by: Lise from Maine
“What is the purpose in having a trial by jury according to the course of the Common Law?
First and foremost is to STOP the government (state and federal) from taking wrongfully the life, liberty, and property of the defendant (live people and not fictions) and to protect our Common Law government of laws from the whims of mere men and women (legislators, judges, prosecutors, etc).
Our Common Law disappeared in 1959 unlawfully by those privileged members of the Maine State Bar Association who voted among themselves to remove it.
Fraud! Fraud! Fraud!
They had no right whatsoever to do this; no delegation of power to do this at all.
In other words, they “stole” from the people, and theft has NO standing in Common Law or otherwise.
The power of the jury is to give or withhold consent for the government to act or not act against one of the people (defendant).
Imagine this kind of power!
It is raw power in and of itself.
The Common Law jury in a criminal trial is a form of “shield” or “wall” against an unlawful government.
Just say no to an unjust and unlawful law.
The Common Law jury can decide the facts of the case and the law (see Lysander Spooner’s article called Trial by Jury)
According to Common Law traditions, the juror decides for himself or herself according to his or her conscience and can by-pass the judge’s instructions which is really the “will” of the judge.
At one time, the jury selection happened at the local control (all power is inherent in the people – see Declaration of Rights, Sec. 2) in the vicinity, and the courts had to accept the jurors as they are or as they find them.
No tampering with the jurors was allowed.
I just learned that it is NOT the voter application form that is used to select a potential jury. It is the driver’s license that is used.
It really doesn’t matter since both are fraudulent processes in the first instance.
See definition of state in the Maine motor vehicle code – “state” is a territory of the United States.
How can this be?
Isn’t Maine a free and independent state?
I guess not!
So if a person (live, breathing person) does not have a driver’s (driver is a commercial term) license, then that person is eliminated from being a potential juror.
Isn’t this discriminatory?
Isn’t this “selective” choosing as to who can be on a jury and who cannot?
Who does the choosing?
Once again, it is a decision coming from the top-down centralization of power (the state) and away from the people’s power.
Once the jurors arrive at the courthouse, they are counted, given a speech by the so-called judge, and given a questionnaire to fill out.
Is this a Common Law tradition?
The jurors are selected or rejected according to what they write on the questionnaires by the defense attorney and the prosecutor in the case and perhaps the judge’s decision, too.
This is absolutely wrong and unlawful.
This is NOT a process of and by the people but from a centralization of power from the top-down = the state.
This is government selected jurors (centralization of power from the top-down) in order to meet its own needs hoping for a conviction.
A few years ago I was selected for jury duty and filled out the questionnaire and was one of about 25 people selected to be interviewed by the so-called judge (it was so-called judge Horton at the time), the defense attorney, and the prosecutor in the judge’s chambers regarding a murder case in my county.
I thought to myself “oh, boy, am I going to have fun in the judge’s chambers,” and I did.
I asked so-called judge Horton if he had a commission.
Guess what he said.
He said, “I don’t know.”
How can you, as the judge, not know if you have a commission or not?
Was I challenging his authority?
Of course I was!
Did he like this questioning?
So I decided to educate him a little, and told him the definition of a commission and what it accomplishes plus told him of various laws that said that the justices MUST be commissioned.
Needless to say, he didn’t respond to any of that but decided to ask me questions about the questionnaire instead.
What does silence in this instance actually say when he has a duty to speak?
He knew he was caught so he had to move on.
Was I selected for jury duty?
Of course not!
I was viewed as a “dangerous” person who knew too much so he had to get rid of me right on the front end (perhaps the defense attorney and the prosecutor wanted me out, too).
But guess what?
I had fun with it.
This is a classic example of using one’s power to learn the truth of the matter at hand.
By the way, there was a recorder present in the room. I am willing to bet that the recording disappeared or is hidden somewhere.
Lesson: Use your power whenever you can. Grab the moment when you see an opportunity.
I grabbed the moment because I knew that I probably would never have this chance again to challenge a so-called judge.
I always seek out opportunities at any given time.
A Common Law juror is a freeman whereby under his or her oath seeks to do right by his or her conscience as it relates to the facts of the case and the application of the law.
A Common Law juror does not have to listen to the judge’s instructions which is his will, of course.
How does a juror know that the so-called judge is telling the truth when he instructs the jury?
He or she doesn’t know that.
What do so-called judges tell the jury nowadays?
It goes like this: blah,blah,blah…………….., and you must accept the law as I give it.
What does this actually mean?
What he is saying implicitly is that I am the one who is educated in law, and I am the elite here so you, the jury, have to accept the law as I GIVE IT TO YOU (his will).
Is this tampering with the jury?
Most certainly appears that way to me.
What we are under today is the Roman Civil Law whereby the jurors, foreign agents today as above-mentioned, are sworn to the loyalty of the state.
The juror must obey the truth, and if the so-called judge’s instructions violates the truth, then the juror is obligated to vote towards the truth and nothing else.
His oath requires that he operate in truth, and he or she cannot commit a wrong by going against his or her conscience no matter what the so-called judge says in his instructions.
All for now.
More to come later on this subject as it is a fascinating subject.
The people need to learn the “power” that they “have” in order to administer justice and “take away” the power of a fraudulent government such as we have today in Maine.”
Lise, your research is greatly appreciated. If anyone has questions for her, feel free to ask in the comment section. Anyone got a challenge for Lise?