THE JUROR

 I like this one because I'm one of the few people who wants to get on jury duty so I can uphold the intent of a jury to be the final arbiter to overrule even a judge, if the situation calls for it.

http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/Elijah_Green/The_Juror.pdf

THE JUROR

Bill: Excuse me Sam. I sat through the entire trial while you were on the jury. I heard all the Same
evidence you did in the court room. The guy was obviously guilty. He was a felon from eight years ago,
and he was caught with a gun. The law is perfectly clear. Felons cannot be around guns. I cannot
comprehend how you could possible vote "not guilty" after hearing all the evidence. They even showed
30 seconds of video footage from the security camera of him pointing the gun at the other guy until the
police came. He admitted it was him in the video. How could you possibly vote "not guilty"? This blows
my mind!

Sam- Do you want the short answer or the long answer?

Bill- I guess the long answer. I really want to understand.

Sam- Well then, let's start at the beginning. The founding fathers of this country were very concerned
about the evils of big government. They had been under British rule for many years and had seen
firsthand how corrupt governments can destroy freedoms and lives if they are not restrained. They
knew that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I

Bill- I've heard that one before.

Sam- Well, they knew it was true so they labored long and hard to develop a simple yet powerful
Constitution that would chain down the evil beast that governments often become. They had an
expression worth quoting about that.

Bill- What was that?

Sam- They said, "If the government fears the people we have freedom, but if the people fear the
government we have tyranny." The founders were especially afraid that a huge government would grow
up in Washington DC that would usurp the powers and rights of the States and the people.

Bill- What did they do to prevent it?

Sam- They developed an ingenious multi—layer defense system that started with dividing the powers
into three competing branches to keep the others in check and carefully spelling out each branch of
government's power in the Constitution. Then they made it clear with the l0th amendment that any
powers not specifically given to the government in this Constitution are powers left to the states of the
people.

Bill- Did it work?

Sam- It worked well for many years, but slowly the federal government assumed powers and extended
their reach WAY beyond the Constitution while the people slept. The beast got loose. A good military
defense has multiple layers. If the enemy gets past the first layer the second layer is activated and then
the third and so on.

Bill- Sounds smart. ·

Sam- It is very smart, if the people responsible for each layer stay alert. We saw at Pearl Harbor what
happens when one layer fails. The founders figured that once in a while either the house or the senate
would pass a dumb bill that violated the Constitution. The other branch would catch it and not let it
proceed to become law. If it got past both houses somehow the president should veto it. He is supposed
to know the Constitution and enforce it. He took an oath to do that when he took the job.

Bill- l've seen that ceremony many times.

Sam- If he fails to catch the unconstitutionality of the law, the next layer of defense is the court system.
They can strike down bad laws.

Bill- How does that work?

Sam- There are several layers of defense just in the court system. First, the grand jury should have
people who know the Constitution and realize there is a problem when the charges are brought before
them. The grand jury can simply refuse to indict a person, regardless of the evidence, if they feel the law
is unconstitutional. For example: the Constitution does not give the federal government power to be
involved in education, welfare, fighting drugs or a thousand other things they are involved in today. If a
case involving anything the feds are not given authority over comes before them, a wise grand juror
would refuse to indict. Not because there is no evidence the guy broke the law but because the law
itself violates the Constitution. Without a grand jury indictment there is no trial. Just by not indicting
they send a clear message that the law should be annulled or rescinded.

IF it slips past them because they are not alert or not trained in their duty, the petit jury acts as another
layer of defense against the government getting out of control. ·

Bill- How can they do that?

Sam- They can hear the case and vote "Not Guilt” regardless of the evidence, to overturn bad laws.
Bill: Is that the last line of defense?

Sam: No. The last line is the second amendment. The founders didn’t include the right to bear arms so
we could go duck hunting. It is a right we have to protect ourselves from the government if they “get off
the chain."

Bill: Can you give me an example of the jury stopping a bad law?

Sam: This case we just heard is a great example. Congress passed a law that felons can’t have guns. I
think it’s a bad law, so I voted “Not Guilty." It’s called “Jury Nullification”.

Bill: Why don’t we learn about this in school?

Sam: There is plenty on the Internet about it, but most teachers have never heard of it, and some of
those who have, don’t teach it because they like the idea of big government. Who pays their salary?

Bill: I see what you mean. They have a financial reason to keep quiet about how to reign in big
government, don’t they?

Sam: Exactly like it says in I Timothy 6:10, “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

Bill: So is that why you voted "Not Guilty" today?

Sam: That’s part of the reason. I read Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution to clearly state
that the trial of all crimes shall be in the state where the crime occurred. They guy on trial today was not
on any federal property when he had the gun, so in my opinion, the feds have no business even bringing
charges. If the state of Georgia wants to say felons can’t have guns, they can pass a law to that effect
and the man can either move to a different state, or, challenge the law in state court. I would vote "Not
Guilty" in any federal court just for that reason. It will help keep the feds in their rightful place—under
the Constitution!

Bill: But the judge gave clear instructions that the jurors were not here to judge the law, only the facts of
the case. How could you go against the judge?

