Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Schiff Trial Alternate Juror. (Update 3)

46 Old Comments:

Even if Schiff is found not guilty, nothing will change.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 2:28 PM  

Like Irwin said, more people will know the truth. Now snap out of it!

By Blogger LAWoman, at 10/19/2005 2:45 PM  

Kent J Dawson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 2:50 PM  

May the Highest Authority hold you accountable Judge Kent J. Dawson!

Woe unto you Judge Kent J. Dawson!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 2:54 PM  

Another Kent J Dawson

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 2:54 PM  

Nothing will change??

All Bush's panel is referring to is that taxpayers would pay roughly the same amount of tax under the simplified system as they do now, panel members said. But most of the confusing tax paperwork would be gone, and complex tax equations that baffle taxpayers would be simplified. That' it.

Irwin's Trial could REALLY cause a disruption for the IRS for sure!

By Blogger Starfish Prime, at 10/19/2005 3:04 PM  

When I heard Mike say, "even if the jury finds them not guilty, judge Dawson has the power to set that aside and find them guilty" it reminded me of a page from my novel about Irwin Schiff entitled “The Constitutionalist”

"If, we the people, do not stop the government’s misuse of the tax code then the next time congress decides to take our money they’ll just pass a law declaring all crimes are punishable by the forfeiture of all the assets of the accused. Then they’ll tack a law to the back end of a thousand-page bill that nobody reads, declaring everything is against the law.
Now imagine this scene. Congress decides to spend a few thousand having topless dancers entertain the overworked members of the Senate, but they need twenty thousand dollars. No problem. They send two Federal Marshals to a country club. The Marshals stand on the first green and one of them says to the other, "Hey Dan, did you see that guys putt? It missed the hole by a foot?" Dan answers, "Yeah, I did Huey. He misread it," Huey says, "It’s hard to believe a nice looking guy like that has so little respect for the law. Book him Dan-O," ‘"For what?" Dan-O asks. Huey solemnly answers, "Being a bad putter is against the law and be sure and get that set of clubs. Maybe they will improve my game. I’ll take his car, confiscate his house and clean his bank account out. After a quick glace Huey exclaims, Oh no! Did you see that! That golfer over there is looking at us. Doesn’t he know that is against the law? This place is infested with criminals. Call the paddy wagon and round them all up.""

For other other blogs from The Constitutionalist just left click on the blue The Constitutionalit at the beging of this blog. Or go to;

By Blogger We the Constitutionalists, at 10/19/2005 3:10 PM  

The President's Tax Reform Panel did not make any significant reform. You still have the IRS. We started out with a "Flat Tax" Look at what we have today. Unless you kill the beast, the 16th amendment and the IRS you will never be free. Everything you own belongs to the government first. They might let you have some or they can take all you have.
What galls me the most is when my friends go around bragging about the 250.00 REFUND they got back. I tell them "BIG DEAL" Look how much you gave them. They say in every case "But at least I didn't have to send them SOME MORE.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 3:18 PM  

Judge Dawson & Henry Lucas bear a striking family resemblance, wouldn't you say?

I think it's around the eyes.

# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/19/2005 3:42 PM  

Whose idea was it to select a pregnant juror? There should have been many qualified candidates to select from. I hope someone will explain this to the millions of interested Americans.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 3:42 PM  




By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 4:00 PM  

It won't help if they abolshi the 16th amendment because the Federal Courts in the U.S. have made their own case law to continue the progressive income tax system without the 16th amendment. What is needed is that the 16th amendment, IRS and Federal Court rulings are abolished-overturned.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 4:12 PM  

Relax, IWIN IS NOPT GUILTY, and I'm glad the pregnant woman was on the panel, at least her unborn child will know the truth through hearing Irwin speak truth to power when he took the stand. At least this baby won't be tarnished by all the lies. YES the unborn can hear and understand. It's vibrational.

By Anonymous Yo Baby, at 10/19/2005 4:18 PM  

Seems Judge Dawson has been rated already for his behaviour and attitude in the courtroom.

From this page, Dawson receives a D- for: Shows bias with arrogance, grants one side preferences not given to the other.

# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/19/2005 4:53 PM  

Dear anon. 5pm. Don't ever be pursuaded to not look at the status issue. Beware of those that hate and will say it is not true. They know it's true but the facts, when known, will destroy their beliefs and that scares them to death!

Ask yourself one question -

How can the we be using foreign...wait...stop right there...let's forget that it is indeed foreign....Ask yourself instead, How can we be using money that violates all aspects and definitions of money within the body of the Consitution? Nothing in the body was changed or repealed and that's a fact. So how can it be?

Answer that, and you have your answer.

Remember this - It's all about commerce.


By Anonymous cj, at 10/19/2005 5:01 PM  

The Highest Authority could be saying to Judge Kent J. Dawson real soon!
Daniel 5:25-27
25And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

26This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

27TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

Signed, Can't Wait!!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 5:08 PM  

The following is the final paragraph of Congressman Ron Paul's article. My comments are interspersed in bold:

True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. [A lower tax rate or a simpler tax procedure does not address the problem that taxation is theft at the point of a gun.] When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Government spending is the problem! [Wrong. Government spending is a result of an unrestrained government that believes it can use your checkbook as its own.] When the federal government takes $2.5 trillion dollars out of the legitimate private economy in a single year, whether through taxes or borrowing, spending clearly is out of control. [Wrong again. Theft is out of control.] Deficit spending creates a de facto tax hike, because deficits can be repaid only by future tax increases. [Wrong again. Deficits can also be repaid by printing money, which is a theft of savings, by voluntary contributions, by sale of assets, and by return on investment.] By this measure Congress and the president have raised taxes dramatically over the past few years, despite the tax-cutting rhetoric. The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. [Wrong again. The real issues are that government is not constrained by the Constitution, and your property rights are not acknowledged, honored, and jealously guarded by government. The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of individuals. This trial demontrates--yet again--just how far we have allowed government to drift from its sole purpose.]

By Blogger Mark Yannone, at 10/19/2005 5:26 PM  

I have considered the Flat tax and the FairTax and from my perspective the FairTax is a better plan for all of us. You pay taxes when you decide to spend your money. If you decide to save, you don't.....It is also better for our Economy and Jobs as every company in the world would want to do business from the US. Don't believe the lies from the President's panel either. They have done just as expected, nothing to cause true tax reform.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 5:35 PM  

"[T]he State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in
the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal.
The idea that the State originated to serve any kind
of social purpose is completely unhistorical.
It originated in conquest and confiscation -- that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class -- that is, for a criminal purpose.
No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation.
All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards
increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances
make expedient."
-- Albert Jay Nock - (1870-1945)
Source: The Criminality of the State, America Mercury Magazine, March, 1939

Nothing new under the sun!

By Anonymous cj, at 10/19/2005 5:43 PM  

Before being annointed, er, nominated to his District Judgeship by ex Prez Bill Clinton (aka Bush, Sr.'s narcotics trafficking lieutenant), Judge Kent J. Dawson was previously a State President of the LDS "Church" (Mormons), an organization with roots in Freemasonry and Satanic worship.

Dawson's Nomination

LDS, Mormons, Rituals & Murder

# # #

By Anonymous notepad, at 10/19/2005 5:51 PM  

FICTION OF LAW - An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists which has never really taken place.
A rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved, something which is false, but not impossible. Ryan v. Motor Credit Co., 30 N.J. Eq. 531, 23 A.2d 607, 621 Blacks Law Fifth page 562

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 5:52 PM  

FRAUD- An intentional perversion of Truth, for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right, a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
Brainerd dispatch Newspaper Co. v. Crow Wing County 196 Minn. 194, 264 N.W. 779, 780.

A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Johnson v. McDonald 170 Okl. 117, 39 P. 2d. 150.

Because everyone is deemed to know the law, inaccurate representations regarding legal matters are not generally actionable. Of course, were one to make a representation regarding a matter of law that the misrepresenter himself knew to be inaccurate, a “FRAUD” action would lie. White v. Mulvanra 575 SW2d 184 Mo.1978

FRAUD vitiates even the most solemn promise to pay. U.S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 65

So NOW we Know For Sure that Irwin did NOT commit fraud upon anyone.

