Additional Directives

SECTION I
A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS
".. That This Nation. Under God Shall Have A New Birth Of Freedom...!  Abraham Lincoln


The purpose of this booklet is to revive. a, Jefferson put it, 'The Ancient Principles," It is not designed to promote lawlessness or to 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 it, 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 a 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 (that's you) 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 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 and Tribune in 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 a 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.


YOU ARE ABOVE THE 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 and Tribune in a news paper 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,' jurors 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 the judges a needed lesson in civics."


This booklet is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation's founders provided to insure that you, (not the growing tyranny of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats) rule this nation. It will focus on the true power you possess as a JUROR, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also the validity or applicability of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a JUROR.One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUlLTY VOTE!" He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"


I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do! Everett Hale


The only power the judge has over the JURY is their, ignorance! "WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics. The truth of this question has been answered by many testimonies and historical events.


Consider the following:


JURY RIGHTS
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789


"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice. 1796, Signer of The unanimous Declaration "

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902.


"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941.


"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge . . ." U.S. vs. Dougheny, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)


LAW OF THE LAND
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:


"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491."An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442


The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16 Am Jur 2d, See 177 late 2d, See 256


A SUMMARY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The TEN COMMANDMENTS represent GOD'S GOVERNMENT OVER MAN! GOD commands us for our own good to give up wrongs and not rights! HIS system always results in LIBERTY and FREEDOM! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are built on this foundation, which provides for punitive justice. It is not until one damages another's person or property that he can be punished. The Marxist system leads to bondage and GOD'S system leads to LIBERTY! Read very carefully:

1. 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and mother.
6. Thou shalt not murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness.
10. Thou shalt not covet


Directly above the Chief Justice's chair is a tablet signifying the TEN COMMANDMENTS. When the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress looks up, his eyes look into the face of Moses. "The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests." Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States


"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men
suffer from vice. crime. ambition. injustice. oppression. slavery. and war. proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Noah WebsterA SUMMARY OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the
citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept.
Read carefully:


1. Abolition of private property.
6. Government control of
Communications & Transportation.
2. Heavy progressive income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of property of all
emigrants and rebels.
7. Government ownership of factories
and agriculture.
8. Government control of labor.
9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
5. Central bank.
10. Government control of education.


GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR THE ''COMMON GOOD"?
Where the people fear the government you have tyranny where the government fears the people, you have liberty.

Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some of our RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws -- --- even if we have to give up some RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our leaders think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a ''FREE CHOICE"!

This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce the perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent a crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Pitt of the British
House of Commons once proclaimed, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves,

INALIENABLE, [UNALIENABLE] OR NATURAL RIGHTS! NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as LIFE (from conception). LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS e.g. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes which violate NATURAL RIGHTS. though they have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators." Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.


In a jury trial the' real judges are the JURORS! Surprisingly, judges are actually just referees bound by the Constitution! *Lysander Spooner wrote as follows: "Government is established for the protection of the weak against the strong. This is the principal, if not the sole motive for the establishment of all legitimate government. It is only the weaker party that loses their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger party, in all governments are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves. Legislation is the work of this stronger party; and if, in addition to the sole power of legislation, they have the sole power of determining what legislation shall be enforced. they have all power in their hands, and the weaker party are the subjects of an absolute government. Unless the weaker party have a veto, they have no power whatever in the government and ... no liberties ... The trial by jury is the only institution that gives the weaker party any veto upon the power of the stronger. Consequently it is the only institution that gives them any effective voice in the government, or any guaranty against oppression." Essay on the Trial by Jury


JURY TAMPERING?
A JURY'S Rights, Powers and Duties: The Charge to the JURY in the First JURY Trial before the supreme Court of the U.S. illustrates the TRUE POWER OF THE JURY. In the February term of 1794, the supreme* Court conducted a JURY trial and said “... it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision."

