TRY THE LAW The scene is a somber federal court room. The lengthy trial on a charge of weapons possession has just ended. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the testimony has now concluded. We will take the time to determine the innocence or guilt of Mr. John Watkins. "You have heard all the testimony from the prosecution and defense attorneys. You will soon retire to the jury room for your deliberations. All the evidence presented at this trial will be there with you for your examination and use in reaching a verdict. "During your deliberations, I charge you with determin- ing the facts presented in this litigation and the facts only. I will now instruct you on the law concerning this case and under which Mr. Watkins has been tried." "If you have any questions during your deliberations concerning what I am about to instruct you, please make a written request to the Court. Cite what you do not under- stand. The Bailiff will bring your question into the Court and I will answer it." Now, in a usual monotonous voice, the judge will read his interpretation of the laws involved. If you can stay awake and understand a small part of what 'His Honor' is saying consider yourself fortunate. This whole setup is called 'Judicial Supremacy'. They purposely constructed court rooms so the judge sits higher than everyone else. That forces you to look up to him. He lords it over everyone that he is only the person who has any say-so on the law. This is a lie . . . a real legal fairy tale. The reason for a jury has been turned upside down. In past years it bears no similarity to the true purpose of your duty as a juror. Your obligation is not only to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused, it is also to examine the law! Let's get back to basics and define a law. The supremacy clause of our Constitution is explicit when it says it and only laws made following its power and restrictions are the supreme law of the land. The key words are laws made following the power in the document. If they pass a law beyond the permission we granted, then what? It would NOT conform to the document and is no law. And how would you know? The first requirement is that you know something about our Constitution. Without this knowledge, these legal eagles will continue to make monkeys of you. It would be ridiculous to memorize the document and no one expects that. Nevertheless, the purpose of the jury is to safeguard other citizens from an overzealous government. You should know where to look to see if they have the authority to pass the law under which they are accusing the person on trial.  There are only four crimes listed in our Constitution. These are (1) counterfeiting of securities and current coins, (Art I, Sec 8), (2) piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, (Art I, Sec 8), (3) treason against the United States (Art III, Sec 3) and (4) offenses against the law of nations (Art I, Sec 8). That's it! We gave NO power to Congress beyond these four to define a crime. Sounds weird . . . but it's true. In 1821, Chief Justice John Marshall, of the United States Supreme Court stated in an opinion, "Congress has a right to punish murder in a fort, or other place within its exclusive jurisdiction; but no general right to punish murder committed within any of the States." Further, he added, "It is clear, that Congress cannot punish felonies generally;" (Cohen v Virginia, 4 Wheat (US) 264) (1821). Unless you are a juror in a case (federal) charging someone with a violation of one of the four listed crimes, there is no criminal law. And you cannot judge the persons' innocence or guilt. You have no right to convict. That's a heavy statement. Let's see if it's true . . . The determination of crimes and criminal acts were designated as state functions. They are still state functions today and of no concern to the federal government. This is verified by the instructions in Art IV, Sec 2, clause 2. We have established repeatedly that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nowhere have we given Congress the power to determine any act by a citizen to be a crime. The document is full of 'thou shalt nots' directed at the government. The consensus of some of our Founding Fathers was that the powers given, limited as they are, were much too dangerous. The Tenth Amendment restates the 'thou shalt nots' . . "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People." It is an absolute bar to the federales assuming any power we did not grant to them. For the sake of illustration, this trial was about the possession of weapons. The Second Amendment prohibits the Congress from passing ANY law which will infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. And here the 'justice' dept is after someone for possession of weapons? It's no good. The law is a myth. Hamilton makes it clear in Paper No. 83 that the 'thou shalt nots' are there. Their powers are specific and limited. These specific powers preclude all assumption of a general legislative authority. Being specific, it would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intend- ed. (As before, all references to 'paper no.' are from The Federalist Papers.) Where can Congress find the right to assume power to define crimes if the permission were not  specifically granted by us? For the past hundred or more years, Congress has been busy writing all sorts of laws for which we gave no permis- sion. The worse period for illegal and bad laws was during the period of the 1930's. This was when the exercise of control over the American people went wild. This is one reason why the purpose of the jury is so important today. The people who work for the government have a job as a result of our Constitution. If it were not that we agreed to government, their positions would not exist. There is no other way to look at it. It is our right and our duty to check on what they are doing. This of course includes the laws they are passing. And what do we check them against? The supremacy clause holds the key. If they do not conform, they are no good -- they are not laws. Can't make it any plainer. Our Fifth Amendment guarantees you and I due process of law. This is an extremely important statement. They cannot take life, liberty or property unless this requirement for due process is followed. Our basic law holds the preced- ence. If the government does not obey a command of the document, anything that comes as a result does NOT follow due process. It doesn't take a unanimous jury to say the law is no good. It takes only one knowledgeable person to refuse to convict and the law, for that instance at least, has been neutralized. This is jury nullification of laws. This was the intent of our jury system from the beginnings of our system of government. The Supreme Court has agreed with that premise. (Georgia v Brailsford, 3 US 1) (1794) There are decisions in law books which show the jury is to try both law and fact. These were many years in our past. The drive by federal judges to establish the judicial branch as the most powerful branch of government has hidden this point. Today the people believe only judges can tell the jury what the law means. Surprised? This is legal fiction . . . Buffalo chips! A phrase nearly everyone is familiar with is ignorance of the law is no excuse. What excuse does a judge have for not knowing the law? (Or do you think perhaps he