SELECTION AND SERVICE OF JURORS

Courtesy of Lise from Maine

Seventh Revision – Revised Statutes of the State of Maine – Passed August 5, 1930 and taking effect November 10, 1930, click here.

Eighth Revision – Revised Statutes of the State of Maine – Passed September 20, 1944 and taking effect December 30, 1944, click here.

Public Acts – Jurors passed by the Fourteenth Legislature 1834, click here.

Advertisements
Published in: on January 11, 2014 at 4:49 pm  Comments (14)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://unmasker4maine.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/selection-and-service-of-jurors-1930/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

14 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi!

    First of all, in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of Maine (1820) it states in part: “The Legislature shall provide by law a suitable and impartial mode of selecting juries…”

    In 1821 the Legislature passed its first law regarding jury selection which states in part: “Chapter LXXXIV, An Act reguIating the Selection, Empannelling and Service of Jurors, SEC. 1.- BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in Legislature assembled, That the Selectmen, in each town of the State, on or before the second Monday of September next, shall provide and at all times cause to be kept in their respective towns, one Jury box; and shall, once at least in every three years afterwards prepare a list of such person, under the age of seventy years, in their respective towns, as THEY SHALL JUDGE (emphasis is mine) best qualified to serve as Jurors, being person of good moral character and qualifies as the Constitution directs, to vote in the choice of Representatives,……”

    It furthers states in part: “And having written their names upon tickets, they shall cause them to be placed in the Jury box; and shall then lay the whole of their doings BEFORE THE TOWN (emphasis is mine) for a revision, who may confirm the same, or make such ALTERATIONS (emphasis is mine) therein as they many deem proper: and the said box shall be held and by kept by the Town Clerk…..”

    Take particular notice of the local control – Selectmen, town for revisions or not, and the Town Clerk.

    This is ALL local control.

    The paper trail leads to something other than “local control” by 1935 and it becomes a trial by jury “of the government” as opposed to a trial by jury “of the vicinity and of his peers.”

    In other words, the state has taken over control of the selection of jurors.

    Is it any wonder that most people lose in these state-wide courts nowadays?

    It is vital to pay attention to the “subtle” or “not so subtle” changes in the laws over time and to examine to see if there is an “expansion of power” in those laws on to the state whether it be by the different departments of government – legislators, judges, or Governor/Council.

    In 1834 another change took place but it is still at the “local control” which states: “Chapter 136, AN ACT additional regulating the selection, empanneling and service of Jurors, SECT. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in Legislature assembled, That the Selectmen, Treasurer and Clerk of the several towns in this State shall constitute a BOARD for preparing lists of Jurors TO BE LAID BEFORE SAID TOWNS respectively FOR THEIR APPROVAL and the said towns SHALL HAVE POWER by a majority of the legal voters in legal town meeting assembled to make alterations in such lists, by striking out such names therefrom, as they may deem proper, but shall NOT (all emphasis is mine) be allowed to insert any other names therein.”

    Take notice of the “original” enacting clause and the change that took place in this law is that a “board” was created. This is all still lawful. Just notice the changes in order to understand what happened later on that was unlawful.

    I won’t go into every law that made changes because it would take me too long to show every one of them.

    The 1834 law regarding the selection of Jurors is the “last” law that used the “original” enacting clause.

    The laws of 1840, 1857, 1871, 1883, 1903, 1916, and 1930 shows NO enacting clause whatsoever so they are NOT laws at all.

    In the said constitution (1820) in Article IV, Part First, Legislative Power, Sect. 1, it states: “The Legislative power shall be vested in two distinct branches, a House of Representatives, and a Senate, each to have a negative on the other, and both to be stiled the Legislature of Maine, and the style of their Acts and Laws, shall be, ” Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Legislature assembled.”

    All acts and laws shall have the “original” enacting clause incorporated into them otherwise they are NOT laws. The Legislature is NOT allowed to change the enacting clause by having the electors vote on it as happened in 1908 because they operate “underneath” it, and the Executive department is NOT allowed lawfully to execute a non-law.

    Comprehend this fully.

    Furthermore, in 1935 there is another so-called law pertaining to Jury selection which states in part: “Chapter 90, AN ACT to Provide for Jury Commissioners.

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine, as follows: R. S., c. 120 (this is the 1930 so-called law regarding Jury selection), amended. Chapter I20 of the revised statutes is hereby repealed and the following enacted in place thereof: The Selection and Service of Jurors. Sec. I. Jury commissioners, appointment.