"You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. I"

The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by trial judge ...” (emphasis added)
U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)


Hence, JURY disregard of the limited and generally conviction-oriented evidence presented for its consideration, and JURY disregard for what the trial judge wants
them to believe is the controlling law in any particular case (sometimes referred to as "JURY lawlessness")" is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather
encouraged. Witness the following quotation from the eminent legal authority above-mentioned: "Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual
administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and deter- mined minority, find the same
obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers." (emphasis added) U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)


"Supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, however Behavior is. Art. III.

*Jury lawlessness means willingness to nullify bad law.

The Right of the JURY to be Told of Its Power Almost every JURY in the land is falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court, and that the JURY can decide only the facts of the case. This is to destroy the purpose of a Common Law JURY, and to permit the imposition of tyranny upon a people.


"There is nothing 'more terrifying than ignorance in action.” Goethe - engraved on a plaque at the Naval War College


“To embarrass justice by multiplicity of law, or to hazard it by confidence in judges,
are the opposite rocks on which all civil institutions have been wrecked.” Johnson- engraved in Minnesota State Capitol Outside the Supreme Court Chambers

“...the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.” II Corinthians 3:6


"It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Thomas Jefferson

The JURY'S options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal
system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the 'judge.' There is the informal communication from the total culture -- literature;
current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972)


LAWS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE!
Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable; JURIES cannot be a protection to the accused. If people acting in the name of government
are permitted by JURORS to dictate any law whatever, they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and thereby prevent the
WHOLE TRUTH from being considered. Thus if government can manipulate and control both the law and evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually irrelevant. In
reality, true JUSTICE would be denied leaving us with a trial by government and not a trial by JURY!


HOW DOES TYRANNY BEGIN?
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY LAWS?
Heroes are men of glory who are so honored because of some heroic deed. People often out of gratitude yield allegiance to them. Honor and allegiance are nice words for power! Power and allegiance can only be held rightfully by trust as a result of continued character.


When people acting in the name of government violate ethics, they break trust with "WE THE PEOPLE." The natural result is for "WE THE PEOPLE" to pull back
power (honor and allegiance). The loss of power creates fear for those losing the power. Fearing the loss of power, people acting in the name of government often seek to regain or at least hold their power. Hence, to legitimatize their quest for control, laws and force are often instituted. Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. It is the JUROR'S duty to use the JURY ROOM as a vehicle to stem the tide of oppression and tyranny: To prevent bloodshed by peacefully removing power from those who have abused it. The JURY is the primary vehicle for the peaceable restoration of LIBERTY, POWER AND HONOR TO "WE THE PEOPLE!"


YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
Your vote of NOT GUILTY must be respected by all other members of the JURY - it is the RIGHT and the DUTY of a JUROR to Never, Never, Never yield his or her
sacred vote - for you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as an officer of the court and a qualified judge in your own right. Regardless of thepressures or abuse that may be heaped on you by any other members of the JURY with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your own conscience and convictions - and not those of someone else.


YOU ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP!
By what logic do we send our youth to battle tyranny on foreign soil, while we refuse to do so in our courts? Did you know that many of the planks of the "Communist Manifesto" are now represented by law in the U.S.? How is it possible for Americans to denounce communism and practice it simultaneously.

The JURY judges the Spirit, Motive and Intent of both the law and the Accused, whereas the prosecutor only represents the letter of the law. Therein lies the opportunity for the accomplishment of "LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL." If you and numerous other JURORS throughout the State and Nation begin and continue to bring in verdicts of NOT GUILTY in such cases where a man-made statute is defective or oppressive, these statutes will become as ineffective as if they had never been written.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels
or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” Samuel Adams


SECTION II
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
PATRICK HENRY SHOCKED!
Young Christian attorney Patrick Henry saw why a JURY of PEERS is so vital to FREEDOM! It was March 1775 when he rode into the small town of Culpeper, Va. He was totally shocked by what he saw! There, in the middle of the town square was a minister tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged mercilessly like JESUS, with whips laced with metal.


Patrick Henry is quoted as saying: "When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to
deserve such a beating as this."

SCOURGED FOR NOT TAKING A LICENSE!


The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license. He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they
refused to take a license. A license often becomes an arbitrary control by government that makes a crime out of what ordinarily would not be a crime. IT TURNS A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE! Three days later they scourged him to death.


