TheEarthPLan.com

The Earth Plan:

LFL Founder Out Of Hiding With Extrodinary Solution to fix
Government
Peopleisim.org :

Peopleisim

The Construct of Live & Origin of Everything - Soulisim:

Soulisim

ADVERISE HERE:

 

Trial By Jury

The right to Trial By Jury is explicit and guaranteed for every criminal charge and any civil matter in excess of $20.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth [Amendment VII]

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

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. A judge who excludes evidence from a Trial By Jury breaks the law and commits treason.  By excluding evidence a judge puts themselves in a position to fix the outcome of a trial.

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 and only then, a judge is allowed to judge the case.

Courts of Equity

You cannot be forced into a Court of Equity where there is a legal remedy.  See Federal Judiciary Act (1789 ) SEC. 16. "And be it further enacted, That suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain, adequate and complete remedy may be had at law."  This means that anyone who has been told that they are not entitled to a Trial By Jury in Family Court has been lied to.  They may go back to court and reverse any and all decisions corrupt judges forced on them through divorce cases.  This is extraordinarily significant and yet another example of how utterly corrupt and criminal in form and nature courts and the judiciary has been over the last 50 years in the U.S.

 

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?

 

Liberty For Life
C