Steph....please show me the passage or section of the US Constitution which grants US citizenship rights to foreigners willfully violating our laws to gain entry to this country....
Judge upholds government motion to redact defense exhibit of the Citizens Rule Book..
by Don Harkins
In a court document dated February 18, 1997, U.S. Attorneys Katrina Pflaumer, Susan Dohrmann and Gene Porter filed a motion in Western District of Washington U.S. District Court calling for the "Government's redaction of defense exhibit F14, the Citizens Rule Book Jury Handbook.."
The motion to have the Citizens Rule Book removed as evidence (which had been presented by John Pitner, et al, who were on trial for "militia activities,") came after the judge and the federal attorneys had censored the defense exhibit by removing some of the pages of the handbook in a way so that the jury would not know that the evidence had been tampered with..
The government's reason for wanting the Citizens Rule Book deemed inadmissible as evidence: Because it contains quotes from our framers and founders which clearly explain the intent of the jury system and the rights and responsibilities of jurors..
The federal attorneys maintain that, "...the jury needs `no jury handbook' because the only appropriate and legal guidance are in the Court's instructions which the jury is required to follow.."
It is the position of the federal government and judges that jurors must follow judges' instructions only..
It was the position of our Founding Fathers and Supreme Court justices that jurists were to follow their conscience in the full knowledge of their rights and responsibilities as jurors..
One position attempts to empower government entities to control the outcomes of trials by juries of one's peers..
The other position empowers citizens to use their own minds to determine the outcomes of trials by juries of one's peers..
Is there any reason to question why the government does not want fully informed jurors to sit in judgment of their peers?
Is there any reason to question why the government has found it important to have the Citizens Rule Book disallowed as evidence?
Can you see now why there has been a growing movement to discard the jury system as dysfunctional?
Can you see now that the jury system has been sabotaged by judges (the state) so that people will be fooled into discarding it all by themselves?
As a juror, as the jury system was intended by the Founding Fathers, you are more powerful than the president..
That is why the state wants you to demand that the jury system be replaced with something "better.."
Excerpts from the Citizens Rule Book.. Jury Duty
The purpose of this article 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 area between the force of government and FREEWILL of man..
LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go and live wherever one wishes, it leads to ABUNDANCE..
ABUNDANCE, if made an end in 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 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 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 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 as expected?
Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever 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 government..
permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury!
The Minneapolis Star Tribune in the March 27, 1987 edition, noted a purpose of the Grand Jury 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 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 a law..
As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only 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 Tribune in a newspaper article appearing in its November 30, 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" 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 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 the 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 a kind of safety valve, a 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,' juries 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 judges a needed lesson in civics.."
Note from the Editor..
It seems to me that, what with the BATF harassing people for marketing the book Unintended Consequences and the Constitution not being allowed in court as evidence, it is our duty to read everything that the government does not want us to read..
Copies of the Citizens Rulebook can be ordered directly from:
Whitten Printers 1001 south 5th Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 258-6406
jham@iahf.com Our Fraudulent Constitution Sat Aug 4 19:02:59 2001
Examine the Jay Treaty..
We paid reparations to England after allegedly "winning" the Revolutionary War, a War that was actually a farce, because the King of England funded both sides, then controlled its aftermath..
Did you know that the King did not remove his troops from our soil until 1789?
We "won", you say? Bullsh*t..
The most powerful form of control that can be exercised over a people is covert control, wherein the people being controlled, don't even realize it..
Wake up sheople!!
George Washington was a traitor, and our Con~stitution was sent by sailings ship over to England where the King and his lawyers made a lot of changes to it, then sent it BACK to us..
The fact is that the United States, Inc. predated the end of the so called Revolutionary War, and the United States inc had defaulted on a loan to the Bank of England..
Wake up sheople!!
We are all slaves, and have been slaves for a very long time..
This business about freedom has largely been an illusion, but that doesn't mean all of it is, we do still have our arms, but they're working overtime to take them, in order to strip away the last vestige of even the ILLUSION that we EVER had any freedom..
Can we stop this greed driven agenda?
Da*n right!!