This was the incident which sparked Christian attorney Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later became the rallying cry of the Revolution. "What is that
Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" Later he made this part of his famous speech at St. John's Episcopal
Church in Richmond, VA.


JURY OF PEERS


Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it is obvious that a JURY of "PEERS" must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be
able to judge motive and intent?


"PEERS" of the defendant, like the rights of the JURY have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of "equals in station and rank," (Black's 1910), "free- holders of a neighborhood," (Bouvier's 1886), or "A companion; a fellow; an associate. (Webster's 1828).


WHO HAS A RIGHT TO SIT ON A JURY?
Patrick Henry, along with others, was deeply concerned as to who has a right to sit on a JURY. Listen to our forefather's wisdom on the subject of "PEERS."

MR. HENRY
"By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well
acquainted with his character and situation in life." Patrick Henry, (Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579).


Patrick Henry also knew that originally the JURY of PEERS was designed as a protection for Neighbors from outside governmental oppression. Henry states the
following, "Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off ... This gives me comfort - that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me." (Elliot, 3:545, 546).

MR. HOLMES
Mr. Holmes, from Massachusetts, argued strenuously that for JUSTICE to prevail, the case must be heard in the vicinity where the fact was committed by a JURY of
PEERS. “... a jury of the peers would, from their local situation, have an opportunity to form a judgment of the CHARACTER of the person charged with the crime, and also to judge the CREDABILITY of the witnesses.” (Elliot 2:110)


"The people are the
masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to over- throw the men who pervert it!" Abraham Lincoln


MR. WILSON
Mr. Wilson, signer of "The unanimous Declaration," who also later became a supreme Court Justice, stressed the importance of the JURORS knowing personally
both the defendant and the witnesses. "Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses - where the whole cause can be brought
within their knowledge and their view - I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear everything that is alleged; they not only hear the
words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner
of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may in- deed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot
be systematical. “(Elliot, 2:516).


FREEDOM FOR WILLIAM PENN
''Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn


Edward Bushell and three fellow JURORS learned this lesson well. They refused to bow to the court. They believed in the absolute power of the JURY, though their
eight companions cowered to the court. The four JURORS spent nine weeks of torture in prison, often without food or water, soaked with urine, smeared with feces, barely able to stand, and even threatened with fines, yet they would not give in to the judge. Edward Bushell said, "My liberty is not for sale," though he had great wealth and commanded an international shipping enterprise. These "bumble heads", so the court thought, proved the power of the people was stronger than any power of government. They emerged total victors.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT
The year was 1670, and the case Bushell sat on was that of William Penn, who was on trial for violation of the "Conventicle Act." This was an elaborate Act which made the Church of England the only legal church. The Act was struck down by their not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was established and became part of the English Bill of Rights and later it be- came the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. In addition, the Right to peaceful assembly was founded, Freedom of Speech, and also habeas corpus. The first such writ of habeas corpus ever issued by the Court of Common Pleas was used to free Edward Bushell. Later this trial gave birth to the concept of Freedom of the press.


Had Bushell and his colleagues yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the judge and prosecutor, William Penn most likely would have been executed as he clearly
broke the law.


HE BROKE THE LAW!
Then there would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no city of Philadelphia, and no state called Pennsylvania, for young William Penn, founder of
Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of the Bible than that of the Church of
England. This appears innocent today, but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to
peaceful assembly. He had broken the government's law, but he had injured no one. Those four heroic JURORS knew that only when actual injury to someone’s
person or property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. Many imposter laws were repealed as a result of this case.


IT IS ALMOST UNFAIR!
This trial made such an impact that every colony but one established the jury as the first liberty to maintain all other liberties. It was felt that the liberties of people
could never be wholly lost as long as the jury remained strong and independent, and that unjust laws and statutes could not stand when confronted by conscientious
JURORS. JURORS today face an avalanche of impostor laws. JURORS not only still have the power and the RIGHT, but also the DUTY, to nullify bad laws by voting "not guilty". At first glance it appears that it is almost unfair, the power JURORS have over government, but necessary when considering the historical track record of oppression that governments have wielded over private citizens.


