>===== Original Message From The Grip ===== Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:04:59 -0800 From: Treun Cridhe Macghille Eoin Subject: [Fwd: Fw: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00)] Subject: RE: FWD: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00) Hello Vikki, Jack and Big Al, Bill James here; Please note my change in email address, effective immediately: billjames@neworld.net After 15 or so years of studying Law and history, I came accross some fascinating reading at http://www.civil-liberties.com/, covering historical and legal connections between the British, United States, and Vatican, as written by Big Al, Informer, James Montgomery, and others. What a wake-up call ! ! Several of my below responses are based, to some extent, on their research. As to Vikki's conclusion, republished by Jack, and responded to by Big Al, I agree, question, and disagree, as follows: 1.) I agree that the commissioner (judge) acts as a dictator; or more correctly, as an Admiral of a ship at sea (Alice in Wonderland style), wherein the jury acts in the capacity of an advisory `ship's crew', due to the people being asleep and having left their rights unattended for the time dating since the War for Independence under Washington, whereafter, in usurpation of authority, in violation of Articles in amendment the ninth and tenth of the Consitution, the Congress created federal jurisdictions superimposed over the jurisdictional boundaries of the states; thereafter, Washington created a second set of federal jurisdictions dividing the states; and since the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War), as fought by the North, under Lincoln's direction for: (a.) the British, and perhaps Vatican, bankers, who financed Lincoln's election through the American bankers; (b.) the King of England, who still had (has) a vested interest in America due to the colonial Charters, which in law are looked on as treaties, upheld as valid law by the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, or perhaps; (c.) the Pope, due to the 1213 Charter by King John wherein the King's lands were gifted and ceded to the Papacy of Pope Innocent III, for all of the King's progeny forever, thereby gifting the future colonies in America to the Pope. 2.) I agree that the People have no idea that they are under conquest: but question whether such conquest is by: (a.) the bankers, whose Federal Reserve Notes and private/corporate checks the people fail to require be exchanged for United States Notes (FRN's at the FRB, and checks at local bank of issuance), thereby creating adhesion admiralty contracts through their use, or; (b.) the Presidency, as initiated by Washington through his early use of `cause of necessity', and/or under the never rescinded martial law emergency as initiated under Lincoln, and continued thereafter by Roosevelt and others through implementation of Executive Orders under supposed `cause of necessity', and continuing to the present time, or else by: (c.) Congress: who created the Act of 1845 [Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., 2d. Sess. 43, 320, 328, 337, 345 (1844-45)] first bringing Admiralty Law on Land, which together with later supreme court rulings reinforced and extended said Admiralty Law, and; who owns 19.92% of the voting shares of the private corporation known as the United Nations, to who's private banks all federal income taxes are paid into, or; (d.) the Queen, who still wants her 20-25% Gold and Silver as mined in America per the still active agreements contained in the early colonial charters (later regarded as treaties), which were/are agreed by the Articles of Confederation and the several treaties (Peace, Paris, Gent, etc.) from 1783 to 1815 to still be in full force and effect, or; (e.) the Pope, for protection of what he perceives as America being the property of the Vatican, through his acceptance of the 1213 Charter by King John, and by secret banking agreements through banks which the Pope and Vatican control, or; (f.) the BAR association, or; (g.) the Masons, or; (h.) all of the preceeding? 3.) I agree that the judges do indeed sit as subsidiary executive officers (ACTING as though they were part of the Judicial Branch of government) at the pleasure of the President, as display of the gold fringed Admiralty/Maritime flag as adopted by the U.S. Military as a Battle Flag by the Military Chief of Staff in 1925 proves, and; as written in the conqueror's `2AmJur2d Admiralty, Section 90, Law of Flag', and; as covered (as to the court's flag staff adornments of the presidential eagle and the bronze spear) in United States Army Field Manuals 840-10, and 260-10, as to their combined meanings that any proceding under the eagle is under Authority of the President of the United States in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the Military, and that all procedings under the bronze spear are military procedings. 4.) I agree that the people pay taxes because they have been quietly conquered, without their knowledge or understanding, by some or all of those listed in #2 above. 