Sunday, April 17, 2011

Sham Hearings, Show Trials and Kangaroo Courts

Jury Tampering, Witness Tampering, Evidence Tampering, Obstruction and FBI/DOJ Perjury in Blagojevich Show Trial

Our federal government is out of control and Americans need to rein it in. Our government uses prosecutors and a corrupt justice system to crush anyone that stands against its criminality or exposes it mendacity. Governor Blagojevich is being railroaded by an ambitious and egomaniacal prosecutor on a bad monomaniacal Captain Ahab trip. He is furious Governor Blagojevich has beat the DOJ, the judiciary, the federal court system and federal prosecutors despite having denied Governor Blagojevich witnesses, evidence, recordings, notes and even justice.

When the FBI could not win a single count from their 23-count indictment, they then lied and accused Blagojevich of perjury for forgetting the date of a phone call. Yet, they refused to allow him to review his own notes or allow him to see the evidence against him. The FBI also refused to allow him to even tape record his statements so as to protect himself from them saying he said something he did not say. But, the FBI and the judge refused to allow him to take notes or record his statement while the FBI, instead of recording it electronically, used an agent to write down what Blagojevich allegedly said. Now an agent CLAIMS Blagojevich committed perjury.

Then, the piece-of-shit judge, to ensure he did not have any money, refused to allow Gov. Blagojevich to be on a reality show where he could have earned some money for his criminal defense. The government has decided to continue the malicious prosecution of Blagojevich to cause the man complete economic ruin and ensure he will end up with a public defender.

This case is all about prosecutors with relatives who were political insiders trying to oust the governor so they could get his job. And, they succeeded. This fact is no secret in Illinois, the White House, or Rahm’s new mayor’s office. The Judge refused to allow Blagojevich to call Rahm Emanuel who had repeated conversations with Blagojevich and was an intimate insider completely familiar with the case.

The FBI murders and tortures with impunity. It has become the national political police doing the bidding of corrupt politicians that seek to placate religious fundamentalist supporters. The FBI and its agents beat and tortured innocents and then hid their crimes from the American people. They are not the friends of the American people. They are a source of tyranny whereby Americans suffer under a two-tiered justice system that holds the people under the threat of complete and utter ruin while the FBI and the elite that control them engage in every specie of crime to which Americans can be made victim, to include torture and murder. Here is the American justice system in action. Play you never run afoul of the rich and powerful.

Fight for justice. Tell the jurors about the corruption of the Department of Justice and FBI. Make them lose their case AGAIN. This is another political prosecution. Blagojevich fought against corrupt bankers and Wall Street. He fought for the working man. He fought against corporations running Illinois. Now his enemies have him right where they want him. Do not let them succeed. Please post this to every message board, website, news article and newsgroup. They fear the truth. They have hidden the truth from the jury in all the pre-trial hearing and filings. There is no justice in federal court.

Go to Google and read the truth about Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC Bombing and the torture and murder of Kenneth Trentadue by the FBI in a case of mistaken identity. This was a crime that was covered up by Eric Holder that allowed him to sell his soul to become the Attorney General.

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other - or at least no more accurate - definition of a despotism than this. On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

The government refuses to accept the verdict in the Blagojevich trial and is coercing jurors by refusing to accept what is an irredeemably deadlocked jury. If your mind is made up, you should be able to cast your final vote and walk, not be locked in a jury room for days so that the government temps you to walk out of what is a kangaroo court and a government show trial. Jurors should acquit and engage in nullification of the government's bogus case and charges. That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

"The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government. It was anciently called "trial per pais" - that is, "trial by the country." And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused "has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are." The object of this trial "by the country," or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or "the country," judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of thegovernment's judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government, if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

While the stench of Chicago corruption wafts high into the air, all Blagojevich did was what the president, congress, governors, state legislators, and local hooligans do all the time – engage in quid pro quo. This has been the political game-play that has gone on since forever. It is so obvious that the government refuses to allow Rham Emmanuel to be called as a witness. Obviously he was caught on tape too, but with no Emmanuel the government will not allow his taped phone messages into evidence and the government judge will rule it inadmissible and irrelevant.

If the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a " trial by the country," but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own - not by their own judgments of their rightful liberties - but by a standard. dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people's liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial. And such a trial is no trial by the country, but only a trial by the government; and in it the government determines what are its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining what are their own liberties against the government. In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they plainly can do nothing to protect the people against the oppressions of the government; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law.

The jury are also to judge whether the laws are rightly expounded to them by the court. Unless they judge on this point, they do nothing to protect their liberties against the oppressions that are capable of being practiced under cover of a corrupt exposition of the laws. If the judiciary can authoritatively dictate to a jury any exposition of the law, they can dictate to them the law itself, and such laws as they please; because laws are, in practice, one thing or another, according as they are expounded. The jury must also judge whether there really be any such law, (be it good or bad,) as the accused is charged with having transgressed. Unless they judge on this point, the people are liable to have their liberties taken from them by brute force, without any law at all. The jury must also judge of the laws of evidence. If the government can dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only shut out any evidence it pleases, tending to vindicate the accused, but it can require that any evidence whatever, that it pleases to offer, be held as conclusive proof of any offence whatever which the government chooses to allege.

It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government: and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a "trial by the country." The judicial tyranny has been hidden from the people in pretrial hearing so that the truth is hidden from "The People". By such trials the government will determine its own powers over the people, instead of the people's determining their own liberties against the government; and it will be an entire delusion to talk, as for centuries we have done, of the trial by jury, as a "palladium of liberty," or as any protection to the people against the oppression and tyranny of the government.

The question, then, between trial by jury, as thus described, and trial by the government, is simply a question between liberty and despotism. The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves - the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with. If, on the other hand, that authority be vested in the people, then the people have all liberties, (as against the government,) except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) choose to disclaim; and the government can exercise no power except such as substantially the whole people (through a jury) consent that it may exercise.

While the judge locks down jurors to force a guilty verdict, many hope this coercion, of keeping jurors locked down, backfires on the government and people are not so stupid as to not be able to see through this sham and decide to vote “Not Guilty”. The government ought to ask the jurors if there is any chance of them changing their vote, and if not, let them register their vote and walk. Imagine if being locked in an interrogation room for nine days with occupants so stupid as to not be able to see the mockery of justice into which the government has turned this trial. Federal courts have become show trials to appease the ignorant and give the illusion of justice. Federal judges are the most abusive and miscreants ever to be granted absolute authority. Judges have aligned themselves with the other two branches of government against the American people. They no longer protect Americans from unconstitutional laws, but serve to legitimize every tyrannical act instituted by the power elite. They are no longer bound by law, but are free to abuse Americans and make appeals so expensive that only the richest actually have a chance as judges dare you to waste tens of thousands of dollars fixing their intentional mistakes on appeal. The system is rigged and Americans cannot tape a hearing, are not being able to look up court records, and cannot access information based on the types of charges a defendant faces.

The government fails miserably in educating jurors as to what are their rights while serving on what the founders intended on as the fourth branch of government –the jury. The jury is to place themselves above government and decide not on law, but on justice. The law is intended to assist justice, but when used by the government, it is often a form of jury tampering. The government simply refuses to allow any juror who has any experience with police and prosecutorial abuse, perjury, and misconduct, to sit in judgment. It seeks ignorant citizens who have no idea what crimes the ruling elite commit. The U.S. courts and judges are not to provide liberty and ensure justice, they are there to protect and legitimize government tyranny.

SCOTUS decisions invariably end in 5-4 decisions usually in favor of the government on almost every question of civil liberty. While citizens won the case involving the right to keep and bear arms, how could four justices voted against the second amendment and still be sitting on the court? Americans had to win as the Second Amendment is obvious, yet the Constitution was upheld only by the a slimmest of margins. We are talking about the right to do what is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is time for Americans to smash the illegal drug war and federal tyranny.

The force and justice of the preceding arguments cannot be evaded by saying that the government is chosen by the people; that, in theory, it represents the people; that it is designed to do the will of the people; that its members are all sworn to observe the fundamental or constitutional law instituted by the people; that its acts are therefore entitled to be considered the acts of the people; and that to allow a jury, representing the people, to invalidate the acts of the government, would therefore be arraying the people against themselves. There are two answers to such an argument. One answer is, that, in a representative government, there is no absurdity or contradiction, nor any arraying of the people against themselves, in requiring that the statutes or enactments of the government shall pass the ordeal of any number of separate tribunals, before it shall be determined that they are to have the force of laws. Our American constitutions have provided five of these separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury, and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it. And there is no more absurdity or inconsistency in making a jury one of these several tribunals, than there is in making the representatives, or the senate, or the executive, or the judges, one of them. There is no more absurdity in giving a jury a veto upon the laws, than there is in giving a veto to each of these other tribunals. The people are no more arrayed against themselves, when a jury puts its veto upon a statute, which the other tribunals have sanctioned, than they are when the same veto is exercised by the representatives, the senate, the executive, or the judges.

But another answer to the argument that the people are arrayed against themselves, when a jury hold an enactment of the government invalid, is, that the government, and all the departments of the government, are merely the servants and agents of the people; not invested with arbitrary or absolute authority to bind the people, but required to submit all their enactments to the judgment of a tribunal more fairly representing the whole people, before they carry them into execution, by punishing any individual for transgressing them. If the government were not thus required to submit their enactments to the judgment of "the country," before executing them upon individuals - if, in other words, the people had reserved to themselves no veto upon the acts of the government, the government, instead of being a mere servant and agent of the people, would be an absolute despot over the people. It would have all power in its own hands; because the power to punish carries all other powers with it. A power that can, of itself, and by its own authority, punish disobedience, can compel obedience and submission, and is above all responsibility for the character of its laws. In short, it is a despotism.

