|
|
Trial By Jury
in 1804, Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice and signer of the
Declaration of Independence said: "The jury has the right to judge
both the law and the facts". And also keep in mind that "either we
all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately".
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA of 1849 We, the people of
California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure
its blessings, do establish this Constitution:
ARTICLE I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 9. Every citizen may freely
speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to
restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all
criminal prosecutions on indictments for libels, the truth may be given
in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the
matter charged as libellous is true, and was published with good motives
and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury
shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
The fact that there is no judicial power in a Trial By Jury is most
clearly emphasized by the very reason for Trial By Jury: which is to
eliminate judicial corruption. In a Trial By Jury the jury is the
judge and the judiciary has no power and no sway, the jury determines
both the law and the fact.
Courts in the U.S. are now however nothing but houses of deception.
Lawyers perceive court hearings as games; they strive not for justice
but for deception. Acclaim in U.S. Courts is achieved through corruption
and deception; recognition given to those in the legal profession who
commit crimes and don’t get held accountable. Perjury is accepted
practice and technicalities receive more attention than the facts.
District Attorneys give themselves kudos when they convict the innocent.
However, the greatest criminals of all in our U.S. Court rooms wear
black not orange; they sit behind the bench not before it. U.S. Judges
are eminently the most corrupt bunch of criminals found throughout the
world, and the facts and statistics prove it without any reasonable
level of doubt. More innocent people are convicted of non-crimes and
so-called code violations which are not violations at law, in the U.S.
than all the other Nations combined. The disgrace of practice at what we
can describe as “non-law” in U.S. Courts falls squarely on the crimes
our judges commit in the Court room in almost every single case. “Trial
By Jury” no longer exists in the U.S., instead victims are offered a
pseudo “Jury Trial” that is presided over by a Judge who takes complete
control of everything from who gets selected on a jury to what evidence
can be presented before the jury and even what can and cannot be said to
the jury, thereby ensuring that the Judge can completely corrupt the
process and eliminating the very purpose of Trial By Jury which is to
eliminate judicial corruption. In many areas such as the so called
"Family Law" practice, even Jury Trials are now categorically denied by
judges. Appeals courts presided over purely by judges are perhaps
the most classic examples of corruption in the U.S., here the greatest
effort is made to completely avoid facts and instead to focus only on
how crimes committed by judges in lower courts can be covered up by the
absurd claim that there is nothing wrong with the process. Clearly U.S.
Courts have no worldwide competitor that can come any ware close to
claiming the title as the most corrupt courts by magnitude of innocent
convictions and unjust decisions.
Perhaps the most explicit example of judicial corruption in the U.S.
is the judiciary's interpretation of the 11th Amendment see
11th: No Judicial
Power. The 11th is neither ambiguous nor complicated, the
amendment was implemented so as to explicitly eliminate judicial power
when a suit is brought against a judge's boss. However, judges
have invented the most absurd interpretations of the 11th ranging from
claims that it eliminates the right to sue to some how inventing some
sort of judicial or governmental immunity. Recognize that there is
no need for judicial interpretation of the law since under common-law if
a common person cannot understand the law, it is not law. Judges
are here only to administer the courts not to make law. Where a party
specifically decides to forego the right to have a jury decide the
outcome of a case, or when the value in controversy is less than twenty
dollars (7th
Amendment), and only then, a judge is allowed to judge the case.
Since U.S. Courts have eliminated the foundational right to Trial
By Jury, in the U.S. the question at law is perhaps now only what to do
with at completely corrupt and tyrannical government? |
