| |
  
|
||||||||||
The jury has the right to judge both the LAW as well as the fact in controversy
Submitted by Jim Brown on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 14:25
Really! —John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
I am planning to run for a
I am planning to run for a circuit court judge seat next year (I know I can count on your financial support). This is what I have found to be true in the state of Missouri. I suspect it is the same in all fifty states?
I meet all of the requirements except for one. A license to practice law in the state. I went to the city of Springfield’s government site to obtain a business license and found that some “occupations” are licensed by the state. I went to the Secretary of State’s web site, and sure enough, all of the before mentioned occupations where listed, with one exception, a license to practice law. The State of Missouri has never once issued a lawful license to practice law. I plan a trip next week if I can get an appointment to see the Secretary of State to address the following questions. I don’t expect to get her to remove the un-constitutional requirement, but maybe she will give me a ‘waiver’ to give my County Clerk to allow me to run, just to get me out of her office? My questions where taken from www.sanityclause.com/Rule36.htm
THE CASE STATED:
1) There is no such thing as a self-issued license. Licensor and Licensee are always distinct, never one and the same person or body.
2) All Missouri judges are required to be licensed to practice law.
3) For an onus to lawfully repose in an office, such burden must be borne and executed by the officer in charge, Mo. Cons., Art. II, sec I.
4) The people most responsible, and presumably accountable, for the duties of the Missouri Supreme Court are the de facto judges who preside therein.
5) RSMo. Section 484.040 places the burden of issuing licenses to practice law upon Missouri’s Supreme Court.
THEREFORE: ALL of Missouri’s judiciary is colorable, and know it full well.
RAMIFICATIONS:
1) By receiving their salaries under the false pretense of illicit color of licenses, Missouri judges commit CLASS “C” Felony Stealing. Racketeers!
2) By knowingly holding office, and executing their duties of office, under the false pretense of illicit color of licenses, Missouri judges commit perjury of oath, Title 4 USC, sec 101, codified at Missouri Rule 8.15. Another Felony!
3) No “undecided law” in Missouri has proceeded de jure since Missouri’s judiciary began to self-license in 1945. Its all an open fraud.
4) Anyone aiding or abetting Missouri’s judiciary in this iniquity by action or inaction is equally guilty of conspiracy (con’s-piracy?) to racketeer, at the least. I assume this would include Law Enforcement Officers (LEO'S), attorneys, clerks, ect.
Do they require you to be a member of the......
British Accreditation Regency (BAR)?
bingo
bingo
Jurry
Jurry nullification!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
I can see some
I can see some misunderstanding ..What is the job of a Judge ?? Who instructs a Jury. Who ovesees JUSTICE is done..Who is supoposed cto see to it that law is followed .Who is SUPPOSED to know the law to apply it properly..Equally, TO SEE TO JUSTICE..The very job is their TITLE..PERIOD
you-no
That cannot be correct...
because in Amerika only the buerocrats can interpret anything.
Who is this John Jay fellow? Some mythical american legend? Maybe he's related to Johnny Appleseed, or Paul Bunyon.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority
A principle that should never die!
It's up to juries to keep themselves and there fellow citizens free of unjust and unwarranted government persecution.
The Los Angeles district attorneys would hate me if I was a juror on a case...lol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Liberty without learning is always in peril... and learning without liberty is always in vain”
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
=====================================
"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009
While you are exactly
While you are exactly right,with trial by jury, tried by you peers, MOST cases of importance involving legal issues do not involve a jury..The Supreme Court has lost it's teeth because they are afraid of their own shadow...Got to look behind you ...THEY ALL get a good check but their balance is off. When they discuss balance they think, left & right ,instead of Exec.,Legis &Judicial...They believe BRANCH is a term that does not include them..
you-no
hmmm
Importance is not the most important factor that gets a case appealed to the appellate courts, and then again to the supreme court.
it's timing, luck, politics, public opinion, judge, and a number of other things. "Importance" is way at the bottom. "Justice" is way at the bottom.
Hundreds of thousands of very important important cases go to juries every year. Millions of unimportant cases are heard every year.
Out of those hundreds of thousands of cases, many are appealed to the appellate courts. The appellate courts deny most of them.
But the appellate courts hear a few important cases. Some of these decisions are appealed. And in a tiny tiny fraction of those appellate case, the supreme court hears a few of them.
It's jury trials all the way up.
So cases heard by the supreme court are few, but even those were heard by a jury trial in some lower court.
And even if the Supreme Court rules for example in favor of the D.C. gun ban, the next person prosecuted in D.C. for having a gun, will still have a jury trial. AND THAT JURY can still nullify the law....again.
all it takes is the educated members of the body politic...
p.s. I'm not saying that jury nullification that is something that is common. I'm saying that it has the potential to be powerful. Obviously at this point, it's not a factor. It's been in decline for a long time in fact.
jury's today are not "fully
jury's today are not "fully informed" jury's.
All judges tell them that the judge will determine the law and all the jury can do is determine the case. All judges are criminals.