    The CHIEF JUSTICE of the supreme judicial court SHALL APPOINT in the several counties of the state,2 residents of each county who shall be JURY COMMISSIONERS within and for their respective counties and who shall serve for a term of 4 years from their appointment, subject to EARLIER REMOVAL at the PLEASURE of the chief justice. It shall be the duty of said jury commissioners to PREPARE A JURY LIST, SUMMON JURORS for attendance at the several terms of the superior court in their respective counties, and TO REVISE said list AS OFTEN (all emphasis is mine) as they may deem it necessary.”

    It further states: “Sec. 2.. Preparation of lists of persons qualified to serve as jurors.

    The MUNICIPAL OFFICERS of the several cities, towns and plantations shall, ON REQUEST, send forthwith to said jury commissioners in their respective counties, a LIST OF PERSONS with their full names, OCCUPATIONS and post office addresses, whom they deem qualified for service as jurors. From the list received, or from such persons as may be known personally or by reputation to the commissioners, said commissioners SHALL SELECT persons, who, in THEIR JUDGMENT, are DEEMED QUALLIFIED for jury service, and the names of persons FINALLY SELECTED shall be PLACED on a list kept BY (all emphasis is mine) said commissioners.”

    It continues to say: “A copy of said list shall be deposited with the clerks of courts for their respective counties and shall, at all times during business hours, be open to public inspection.

    The list shall contain such a number of names of persons, male and female, qualified for jury service AS THE COMMISSIONERS shall deem necessary. Selection of persons for jury service shall be based on their mental, moral and physical fitness. Persons REJECTED BY said commissioners SHALL NOT BE PLACED (all emphasis is mine) on said jury list for a period of at least 3 years.

    Said-commissioners MAY ADD NAMES to such list as often as may be necessary to maintain the number herein provided. They may ALSO DROP FROM the list names of persons who, by reason of age, infirmity, death or other disability, could not reasonably be expected to serve as jurors if called and SHALL DROP (all emphasis is mine) therefrom names of persons engaged in the unlawful traffic in intoxicating liquors, or who are known to be habitually addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors or who have been convicted of any scandalous crime or gross immorality.”

    It continues to say in section 3: “Selection of jurors. On receipt of written or verbal notice from the clerk or deputy clerk of courts of their respective counties, designating the number of jurors required and date on which they are to report for duty, SAID COMMISSIONERS shall forthwith SELECT, by such method as will give a fair and just distribution .according to population, a sufficient number of persons to perform jury service at the prospective term.

    Such selection shall be made with reasonable allowances for supernumeraries and for unforeseen causes of inability to attend. Summonses FOR THOSE SO SELECTED shall be PREPARED BY said commissioners and MAILED BY REGISTERED MAIL, postage prepaid, to each person selected at his regular place of abode. A returned registered receipt shall be sufficient evidence that the person or persons so selected have received the above named summons.”

    Is this outrageous?

    Is this so-called law a trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers
    (local control)?

    NO!

    The state has now “expanded” its power via the Chief Justice
    (Judicial department).

    Who has the control (final say) in this so-called law?

    This so-called law is an absolute fraud and treason against the “original” State of Maine and the people as a whole.

    What happened in this so-called law pertaining to Jury selection?

    1. The “new” enacting clause was used (went into effect in 1909 – “democracy” established).

    2. The Chief Justice is to appoint all Jury Commissioners, and he has power to remove them at his pleasure.

    3. Jury Commissioners get to decide who they shall allow on the jury list and who they shall not allow on the jury list.

    4. Jury Commissioners get the “final” say from the “municipal officers” (what happened to the board?) list who stays on and who is rejected according to “their” judgments.

    5. Jury Commissioners can ADD and DROP names by “their” discretion (Board was not allowed to do this).

    6. Notice goes to all Jurors by “registered mail (not done today).” Got rid of the Sheriff’s duties, Constable’s duties, and/or the Coroner’s duties (see 1821 law pertaining to this that is on this blog) pertaining to summons of Jurors. Sheriffs, Constables and the Coroner all work at the “local control,” and they are the “field people” who work in the “terrain” known as counties.

    Can you see why most people lose in these state-wide courts today?

    The state now controls “their” own state-wide courts as opposed to county courts, within and for the county (local control), and now control the selection of Jurors to “favor” the government hoping to get a conviction.

    Nowadays “plea bargains” are more common which by-passes the jury system, nd in the MAINE DISTRICT COURTS the so-called judges decide the causes,and they have NO delegation of authority to decide any causes.

    All fraud and treason.

    This is dictatorship and tyranny, folks.

    I will stop here.

    Are you outraged yet?

    I will repeat what I have been saying in this blog for a very, very long time.

    Your chances of winning in these state-wide courts are slim to none.

    The “fake judge will have you for lunch because you have walked into the “lion’s den, and the lion will enjoy his lunch.

    Thank you!

    I welcome all comments.

    Lise from Maine

    • Very informative….a real eye-opener!

