Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

Elias Alias: Jury Selection In Bundy Trial Already Rigged

Jury selection/rejection began today, Wednesday, September 07, 2016, in Portland, Oregon, for the Bundy trial. I am not surprised to read accounts of the judge’s bias against jury nullification. The Oregonian/OregonLive website posted an article which quotes a few of judge Anna J. Brown’s opinions about protecting the government’s assumed power to railroad defendants. <active link: http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/09/oregon_standoff_trial_for_ammo.html >

A passage from the article:

“Jury selection is something of a misnomer,” said Jeffrey T. Frederick, director of jury research services for the National Legal Research Group. “It really is jury rejection.” That’s because the practice is meant as a filter, to keep unqualified people from sitting in judgment, he said.

Further down the article we read:

Potential jurors will almost certainly face questions on their opinions about federal control of public land, militias, law enforcement, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and whether they believe a person exercising their First or Second Amendment rights must observe lawful limitations on those rights.

 

That judge has had ample opportunity to learn the truth regarding jury nullification. Her refusal to see that truth robs her soul of dignity and makes of her a robotic agent of government force, indifferent to the spirit of the Constitution, ignorant of Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of “Unalienable Rights”, and repugnant to every principle of individual freedom. She is a willing agent of what we old hippies used to call “The Establishment” or “The System“.

Recall, another judge has already ruled that the Bunkerville, Nevada, trials will be shrouded in secrecy. See my article of July 25, 2016, on that —

My God! The Judge Wants Total Secrecy In Bundy Trial!

https://www.oathkeepers.org/my-god-the-judge-wants-total-secrecy-in-bundy-trial/

So judge Brown is not the only one willing to defend government’s sins. But she is tying up the hands of justice in her own way by her denial of Jurors’ rights to judge of the law as well as of the facts of the case.

We are looking directly into the face of governmental tyranny unabashedly displaying itself with cold cruelty in a theatrical abomination of the very purpose of “justice”.  The infrastructure of power now has its own evil momentum and will lay to waste any dissent, in order to protect the gigantic fraud which the mechanism of government has asserted through “code” and “statute”, through “color of law” and “rules of the court”. States’ Rights be damned; Jury Nullification be damned; it’s full steam ahead for the soul-less, ego-driven hunger of authoritarian power dressed appropriately in the black robes of darkness and death.

Readers may wonder why I speak this way about our corrupt court system, and some may feel that I’m condemning all judges. I am not condemning all judges, just most of them. I am happy to show an example of a true judge who sat on the Washington State Supreme Court and honored his Oath. I’ve written about the man, and his message of jury nullification, many years ago. It is right here on the Oath Keepers website. I would encourage any reader who has not read that article to pause here and do so now. And someone needs to show the article to Judge Brown. The opening of that article —

In a small but powerful booklet which was copyrighted in 1996, former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe gives an accounting of the origin and establishment of our present-day jury powers. I would like to share with you some passages from his essay entitled:

Jury Nullification: Empowering The Jury As The Fourth Branch Of Government
~
Quoting former Washington State Supreme Court Justice William Goodloe:

“Of all the great trials in history tried at Old Bailey in London only one is commemorated by a plaque. Located near Courtroom Number Five it reads:

“Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet commemorates the courage and endurance of the Jury. Thomas Vere, Edward Bushell and ten others, who refused to give a verdict against them although they were locked up without food for two nights and were fined for their final verdict of Not Guilty. The case of these jurymen was reviewed on a writ of Habeas Corpus and Chief Justice Vaughan delivered the opinion of the court which established the Right of Juries to give their Verdict according to their conviction.”

“The case commemorated is Bushell’s Case, 6 Howell’s State Trials 999 (1670). This case is a good beginning for tracing the roots of a legal doctrine known as jury nullification.” (End quoted passage by Justice William Goodloe, ret.)

Justice Goodloe’s article builds from there, giving context, founders’ commentary on the subject, court cases concluded favorably on jury nullification, and, as his intelligence shown through brilliantly, his booklet shows the proper place for common sense and moral uprightness in the American court system. So the question remains — why do not all judges care enough about their duties, and their Oaths, to educate themselves about our rights as embodied in jury nullification?  This judge Brown is positioning herself as the antithesis of what our court system is supposed to be. Here are some passages from the bottom of the OregonLive article linked above.

The judge also said she intends to question each juror on whether they were handed a flier outside court about jury nullification, and to instruct them that they must follow the law even if they disagree with it. Judge Brown said deputy U.S. marshals indicated there may be people outside court distributing such fliers.

Ryan Bundy and Ammon Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford objected to the judge’s proposed instructions to prospective jurors. Ryan Bundy argued that they will “rob a juror” of the right to serve as a “check and balance” on the federal government’s power.