Tell several people, right now, about APFN and allied groups and awaken more people to the suppressed truths, the lies, the deceptions and the mass illusion that we've all been conditioned to accept at face value without doing any digging. See more info at http://www.iahf.com
E Pluribus Unum The Central Ohio Patriot Group P.O. Box 791 Eventline/Voicemail: (614) 823-8499 Grove City, OH 43123
Meetings: Monday Evenings, 7:30pm, Ryan's Steakhouse 3635 W. Dublin-Granville Rd. (just East of Sawmill Rd.)
[Stare decisis] is a maxim among ... lawyers, that whatever has been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. — Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels.
How stare decisis Subverts the Law
Jon Roland
One of the most important doctrines in Western law is that of stare decisis, a Latin term of art which means "to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications".[1] In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded, unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the constitutional enactments on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones.
The doctrine also tends to give great weight to the opinion in the case, even to the point of treating the opinion as though it was law, even though only the order and findings have the actual force of law, and only in that case, and an explanation of how the decision was reached is only dictum, or commentary. This means that a poorly-worded opinion can define a set of legal positions that exceed the bounds of the underlying constitutional enactments, and become the basis for future precedents, as though they were constitutional enactments themselves. The problem is exacerbated by the failure of judges to clearly delineate the boundaries between edict and dictum.
The doctrine tends to disfavor legal argument that precedents were wrongly decided, especially if they are precedents established at a higher level in the appeals hierarchy, and to demand the litigants "distinguish" their cases from adverse precedents, arguing that those precedents do not apply to the present case because of elements that make it different from the cases on which the precedents were established. This can be very difficult to do if there are a great many recent cases on the same issues which cover most of the possibilities.
The situation can be made more difficult by the rules of most courts which limit the length of briefs the litigants may file. In working backward through a long line of wrongful precedents, a litigant can reach the length limit before the argument can make it back to the foundations where the chain of precedents began to drift away from its authority in the constitutional enactments.
The situation can be illustrated by the Venn diagram in Figure 1, in which the first set A represents the set of legal positions consistent with the Constitution, and the points outside the circle represent unconstitutional positions. It is noted that the boundary of the set is fuzzy, representing the ambiguity of interpretation at the boundary. The central point B' represents a court decision whose opinion defines a set of legal positions consistent with it, shown by the elliptical set with the letter B at the top, but a portion of that set extends beyond the bounds of A. The opinion in the next decision C' also falls within A and defines yet another region C of consistent positions, but which extends beyond both A and B. Decision D' falls within C, but not A or B, and further defines a consistency set that extends beyond A, B, and C. The Decision E' doesn't lie within any of the regions defined by the previous precedents, but its region of consistency overlaps D and barely C, the kind of situation that might result from a legal argument that reaches to get a political decision not based on precedent. Finally, the last decision F' is based on E defines consistency set F but lies entirely outside A, B, C, and D.
The problem for jurisprudence, especially constitutional jurisprudence, is how to get back within A when one's opponent's position is supported by F and one cannot distinguish precedents taking the argument back to A within the brief page limits. It may be almost impossible unless or until one can get the case to the Supreme Court, which can ignore and reverse its own precedents, but which can take only about 75 cases a year, and is reluctant to issue sweeping opinions that can cover a large number of cases that might otherwise deserve to be granted certiorari, but which will never make it because the litigants are discouraged from making fundamental arguments that might work with the Supreme Court but which would be disfavored by lower courts.
It is difficult to estimate how many unconstitutional legislative provisions are adopted each year by Congress, but a plausible number is more than 20,000, or about as many as the number of bills introduced each year. There is simply no way that the federal courts can handle all the cases that might arise under that many provisions. They are almost forced to rely on the presumption of constitutionality of statutes, but members of Congress are increasingly reluctant to restrain themselves from adopting legislation they know to be unconstitutional, but which is supported by some of their constituents, and passing the duty to the federal courts of striking legislation that should never have been passed in the first place.
The way stare decisis is supposed to be used is indicated by the definition of it in Bouvier's Law Dictionary of 1856, which is closer to original practice and intent:
Stare decisis. To abide or adhere to decided cases.
2. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5.[2]
This indicates that the way stare decisis is supposed to be used is to define the boundaries of the constitutional enactments, as shown in Figure 2, where the decisions B' ... L' lie on the fuzzy boundaries of the region of legitimacy A and sharpen those boundaries. This is accomplished by opinions that do not define a set of consistent propositions that extend beyond A. That is, every judge is careful to anticipate all the ways the words of his opinion might be misconstrued to support decisions beyond what is authorized by the constitutional enactments, and in particular, the Constitution.
There would appear to be only two ways out of our present predicament: Either the people must start electing different members of Congress, and demand that they strictly comply with the Constitution, or else the courts, especially the Supreme Court, need to start issuing sweeping opinions which overturn past precedents and strike down entire blocks of legislation.
However, the drift away from constitutional legitimacy represented by Figure 1 is not just the result of incompetence or confusion. There is a faction which has tended to dominate the federal government, especially during most of the 20th century, which has deliberately sought to extend precedents beyond the bounds of original constitutional understanding. It has done this by carefully selecting cases against weak or inadequately represented defendants, appealing only those cases they are sure they will win, and framing the arguments so that the judges often don't have a choice that is constitutional, but must choose between two unconstitutional positions. Ordinarily this is supposed to be guarded against by constitutionally protective parties filing amicus curiae briefs to argue a strict constructionist position, but such briefs are not always filed in important cases, or are often ignored by the court.
The Supreme Court, beginning with the decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and continuing in 2000 with several decisions like United States v. Morrison, Docket 99-5 and Jones v. United States, Docket 99-5739, which roll back the federal criminal legislation based on the Commerce Clause, is nevertheless still unwilling to issue sweeping opinions, but prefers to rely on narrowly constructed opinions that have the effect of introducing confusion and conflict into the system of precedents, perhaps in the hopes that lower courts will seize on them to create still more conflicts, which the Supreme Court will then only have to decide among, without drawing as much controversy to themselves as they would if they issued sweeping opinions.
By treating court opinions as though they are general law, and not just law for a particular case, we become accomplices in delegating legislative powers to judicial officials, which is forbidden by Art. I Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution and similar clauses of state constitutions, which delegate legislative powers exclusively to the legislative branch, and allow for no delegation of legislative power to other branches.
There is a fundamental logical problem with stare decisis as it is currently practiced, which is that it is a logically separate system of propositions that is independent of, and potentially inconsistent with, constitutional enactments. One who takes an oath to uphold the written constitution is bound to ignore precedents in conflict with it, and to rest decisions strictly on propositions that are logically derived from constitutional enactments, considering precedents only where they sharpen ambiguities in the language of the written enactments. To treat precedents as superior to constitutional enactments is to introduce contradictions into the law, and in any system of logical propositions, acceptance of a single contradiction accepts all contradictions, rendering every proposition logically undecidable. Contrary to the view of some judges, the law must be logical, or it is not law.
There are two variants on the doctrine of stare decisis. The problem we have discussed here is with the strong form, which treats precedents as binding. However, there is a weaker form, which treats precedents as merely persuasive. In this second variant, a dissenting opinion could be more persuasive than the prevailing opinion, if the person citing it agreed with it. In this variant, precedent becomes merely a convenient way to save time and words by citing the reasoning in another case, saying "My reasoning is similar to that", and nothing more. Historically, what came to be treated as binding started as persuasive. Returning to treatment of precedents as merely persuasive would solve the problem discussed here, but history shows us that judges are prone to drift back to treating them as binding unless some corrective mechanism is instituted to prevent it. Finding such a check would then be an essential component of any lasting reform.
Stare decisis is the way judges seek the safety of the herd. We need to demand they exhibit more courage, and return to fundamental principles, resorting to stare decisis only when the positions lie on the fuzzy boundary of the region of legitimacy.
Notes:
1. Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., New York: West Pub., 1910.
2. John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.
Home » Roland Commentaries Original URL: http://www.constitution.org/col/jrcolndx.htm | Text Version Maintained: Jon Roland of the Constitution Society Original date: 2000 June 10 — Updated: 2004 August 5
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
