Pattern Jury Instructions Revisted: A Fraud On We The People
Did the Judge McAuliffe instruct the jury about their true rights and powers as jurors - see below?
Here is a clip from the jury instructions in the Brown's case:
So "the law" is basically whatever Judge McAuliffe "says it is" - ie. verbatim from the jury instructions above...
"You will decide the case by applying the law as I give it to you in these instructions to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence."
This, despite the fact that Ed and Elaine Brown were never shown the law that requires them to file and pay the taxes Judge McAuliffe "said" they owe.
Click here to read the entire jury instructions in the Brown's case.
Why Didn't Judge McAuliffe Tell Jurors About Their True Power?
From the 6th Circuit's 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.
If you'd like to learn more about where the true power resides in the court - ie. the jury - please be sure to visit and support The Fully Informed Jury Association.
Thankfully, there are examples of juries exercising their true power as in this example from the Tax Trail of Whitey Harrell in Illinois:
Here is a clip from the jury instructions in the Brown's case:
So "the law" is basically whatever Judge McAuliffe "says it is" - ie. verbatim from the jury instructions above...
"You will decide the case by applying the law as I give it to you in these instructions to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence."
This, despite the fact that Ed and Elaine Brown were never shown the law that requires them to file and pay the taxes Judge McAuliffe "said" they owe.
Click here to read the entire jury instructions in the Brown's case.
Why Didn't Judge McAuliffe Tell Jurors About Their True Power?
From the 6th Circuit's 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.
If you'd like to learn more about where the true power resides in the court - ie. the jury - please be sure to visit and support The Fully Informed Jury Association.
Thankfully, there are examples of juries exercising their true power as in this example from the Tax Trail of Whitey Harrell in Illinois:
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
9:00 AM
7 Comments:
If the jury instructions were wrong, then the Browns would have had a grounds for appeal -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Love the Whitey Harrell stuff; somebody be sure to archive these remarks for after he faces his federal criminal trial.
That was so Heart wrenching to see..... When people ask me "But what can one person do to help!" I will refer them to that clip! Show us "THE LAW" God Speed to Mr. Brown and all there.
YankeesPie
Does anybody know the date of Whitey Harrell's new trial?
Very good post whomever posted it. Please keep up the good work!
Anthony
If the judge does not include the instruction that the jury is also to judge the law itself, they are by definition tampering with the jury. Very few people understand this concept, but if you look it up you will find our forfathers determined to put the power of last resort in the hands of the jury. This is supposed to assure that unconstitutional laws were never enforced. Guess what 99.99% of the laws written are unconstitutional. Infact they are merely Acts, Codes and Statutes not positive law. They can't be positive law "their unconstitutional.
Great posting! Larry Kudlow needs to hear this...he wants to abolish the 16th Amemdment as of 2/8/07.
Deception by selective omission, hmmmm, 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. But they should not be told by the court that they have this power. A mans wages cannot be taxed as this is an unalienable right granted by the creator. To tax a God given right is to diminish that right. To tax the wages of a free man without his voluntary consent is to steal from him. A free man has the right to give his money to whomever he chooses. This basic maxim of life is known by all men who are free. If free men are forced to give their labor without voluntary consent it is slavery. Your wages and your labor are one in the same. Labor is exchanged for compensation this is considered to be an occupation of common right. A non taxable right. If my wages are not taxable, and the only way the government can TAKE my money is thru voluntary consent they must be using that deception by selective omission tactic again. Anyone who tries to take your money without your consent is a THIEF.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home