Courts,
but it is not neccessarily right. Abolition of the Grand Jury in the 1930's
is the root of the problem IMHO.
There is a lot of information on the WWW from the Full Informed Juries
Association and the like, including the following article.
=============================================================
"The power of the jury to nullify was first exercised in a seventeenth
century English court and was discussed in an article by Godfrey
Lehman in the November 1988 issue of The Justice Times.
"The ordeal suffered by twelve anonym s in London over 300 years ago
is recorded obscurely in history under the colorless, non-descriptive title
of "Bushell's Case." Its 20th century oblivion belies the respect it
commanded in the 18th, and conceals its enduring multiple influences
upon our Constitutional republic. Fully understood, it can be
appreciated as one of the most influential single events in the entire
history of our imperfect species* because of its impact upon the writers
of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Most significantly
it was spontaneous, unlike any other great charter of liberty.
"It was accomplished without deliberate, conscious planning; without
great public agitation, and did not require the signing of a formal
document. It did not involve any highly-placed persons. It arose directly
from the people.
It is the story of the trial of William Penn, who had committed no more
serious offense than preach Quakerism in spite of an official "law,"
known as the Conventicle Act, intended to proscribe all religions except
the Church of England. The jurors suffered up to nine weeks of torture
to stand by the principle that every person has a right to worship
according to his own conscience. Because they did not waver, they
finally won.
"The Conventicle Act fell before these twelve inconsequential "bumble
heads" - these twelve "simple-witted cockneys" without rank nor
position in the government. There were no further prosecutions under
that act. It was not necessary to importune vote-seeking legislators to
pass repealing legislation. The entire government was humbled before
them. They gained no material benefits for themselves, they blended
back into their pre-trial anonymity.
"By nullifying, the jury corrects governmental abuses and usurpations
one at a time without violence, within the arena of the courtroom,
preventing the formation of a long chain, which unchecked, could lead
to revolution, as it did in 1776. The jury should be highly respected and
honored."
The right of juries to judge the justice of laws was eloquently discussed
in 1852 by author Lysander Spooner in his, "ESSAY IN THE TRIAL BY
JURY."
He wrote, "For more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna
Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or
American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only
the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of
the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or
oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
execution of, such laws.
"Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of
juries being a "palladium of liberty" - a barrier against the tyranny and
oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands,
for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to
have executed.
"That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are
here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the
trial by jury is, and what is its object.
"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the
people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently
called "trial per pais" -that is, "trial by the country."
"The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference
to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of
oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is
indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine
their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's
judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it
possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people
against the government , if they are not allowed to determine what
those liberties are?
"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against
the government, the jurors are taken from the body of the people, by lot,
or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or
selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to
prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or
friends. In other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with
a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purpose."
Things have come a long way since 1852. I'm sure that Mr. Spooner
would cringe if he were to witness jury selection today. Both sides try to
stack the jury. If you were to serve on a jury on a gun case it is not
unrealistic to expect the government to ask if there are any gun owners,
or maybe even NRA members, in the jury pool. Sometimes jurors are
asked to answer questions by raising their hands. In that situation it is
possible to not volunteer an answer by not raising ones hand. Quoting
further from Mr. Lehman's
Justice Times article:
"Almost universally, judges would extricate from jurors the false oath to
"Take the law as I dictate it to you, no matter how you feel about it."
Judges who do this are acting criminally as they are violating their own
sacred Constitutional oaths. They would dominate the jury. Principled
jurors refusing to take the oath are forcibly removed from the panel
(also illegal).
"My position as a juror is to take the oath but, if the law is repugnant, to
repudiate it in the jury room. Since to insist upon the oath is duress, and
since it demands yielding inherent, Constitutionally guaranteed rights
and powers, it is a lie from the beginning. It is not valid. It is the gun
to your head and the offer you can't refuse. Jurors who have ostensibly
sworn to the oath have remained on juries to prevent what would have
been miscarriages of justice.
"The intense inquisition of jurors before trial is also to destroy jury
independence by attempting to stack the jury with only compliant non-
questioning jurors. The Constitution does not permit the court to invade
the private lives of jurors with these outrageous inquisitions.
"That all of this is done in defiance of the Constitution is only partial
demonstration of the extent we have progressed toward judicial
oligarchy - despite those repeated Constitutional guarantees. The most
valuable lesson we can learn from the ordeal of the Bushell jurors is
that we do not require legislation nor other official act to save this grand
bulwark of liberty, and liberty itself. We require only ourselves,
knowledgeable and refusing to submit.
"And because our liberty depends principally upon the honesty of
jurors, we the people, can overcome the oligarchy by doing nothing else
than following, as jurors, the Bushell example of acting on conscience
and principle."
Knowledgeable grass-roots political activity is absolutely necessary if
we are to keep and regain our unalienable rights, protected by
constitutional prohibitions on government. However, by serving on
juries, when given the opportunity, with knowledge, acting on
conscience and principle we can, once again, make the jury (at least
the one we serve on) a "palladium of liberty."
It is my hope that all N.R.A. members will become informed regarding
the power of juries and that they will share their knowledge with family,
friends, and neighbors. It is far easier to stop the enemies of liberty in
the jury box than it is at Concord's bridge (shot heard around the world).
It is NRA policy, established by the members at an annual meeting, to
support fully informed juries. For more information, write to the Fully
Informed Jury Association
(FIJA), P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana, 59403,
Phone (406) 793-5550
The following article decribes the history of Juries Rights.