  2. Hi!

    Also take notice that the townspeople (electors) at a town meeting cannot decide to accept the list of names or alter the names on the list.

    Loss of “local control.”

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  3. Hi again,

    See the Traverse Juror Handbook of 2009 on page 3 which states in part:

    “The Superior Court is a trial court as distinguished from the Maine
    Supreme Judicial Court which is an appellate court. The Maine District Court is a limited jurisdiction TRIAL COURT in which cases are heard BY A JUDGE WITHOUT A JURY (all emphasis is mine).”

    This is fraud and treason against the people.

    The Legislature has NO delegation of authority to create a non-constitutional court.

    The Maine District Court is a state-wide court that has NO commissioned judges presiding (see the 1961 so-called law that created it – it is on this blog).

    No judge has the right whatsoever to decide causes of any kind.

    In Article 1, Section 6 of the said constitution it states in part: “In ALL (emphasis is mine) criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and his counsel, or either, at his election;…”

    It continues to say: “To have a speedy, public and IMPARTIAL trial, and, except in trials by martial law or impeachment, BY A JURY OF THE VICINITY (all emphasis is mine).”

    It goes on to say: “He shall not be compelled to furnish or give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of his life, liberty, property or
    privileges, BUT BY JUDGMENT OF HIS PEERS or the LAW OF THE LAND (all emphasis is mine).”

    In Section 20 of the said constitution it states: “In all civil suits, and in all controversies concerning property, the parties shall have a right to a trial by jury,…”

    Keep in mind that a trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers is mandatory (certainty) in all causes/controversies.

    A trial by jury of the government (state-wide courts) and the selection of juries (selection by the state) is fraud and treason.

    Having “potential” Jurors appear at the courthouse to “fill out” a QUESTIONNAIRE is selecting “potential” Jurors by the government (see 2009 Traverse Jury Handbook).

    The state gets to decide WHO shall be on the jury by rejecting those who it doesn’t agree with based on the answers in the said questionnaire.

    Who controls this process?

    It is the state for its own benefit and not the people’s benefit.

    This is NOT a trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers.

    Furthermore, state-wide is NOT the “vicinity.”

    All for now.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  4. Hi!

    What is the “law of the land?”

    It is the common law.

    Are there any common law courts operating in Maine today?

    No!

    See the 1981 so-called law regarding jury selection that is posted on this blog.

    The words “common law” is crossed off which appears beside the word “court.”

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  5. Common law is in force on Maine, but they pick and choose when they will use it. In Maine, conceptions of personal and property rights are based on the common law. Wheeler v Phoenix Indemnity Co. (1949) 144 Me. 105, 65 A.2d 10

    Common law is in force in Maine. Sacknoff v Sacknoff (1932) 131 Me. 280, 161 A. 669; Copp v Paradis (1931) 130 Me. 464, 157 A. 228

  6. Hi!

    In 1959 the common law was destroyed (those court cases are BEFORE 1959). See the 100 years booklet of the Maine State Bar Association that is on this blog.

    See the 1981 so-called pretend law to see that the words “common law” was crossed out when they appeared beside the word “court.”

    There are NO common law courts operating in Maine today, and common law courts are NOT state-wide courts. They are county courts, within and for the county (local control), using the common law principles.

    There are many laws addressing this but see the 1839 law relating to the county courts called District courts. I think this law is on this blog.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  7. Here is a later case: The leading case on the powers and duties of the Attorney General is Superintendent of Insurance v. Attorney General, 558 A.2d 1197 (Me.1989). The essential principle stated by the Court in this landmark decision is that the Attorney General possesses constitutional and common law authority, independent of the agencies represented by the Office that may be exercised by the Attorney General in the public interest.

  8. Examples of their own statutes relative to common law:

    Title 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS: §73. Majority
    The common law rule that a person is a minor to the age of 20 is abrogated and persons 18 years of age or over are declared to be of majority for all purposes.

    Title 5: §32. Jury trial; common-law rights
    Any action brought under this chapter may be heard by a jury. Nothing in this chapter may be construed to derogate any common-law rights of an employee.

    Title 33: PROPERTY: §1024. Other common law and statutory causes of action and relief still available

    Nothing in this chapter may be construed to abrogate any other causes of action or relief at law or equity to which elderly dependent persons are entitled under other laws or at common law.

    Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE: §1532. Common law rights

    Nothing in this chapter shall adversely affect the rights or the enforcement of rights in marks acquired in good faith at common law at any time before or after the enactment of this chapter.

    Title 16: COURT PROCEDURE — EVIDENCE: §402. Common law and statutes

    Every court of this State shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States.

    Title 25: INTERNAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY:

    §2439. Common law remedy preserved
    The common law right to an action for damages done by fires is not taken away or diminished and it may be pursued notwithstanding the penalties set forth in chapters 313 to 321.