Was it disclosed to you prior to the 1975 privacy act that applying for and obtaining a SS card altered your status? Could that be fraud based on the above? When Donald Duck was used to talk your parents or grandparents into getting the card without disclosing the exact nature of the ACT, could that be fraud.

Did the IRS ever represent to you any legal fact, knowing that it was not fact?

Do you really have to pay?

By Anonymous cj, at 10/19/2005 6:14 PM  

In regard to Ron Paul's letter, the solution is to force the government to follow the Constitution. The framer's were very wise. They set up two forms of taxation: indirect and direct. Indirect (excise, impost, duty) had to be uniform throughout the states (equally applied) and not laid directly upon the Citizen or his property. That is, the Citizen has a choice to pay the tax by choosing to consume the taxed article or accept the privileged occupation. Direct taxes had to be apportioned by the same mechanism as the house of representatives. This second class of taxes was not favored by the politicians because its too honest for them. A direct tax means that in conjunction with a fiscal year the federal government would assess its shortfall in revenue from the indirect taxes and send a tax bill to each of the states, apportioned by their population. The state government could raise the money to pay the bill by raising their taxes or assessing a direct tax upon each person. Most people would be shocked at the size of that bill each year. That was the intended effect. If spending got out of control, the people would elect new representatives.

Okay, let's talk specifics. Suppose we had a Constitutional government this year. Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast and cost the country $200 Billion dollars (roughly). Being an unexpected (and therefore unbudgeted) expense, a Constitutional government would pass a direct tax bill and apportion it to the states. Assuming there are 200 million taxable American Citizens (just to make the math easy), that would amount to a $1,000 tax bill for Katrina and Rita. In this way, people get to experience the spending of the government DIRECTLY. That's the whole point.

With the current deficit spending situation, the government just creates money out of nothing and promises to the bankers that some future generation will mortgage their lives and industry to repay that debt. That's been going on for nearly 100 years now and we're 8 trillion in debt.

As CJ has said, its the commerce, not the tax although the two are inextricably wound together.

So, Americans, when are you going to wake up and take your country back?

How about a 100 million man march across America ending up in DC? I for one would walk the 3,000 miles from Seattle for my country.

By Anonymous interested party, at 10/19/2005 6:51 PM  

Either the Constitution is WRONG or the Social Security Act is WRONG!

Did we become Citizens of the United States only when and IF we accept the SSN? I thought we were citizens before, but I guess that was the United States of America, but that still does not allow a State born citizen to become President!

If so then every president violated the U.S. Constitution!


We will fall into tyranny if this leaks out!!!

Article II. - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

When did I become a naturalized ‘Citizen of the United States’? Well, I guess it was when I received a Social Security Card, and NOT before. So how could I be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ when I was born, when others that were born here and did NOT accept a Social Security Card are NOT ‘United States’ citizens, and possibly born in the same hospital.

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383).
Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia. I repeat: exclusive legislation in all cases. DC residents and Fourteenth Amendment citizens are subject to the servants of the servants of the state citizens. They are not state citizens. These servants and sub-servants cannot grant rights. "Rights" do not come from servants. You cannot be granted rights you already have.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/19/2005 6:58 PM  

Here here non-liable, tell it like it is -

Have you read the case Van Valkenburg v. Brown 1872?

Ellen R. Van Valkenburg v. Alford Brown No. 3000 091

Now there is a bit of actual and true history as well.

Thanks my friend, CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/19/2005 7:36 PM  

Here is a challenge for everyone, find the legal definition of U.S. CITIZEN. You claim to be one, all of you (well you includes me before I knew) you check boxes making the claim under penalty of perjury sometimes that you are a U.S.CITIZEN, now it is hard to go back and say you are not! Gottcha
You've been had!

By Anonymous cj, at 10/19/2005 7:39 PM  

We know from Bill Benson that the 16th Amendment was unlawfully ratified.

Where is the Amendment for the Federal Reserve Act to PRINT currency?
Well, I guess even U.S. Treasury notes were unlawful!

Where is the Amendment for the President to LEND money to foreign countries?
Well, I guess he is lending only Federal Reserve Notes which are OK!