===============================================================
The power of the jury to nullify was first exercised in a seventeenth
century English court and was discussed in an article by Godfrey
Lehman in the November 1988 issue of The Justice Times.
"The ordeal suffered by twelve anonym s in London over 300 years ago
is recorded obscurely in history under the colorless, non-descriptive title
of "Bushell's Case." Its 20th century oblivion belies the respect it
commanded in the 18th, and conceals its enduring multiple influences
upon our Constitutional republic. Fully understood, it can be
appreciated as one of the most influential single events in the entire
history of our imperfect species* because of its impact upon the writers
of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Most significantly
it was spontaneous, unlike any other great charter of liberty.
"It was accomplished without deliberate, conscious planning; without
great public agitation, and did not require the signing of a formal
document. It did not involve any highly-placed persons. It arose directly
from the people.
It is the story of the trial of William Penn, who had committed no more
serious offense than preach Quakerism in spite of an official "law,"
known as the Conventicle Act, intended to proscribe all religions except
the Church of England. The jurors suffered up to nine weeks of torture
to stand by the principle that every person has a right to worship
according to his own conscience. Because they did not waver, they
finally won.
"The Conventicle Act fell before these twelve inconsequential "bumble
heads" - these twelve "simple-witted cockneys" without rank nor
position in the government. There were no further prosecutions under
that act. It was not necessary to importune vote-seeking legislators to
pass repealing legislation. The entire government was humbled before
them. They gained no material benefits for themselves, they blended
back into their pre-trial anonymity.
"By nullifying, the jury corrects governmental abuses and usurpations
one at a time without violence, within the arena of the courtroom,
preventing the formation of a long chain, which unchecked, could lead
to revolution, as it did in 1776. The jury should be highly respected and
honored."
The right of juries to judge the justice of laws was eloquently discussed
in 1852 by author Lysander Spooner in his, "ESSAY IN THE TRIAL BY
JURY."
He wrote, "For more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna
Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or
American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only
the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law,
and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their
right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of
the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or
oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the
execution of, such laws.
"Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of
juries being a "palladium of liberty" - a barrier against the tyranny and
oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands,
for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to
have executed.
"That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are
here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the
trial by jury is, and what is its object.
"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the
people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently
called "trial per pais" -that is, "trial by the country."
"The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference
to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of
oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is
indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine
their own liberties against the government; instead of the government's
judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it
possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people
against the government , if they are not allowed to determine what
those liberties are?
"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against
the government, the jurors are taken from the body of the people, by lot,
or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or
selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to
prevent the government's constituting a jury of its own partisans or
friends. In other words, to prevent the government's packing a jury, with
a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purpose."
Things have come a long way since 1852. I'm sure that Mr. Spooner
would cringe if he were to witness jury selection today. Both sides try to
stack the jury. If you were to serve on a jury on a gun case it is not
unrealistic to expect the government to ask if there are any gun owners,
or maybe even NRA members, in the jury pool. Sometimes jurors are
asked to answer questions by raising their hands. In that situation it is
possible to not volunteer an answer by not raising ones hand. Quoting
further from Mr. Lehman's
Justice Times article:
"Almost universally, judges would extricate from jurors the false oath to
"Take the law as I dictate it to you, no matter how you feel about it."
Judges who do this are acting criminally as they are violating their own
sacred Constitutional oaths. They would dominate the jury. Principled
jurors refusing to take the oath are forcibly removed from the panel
(also illegal).
"My position as a juror is to take the oath but, if the law is repugnant, to
repudiate it in the jury room. Since to insist upon the oath is duress, and
since it demands yielding inherent, Constitutionally guaranteed rights
and powers, it is a lie from the beginning. It is not valid. It is the gun
to your head and the offer you can't refuse. Jurors who have ostensibly
sworn to the oath have remained on juries to prevent what would have
been miscarriages of justice.
"The intense inquisition of jurors before trial is also to destroy jury
independence by attempting to stack the jury with only compliant non-
questioning jurors. The Constitution does not permit the court to invade
the private lives of jurors with these outrageous inquisitions.
"That all of this is done in defiance of the Constitution is only partial
demonstration of the extent we have progressed toward judicial
oligarchy - despite those repeated Constitutional guarantees. The most
valuable lesson we can learn from the ordeal of the Bushell jurors is
that we do not require legislation nor other official act to save this grand
bulwark of liberty, and liberty itself. We require only ourselves,
knowledgeable and refusing to submit.
"And because our liberty depends principally upon the honesty of
jurors, we the people, can overcome the oligarchy by doing nothing else
than following, as jurors, the Bushell example of acting on conscience
and principle."
Knowledgeable grass-roots political activity is absolutely necessary if
we are to keep and regain our unalienable rights, protected by
constitutional prohibitions on government. However, by serving on
juries, when given the opportunity, with knowledge, acting on
conscience and principle we can, once again, make the jury (at least
the one we serve on) a "palladium of liberty."
It is my hope that all N.R.A. members will become informed regarding
the power of juries and that they will share their knowledge with family,
friends, and neighbors. It is far easier to stop the enemies of liberty in
the jury box than it is at Concord's bridge (shot heard around the world).
It is NRA policy, established by the members at an annual meeting, to
support fully informed juries. For more information, write to the Fully
Informed Jury Association
(FIJA), P.O. Box 59, Helmville, Montana, 59403,
Phone (406) 793-5550
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