Mumford asked that the judge not suggest that any of the defendants were responsible for such fliers.

“A jury’s place is to be able to use their common sense, their intellect, their conscience, whether the law is proper or not proper,” Ryan Bundy argued.

Judge Brown dismissed his objection.  

“It’s overruled,” she responded.

Jurors take oaths, the judge said, and she plans to advise them to “follow the law whether they agree with it or not.”

“I’m not going to say they have the option,” the judge said.

So there we have it.  Damn what’s right. Damn the people. Damn the purpose of the law in the first place; and damn moral duty to our fellow man. Damn everything when the authority of Statism might be threatened by the truth.

The cowboys never shot at a cop, never killed an agent, never shot at anyone. Instead, they merely made a conscientious stand to raise the question in public about who Constitutionally is authorized to manage public lands within the boundaries of a State in this Union. They are correct, and the Federal government is wrong. The American Lands Council has that information,  < here >

One of the phrases in my culture when I was growing up was — “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” My question today is why do most judges insist on remaining ignorant of the highest uncontested law of the land? It must be something like a fervent and worshipful passion for that un-named religion called “Statism”, the philosophy of worshiping authority over all else in the name of Statism; the theology of which was encapsulated accurately by one Adolf Hitler, who put it this way [1]:

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual…”

That is a classic example of Statism, and that is exactly the mindset of modern judges who deny a jury’s right and duty to nullify according to their consciences in any criminal case.

FIJA_courtesy_Webster_County_Nebraska

There is a wonderful article at the Fully Informed Jury Association website which plainly shows why We The People, when confronted with this sort of corruption coming from a damned judge, are morally justified in outright lying to the prosecuting attorneys and the judge during Voir Dire (the process of screening jurors with, by, and for bias favoring the government).  Read it here — http://fija.org/docs/BR_YYYY_surviving_voir_dire.pdf

 

Salute!

Elias Alias, editor

See also: “Guerrilla Jurors: Sticking It To Leviathan”, co-authored by Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, and Don Doig, co-founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association > HERE <

1 – Page 13 in  The Ominous Parallels  by Leonard Peikoff; copyright 1982 by Leonard Peikoff; published by the Penguin Group, Penguin Putnam, Inc., 275 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; foreword by Ayn Rand; no ISBN in my paperback copy; Library of Congress number: 83-60247.

About Author

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Comments

  1. Imperator 9 September, 2016, 14:37

    I suggest that during voir dire, Patriotic men & women of good and true conscience collude with one another, “Cross my heart & hope to die, stick a needle in my eye…” and then “tell the prosecutor/judge a great big, beautiful LIE…” when questioned about their belief in/knowledge of jury nullification. Listen dutifully, attentively even, then return a swift, stinging “NOT GUILTY” verdict as a slap in the face of Judge, Prosecutor, and Leviathan.

    No explanation required, none offered – simply, “We, the people of the jury, in the above-entitled matter, do find the Defendant (s) NOT GUILTY on/of all charges preferred…”

    I’m willing to bet Judge Brown would then sooner swallow her own tongue, than to graciously thank the jusry for their service, as is customary….The thing is, while a judge might overturn/vacate another judge’s proscribed sentence, departing downward (or upward, as in the highly irregular case of the Hammonds…) a judge is entirely without the power/authority to vacate/overturn the “Not Guilty” finding of a jury in a criminal matter.

    It would be a beautiful thing to watch!

    Reply this comment
  2. TR 9 September, 2016, 16:24

    May God be with ya’ll and may the truth come out about our lying government .

    Reply this comment
    • Cal 9 September, 2016, 18:43

      First, judges are ALLOWED to retain the position they occupy for as long as they use “Good Behaviour” (US Constitution spelling). The US Constitution tells us itself what is “Good Behaviour”, doing their duty as the Constitutions – US Constitution and state Constitution (where it applies); plus taking and KEEPING the required Oaths. Those are the only things they are required to do to stay in “Good Behaviour” and be able to retain that position for life. But when they do not use “Good Behaviour” it is the juries of the people that are to know, recognize, and report on judges behaviour that they feel is NOT “good”. Charges must be filed (Yes, the US Constitution itself is LAW, as is each state’s Constitution) so that the judge has their day to defend themselves for the actions as all charged are supposed to be able to do.

      If found guilty, a fine, and removal, plus refusal to allow them to hold any position that has anything to do with our governments like “lobbying”, contracting to, etc. 100% removed from our governments. If the crimes committed they can be removed permanently from the USA.

      Yes, there are historic precedents for these things but at this time am not on a computer with those notes – will try to post them soon. Sorry all, I should have waited to comment.