5.) I disagree that anyone within the court room comes under the authority of the judge and can be jailed at his whim: The judges are very careful that they jail, fine, and/or sentence only people claiming by their actions, acquiescence, and/or answers/responses to be U.S. citizens and/or people ignorant of Law, history, and Process. It has been my personal observation that upon questioning by the judge, when one clearly shows knowledge of law, Forum, Venue, Jurisdiction, Flag law, Contract Law, Constitutional Law, history, personal Status, procedure, etc., that the judge never attacks or jails. Big Al's comments are specificly solicited. Bill James >----- Original Message ----- >From: Big Al >To: Jack Aiken Lancaster >Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:01 PM >Subject: Re: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00) > > >Yup Jack you are right on target. People have no idea they are under >conquest. He sits uder the executive seal not the scales of justice seal >so that alone tells you a lot, providing you know symbology. >Big Al >Jack Aiken Lancaster wrote: > > Vikki.. This is my opinion of the court sytem......The commissioner >(judge) is a dictator. He has absolute power over everyone in his court >room. He can set aside a jury verdict. He can put anyone in his court room >in jail at his whim. He can deny Motions without reason. He has diect >delegated authority from the commander-in- chief to keep order in a >conquered land. Only a conquered country pays Tribute (taxes). What I say >sounds fantastic but I think it is true...Jack > ----- Original Message ----- > From: vikki > To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:@mx1.techline.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:48 PM > Subject: Fw: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: W.G.E.N. > To: idzrus@earthlink.netSent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 4:34 PMSubject: >VDW: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00) > X-Sender: pnpj@mail.rochester.edu > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) > : > : > Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:49:25 -0500 > To: jad@jupiter.lc.lucent.com > From: Patricia Neill > Subject: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial (3/21/00) > Article follows, but first, a letter I wrote that was published in the > Denver Post when this case was first going on ... Patty > > 7 October 1996 > > Denver Post > 1560 Broadway > Denver CO 80202 > letters@denverpost.com > > Dear Sirs: > > I have been following the Laura Kriho contempt of court case on the > Internet with great interest. Her case involves much more than prior > drug charges, not volunteering information during voir dire, the > confidentiality of jury deliberations. Her case involves the > government's efforts to emasculate the American jury system. > > After being the lone juror in another case to have reasonable doubt as > to the guilt of the defendant in that case, Kriho found herself faced > with her own trial--this time a trial by a judge, not a jury. The > prosecutor, Jim Stanley, is the same prosecutor as in the Brannon > case, the one declared a mistrial when Kriho refused to convict. > > Kriho was denied a jury trial because her punishment for "contempt of > court" would only be six months in jail. That's six months in jail for > voting her conscience, which is precisely what jurors are supposed to > do. Petit jurors are not there to blindly follow a judge's orders, nor to > rubber stamp a prosecutor's indictment. They are there to state whether > they find a defendant guilty or not guilty on the evidence. They are >there, in > fact--historical fact--to judge both the facts and the law. > > Jury nullification--juror's judging both the facts of the case, and > the law to be applied in the case--is an ancient and honorable > function of our American judicial system, and that of England before > it. A few quotes on the matter might help your readers to understand > the history of the principle of jury nullification: > > John Adams said of the juror: "it is not only his right, but his duty > . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, > judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction > of the court." Alexander Hamilton said that jurors should acquit even > against the judge's instruction " . . . if exercising their judgment > with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the > charge of the court is wrong." John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. > Supreme Court, said "The jury has a right to judge both the law as > well as the fact in controversy." > > The problem seems to be that while our founding fathers, > lawyers though many of them were, recognized this essential principle > of a free people, our current judges and prosecutors do not. Perhaps >the people > of Gilpin County might wish to help them reconsider. > > For acting on her conscience, Kriho faces six months in jail. I can > only assume if the judge and the prosecutor in Gilpin County can > punish one juror so severely for her behavior in the jury box, they > could certainly punish others. I hope that the citizens of Gilpin > County, Colorado, and indeed the United States, are aware of the > historical significance of Ms. Kriho's case--not at all a "simple case > of contempt of court" as the judge in charge called it. It is the > first case of its kind since William Penn's, in England, in 1670. > > Sincerely, > > Patricia Neill > > > > Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial > Update on Laura Kriho Case > Tuesday, March 21, 2000 > > [Denver] - On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court denied petitions for >writs > of certiorari in the case of Laura Kriho. Kriho was prosecuted for >contempt > of court after she was the lone holdout in a methamphetamine possession > case. Kriho's conviction was overturned by the Colorado Court of Appeals > last April and remanded for a new trial. > > Both Paul Grant, attorney for Laura Kriho, and the state Attorney General > had asked the Colorado Supreme Court to review the case. Grant asked the > Court to recognize the importance of jury rights and prohibit any >retrial of > Kriho. The Attorney General's office asked the Court to reinstate Kriho's > conviction. Both requests were denied on Monday. > > Kriho was tried in October 1996 by Gilpin County District Court Judge >Henry > Nieto. In February 1997, after a four month deliberation process, Nieto > convicted Kriho of a precedent-setting new crime: failing to volunteer > answers to questions that were not actually asked of her during jury > selection. > > Last April, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed Kriho's conviction for > contempt and remanded the case for a new trial. The Court of Appeals >ruled > that the trial court improperly invaded the secrecy of the jury room by > allowing testimony from other jurors about jury room deliberations. > > The Court of Appeals defended Kriho, saying that jurors "are to be held to > the question asked, and not to some other question that should have been > asked." Despite this, the Court of Appeals said that Gilpin District >Court > could retry Kriho on the "one remaining allegation" that Kriho >intentionally > failed to volunteer information during jury selection about a 12-year-old > deferred judgment (legal acquittal) for possession of LSD that was >supposed > to be wiped from her record, even though she wasn't asked any questions > relating to it. The Court of Appeals admitted that "there exist certain > ambiguities concerning the legal effect of a deferred judgment" and >that, if > Kriho is retried, the prosecutors will have to show that her failure to > disclose the information was done deliberately to obstruct justice. > > Paul Grant says, "I'm disappointed that the Colorado Supreme Court didn't > take the opportunity to correct the impression that Colorado jurors can be > criminally prosecuted for acting independently in the jury room. I hope > that District Attorney Dave Thomas has the good judgment to drop this >matter > now rather than continue with a prosecution that can accomplish nothing > worthwhile." > > Kriho says, "I answered all the questions they asked me during jury > selection truthfully and honestly. I didn't think to volunteer >information > about my deferred judgement because I had been told at the time that the > charge would be wiped from my record. I didn't try to sneak on to the > jury - my only 'agenda' that day was to get out of jury duty and go home. > My mistake was in not understanding that I was under an obligation to read > the minds of the prosecutor and judge and volunteer answers to questions > that they didn't ask." > > When asked about the possibilities of a new trial, Grant says, "To retry > Laura would send the wrong message to other jurors, chilling their > willingness to deliberate freely in the jury room for fear of later > prosecution. For that reason alone, this case should be dropped." > > The decision on whether to retry Kriho will be made by Dave Thomas, >District > Attorney for the 1st Judicial District (Gilpin and Jefferson Counties). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Donations to help Laura pay the costs of her defense can be made to: > Laura Kriho Legal Defense Fund > P.O. Box 729 > Nederland, CO 80466 > Vmail: (303) 448-5640 > > Your support is very much appreciated! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Background on the case and text of legal briefs and rulings: > http://www.levellers.org/jrp/kriho.index.htm > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jury Rights Project > Old Web page: > New Web page: > To be added to or removed from the JRP mailing list, > send email with the word SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the title. > The JRP is dedicated to: > * educating jurors about their right to acquit people who have been > accused of victmless crimes and thereby veto bad laws; > * protecting jurors from judicial and prosecutorial tyranny; > * educating citizens about the history and power of juries; > * distributing current news related to jurors and juries > > > > > > > > > > >
>
----- Original Message ----- > > >
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 9:01 PM
>
Subject: Re: Holdout Juror May Face Second Trial >(3/21/00)
>

Yup Jack you are right on target. People have no idea >they >are under conquest. He sits uder the executive seal not the scales of >justice seal so that alone tells you a lot, providing you know symbology. >
Big Al >

Jack Aiken Lancaster wrote: >

> > Vikki.. This is my opinion of the >court > sytem......The commissioner (judge) is a dictator. He has absolute power >over > everyone in his court room. He can set aside a jury verdict. He can put >anyone > in his court room in jail at his whim. He can deny Motions without >reason. He > has diect delegated authority from the commander-in- chief to keep order >in a