And it is of no consequence to inquire how a government came by this power to punish, whether by prescription, by inheritance, by usurpation. or by delegation from the people's If it have now but got it, the government is absolute. It is plain, therefore, that if the people have invested the government with power to make laws that absolutely bind the people, and to punish the people for transgressing those laws, the people have surrendered their liberties unreservedly into the hands of the government. It is of no avail to say, in answer to this view of the ease, that in surrendering their liberties into the hands of the government, the people took an oath from the government, that it would exercise its power within certain constitutional limits; for when did oaths ever restrain a government that was otherwise unrestrained? Or when did a government fail to determine that all its acts were within the constitutional and authorized limits of its power, if it were permitted to determine that question for itself?

While no fan of Fox News, Judge Napolitano’s show has been a breath of fresh air and change from Fox’s statist, imperalist, and neocon agendas. Americans owe it to this country, and to each other, to read Lysander Spooner’s treatise “Trial By Jury”. If they do, the courts will no longer serve government tyranny or injustice, but will serve to protect the people and their liberty. The people will then be able to decide their liberty against government as opposed to the government deciding how much liberty it will grant the people. A government allowed to decide its own power over the people is an absolute government. An informed jury can, and usually will, only convict on issues with which only the country as a whole would convict. A trial is meant to be a trial by “country” and specifically not a trial by “government”. If the president, senators, representatives, and judges can all decide if the application of a law is unconstitutional, by what right is that decision lost by a tribunal of jurors? Courts only want jurors to determine facts and hold that only it can determine law. It then tells the jurors if you find it a fact that this or that occurred, you must convict. But if it is a fact that the court is operating on an unconstitutional basis by usurping the constitution, the juror must keep his or her mouth shut and vote “Not Guilty”.

To tell a court you do not agree with the law will disqualify you and set you up for Obstruction of Justice charges. You must tell the court that in your opinion the facts, as you believe them, prove the defendant innocent. You can merely tell the court you think this or that person is lying to justify your “Not Guilty” verdict. Those who deny the right of a jury to protect an individual in resisting an unjust law of the government, deny him all defense whatsoever against oppression. The right of revolution, which tyrants, in mockery, accord to mankind, is no legal right under a government; it is only a natural right to overturn a government. The government itself never acknowledges this right. And the right is practically established only when and because the government, no longer exists to call it in question. The right, therefore, can be exercised with impunity, only when it is exercised victoriously. All unsuccessful attempts at revolution, however justifiable in themselves, are punished as treason, if the government be permitted to judge of the treason. The government itself never admits the injustice of its laws, as a legal defense for those who have attempted a revolution, and failed. The right of revolution, therefore, is right of no practical value, except for those who are stronger than the government.

So long, therefore, as the oppressions of a government are kept within such limits as simply not to exasperate against it a power greater than its own, the right of revolution cannot be appealed to, and is therefore inapplicable to the case. This affords a wide field for tyranny; and, if a jury cannot here intervene, the oppressed are utterly defenseless. It is manifest that the only security against the tyranny of the government lies in forcible resistance to the execution of the injustice; because the injustice will certainly be executed, unless it be forcibly resisted. And if it be but suffered to be executed, it must then be borne; for the government never makes compensation for its own wrongs. Since, then, this forcible resistance to the injustice of the government is the only possible means of preserving liberty, it is indispensable to all legal liberty that this resistance should be legalized. It is perfectly self-evident that where there is no legal right to resist the oppression of the government, there can be no legal liberty. And here it is all-important to notice, that, practically speaking, there can be no legal right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some legal tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and above, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions; in other words, to judge what laws of the government are to be obeyed, and what may be resisted and held for naught. The only tribunal known to our laws, for this purpose, is a jury. If a jury have not the right to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, and resist its oppressions, the government is absolute, and the people, legally speaking are slaves. Like many other slaves they may have sufficient courage and strength to keep their masters somewhat in check; but they are nevertheless known to the law only as slaves.

If Americans read Spooner and become fully informed jurors by reading “Trial By Jury” and members of the Fully Informed Jury Association, all Americans would be subject to less prosecutorial abuses, political prosecutions, show trials, sham hearings, false arrests, malicious prosecutions, and abuses of their civil liberties. Jurors can then protect and defend the constitution by being informed and letting judges know they will not be pawns in government show trials by voting "Not Guilty" for Governor Rod Bagojevich.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment