See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Bill of Rights Debate, Seventh Amendment - Part 7 of 10 Part Series
Source:
Newsvine
URL Source: http://kyanabelle.newsvine.com/_new ... dment-part-7-of-10-part-series
Published: Aug 1, 2008
Author: KYANABELLE
Post Date: 2008-08-01 02:39:07 by Rotara
Keywords: Common Law
Views: 190
Comments: 13
The Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights addresses civil matters brought to court. Crucial to understanding this amendment is to understand what is meant by "common law". One definition is Common Law (1) : "the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the United States except Louisiana" The era that this definition stems from originally is the 14th century. Now, my personal understanding of this definition is that "common law" is law based on what is considered proper conduct based on what has been customarily acceptable in the past. I may be way off base on this one, so if you have a different interpretation, please speak up. In approximately 1619, the term common-law" (2) appears and is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a) of, relating to, or based on the common law, or b) relating to or based on a common-law marriage. I don't believe that the definition referring to common law marriage applies to this Amendment, obviously. In a further attempt to clarify "common law", I looked to the ever-convenient Wikipedia. That certainly cleared things up quite a bit. To put it as simply as possible: when a court encounters a case in which the details are so unique that no precedent has been set by a previous court, the ruling issued by that court becomes "common law" and is the precedent by which the next court in similar circumstances bases it's ruling on. That first court established the "Common Law" in regards to this particular situation, even though it is not written as a statute. I do highly recommend the article at Wikipedia, cited below, as the explanation I have given here is very simplified. (3) The Seventh Amendment reads: There has been much debate concerning the final clause of the 7th. It would seem to indicate that the Federal courts have no obligation or jurisdiction in terms of decisions made by juries in common law issues. According to an article at Wikipedia, "Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment" (4) This was decided by SCOTUS in the case of CURTIS v. LOETHER, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) (5) Common law likes to play with Constitutional and Statutory law in ways that are beyond my capacity to unravel and simplify for those of us who don't hold J.D.s. Anyone with knowledge of these intricacies, who possesses that rare quality of being able to make the complex sound simple, is invited (nay, begged) to do so. As we continue this series, I'd like to restate my purpose here. I want to fully understand and learn from civil, respectful discussion, the full implications and controversies associated with each of our Bill of Rights. It is not now, and has never been, my contention that I understand each of our rights fully. I put forth some of my own, not necessarily correct, interpretations in an effort to promote discussion, understand mistaken interpretations, and develop a deeper grasp of these issues that I can in turn pass on to my children and grandchildren. Citations and References: (1) "common law." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. (2) "common-law." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. (3) "Common law." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 26 Jul 2008, 10:43 UTC. (4) "Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 6 Jul 2008, 17:57 UTC. (5) CURTIS v. LOETHER, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) Poster Comment: Just found her typing away in obscurity while listening to Red Beckman on the AJS. The power of the juries to instruct the Judge! Juries are above the Supreme Court! The right of trial by jury shall be preserved! and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than by the rules of the common law! Common Law - 7th Amendment - Highest Law of the Land bump
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law
Merriam-Webster Online. 28 July 2008
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common law
Merriam-Webster Online. 28 July 2008
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common-law
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 28 Jul 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_law&oldid=227990906
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 28 Jul 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&oldid=223954173
FindLaw.com. 28 July 2008
http://www.findlaw.com and http://laws.findlaw.com/us/415/189.html
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
The 9 "USSC Justices" are .gov agents. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The Grand Jury is to be a check on Congress, a check on the Judiciary! ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The following six points were approved for inclusion in the Bill of Jury Rights by voting delegates at the St. Louis "BJR" Conference. Time ran out before several other items proposed for the Bill could be debated and voted upon. Conference participants were subsequently asked to send us their signatures if they wanted us to attach them to the six points that were approved, for publication in this issue of the FIJActivist. The "signed" Bill, then, is to date as follows: 1. The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts in all cases shall not be infringed. 2. In all criminal trials, a jury of at least twelve persons must be seated unless declined by the defendant. 3. The jury must be told that unanimity is not required, but if not achieved, a retrial is possible. 