ED BROWN REFUSED TO PARTAKE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL WHEN THE COURTS USURPED THE POWERS OF THE JURY
This is the "Keep It Simple and Smart" (KISS) message that everyone needs to spread far and wide:
The courts, by using these pattern criminal instructions - see below - are violating our 6th Amendment Right of Due Process and a fair trial.
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment Text | Annotations
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________
Chapter 1.00
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Committee Commentary 1.02
2005 Edition
The Committee made no change in the instruction.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).
1991 Edition
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
For more information about this Due Process "right" guaranteed under the 6th Ammendment please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association at this link.
The courts, by using these pattern criminal instructions - see below - are violating our 6th Amendment Right of Due Process and a fair trial.
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Amendment Text | Annotations
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
PATTERN CRIMINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS
_______________
Chapter 1.00
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Committee Commentary 1.02
2005 Edition
The Committee made no change in the instruction.
A panel of the Sixth Circuit quoted paragraph (4) of this instruction and stated that it cured any confusing statements made by the district court during voir dire. United States v. Okeezie, 1993 WL 20997 at 4, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).
1991 Edition
The jurors have two main duties. First, they must determine from the evidence what the facts are. Second, they must take the law stated in the court's instructions, apply it to the facts and decide whether the facts prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 102-107, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); Starr v. United States, 153 U.S. 614, 625, 14 S.Ct. 919, 923, 38 L.Ed. 841 (1894).
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
But they should not be told by the court that they have this power.
United States v. Krzyske, 836 F.2d 1013, 1021 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109 S.Ct. 89, 102 L.Ed.2d 65 (1988); United States v. Avery, 717 F.2d 1020, 1027 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 905, 104 S.Ct. 1683, 80 L.Ed.2d 157 (1984); United States v. Burkhart, 501 F.2d 993, 996-997 (6th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 946, 95 S.Ct. 1326, 43 L.Ed.2d 424 (1975).
They should instead be told that it is their duty to accept and apply the law as given to them by the court. United States v. Avery, supra at 1027.
For more information about this Due Process "right" guaranteed under the 6th Ammendment please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association at this link.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
9:41 AM
8 Comments:
What you have to do Fred is to open two web browser windows at the same time.
Under the file menue select New Window.
Once you have two windows open then you can listen to the audio in one of the windows and read the blog and comments in the other window.
dk
"ED BROWN REFUSED TO PARTAKE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL WHEN THE COURTS USURPED THE POWERS OF THE JURY"
Let's not forget that they also refused to allow him to present a Defense in doing so.
The Court has the Obligation to both, the Browns, and the Jury, to review the Constitution Itself, ALL the Statutes and Regulations, The IRC, and ALL Citable Case Law... And to ALLOW IT, as submittable Evidence by the Browns.
If Ed thought that anything was wrong with his trial, he could have filed an appeal (which he is doing now anyway). The fact that Ed Brown didn't even put on a defense says quite clearly that he did not have one, and is simply a tax cheat.
I would like to make a correction to a previous statement I made Regarding Exec. Order 11110.
I said it was a Bill.
I also said that JFK Died Months after...
It Actually was DAYS after.
Please see this Video... STUNNING EVIDENCE AGAINST BUSH!http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=jfk+alex+jones
I would like to thank the creators of this Blog, as well as all who Post here, for their Time.
Sincerely,
- SB
He did file an appeal, and the Judge ruled that it was Premature.
Oh... He certainly HAS A CASE...
And simply was not allowed to Cite ANY LAW, Any Statute, or any Regulation, or admit any evidence at all. Nor was The Jury Allowed to even SEE THE IRC! Nor ANY STATUTE or REGULATION as Evidence! NOT FOR HIM... OR... AGAINST HIM!
Who exactly "IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER LAW"?
Any U.S. Citizen who derives their INCOME "Solely from within the United States" and is "NOT A BENEFICIARY OF ANY FEDERAL HOLDING SUCH AS PUERTO RICO OR OTHERS" In essence, this means if You have no Foreign Income, and work within the Private sector... Specifically... not A Federal Employee. The only Income that is in FACT Taxable... is Foreign Earned Income or Gain. The Average American Citizen's U.S. LABOR AND PAYMENT FOR SAID LABOR... Are NOT Taxable "BY THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION" and that is EXACTLY WHY it is not Taxable by any other LAW consequently, to this very Day!... and is EXACTLY WHY "THEY"... Will Not "SHOW YOU, A LAW"!
Are you Getting this?
Why the hell is this so hard for people to understand? The Facts are out there for Everyone to see, and the LAW EVERYONE'S LOOKING FOR... Is right in the World's Face, And it IS WRITTEN LAW...For all you non-believers, and Critics of "TAX HONESTY ADVOCATES"... Why do think the Government WONT FACE THE LAW in our own Courts? Why do you think the Courts Themselves, and the Government, Refuse to Even Allow the LAW to be Presented, By Ed and Elain Brown?
I can't speak for any of you People... But I've researched the "LAW"... Which is cited by First, the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, and then the Statutes and the Regulations there of.
I can only speak for Myself...
I happen to be Noones Dummy, and the Truth has always come easy, and presented itself Profoundly in my Lifetime, as I have Fervently sought it out.
For the True American Patriot, it is our Duty to also Protect, and Stand just as firmly, if not more... For the Rights of those who are weaker, and cannot Stand for their Own Rights.
When anybody who matters believes that, be sure to let me know.
Well Joey... It's Only the People who DO Believe that... Who DO Matter... And those who have yet to discover the Truth... Also matter...
You simply Cannot Fight for a Mere Fraction of your Rights, And still call yourself a Patriot. You Cannot Believe in only Half of the Constitution, and Ignore the Rest of it.
To do this is to Act like the Judge in Ed's Case, or a Corrupt IRS Pocket Commission Agent.
They love to recieve The Constitutional Benefits of their Office, they use the Constitution when it Suits their Own Agenda, and they Destroy, write-around, ignore and/or Deny the Constitution Wherever/Whenever it is applied to Protect and Help the People.
You have revealed yourself to think, act and Respond... Just like them. Thank you for this insight as to your Beliefs and Charachter.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home