    Title 30:§7202. Definitions 4. Laws of the State. “Laws of the State” means the Constitution and all statutes, rules or regulations and the common law of the State and its political subdivisions, and subsequent amendments thereto or judicial interpretations thereof.

  9. Hi!

    I understand what you mean but there are some problems. This all looks and sounds nice but does it work? Is it really applied?

    I think not.

    There aren’t any common law courts operating in Maine today. All jurors are selected by the government as I have already shown, and there aren’t any commissioned judges.

    No common law courts, no trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers and no commissioned judges = fraud and treason against the people.

    Try and get any justice in these so-called “fake” courts and you won’t get any or at least most of the people. Occasionally, someone will win but that is very, very rare, and the “fake” judges will make sure that the next person doesn’t win as they will be prepared the next time to address any issue that is raised.

    Try bringing in the “common law” in these “fake” courts and see what happens to you.

    Remember that the “original” Constitution of the State of Maine followed the common law principles, for example, trial by jury of the vicinity and of his peers, separation of powers, fair play, adversarial process in court, the right to be heard, right to bear arms, free speech, right to be left alone, right to assemble peacefully, freedom of religion,
    free press, protecting property, all power is inherent in the people and not the state, may freely speak, write and publish, be secure in their persons and homes but upon probable cause to search with a warrant, Writ of Habeas Corpus, and on and on and on.

    Who owns property today? Why is there a “planning board” in the towns, etc? Why do the people have to “ask permission” to add on a room, porch, deck, garage, etc on their “own” property? Why are they paying “property taxes” also known as a “use” tax (see the 1933 Congressional Record pertaining to the people having ONLY “use” of the property)? The use of the words “property taxes” is hiding the real truth of the matter. It is a “use” tax (see also the Communist Manifesto regarding the elimination of property rights and inheritance).

    The last constitution of 2003 is the codified constitution called Title 97. It is a “statutory” constitution.

    What state is referred to? The genuine state of 1820? The codified one of 1876? Another kind of state?

    “…..every state, territory and other jurisdiction of the United States.”

    The original State of Maine is one of the United States and IS NOT a state of the United States (that is a federal state – Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc).

    “Of the United States” places the original State underneath United States and that cannot be so. United States does not supersede its creators, the States via the people.

    As I said previously, it all looks and sounds nice but is it?

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    • All part of the big masquerade party. They think they are pulling the wool over our eyes.

  10. Hi!

    I just read what you sent in an email “The Making of Paul LePage.”

    The “Corrections Corporation of America” supported him financially
    because they want to build a prison in Milo (where is Milo?).

    This is a “private” FOR PROFIT prison system.

    If this happens, then MORE laws will have to pass (create more crimes) in order to imprison more people to “fill the beds.”

    This is bad news.

    Already the jails are full because we have “corrupt” fake courts in the State of Maine whereby the “fake” judges act “for the state” and “enforce” the will of the state.

    This “private” prison system is much, much larger than county jails and have “more” beds to fill.

    This sucks big time.

    Many of the companies supporting LePage financially are from “out of state” according to that article.

    It appears that he is NO different than the rest of the other politicians.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

    P.S. How about posting that article about Lepage on this forum for all the people to see for themselves?

  11. Hi!

    I wonder if the person named “LaVerdiere” mentioned in the newspaper article “The Making of Paul LePage” is related to Chief Justice Charles LaVerdiere of the state-wide court called Maine District Court?

    Are they related? I do have to wonder.

    While on “conference call” with LePage last August, I mentioned that the Chief Justice had “admitted” on letterhead paper of the said court that “judges are appointed, not commissioned.”

    I sent him a copy of the said document from the Chief Justice.

    Lepage did nothing and NEVER responded to what I sent him that HE ASKED FOR. I did not volunteer to send him anything; he specifically asked for them and I agreed to do so.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine

  12. Hi!

    If you want to see “how life actually is” in these United States, then read these books.

    Three Felonies a Day by Attorney Harvey A. Silverglate (federal prosecutors use “vague” statutes to convict anyone that is on their target list). They search for any statutes to “fit the situation” so they can prosecute innocent victims.

    A Government of Wolves by Attorney John W. Whitehead (use of swat
    teams, offensive roadside searches – strip searches, use of new technology to “sneak and peak,” militarization of the police, etc.

    Attorney Silverglate started the foundation called (FIRE) The Foundation For Individual Rights in Education (www.fire.org).

    If your eyes aren’t yet opened, then they will be after reading these
    two (2) books.

    If you can’t afford them, then get them at the local libraries (interlibrary loans).

    I am in the process of reading both of these books, and they are quite revealing and shocking to say the least.

    Thank you!

    Lise from Maine


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: