| Law under Common-Law is not law unless a
common/ordinary person can under stand it, that's the essence of
Common-Law. The due-process clause of the Constitution
mandates that regular people must be able to understand the law,
if they can't then it is not law! In other word's you do not
need a lawyer or a judge to understand the law. The
construct of Trial By Jury relies entirely on this principle
that We The People are completely able to understand the law.
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 he
also said that "either we all hang together, or we most
assuredly will all hang separately".
The CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Article 1
section 9 puts it in writing:
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.
What is astonishing is that you can sit in almost any court
room throughout the U.S. and hear judges, lawyers and DA's
vehemently warning they jury that they are not allowed to
consider the law! What should we do with these judges,
lawyers and DA's who are literally trampling on one of the most
fundamental principles of law within our nation?
Of course the judges, lawyers and DA's do not want you to
realize that we the people determine the matters at law, that
way they can dupe you into believing that the law says something
that it does not say and they can charge you exorbitant fees to
'understand the law'.
In England people were only allowed to speak in court through
their Barrister. A Barrister is a lawyer who the Court
decides they can allow to speak in court. Under that
system they could falsely charge you and get your Barrister to
simply not allow you to speak and off you go to jail. Our
Founding Fathers were careful enough to give us protections
against such abuse in the Constitution. However, these
protections are not worth anything if we don't use them. |
Quotations from cases emphasizing the fact and
law that law is not law unless ordinary people can understand
it: "Under due process clause, government regulation must be
sufficiently clear so that ordinary people can understand what
conduct is being prohibited and so that regulation does not
encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." U.S.C.A.
Const.Amends. 5, 14. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d
753.
"All due process requires of a statute is a definition of the
infraction and terms with which ordinary person exercising
ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply."
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. Franklet v. U.S., 578 F.Supp. 1552,
affirmed 761 F.2d 529..
"Statute which either forbids or requires doing of act in
terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates
first essential of due process of law." People v. Grubb, 408
P.2d 100, 47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 63 C.2d 614. - Cal. 1966.
"A statute which either forbids or requires doing of an act
in terms so vague that men and women of common intelligence,
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, violates due process of law; U.S.A.C. Const.Amend.
14. Franklin v Leland Stanford Jr. University, 218 Cal.Rptr.
288, 172 C.A.3d 322
"Notion of due process requires the prohibition be clearly
defined in order to provide adequate notice or warning of the
conduct which is prohibited and to avoid arbitrary and
discriminatory application of the standard; furthermore, where
First Amendment rights are at issue, an even greater degree of
specificity is demanded because the vague standard may chill the
exercise of those rights." U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 14.
Franklin v Leland Stanford Jr. University, 218 Cal.Rptr. 288,
172 C.A.3d 322, review denied.
"Statute or ordinance violates fundamental due process if it
requires or prohibits the doing of an act with such vagueness
that a person of common intelligence must guess at its meaning;
it must be sufficiently definite to provide a standard of
conduct or notice and a standard of asserting guilt."
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1; West's Ann.Const.Art.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an
act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application is in violation of fist essential of due process of
law." U.S.C.A.Const.Ammends. 5, 14. Manning v. Municipal Court,
Alameda County, Oakland-Piedmong Judicial Dist., 183 Cal.Rptr.
458, 132 C.A.3d 825.
"A statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an
act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application violates the first essential of due process of law."
U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14. People v Weaver, 197 Cal.Rptr.
521, 147 C.A.3d Supp. 23. |