      God Bless All, and Stay Safe

      Cal
      If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      Reply this comment
    • Josie 9 September, 2016, 21:22

      Oh, no no. Mizz Brown, the black-robed wannabe tyrant made very clear, it is not admissible to put the Feds on Trial here. Even though they ramped up the whole situation and cold-bloodedly murdered a citizen. The plan was probably to kill them all, but they weren’t clever enough to pull it off.

      Reply this comment
  3. Little Stinker 10 September, 2016, 03:04

    All I need to know about this government can be seen on YouTube search:

    1. Blasphemy Commissioner’s in Florida pledge allegiance to Satan and Allah. WTF

    2. TYRANNY, U.N. FLAG STANDS TALLER THAN U.S. FLAG
    AGAIN WTF

    Reply this comment
  4. helpful55 10 September, 2016, 03:19

    I have had a problem with this myself. I knew my charges could certainly be up to interpretation whether they were in fact a crime. I brought up jury nullification and my attorney went right to asking me about it as if they wanted to find a way to deny my use of it even though it is a right that was in our system for many years until the power hungry ones worked to rid of us it. The judge would not include information about jury nullification in the jury instructions. In fact the jury was instructed in a way about how they must apply the law to where I believe they may have been scared into feeling that they may become a target of the court if they didn’t do it the courts way. There was no leeway to really be a determiner of guilt when you are told “you must follow the law…..”. Juries are pressured into giving verdicts that they may not agree with. I believe for many they feel they are almost an accused when they are put into a courtroom surrounded by the legal system and don’t want to do anything wrong or they may be sitting beside me. If they were told of the power and options they have those fears would be allayed somewhat and they would be free to operate in the ways the originally set up court system meant them to be. It is a very necessary part of due process. The people in power want to have everything their way and will take nothing else.

    Reply this comment
  5. PeaceableGuy 10 September, 2016, 10:45

    I’m familiar with FIJA’s good work, and was thus rather surprised to see this article’s claim that FIJA encourages “outright lying” even to a blatantly corrupt prosecutor or judge. After reading the linked FIJA pamphlet, it appears to me that this claim by the article is completely incorrect – the pamphlet explicitly states to have an intelligent, concise statement ready in the case of being unable to answer a question without lying (the paragraph header is “When All Else Fails”).

    Personally, I find it hard to condemn as wrong a person who lies to criminals, particularly when the person’s cause is just and/or morally upstanding. FIJA does not appear to openly share my views on outright lying, however, and I think the claim does everyone but enemies of the Constitution a disservice.

    Reply this comment
  6. Bob 10 September, 2016, 11:57

    the justice system put in place by the founders has been replaced by a legal system that has been perverted by evil people who seek absolute dictatorial power. can a 2nd Revolutionary War be far away or are people going to tolerate what our founders could not tolerate?

    Reply this comment
  7. Rabid vDog 10 September, 2016, 15:55

    Most judges that say, “jurors must follow (apply) the law” is a slap in-the-face of our judicial system of checks and balances.

    If the jury must follow the law and convict a person, based ONLY on the language of the law, there might as well be no jury !

    There are countless laws that can be proven as not applicable, or unjust, and even stupid. It’s up to the jury to decide that and in many cases, the law has been changed because of jury nullification.

    The best way to get on the jury (I guess) is to lie your way in and THEN do the right thing. That’s where it’s going….

    Reply this comment
    • Elias Alias Author 10 September, 2016, 16:22

      I’d say that you are correct. Many “statutes” and “codes” are clearly un-Constitutional, such as those under which LEOs killed rural Americans for making home-made whiskey during the unlawful “Prohibition”. The damned government has never been empowered to own any citizen’s body (for that would be blatant slavery), yet because of special interests the do-gooders used the force of government to enforce their good neighbors’ behavior regarding alcoholic beverages. When the government presumes to own one’s body (which is what is meant behind any “prohibition” law regulating what we eat, smoke, drink, or breathe) the government has assumed, under the rubric of “morality”, some un-Constitutional “right” to own our bodies. That is slavery by anyone’s definition, because only self-owners are free people, and no one can be a self-owner when government claims to own one’s body. Just imagine how the fedgov agent who was the last man to shoot a West Virginia or Tennessee or North Carolina moonshiner felt the day after Prohibition was repealed, right? One day he’s “just doing my job” to take a life, and the next day, were he to shoot that same man, his shooting would be murder. It’s the same damn thing going on in this country today over the marijuana issue. Fortunately, and this is on the record, Jury Nullification was largely responsible for the repeal of the un-Constitutional “laws” against
      booze.
      When the damned judge decides to prohibit the jury’s consciences, it’s damn-well time to lie one’s way onto the jury where one can do one’s duty to one’s fellow man by nullifying that “law” for that one defendant, in that one trial. That is why the founders made sure that jury trials would be part of this nation’s lawful process.
      Note also — when a jury exercises its right and duty to nullify, the jury is not changing the “law”, not taking that law off the books, but is merely nullifying that law in that one instance, during that one trial, for that one defendant. The dumbstruck little statists who want the government to run our lives for us will often argue against jury nullification by accusing us of “legislating” from the jury box. They are wrong, and most of them who accuse us of that know they’re wrong, but will themselves lie, just like that damned judge is lying to the People with her “rules of the court” and “color of law” authoritarianism.
      Thank God the People are starting to wake up to such mischief in our “legal system”.
      Thank you for understanding this. Please tell all your friends to visit https://fija.org/ Spread the word, eh? 😉
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