might?) How about all the lawyers we have in Congress making laws? What about the lawyers in that court room? If this statement has any validity, it applies to everyone. Now what would you do in a situation like this? Send a note with the bailiff to the judge saying the law is no good so you cannot vote for conviction? This would probably end with you receiving a contempt citation from the judge and off to jail you go without passing go! After all, the man in the black robe has instructed you on the meaning of the law. The alternative is to refuse to convict. No matter what pressure you feel from the other jurors. Knowing the national government has no power to define a criminal act, how can you consider a persons guilt and perhaps ruin  someone's life? Now your duty as a juror becomes paramount. The people who are passing these laws and those who are enforcing them are guilty of breaking the law. We have ordered each person who works for government to swear to God they will support our Constitution. Another command of the document which Congress ignores in many instances. More hanky-panky. The ease with which they do these unconstitutional practices reflects on us. Sadly, we don't know what the Constitution says. We have paid no attention to what the government has been doing to our rights and with their allotted powers. The eternal vigilance recommended by Jefferson has gone to sleep. We have not been watching our elected representa- tives. I assure you these people who exceed their powers know exactly what they're doing. They know good people are reluctant to raise a fuss to make it stop. Those with a lust for greed and power continue on their merry way. Back to your duty as a juror. By simply resisting the pressure of other members of the jury and refusing to convict, the government will be denied a conviction. No question this is an awkward position to be in. You may feel this person is guilty of something. However, you can't bow to pressure to find a person guilty when we denied the federal government the power to establish the crime. You can rest assured if the person is a criminal, he will continue his criminal activity and be back in court again. The next time perhaps in a state court and not a federal court. There has been an assumption in this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The attitude in courts today is frightening. Many people feel if the government has gone through all the work and investigation, the person must be guilty. Guilty until proven innocent? That puts the cart before the horse. This position is dangerous to the survival of our Republic and a task which is nearly impossible to overcome in court. Don't let them use you in this manner. That's exactly what they are doing. Alexander Hamilton made this very point in Paper, No. 65: "But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate on the verdict of a jury acting under the guidance of judges who had predetermined his guilt?" What about grand juries? The only mention of them is in the Fifth Amendment. This is the first hurdle the government has to overcome to bring a person to trial. It is the obligation of the Grand Jury to investigate allega- tions on it's own. They should never simply accept what a government attorney charges. Grand Juries are completely independent bodies. They do not belong to the Court system or the US Attorneys office. The Court calls Grand Juries into session from  lists of names maintained by the US Attorneys office. Yet they are independent! They have no right to determine guilt. Their only duty is to see if US laws were violated and if they were, to issue an indictment against an individual. Some Grand Juries have earned the name of "rubber- stamp" juries. They have accepted what a US Attorney charges against an individual without conducting an investigation on their own. This is how badly the protec- tion of our citizens has eroded in the past years. It's a sad comment on American justice and proves how we have been bamboozled by our public servants. The first investigation conducted has the same require- ment as for the petit jury. Does the law meet with the requirements of our Constitution? Simply because a US Attorney says the violation is of one of US laws doesn't mean it's true. In legal circles this is called jury manipulation. You are being used by the US Attorney to indict a person simply on his word. Charges must be investigated independently. Do you know a US Attorney does not take an oath to support the Constitution as required? He has no authority to stand before the Grand Jury and make a charge against anyone. The requirement that all officers take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution includes the executive branch. There are no exceptions. The US Attorney works for the Justice Department, part of the executive branch. Nonetheless, the US Attorney takes an oath only to perform his duties faithfully. This is in section 544 of the Judicial Code, Title 28, United States Code. Do you see why the federales don't want anyone to know that juries have the obligation to try the law also? If there is no power to define a crime, you as a member of a Grand Jury have no authority to issue an indictment. How can anyone argue with this premise? The Constitu- tion established that Congress can make no law which is beyond their specified and granted powers. The jury system, both petit and grand, is the basic protection for us as citizens against overzealous government and agents. Jury duties and functions have been very slowly curtailed by the government. That way they can exercise control over the people as they see fit. One great man in history made the statement: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." (Cornelius Tacitus, Roman senator and historian. A.D. c.56-c.115). Congress has been busy for years writing laws for which we gave no permission. We must get our ambitious public officials back within the confines of our basic law. Are we being led down the road to slavery like sheep? Has this great country become a nation of wimps . . . people who are afraid to challenge the government when it breaks the law? Will we wake some fine morning to find we are now a minor member of Bush's New World Order? It's  closer than any of us dare to imagine. Wake up, people! What will it be like in this country for us, for our children and grandchildren if we don't take control of the government? Perhaps you or one of your children will be in the same position as the man in this story. Your duty as a juror is of the utmost importance in the guarantee of our basic protections. This same principle applies to state courts. All states must obey the Constitution, either by ratification of the document or on being granted statehood. The requirement for officials to take an oath to support the document also applies to state officials. Each reader should at least know the authority the state has received from your particular state constitution. Find a copy of it or write your state representative and request a copy. Then you will be able to familiarize yourself with its authority. Our very survival depends on alert Americans. Ignorance is NO defense! Languishing in prison on an illegal conviction is a travesty. You and I are the sovereigns. We must begin to act like a sovereign. Otherwise, our birthright of life, liberty and happiness will disappear like a puff of smoke.