ED BROWN REFUSED TO PARTAKE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL WHEN THE COURTS USURPED THE POWERS OF THE JURY
The courts, by using these pattern criminal instructions - see below - are violating our 6th Amendment Right of Due Process and a fair trial.
Here's the link to Judge McAuliffe's jury instructions. Here are the two key sentences of "THE LIE" that Judge McAuliffe states in the very beginning, verbatim, as follows:
"You are the sole exclusive judge of the facts."
"You are to apply the law as I give it to you from these instructions to the facts as you find them to be from the edvidence."
Here's the image of the actual jury instructions where Judge McAuliffe states this as follows:
So "the law" is basically whatever Judge McAuliffe "says it is" - ie. verbatim from the jury instructions above...
Judge McAuliffe and the US District Courts, 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.
Here's an example of the pattern criminal jury instructions Judge McAuliffe used to violate Ed and Elaine Brown's 6th Amendment Right of Due Process and a fair trial.
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 LEXIS 1968 at 4 (6th Cir. 1993)(unpublished).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.
Here's an example of what can happen in a tax trial when even one juror knows the truth about the true power of the jury "to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts."
Jury finds Whitey Harrell not guilty for not filing taxes
For more information about this Due Process "right" guaranteed under the 6th Ammendment please visit the Fully Informed Jury Association at this link.
With
Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director
Monday, February 19, 2007
note: recording starts 8 minutes into broadcast.
ED BROWN REFUSED TO PARTAKE IN A FEDERAL TRIAL WHEN THE COURTS USURPED THE POWERS OF THE JURY
2 Comments:
How can the jury judge the law or code, when it is not presented to them!? In Irwin Schiff's case, see www.givemeliberty dot org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-10-31 dot html the Internal Revenue Code was "admitted into evidence" but then when the jury requested it, the judge said: no! In Ed's case the judge I.D.'d it, but REFUSE to put an Exhibit #__ sticker on it for evidence!
This bullshit has got to stop, as by impeaching these bastard judges for not giving the people a fair trial by the 6th Amendment is right on! To confront the witnesses against us. Yeah! Like Irwin writes on page 5 of his 13-page pre-trial Motion to Dismiss of July 5, 2005: Where is the 26USC7701(11) "Delegation Order from the Secretary of the Treasury"?
These LOWER courts using lower court decisions about a direct tax, when the Supremes have already sung the "indirect" song, is what Irwin calls @ p. 3: "lunacy of the law", lower case-law bullshit, exposing the Federal Mafia is right, so to impeach the bastards!
Yours truly, - - cc: my Congressmen (both).
It wasn't presented to them in the Brown Case either.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home