      Reply this comment
  8. Nick 11 September, 2016, 08:58

    Abiding the law is a two way street. If we fail in our clearly defined role “to execute the Laws of the Union”, falling prey to propaganda and ignorance, what do we expect from those who seek positions of power?
    Several comments above, Cal quotes Dr. Edwin Vieira, so I have no need to go on explaining the disabilities of government, and that of the failure of “We the People” to not only participate in this nation of “popular sovereignty”, but also to act in that manner that might “secure the blessings of liberty”.
    I will comment that with the myriad of information available on this subject, much of which is provided to us in comprehensive form by Dr. Vieira, we “still don’t get it”. Why?
    Instead of running around without the recognized force of law, these men and women could have been working to revitalize the “rule of law”. Now they are going to face the Goliath the Founders hoped we would not allow to be born again.

    Reply this comment
  9. KT 13 September, 2016, 22:32

    Hi, I am losing a lot of sleep since realizing what is happening to our country. I feel overwhelmed as I read late into the night, trying to understand what is really going on. I am shocked when I hear Loretta Lynch, DOJ wants to bring UN troops to our country, to fight extremism. I am shocked when James Comey, FBI, tells Americans that no one would indict Hillary Clinton for not keeping our national security confidential. That’s not true, as we all know. I am shocked to hear that we are making deals with Iran and delivering cash to them in the middle of the night, as our hostages are being released. Or that a top scientist that has been placed in his position by our president, has some very bad ideas about how many children we should be allowed to have. He also talked about forced sterilzation, in the 70’s I believe. Who knows what he’s thinking and talking about now! Our government has corruption throughout many departments, individuals purposely placed in high positions. It seems to me this was done to prepare for their evil endgame of taking over our country.I watched the video re Oregon last night. I am truly sorry and speechless over all I’ve recently learned. I don’t know what I should or could do. We can’t allow UN troops to come to the US. Can someone type a message about what an ordinary citizen like me can do to make a difference and stop this madness? There are some people that think it is all ok, and that nothing will happen. They say that the president will be gone soon, so we don’t have to worry. We have to somehow let all the Americans know the truth. So many people are wrapped up in their own situations/ life that they really don’t realize what a terrible situation we are all in right now. What can we do? Thank you to all of you that have served in the military, protecting all of us here at home.

    Reply this comment
  10. H. Nelson 15 September, 2016, 08:20

    Certainly it’s rigged. Judges know the real power to a court case is the jury of their peers. Weeding out those they deem unworthy in their cause to convict is what the court clerk’s job is. I found this out recently. I had jury duty, I appeared, was asked to fill out a questionnaire. The very last question was “if given testimony by a law enforcement officer, would you take their testimony as lawful and truthful?”. I answered “no”. I’m sorry, humans will lie. The badge is immaterial. The clerk went over the questionnaires and started calling names off for dismissal. My name was one of those. As we were leaving, I asked several of the dismissed how did they answer the last question. All of them replied with “no”.

    It told me right there that the system is rigged and crooked. The court system is provided work by LEO’s hauling people in, the court system in-turn protect LEO’s by culling out those that will not roll over.

    Reply this comment
  11. Agent76 17 September, 2016, 08:43

    Feb 2, 2016 Breaking: Lavoy Finicum Tased By OSP Implicates Murder By The Feds

    In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth analyses the FBI footage which appears to show Lavoy Finicum at first being tased by the Oregon State Police but then quickly executed by the feds.

    https://youtu.be/Qup47XJGIl4

    Reply this comment
  12. sjtobe 18 September, 2016, 14:44

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIU56co9B5I

    OREGON BUNDY CASE, EMERGENCY MOTION TO DISMISS (9th Circuit)

    https://www.scribd.com/document/323789256/Mumford-Emergency-Motion

    Copy of the document

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*