Where is the Amendment for the United States to seize the 50 States as their own possessions?
Well, I guess it is how you word the laws that does it!

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/19/2005 7:44 PM

What is the definition of Citizenship

Courtesy of Grolier's New Book of Knowledge

Zoe Hurwitz, 3, of Chica, held by her mother Gretta Hurwitz, smiles Thursday, July 4, 2002, as she is sworn in as a U.S. citizen. The naturalization ceremony was held at Monticello, the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Seventy others were sworn in as well. (Photo: Andrew Shurtleff, The Daily Progress/ AP Wide World)

A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey their country's laws and defend it against its enemies.

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/19/2005 7:52 PM  

Or this one:

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/19/2005 7:55 PM  

or this one:

By Anonymous Reasonable Guy, at 10/19/2005 7:57 PM  

You just showed your statist colors, Mr. reasonable guy:

A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is gained by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government.

So far, so good ...

A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens.

Gack! What? Just what "rights" did the the federal government grant? Rights are rights. They existed before the United States existed. They are inalienable, God-given and self-evident. The first 8 amendments in the Bill of Rights spells out some of the pre-existent rights that are secured (not granted) to the citizens. At the time of writing the constitution, there was debate about whether the Bill of Rights was even needed because those rights were so "obvious" to the framers. The 9th amendment secured (not granted) all other natural/common rights to the Citizens not mentioned in the previous 8 amendments.

One of those 9th amendment rights is that a man engaged in an occupation of common right (most of us) is entitled to his fair pay .. all of it.

Only when American's wake up to the fact that they HAVE rights will this sham running DC crumble.

Are you awake yet, "resonable guy"? Or do you prefer to remain in your statist delusion?

By Anonymous interested party, at 10/19/2005 8:16 PM  

In addition to his loyal follower Steven Swan, who sued Irwin after he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years in prison, Schiff clients who have been criminally prosecuted aren't hard to find...

United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001)

United States v. Dentice, No. 99-50101 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 1999)

United States v. Payne, 978 F.2d 1177 (10th Cir. 1992)

United States v. Burdett, 962 F.2d 228 (2d Cri. 1992)

United States v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157 (6th Cir. 1984)

United States v. Crosson, No. 95-176 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 1995)

United States v. Anderson, 637 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Conn. 1986)

A new one for you: United States v. David G. Pflum, 2005 TNT 196-13, No. 04-3508 (10th Cir. 10/7/2005), aff'ng No. 04-CR-40008-SAC (U.S.D.C. Kan.). The opinion is about instructions on "willfulness" and objections to certain testimony on tax rates, not too interesting. The opinion begins:

10th Cir. wrote:
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped that "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes." Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789), in 10 The Writings of Benjamin Franklin 69 (A. Smyth ed. 1907). While not contesting the inevitability of the former (as far as we know), David G. Pflum believed he had found a loophole to escape the latter. After an extensive study that included reading books such as "The Great Income Tax Hoax" and "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes," he stopped paying taxes.1

[Footnote]1 We note that the author of these books, Irwin Schiff, has maintained for more than 30 years that income taxes are voluntary, but, not surprisingly, "he has never been successful with that theory in court." United States v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing cases in which Schiff's arguments have been rejected); Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985) (referring to the "blatant nonsense" promoted by Schiff).

The 10th Circuit affirmed Pflum's conviction on eight counts of failure to pay quarterly employment taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202, and three counts of failure to file a federal income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, as well as his sentence of 30 months in prison.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 8:22 PM  

Those wanting to know the TRUTH about Irwin Schiff and be FULLY INFORMED should check out the 90+ page palimony complaint filed by Cindy Neun that dispels the false image of Irwin as a kindly grandfather.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 8:23 PM  

From Schiff v. Newman, at

"Schiff's claim that there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that requires an individual to file a federal income tax return demands comment. The kindest thing that can be said about Schiff's promotion of this idea is that he is grossly mistaken or a mere pretender to knowledge in income taxation. We have nothing but praise for Mr. Newman's efforts which have helped bring this to light."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 8:26 PM  

reasonable guy, just to be fair, when I wrote my last post, I didn't realize you were quoting Grolier's. So perhaps Grolier's is the statist and you're just a parrot.