Sam: That judge can think and say anything he wants, but when the jury retires, as a juror, nobody tells
me what to say or think or how to vote. It’s my duty as a juror to uphold the Constitution. I’m free to
ignore everything the judge says, and I did. That’s the way the founders intended it. That speech about
not judging the law boloney! The jury is to be judge of both the law and the facts of the case. My "Not
Guilty" vote today should help put the beast back on it’s chain.

Secondly, the man had served his time for his crime eight years ago. I happen to think it is wrong to keep
punishing felons the rest of their life. Once they walk out the door of prison, ALL their rights should be
restored that second with no red tape, no questions asked and no forms to fill out! There are now thirty
million “felons” in America who can’t have guns. I think there is a bigger picture here as part of a plan to
disarm the citizens for a future New World Order of some kind. I think the “No guns for felons” is a bad
law and I would vote "Not Guilty" in a case like this just to get rid of that stupid and unconstitutional
law. Everyone should have guns if they want them.

Bill: But what if he was convicted of murder, or some other violent crime?

Sam: Then the problem is with the system. For some crimes, the person should be executed, not put in
prison for years. Only about 3% of all the 2.3 million people currently in prison are incarcerated for
violent crimes. The liberals always pick an extreme example to get us to miss the bigger picture. If a man
raped and murdered, or attempted to murder your daughter, he should be executed for lots of reasons.
It gives your family and especially your daughter closure. It is a great deterrent to others and especially
to the rapist! It saves society a fortune in not having to feed and house the guy for years. Plus, if he is
that violent he will make the prison unsafe for both guards and inmates. Mixing those 3% violent guys in
with the 97% non—violent creates real problems! It trains some of the 97% to become violent, and
causes great stress on everyone in and out of the prison.

If you had a vicious dog that bit people for no reason, common sense says it needs to be put down for
the good of the neighborhood, as well as to rid the gene pool of those bad genes. That’s what the Bible
teaches in Exodus 21:28-32.

Bill: That makes sense.

Sam: Anyone that serves their time and is still considered too dangerous to have ALL their rights back,
probably should have been executed instead.

Lastly, the video clearly showed that the guy was only defending his family against an intruder. He held
the bad guy at gun point until the police arrived. Sure he was a felon, and the law says he can’t have a
gun, but it’s a stupid law and cases like this show that. Everyone has a right to protect their family! If I
had voted “Guilty," he would have gone to prison for eight to ten years! I would never be able to live
with myself knowing I had done that to this guy. I would defend my family. Wouldn’t you?

Bill: I see what you mean. I must admit, when I heard his defense, I was almost convinced myself, but
the judge’s instructions threw me off! I loved it when he said, “I’d rather be caught with a gun to defend
my family, than to be caught without one." That was a great way to look at it. ‘

When you were deliberating, did the other jurors give you a hard time about voting “Not Guilty”?

Sam: Oh, my! It was terrible! They all wanted to go home. They were so angry at me for refusing to go
along with them. I refused for three days straight!

Bill: What happened when the judge sent in that order to find a verdict?

Sam: That’s called an Allen Charge or a “dynamite instruction." It is often given to a deadlocked jury like
ours. It basically says, “Get going! Find a verdict!”

Bill: What did you do?

Sam: I told them we were free to ignore this judge if we wanted and that I had done my job already. I
had found a verdict. Not Guilty! It has long been said that it is better that ten guilty men go free, than for
one innocent man to be convicted. I told them that if they wanted to go home, they could all agree with
me, or sit there for the next 100 years. I would not budge!

Bill: What happened?

Sam: I reminded them that the feds were acting outside their jurisdiction; that the law was no good
because it violated the Constitution; and that the entire charge violated common sense because the guy
had every right to both own a gun and protect his family. I told them that I wasn’t there to please them
or the judge. I was there to do my duty as an American protecting American rights under the
Constitution not to please them or the judge.

Bill: Boy! That took guts! It was sad that so few jurors even had a basic understanding of the issues at
stake or their own Constitution. The system has failed miserably to prepare jurors. No. If the real
purpose of the school system is to dumb down the people to prepare them for the New World Order in
which we have a huge world government and people have no rights from God, but only rights from
government, the system has been a great success.

Bill: I guess you are right on that one. Thanks for standing your ground, Sam. Did you plan all this?

Sam: I read about my rights as a juror in the Citizen’s Rule Book and I wanted to be on a jury like this. It
was great! I had to bite my tongue during jury selection and all through the trial so I wouldn’t blow my
cover. Once the trial was over, and we went into that room, I was in charge and I knew it. The founders
were very wise to set up a system like this. I’ll try to get on every jury I can for the rest of my life. I love
my country and I want to help put the beast back on the chain. It’s not hard. We I can still turn our
country around, if we hurry!

I hope I can get on a drug case next. The feds have no business using drugs to advance their power base.
That’s a state issue, too. After that, maybe an IRS case to shut them down! Wouldn’t that be great!
Bill: Sounds like a whole new way to look at things.

Sam: No, it’s a return to the old way.

Elijah Green