JEFFERSON'S WARNINGS!
In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!"

The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury." (emphasis added) The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric." (1820)


" ... the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little to- morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. . . . when all government . . . in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated. (emphasis added 1821)


"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.


“... judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune; but it saves the
Republic ...”


PROCLAIM LIBERTY!
Inscribed on our hallowed LIBERTY BELL are these words " PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF." Lev. XXV X


"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington


“Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually, record unjust decisions, to deprive the, needy of justice and to rob the poor of My people
of their rights...” Isaiah 10:1,2


TAKING THE PLUNGE!
“My people are destroyed because of the lack of knowledge...!” Hosea 4:6“

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke 1729-1797


"If My people which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, andseek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." II Chron. 7:14


"We must obey GOD rather than men." Acts 5:29


WARNING:


THIS DOCUMENT MAYBE HAZARDOUS TO BAD LAWS. Courts may not welcome or approve of these truths, neither are they to be construed as legal advice. Therefore, to act on these facts is to do so at your own risk or opportunity.


END
Assembled and formatted for the Grand Jury Study of the Republic of Rhode Island on Thursday, March 25, 2010 By: Kenneth DeLashmutt Get your own pocket sized copy of the Jury Handbook here (usually about $1.00/copy):
Quality reprints may be obtained from:
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/ciru.html
Christian Patriots -- (714)449-9504 P.O. Box 521, Placentia, CA 92670
Whitten Printers -- (602) 258-6406, 1001 S. 5th St, Phoenix, AZ 85004

The United States Civil

Flag of Peacetime

  

Jun 25 2015, We THE People on Michigan chose to live in Peace and we chose this as our national flag of Peacetime!

We the People of the United States,
actually have two national flags, a military flag and a civil flag for peacetime.
They have several important distinctions and meanings.

Almost all Americans think of the Stars and Stripes “Old Glory” as their only flag.

 

And IT IS BEAUTIFUL!!

The Stars and Stripes originated as a result of a resolution adopted by the Marine Committee of the Second Continental Congress at Philadelphia on June 14, 1777, for use on military installations, on ships, and in battle, directing that a U.S. flag consist of 13 stripes, alternating red and white; that a union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation.

Prior to, during the War for Independence, and after under the Articles of Confederation, smuggling was seen as a patriotic duty of the citizens of the thirteen independent and sovereign states, but after the ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of a new nation, smuggling needed to be stopped. The new nation depended on the revenue from customs tariffs, duties and taxes on imported goods in order to survive.

In 1790, with the customs laws firmly in place, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton set to work devising adequate means of enforcing the year-old regulations. “A few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports,” Hamilton suggested, “might at a small expense be made useful sentinels of our laws.” Congress concurred, and that year appropriated $10,000 to build and maintain a fleet of ten revenus cutters, which were to be placed under the charge of the customs collectors, whose responsibilities would be enforcement of the tariff laws. Along with financial responsibility, Hamilton demanded that the officers be servants of the people. “They [the officers] will always keep in mind that their Countrymen are Freemen and as such are impatient of everything that bears that least mark of a domineering Spirit.”

Nine years later, Congress refined the revenue cutters’ role in customs operations with the passage of the Act of March 2, 1799, known as the Customs Administration Act. In particular, Congress determined “the cutters and boats employed in the service of the revenue shall be distinguished from other vessels by “an ensign and pendant, with such marks thereon as shall be prescribed and directed by the President of the United States.” Additionally, the Act permitted commanders of revenue vessels to fire at other vessels failing to respond “after such pendant and ensign shall be hoisted and a gun fired by such revenue cutter as a signal.” By this act the Revenue Marine (later called the Revenue Cutter Service) ensign served as the seagoing equivalent of a policeman’s badge, the distinctive sign of the vessel’s law enforcement authority.