Either way, I find this attitude of "government gives me everything, including my rights" that so many under-educated Americans hold to be completely insane and definitely repugnant to the constitution. Such deprecation of one's worth is a mark of the seriously depressed, the down trodden (read over-taxed), and the slave.

By Anonymous interested party, at 10/19/2005 8:28 PM  

What happened to the audio recording of last night's show. It was here this morning, came home and wanted to listen, now it is gone. Has the government again infringed on the First Amendment?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 8:29 PM  

You are ALL missing the point, even though you have read over and over and heard it on the audioblogs; THE COURTS ARE CORRUPT!!!

Do you know exactly what was presented in the other cases?

Do you know if they were able to present the evidence that Schiff was denied to present?

Did they have the proper preparation for their trial?

Well, if Cindy and Larry are convicted should they sue Schiff because he FAILED in presenting the TRUTH?

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/19/2005 8:42 PM  

"Schiff clients who have been criminally prosecuted aren't hard to find..."

I don't think anyone who has asked the Gov't other than "how much do I owe thee" and who has been criminally prosecuted is hard to find. They make it part of their marketing campaign to post these things, don't they?

There just are no arguments as we come to the logical conclusion that Federal Taxation is one of the biggest cons-scams in the history of humanity.

Of course everything-short of signing their phony confession under penalty of perjury that you owe and sending them your hard earned cash-has been, is and will be considered "frivolous" by the courts.

Isn't that Eileens O'Connor's tune..."the courts have repeatedely found these arguments irrevelant, consistent with our system of justice..."

I leave you all with something to think about:

One of my early t memories I heard Castro say in a speech..."if one American falls into the hole, they all fall into the hole..."

He was right, Americans, most anyway, are dupes..

Please wake up and stop getting reamed...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 8:52 PM  

How many of you have filed a LEGITMATE return and the government gave you a refund back of which was more than you expected? I have!


Well the government is NOT in the business to put people in prison UNLESS you do not pay taxes.

When I asked the Franchise Tax Board rep., in person, on whether my return was truthful, she said, ‘We are here to help you fill it out correctly and we will not file charges against you for committing perjury!’ WE ARE HERE TO COLLECT MONEY FROM YOU!!!

Perjury does not come about till you do NOT pay taxes like Schiff and his followers.

By Anonymous non-liable, at 10/19/2005 9:11 PM  

Maybe the Jury took it upon themselves to do some heavy research and find the law....we will be here for weeks until a verdict, if any, comes around from all this....

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 9:16 PM  

Changing over from the income tax to a national sales tax would be like giving a thief a key to your front door and telling him to stop coming through your window!
The taxes we pay are far sufficient enough to run the government. Its the federal reserve that takes up income taxes.
They are a privately owned for-profit business not a government agency. and the only "service" they provide is unconstitutional notes used as money to which they regulate the value for their own financial gain.
By the way, The federal reserve created the IRS. How does a private business create a government agency???

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 10:19 PM  

If the jury is reading The Federal Mafia, Irwin WILL win this case.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/19/2005 10:27 PM  

ahhh... an imposter write among us. Nothing better to do than to petend to be someone else while trashing another. sick is as sick does. GD

By Anonymous gd, at 10/19/2005 11:08 PM  

To all, I had 3 kids paper every car in the Norwalk parking structure which is 7 stories tall. It was done meticulously and completed in less than 10 minutes. Total of over 1000 pamphlets.


Every jury in the country has the right to bring in a verdict based on, not whether the defendant's act or omission was merely contrary to a dictionary interpretation of the words or phrases used in some man-made statute recited to it by the trial "judge", but whether or not the defendant's act or omission was truly blameworthy according to the jury's (and representatively, the community's) natural sense of morality and justice. It is a well- established principle in criminal jurisprudence that an act or omission does not make a man guilty unless he does so by intention.
The right of the jury to disregard either the law (as laid down by the trial "judge") or the facts (as permitted by the same trial "judge" to be placed into evidence) is referred to in legal terminology as the jury's prerogative of nullification (jury lawlessness) which means in ordinary language that where the jurors cannot in conscience impose blame, they cannot in conscience allow punishment.
The prerogative of nullification (jury lawlessness) is not only legitimate, but a praiseworthy right of the jury as well. Prerogative nullification is a mechanism that permits the jury as spokesman for the community's conscience to disregard the strict requirements of man-made law, as well as the "judge's" instructions to the jury where it finds those requirements cannot justly be applied in a particular case. Today in the courts this unassailable doctrine is concealed from the jury and is effectively condemned by the "judge" in the presence of the jury.

