[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Conscientious Juror Persecuted by State of Idaho (Officer Jack McLamb's Assistant) 66-year old retired school teacher charged with felony for exercising rights > as juror > > Kamiah, Idaho - Feb 1: Carol Asher, a 66-year old retired nun and school > teacher faces the possibility of 14 years in prison for exercising her right > to free speech in the privacy and sanctity of the jury deliberation room. > What did she say? As nearly as we have been able to learn, she may have > told the other jurors that ultimately, she answered to a Higher Authority > than the judge. Now she has been charged by Lawrence G. Wasden, who is the > Idaho Attorney General, by Stephen A. Bywater, who is Deputy Attorney > General, Chief, Criminal Division, and by Justin D. Whatcott, who is Deputy > Attorney General, all of whom work for the people of the state of Idaho, > with felony perjury for speaking her mind within the confidentiality of the > jury deliberation room. > > > > What?? > > > > Yes, you read that right. I'll get into the details in a minute, > but first, Let's review a few basic rights which our government is supposed > to protect: Freedom of Religion; freedom of speech; freedom of conscience; > the right to trial by a jury of your peers; privacy. > > > > No, that's not all our rights and freedoms. In fact, besides > those few rights everybody knows about from the Bill of Rights, we have all > other rights not specifically and explicitly granted to our hired government > so that it can do a better job of protecting our rights. For instance, we > granted the government the agency to represent us in negotiations with other > countries, and to declare war. That means neither you nor I think it is > feasible for us, as individuals, to negotiate with countries or declare war. > Okay, maybe. I'll let that one rest for now. But we retain all rights. In > fact, the Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights, because we already have > them. We used our rights to establish government, and the Bill of Rights is > simply a list of pre-existing rights by which we informed government that it > was not to even consider infringing. > > > > And we do have the right - we could not give it away if we wanted > to, because it is an intrinsic part of our identity as humans – to make > decisions based on our own conscience. Carol never gave up that right while > she was in the courtroom, serving as a juror, or at any other time. No oath > administered to any juror can deprive us of that right. > > > > Since when did free speech become a felony? If jurors are not to > deliberate, to freely discuss their impressions and ideas, if jurors are not > allowed by the state to hold open, honest consultation with each other in a > trusting and truthful fashion, then why do we have juries? > > > > If every juror who serves on a jury must guard his or her tongue > in the privacy of the jury deliberation room, fearful of making a statement > which will be reported to the prosecutor or the defense attorney or judge by > some jury snitch, then what happened to the privacy, the sanctity, and the > confidentiality of jury deliberations? > > > > Have we reached the time in the history of our once great nation > when jurors must be provided with a list of phrases - perhaps even words - > which they cannot utter in the jury deliberation room, under pain of prison? > > > > Have we reached a time in our courts when jurors will be punished > for refusing to render a verdict according to the demands of the government, > when jurors will be punished if they refuse to ignore their conscience and > blindly accept the orders of the judge as the supreme law of the land? Have > we reached a time when to hold the moral and religious reservations held by > the majority of the people in this country- those reservations which allow > us all to consult our own conscience, to rely upon our own guiding > principles and religious teachings - must be ignored, set aside? > > > > Must we, when we serve on a jury, no matter how reprehensible a > verdict of guilty might be to our conscience, vote guilty if that is the > verdict dictated by the tight confines of government instructions? And will > we then be singled out, from among the many voting not guilty, if we have > the courage and the moral strength to share our thoughts and our reasoning > with the other jurors? > > > > Carol respectfully listened to the evidence of the case - it was > another of those apparently slam-dunk drug cases against a minority young > male, in this case, he was Indian, not Hispanic or black - and thoughtfully > considered what she had heard, as well as what she did not hear. She was a > thinking, attentive, and conscientious juror, and tried to do her best to > pay attention to all the facts and to render a just verdict. > > > > Carol was one of four jurors who voted "not guilty." Yet, > because she was open and honest in her remarks to the other jurors, not > realizing there might be some snitch in the room who would not respect th > confidentiality of jury room proceedings, she has been singled out to be > prosecuted for felony perjury. One must ask "why?" Well, as it turns out, > Carol also works with a civil liberties group which criticizes a lot of the > silly and abusive actions meted out by government officials against private > citizens. She has the courage to ask questions. We think that may be why > she has been singled out for this harassment, tyrannical prosecution and > general legal hazing. > > > > Some other juror, perhaps unhappy that Carol honestly said what > was on her mind, went to rat her out to the prosecuting attorney. Well, > sure, the prosecutor wanted to win. Forget justice: these days, those > government employees go for blood, to polish their conviction rate record. > And now they are after Carol, singling her out to punish for thwarting their > prosecution, just because they think they can get away with it. > > > > The state employees named in the first paragraph certainly know > they will lose this one on appeal, but they can meanwhile cause Carol a lot > of stress and a lot of financial hardship. By their actions, if their nasty > little ploy works, they will scare other jurors in to a state of meekness > and obedience to the state and the government employees. No more questions. > > No more thinking. A nice, neat rubber-stamping of the charges brought > against anyone. This is a prosecutor's dream come true. Carol interfered > with a slam-dunk for the state lawyers, and she is being punished for being > honest about her thinking. But, don't we want jurors to think? > > > > Why do we have juries in this country, anyway? > > > > We all understand that juries protect society from dangerous > individuals. But how many, today, recall that juries are also empowered to > protect individuals from dangerous government prosecutions and unjust laws? > > > > Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. > They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, > the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case. Our > recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the > law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the > > writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn, while > still in London, who was tried for breaking the King's law against preaching > the Quaker religion. His jury refused to convict him although the judge > ordered the jury to find him guilty. When the jury refused, the judge had > several jurors jailed until a higher court ruled that jurors could not be > punished for their verdict. Penn later came to America and founded > Pennsylvania. > > > > No country has protected free expression more than has the United > States, and no case in American history stands as a greater landmark on the > road to protection for freedom of the press than the trial of German > immigrant printer John Peter Zenger. On August 5, 1735, twelve New York > jurors, inspired by the eloquence of the best lawyer of the period, Andrew > > Hamilton, ignored the instructions of the Governor's hand-picked judges and > returned a verdict of "Not Guilty" on the charge of publishing "seditious > libels." The Zenger trial marked the beginning of a free press, and was an > eloquent declaration of the stubborn independence of American jurors. Those > jurors insisted that they would not be bullied by the instructions of the > judges, but would remain free-thinking, independent citizens, exercising > their minds as well as their consciences to render a just verdict. That was > their responsibility as jurors, and their human right. > > > > Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain the > right to resist, having an unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and > oppressive laws, and in fact, would be morally compelled to do so. > > > > Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda > during any trial and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not > forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers - and the forensic > investigators in most cases - are all a part of and receive their paychecks > from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to > protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in > convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, > the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom. > > > > Our current form of government was organized, hired and strictly > limited by our founding private citizens to protect our rights, not > arbitrate those rights. Juries were intended as the protectors against > government's power-hungry expansion and the resultant rise of tyranny. The > primary role of our jurors remains that or serving as an independent body > to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional government laws > and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. > Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. > Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties. > > > > Our country's founders planned and expected that we, the people, > would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the > facts every time we serve as jurors. What a person holds as justice in > their personal, private conscience and what decisions a person chooses in > the privacy of their own mind, are not susceptible to nor dependent upon any > external authority, direction or written law, but are the sole province of > the individual, reasoning mind. > > > > The concept and right of sovereign juror authority is not a right > derived from any legal reasoning. It requires no citations to legitimize > it. It is a right that permeates the very concept of being human. Human > rights come before government: our government was formed by free humans to > protect human rights, not to grant them. While our government may have been > > flawed, it yet rests on an excellent set of controlling concepts from which > it was formed. Human rights were what our government was designed to > protect. These rights, including the right of the individual juror to make > a decision based on rational and responsible thought and individual > conscience, transcend all legislation and legal rulings and is above any > modification or apportionment by any lawyer or politician in our form of > government. > > > > The concept and right of sovereign juror authority requires no > citations to legitimize it: it is a concept as solid and unalienable as our > right to life. While discussions of citations and rulings are of interest, > the core authority is not derived from the words of other humans, but from > our personal, individual inherent sense of our self-ownership and our > individual responsibility toward life and all that implies. > > > > Is our system of justice failing, or is this a failure of > government employees of the state of Idaho to understand the role of the > juror and the law? It certainly isn't a failure on the part of our > conscientious citizen jurors nor should former teacher and nun, Carol Asher > be held to account for the legitimate exercise of her rights of reason and > conscience. All thinking Idahoans should rise to her defense, in righteous > indignation, and in outrage over the arrogant, despotic actions of state > Attorney-General Wasden, and his staff, all of whom are complicit in an > official conspiracy to deny human, civil, and jurist rights, in defiant > opposition to the clear dictates of our Constitution. > > > > Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director > > Fully Informed Jury Association and American Jury Institute > > > Her attorney is Wesley Hoyt at hoytlaw@hotmail.com, by the way. > > > Carol's next court appearance is scheduled for March 7th. > > > Please get in touch with the people listed below and complain about this > > treatment of free and honest citizen. > > > > Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, (208) 334-2400 > > > Stephen A. Bywater, Deputy Attorney General, (208) 334-4545 > > > Justin D. Whatcott, Deputy Attorney, (208) 334-4545 > > >
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: christine (#0)
Do each of you, as jurors of the grand jury, affirm that you will diligently inquire into and true presentment make of all public offenses against the state of Idaho, committed or triable within this county, of which you shall have or can obtain legal evidence? That you will keep your own counsel, and that of the other members of the grand jury, and of the government and will not, except when required in the due course of judicial proceeding, disclose the testimony of any witness examined before you, nor anything which you or any other grand juror may have said nor the manner in which you or any other grand juror may have voted in any matter before you? That you will present no person through malice, hatred, or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear, favor or affection, or for any reward or the promise of hope thereof? Do you therefore affirm that you will in all your presentments follow these instructions and present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, according to the best of your skill and understanding, so help you God?
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||