The job of designing the distinguishing ensign eventually fell upon Oliver Wolcott, who had replaced Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury in 1795. On June 1, 1799, Wolcott submitted his design to President John Adams for approval. Wolcott’s proposal featured an ensign of sixteen stripes, alternating red and white, representing the number of states that had joined the Union by 1799, with the Union to be the Arms of the United States in dark blue on a white field. It is significant that Wolcott turned the arrangement of the stripes ninety degrees to vertical to differentiate the new revenue cutter ensign from the U.S. Flag, to denote civilian authority under the Treasury Department, rather than military authority under the War Department.

Through usage and custom, horizontal stripes had become adopted for use over military posts, and vertical stripes adopted for use over civilian establishments. The Civil Flag, intended for peacetime usage in custom house civilian settings, had vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field. By the Law of the Flag, this design denoted civil jurisdiction under the Constitution and common law as opposed to military jurisdiction under admiralty/military law.

Although intended just for Customs house usage, the new Civil Flag became adopted by both customhouses and merchants, and others who could afford them, to show their civilian nature and not under military control. The practice of using the Customs Flag as a Civil Flag became encoded in law in 1874 when Treasury Secretary William. A. Richardson required all customhouses to display the Civil Flag.

On May 26, 1913, with the approval of Senate Bill S. 2337, (shortly after the fraudulent declaration by Secretary of State Philander Knox, that the 16th Amendment had been ratified, and during the same weeks that the Federal Reserve system and the IRS were established) the U.S. Coast Guard absorbed the Revenue Cutter and the Life Saving – Lighthouse Services, becoming a part of the military forces of the United States, operating under the Treasury Department in time of peace and as a part of the Navy, subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy, in time of war.

The Civil Flag used by the cutter service was modified, placing the Coast Guard insignia on the stripes in the field, and was adopted under Coast Guard authority, losing its original significance of civilian authority, which by then had long been forgotten. As the Federal government acquired more control over the States and their citizens during and after World War II, by 1951 the original Civil Flag had been phased out completely, its existence left as an artifact of time in a few old photographs and a rare mention in old books.

Today, the last vestige of the Civil Flag, the U.S. Coast Guard flag, being under the civil jurisdiction of the Department of Treasury during peacetime, is identical to the revenue cutter ensign, but with the service insignia emblazoned on the stripes in the field.

It is still seen as the shoulder patch of U.S. Customs employees but it too now has the gold fringe signifying Admiralty/Military/Law Merchant jurisdiction.

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, published in 1850 before the War Between The States has this description of the U.S. Civil Flag in the introduction, “The Custom House” —

Salem Custom House – 1850 

Salem Custom House – circa 1900

“. . . Here, with a view from its front windows adown this not very enlivening prospect, and thence across the harbour, stands a spacious edifice of brick. From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military, post of Uncle Sam’s government is here established. Its front is ornamented with a portico of half-a-dozen wooden pillars, supporting a balcony, beneath which a flight of wide granite steps descends towards the street Over the entrance hovers an enormous specimen of the American eagle, with outspread wings, a shield before her breast, and, if I recollect aright, a bunch of intermingled thunder- bolts and barbed arrows in each claw. With the customary infirmity of temper that characterizes this unhappy fowl, she appears by the fierceness of her beak and eye, and the general truculence of her attitude, to threaten mischief to the inoffensive community; and especially to warn all citizens careful of their safety against intruding on the premises which she overshadows with her wings. Nevertheless, vexingly as she looks, many people are seeking at this very moment to shelter themselves under the wing of the federal eagle; imagining, I presume, that her bosom has all the softness and snugness of an eiderdown pillow. But she has no great tenderness even in her best of moods, and, sooner or later — oftener soon than late — is apt to fling off her nestlings with a scratch of her claw, a dab of her beak, or a rankling wound from her barbed arrows.”

Before 1940, no U.S. flag, civil or military, flew within the forty-eight states except in federal settings and installations. Only state flags did. Since the 1935 institution of Social Security and the Buck Act of 1940, 4 U.S.C.S. Ch 4 Sec. 104 - 113, by clever legal maneuvers the feds have entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution, and have overlaid federal territorial jurisdiction on the sovereign States, bringing them under the admiralty/military jurisdiction of Law Merchant, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the law of Creditors and Debtors.