JURY POWER in the system of checks and balances:
In a Constitutional system of justice, such as ours, there is a judicial body with more power than Congress, the President, or even the Supreme Court. Yes, the trial jury protected under our Constitution has more power than all these government officials. This is because it has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".
That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safeguard against unjust law and tyranny.

A Jury's Rights, Powers, and Duties:
But does the jury's power to veto bad laws exist under our Constitution?
It certainly does! At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) " have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".
So you see, in an American courtroom there are in a sense twelve judges in attendance, not just one. And they are there with the power to review the "law" as well as the "facts"! Actually, the "judge" is there to conduct the proceedings in an orderly fashion and maintain the safety of all parties involved.

Go to the internet and check for yourselves, there are many, just type juries into a search engine on a computer.

By Anonymous Tim, at 10/19/2005 11:51 PM  

NOTE THAT Reasonable Guy DID NOT ANSWER the Question with regard to U.S.CITIZEN!!!!!!

He failed to READ the question, which was: find the legal definition of U.S. CITIZEN.

He responded OFF POINT with:
What is the definition of Citizenship and continued on with more menutia that had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with the original question.

When will exact and correctness overtake b.s.? CJ

By Anonymous cj, at 10/20/2005 1:47 PM  

HERE IS A REASONABLE ANSWER, I know there are many that didn't want to learn it!

24 August 1994

Original: ENGLISH

Initial reports of States parties due in 1993 : United States of America. 24/08/94.
CCPR/C/81/Add.4. (State Party Report)

Convention Abbreviation: CCPR


Initial reports of States parties due in 1993


Article 1 - Self-determination

9. The basic principle of self-determination is at the core of American political life, as the nation was born in a struggle against the colonial regime of the British during the eighteenth century. The right to self-determination, set forth in article 1 of the Covenant, is reflected in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which obliges the federal government to guar-an-tee to every State a "Republican Form of Government".

Hence, the people of the United States are free in law and in practice to determine their "political status"

The Insular Areas

12. The United States includes a number of Insular Areas, each of which is unique and constitutes an integral part of the U.S. political family. Persons born in these areas are U.S. citizens

Now you know what a U.S. Citizen is and where they come from.

Are you a U.S. Citizen? YES if you have made that claim you self determined your political status and elected, voluntarily so, to be treated as such!

How's the treatment? CJ

Above the stars is from the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

10/20/2005 1:18 AM

cj said...
- The Term U.S.citizen also known as a United States Citizen does not appear in the Constitution of any one of the 50 States of the American Union.

-The Term U.S.citizen also known as a United States Citizen does not appear in the Constitution for the United States of America.

-The Term U.S.citizen also known as a United States Citizen does not appear in Constitution of the United States of America.


1. Who is the individual that is a U.S.citizen also known as United States Citizen at birth?

2. Who alone determines the political status and civil rights of these U.S.Citizens also known as United States Citizens?


NATIONAL/STATE CITIZENSHIP IS SUPERIOR TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP/STATE RESIDENT STATUS; and Title 8 USC sec, 1101(a)(22) (original text), “All Americans are nationals of the United States, with the United States citizen-subject class being a minor category within the universal category “national of the United States.”; and “Citizenship of the United States does not entitle a citizen to privileges and immunities of Citizens of state, since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other.” – Tashiro vs Jordan, 256 P 545; and “Both before and after the 14th Amendment … it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the [federal] United States in order to be a Citizen of his [Union] state, [and] Under our complex system of government, there may be a Citizen of a [Union] state, who is not a citizen of the [federal] United States in the full sense of the term…” – Cross vs. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431

1. see previous post
2. congress


By Anonymous CJ, at 10/20/2005 1:50 PM