4. A guilty or innocent verdict must be established unanimously by the jury. 5. Jurors must be randomly selected from the widest possible base. 6. Jurors may not be disqualified from service except by reason of conflict of interest. Signatures of those who've signed to date will be reproduced in the next FIJActivist. So far, we've received signatures from: David S. Curland, NH; Toni L. Black, SC; Frank Nugent, MO; Red Beckman, MT; Honey Lanham Dodge, TX; Ken Bush, MO; Godfrey D. Lehman, CA; Sasha D. Kennison, SC; Marjorie C. Davies, OH; Richard B. Boddie, CA; Dick Sunderman, WY; Norma D. Segal, NY; Dave Dawson, WY; Paul Carroll, AZ; Eon Marshall, CA; Barbara Anderson, NH; Bro. Jim Lorenz, CA; Dennis Kurk, MN; Beatrice Kurk, MN; Walter A. Murray, Jr. WY; Richard Tompkins, AZ; Darlene Span, AZ; Jerry Span, AZ; Larry Dodge, MT; Don Doig, MT. BJR Conferees and Speakers note: If you haven't done so already, you can still "sign" the Bill of Jury Rights, as presented above. Just send us your signature. We'll cut it out and paste it up with the others. We'll send you a master copy of the signed document, and print it in the next FIJActivist! "DRAFTERMATH" Since the St. Louis conference, Texans for FIJA met to draft a "Texas version", which proposes item 1 of the Bill of Jury Rights as an amendment to the section of that state's constitution dealing with trial by jury, and includes BJR items 2-5 as part of a list of proposed statutes by which to implement and supplement that section, as amended. The Texas version also divided the statutes into those which would apply to all trials, and those which would apply only to criminal trials. After discussing the Texas version with FIJA activists in Colorado and Wyoming, collecting from them still more suggestions, Larry Dodge brought the accumulated commentary to FIJA HQ in Montana, where he and Don Doig added still a third battery of statutes, applicable only to civil cases, and rewrote the entire document, using as many suggestions as possible. After some debate over whether some of the items in the list should be separated out as "rights of the defendant", as opposed to "jury rights" (resolved by deciding that all rights of the jury are derivative of the right of defendants to trial by jury, so that it makes no sense to separate them), a more-or-less comprehensive Bill of Jury Rights was developed: Proposed Constitutional Amendment, (either by legislative referendum or citizen initiative) to the state constitutional section on Trial by Jury: "The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts in all cases shall not be infringed." Proposed statutes to implement the above amendment, and to supplement state constitutional sections dealing with Trial by Jury or with Rights of the Accused: 1. In all trials: a. a jury of at least twelve persons must be seated unless declined by the defendant. b. jurors must be selected randomly, from the widest possible base. c. jurors may not be disqualified from service except by reason of conflict of interest. d. no evidence which either side wishes to present to the jury may be withheld, provided it was lawfully obtained. e. jurors may take notes in the courtroom, have questions posed to witnesses, and take reference materials into the jury room. f. during selection, jurors may refuse to answer questions which they believe violate their right of privacy, without prejudice. 2. In all criminal trials: a. the court must inform the jury of its right to judge both law and fact in reaching a verdict, and failure to so inform the jury is grounds for mistrial. The jurors must acknowledge by oath that they understand this right, no party to the trial may be prevented from encouraging them to exercise it, and no potential juror may be disqualified from serving on a jury because he expresses a willingness to judge the law or its application, or to vote according to conscience. b. the jury must be told that it is not required to reach a unanimous verdict, but that failure to do so will produce a hung jury, and a retrial will be possible. c. A unanimous vote of the jury is required in order for it to render a verdict of guilty or innocent. d. the jury must be informed of the range of punishments which can be administered if the defendant is found guilty, and what, if any, exceptions to that range may be available to the convict. e. the court may grant no motions which limit the individual rights of the defendant, most particularly his right to have the jury hear whatever justifications for his actions the defense may wish to present. 3. In all civil trials: a. civil trial jurors also retain the traditional power to judge the law, and must be so told by the court whenever the government or any agent of the government is a party to the trial, and where the amount in dispute exceeds $20. b. agreement by three-quarters of the jury constitutes a verdict. c. no judge may overturn the verdict of the jury. Appeals may be made only to another jury, and if these juries disagree, the case shall be decided by a third jury. "PLUS THREE" The St. Louis conference produced three independent proposals for wording which we would like to reproduce here as additional food for thought. FORMER JUSTICE JOHN I. PURTLE'S PROPOSAL Trial juries shall be composed of 12 or more citizens chosen at random from a pool consisting of all persons in the judicial district over the age of 18 years. In criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous and in civil cases, 75% must agree on the verdict. Jurors shall be allowed to take notes during the trial and may take the notes and all evidence into the deliberation room. Grand juries shall consist of 16 or more members selected from the same pool and an indictment must be signed by 75% of the panel. The grand jury shall have the right to select independent counsel. The inherent rights of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law and the facts in all cases shall not be infringed. GODFREY DAVIDSBURG LEHMAN'S PROPOSAL The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law and facts by general or special verdicts at their discretion in all cases shall not be infringed. Trial juries shall be composed of 12 or more citizens selected at random from the widest possible community base in the judicial district without peremptory challenge; challenges for cause shall be limited only to cases of direct partisan interest. Verdicts in all criminal trials shall be unanimous and in civil trial shall be by 75%. Jurors shall be informed of their options to select the third verdict of "Not Proven" when they are dissatisfied with the limitations by either an outright acquittal or conviction. The court shall not withhold from the jury any evidence which any of the litigants wish to bring before the jury, except for evidence illegally obtained. In the case of evidence obtained under questionable circumstances, the court shall explain to the jury how the evidence was obtained without revealing the evidence itself and the judge may express his opinion as to proper admissibility. But the evidence shall be allowed only if one-third (?) or more of the jury so desire provided that a ruling of illegality by the jury shall constitute an automatic indictment of the persons who obtained such evidence, and who shall be tried immediately under the criminal statutes of this state concurrent with the originating trial. Should defendants be acquitted in said trial, the