Since then the U.S. military flag appears beside, or in place of, the state flags in nearly all locations within the states. All of the state courts and even the municipal ones now openly display it. In the last half century they have more openly declared the military/admiralty law jurisdiction with the addition of the gold fringe to the flag, the military flag of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Such has been the path that has brought us under the Law of the Military Flag. This should have raised serious questions from many citizens long ago, but we’ve been educated to listen and believe what we are told, not to ask questions, or think for ourselves and search for the truth.

 

The Flag of Peace
US Civil Flags in 1919 at the end of World War I

US Civil Flag at the Eagle, Alaska custom-house,
on the Yukon River at the Canadian border, circa 1997
Photograph by Walter Kenaston

The Fundamental Orders


In the spring of 1638 three Connecticut towns, Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, chose representatives and held a general court at Hartford. At its opening session the Reverend Thomas Hooker preached a powerful sermon on the text that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." On January 14 following, by the Julian calendar in use at the time, which would January 24, 1639, by today's Gregorian calendar, the constitution given here was adopted by the freemen of the three towns assembled at Hartford, and is usually named The Fundamental Orders. Nowhere in this great document is there a reference to "our dread Sovereign" or "our gracious Lord the King," — nor to any government or power outside of Connecticut itself. It did not even limit the vote to members of Puritan congregations. This appears to be the first written constitution in the Western tradition which created a government, and it is easily seen to be the prototype of our Federal Constitution, adopted exactly one hundred and fifty years later. However, see also the Iroquois Constitution and the Mayflower Compact of earlier times.
Note that the year recorded in the document is 1638, because the British calendar in use at the time began the new year on March 25 instead of January 1 as does the Gregorian calendar we use today. Britain did not convert to the Gregorian calendar until 1751, when 11 days had to be added to their dates to get the Gregorian dates. In 1639 they were 10 days behind the Gregorian calendar.

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:
.
1. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Court of Election, wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; which choice shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and have taken the Oath of Fidelity, and do cohabit within this Jurisdiction having been admitted Inhabitants by the major part of the Town wherein they live or the major part of such as shall be then present.
.
2. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the election of the aforesaid Magistrates shall be in this manner: every person present and qualified for choice shall bring in (to the person deputed to receive them) one single paper with the name of him written in it whom he desires to have Governor, and he that hath the greatest number of papers shall be Governor for that year. And the rest of the Magistrates or public officers to be chosen in this manner: the Secretary for the time being shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choice and then shall severally nominate them distinctly, and every one that would have the person nominated to be chosen shall bring in one single paper written upon, and he that would not have him chosen shall bring in a blank; and every one that hath more written papers than blanks shall be a Magistrate for that year; which papers shall be received and told by one or more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworn to be faithful therein; but in case there should not be six chosen as aforesaid, besides the Governor, out of those which are nominated, than he or they which have the most writen papers shall be a Magistrate or Magistrates for the ensuing year, to make up the aforesaid number.
.
3. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any person, nor shall any person be chosen newly into the Magistracy which was not propounded in some General Court before, to be nominated the next election; and to that end it shall be lawful for each of the Towns aforesaid by their deputies to nominate any two whom they conceive fit to be put to election; and the Court may add so many more as they judge requisite.
.
4. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years, and that the Governor be always a member of some approved Congregation, and formerly of the Magistracy within this Jurisdiction; and that all the Magistrates, Freemen of this Commonwealth; and that no Magistrate or other public officer shall execute any part of his or their office before they are severally sworn, which shall be done in the face of the court if they be present, and in case of absence by some deputed for that purpose.
.
5. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that to the aforesaid Court of Election the several Towns shall send their deputies, and when the Elections are ended they may proceed in any public service as at other Courts. Also the other General Court in September shall be for making of laws, and any other public occasion, which concerns the good of the Commonwealth.
.
6. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Governor shall, either by himself or by the Secretary, send out summons to the Constables of every Town for the calling of these two standing Courts one month at least before their several times: And also if the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates see cause upon any special occasion to call a General Court, they may give order to the Secretary so to do within fourteen days warning: And if urgent necessity so require, upon a shorter notice, giving sufficient grounds for it to the deputies when they meet, or else be questioned for the same; And if the Governor and major part of Magistrates shall either neglect or refuse to call the two General standing Courts or either of them, as also at other times when the occasions of the Commonwealth require, the Freemen thereof, or the major part of them, shall petition to them so to do; if then it be either denied or neglected, the said Freemen, or the major part of them, shall have the power to give order to the Constables of the several Towns to do the same, and so may meet together, and choose to themselves a Moderator, and may proceed to do any act of power which any other General Courts may.
.
7. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that after there are warrants given out for any of the said General Courts, the Constable or Constables of each Town, shall forthwith give notice distinctly to the inhabitants of the same, in some public assembly or by going or sending from house to house, that at a place and time by him or them limited and set, they meet and assemble themselves together to elect and choose certain deputies to be at the General Court then following to agitate the affairs of the Commonwealth; which said deputies shall be chosen by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the several Towns and have taken the oath of fidelity; provided that none be chosen a Deputy for any General Court which is not a Freeman of this Commonwealth. The aforesaid deputies shall be chosen in manner following: every person that is present and qualified as before expressed, shall bring the names of such, written in several papers, as they desire to have chosen for that employment, and these three or four, more or less, being the number agreed on to be chosen for that time, that have the greatest number of papers written for them shall be deputies for that Court; whose names shall be endorsed on the back side of the warrant and returned into the Court, with the Constable or Constables' hand unto the same.
.
8. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield shall have power, each Town, to send four of their Freemen as their deputies to every General Court; and Whatsoever other Town shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputies as the Court shall judge meet, a reasonable proportion to the number of Freemen that are in the said Towns being to be attended therein; which deputies shall have the power of the whole Town to give their votes and allowance to all such laws and orders as may be for the public good, and unto which the said Towns are to be bound.
.
9. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the deputies thus chosen shall have power and liberty to appoint a time and a place of meeting together before any General Court, to advise and consult of all such things as may concern the good of the public, as also to examine their own Elections, whether according to the order, and if they or the greatest part of them find any election to be illegal they may seclude such for present from their meeting, and return the same and their reasons to the Court; and if it be proved true, the Court may fine the party or parties so intruding, and the Town, if they see cause, and give out a warrant to go to a new election in a legal way, either in part or in whole. Also the said deputies shall have power to fine any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for not coming in due time or place according to appointment; and they may return the said fines into the Court if it be refused to be paid, and the Treasurer to take notice of it, and to escheat or levy the same as he does other fines.
.
10. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that every General Court, except such as through neglect of the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates the Freemen themselves do call, shall consist of the Governor, or some one chosen to moderate the Court, and four other Magistrates at least, with the major part of the deputies of the several Towns legally chosen; and in case the Freemen, or major part of them, through neglect or refusal of the Governor and major part of the Magistrates, shall call a Court, it shall consist of the major part of Freemen that are present or their deputies, with a Moderator chosen by them: In which said General Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Commonwealth, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them, to grant levies, to admit of Freemen, dispose of lands undisposed of, to several Towns or persons, and also shall have power to call either Court or Magistrate or any other person whatsoever into question for any misdemeanor, and may for just causes displace or deal otherwise according to the nature of the offense; and also may deal in any other matter that concerns the good of this Commonwealth, except the election of Magistrates, which shall be done by the whole body of Freemen. In which Court the Governor or Moderator shall have power to order the Court, to give liberty of speech, and silence unseasonable and disorderly speakings, to put all things to vote, and in case the vote be equal to have the casting voice. But none of these Courts shall be adjourned or dissolved without the consent of the major part of the Court.
.
11. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that when any General Court upon the occasions of the Commonwealth have agreed upon any sum, or sums of money to be levied upon the several Towns within this Jurisdiction, that a committee be chosen to set out and appoint what shall be the proportion of every Town to pay of the said levy, provided the committee be made up of an equal number out of each Town.
14th January, 1638, the 11 Orders above said are voted.