suppressed evidence shall be made immediately available to the jury in the originating trial; but if said trial be already completed, the freed evidence shall constitute grounds for a new trial upon the request of either party. The Seventh Amendment's proscription that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than by the rules of the common law," shall be understood that no appellate court in any case may evaluate the jury verdict neither to overrule nor uphold, being limited only to determine if the trial was conducted fairly per Constitutional mandate. If a question appears to the court or in the case of new evidence, the court shall send the case back to the trial court for a new trial before a second jury, equal in sovereign rank to the first jury, which can deliver a new verdict or uphold the first verdict. If the second jury overrules the first, a third trial may be held, the final determination being the two agreeing juries. FRANK NUGENT'S PROPOSAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE 1. It being the natural right and ability of each and every citizen of this state to judge for himself or herself as to the relevance of evidence, and it being the natural right and ability of each and every citizen to resist pre-judging any issue, no evidence shall be declared inadmissible or otherwise kept from the jury on the grounds of relevance or irrelevancy, nor on the ground that such evidence would be prejudicial. 2. Should any judge rule that any evidence being submitted was obtained illegally, the question of admissibility of such evidence shall be turned over to arbitration consisting of the following persons: prosecuting attorney, defense attorney or the pro se defendant, and three jurors from the general jury pool. If the arbiters decide by an 80% vote that such evidence was obtained legally, then such evidence shall be placed before the jury. A less than 80% vote shall constitute a finding that the evidence was obtained illegally, and then it shall not be admitted nor revealed to the jury; provided however, that such a ruling of illegality shall constitute an automatic indictment of the persons who obtained such evidence, and who shall be tried immediately under the criminal statutes of this state concurrent with the originating trial. Should defendants be acquitted in said trial, the suppressed evidence shall be made immediately available to the jury in the originating trial; but if said trial be already completed, the freed evidence shall constitute grounds for a new trial upon the prayer of either party. "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
In an environment that uses commercial paper to transact all business ... the law is the Law Merchant [U.C.C. / Marine-Admiralty] or contract law. Everything is based upon LEGAL fictions or creations within the commercial environment. Common Law operates in an honest money system and there are no fictions. Crime requires a victim or injured party under common law unlike the commercial system where every crime is a matter of commerce.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
~ Red Beckman
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Red Beckman just stated that as the planned collapse of the 'dollar' is complete, the International Monetary System (back by GOLD) will demolish the remaining currency and the new world order will be complete.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Btw, how'd you get so danged smart? ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Somewhere back in time (I can't recall exactly the date in the 90's) Red Beckman was under attack by the IRS. I and a friend had established phone contact with Red and his wife so that we might go to his place and possibly assist him in convincing the IRS to "terminate" their unfair attack upon him and his property. The Feds cut the phone line and demolished the house after removing Red and his wife to a motel. (I guess we weren't "paying" close enough attention). As far as being smart about the system ... which actually comes down to what is termed "CHOICE OF LAW" the PTB are the experts and we (I) am learning by trial and error ... bumping my head occasionally !
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
And, they are corrupt to the core.
And, they are corrupt to the core. I had never heard of Red Beckman, but I'd like to study his take on things some more. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The Feds cut the phone line and demolished the house after removing Red and his wife to a motel. (I guess we weren't "paying" close enough attention). As far as being smart about the system ... which actually comes down to what is termed "CHOICE OF LAW" the PTB are the experts and we (I) am learning by trial and error ... bumping my head occasionally ! Now that is fascinating. Thanks for sharing. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Every time I got a speeding ticket back when I had a government permissions slip to drive (drivers license). I always insisted on a jury trial. They never gave me one though. I say they violated my rights.
Was so long ago I think I was traveling by dinosaur ... Has anyone ever become so pissed off at a bully that the subsequent fist fight and consequent ass-whipping looked somewhat pleasurable ... that's the way I perceive the vile government = Uncle Sambo !
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces. De La Boétie
#2. To: All (#1)
Petit Jury - trial jury bump
#3. To: All (#2)
THE BILL OF JURY RIGHTS
#4. To: Rotara (#2)
#5. To: noone222 (#4)
"The IRS is a psycho terrorist organization."
#6. To: noone222 (#4)
Common Law operates in an honest money system and there are no fictions. Crime requires a victim or injured party under common law unlike the commercial system where every crime is a matter of commerce.
#7. To: noone222 (#4)
Crime requires a victim or injured party under common law unlike the commercial system where every crime is a matter of commerce.
#8. To: Rotara (#7)
#9. To: Rotara (#1)
The 9 "USSC Justices" are .gov agents. ;-)
#10. To: DWornock (#9)
The 9 "USSC Justices" are .gov agents. ;-)
#11. To: noone222 (#8)
Somewhere back in time (I can't recall exactly the date in the 90's) Red Beckman was under attack by the IRS. I and a friend had established phone contact with Red and his wife so that we might go to his place and possibly assist him in convincing the IRS to "terminate" their unfair attack upon him and his property.
#12. To: Rotara (#0)
#13. To: Old Friend (#12)
(Edited)
when I had a government permissions slip
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest