Having just realized this is one of the most well-known dates in history, the date of the assassination of Caesar (in case government education failed you), a few considerations came to mind as to social and political change.

Caesar was perhaps a hero, perhaps a villain, depending only on one�s perspective. One can say with certainty, though, that he was a statesman, a soldier, a leader by virtue of his never losing a battle, and a dictator that initiated social and political reforms that lasted for centuries in the Roman Republic and the eventual Empire.

One can realize from Caesar�s rise in the Roman Republic from soldier at 18 to consul at age 41 to death at age 56 at the hands of Senate members who feared his power and influence after he wrested control from the Roman Senate, that he was a very accomplished man. Because his influence has lasted for 2000 years, one must also consider him as being a forever lasting personality. And he was just one man.

Throughout history, it has often been one man (or woman) who has had the greatest impact on social change - Caesar, Gandhi, King, Anthony (Susan, not Mark), Jefferson, Eleanore Roosevelt, and so on. Some have had tremendous negative influence, including Hitler and others quite similar to him in deed, such as Lincoln (started or one of the first to use the illegal application of EOs), Wilson (created the Federal Reserve system), Roosevelt (Public Salary Tax Act, Buck Act, Social Security), Rothchild (foreign Federal Reserve Bank), Bush family ties to creating the one world government, and others too numerous to mention.

Well, we desparately need change now. This has been reinforced in me by circumstances I should never have had to deal with, a local government forcing their unconstitutional will on me. And then a court that is most probable to support the people elected to city offices. It doesn�t matter that these people haven�t the foggiest notion of what is lawful and what is not.

What is lawful is what the Constitution states, that every person who is a citizen of the united States of America has unalienable, self-evident rights whether they are enumerated in the Constitution or in any other document. Those rights are those that make up liberty, the pursuit of happiness, well-being, and self-direction. No person or organization has any power to remove these rights from us, nor to even slightly infringe upon them. They are God-given and are to be protected by all levels and divisions of government.

Others may disagree but the loss of control has been largely through the courts. The reason I say this is legislators and other law-makers can make any law they wish but if the courts do not support the law because of being repugnant to the the rights of people, then the law means not a darn thing and will just fade away.

When courts, however, rule in favor of the government over the rights of the people, then the law means everything - everything bad, that is. Every ruling that has been against any citizen expressing his rights without interfering in another�s rights has been a slice out of liberty. It has been a stab in the back to those who elected them to office and pay for those people to be there.

Take the 20,000 laws concerning being armed and protecting one�s self with any means one can. All 20,000 are unconstitutional. So why do they exist? Because courts do not understand the Constitution, nor their duty. There should never have been any ruling against a citizen who did not use a firearm (or other weapon) to interfere with the rights of another. Without having done any harm to another, there isn�t a lawful crime or punishment.

The courts should have obeyed their oaths of office and upheld the 2nd Amendment exactly as written, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should never be infringed upon. The people must be armed not only to protect themselves from those who would do them harm, but to defend themselves against those who would essentially enslave them through tyrannical, unconstitutional means.

But, courts are slaves to politicians and their own sense of power. They get a nice cushy, high paid job (even in small counties in Missouri) and don�t want to be forced out by ruling against the government. It matters not to them if the government might be made up of people who are constitutionally non-Americans (non-Americans are those citizens elected to office who do not uphold the rights of the people they govern). Plus, there is the fact that courts often share in the booty (splitting up fines and/or property seizures) taken from those they rule against - an extra piece of the pie, so to speak, for breaking the law of the land themselves.

One shouldn�t have to fear going to a court when one knows the law he has allegedly broken is an unconstitutional law. It is every citizen�s duty to ignore these laws. One should be able to rely on the faith that the judge will do as his duty and oath dictates - uphold the Constitution. Or, that jurists will be there to serve justice, not the dictates of a prosecuting attorney or judge who have damned the Constitution into oblivion.

Understand this. The importance of a properly functioning jury cannot be over-stated. The jury should be free to rule by its conscience, what it believes to be right whether it is �legally� correct or not. Important here is that legally correct is usually based on distorted laws (man-made) and unconstitutional rulings administrative proceedings against people. What is lawfully correct is what is dictated by our rights of common law, law that is 6000 years old.

But, between judges, prosecuting attorneys, and defense attorneys, the result has been a complete distruction of what is lawful. Injustice has evolved to the degree that one cannot even bring up the Constitution, the rights of people, and the power of the jury to nullify any orders by a judge. Thus, the principles of justice are buried in bureaucratic offal.

One should be able to go into court without all the Latin and procedures that attorneys and judges try to keep secret from the common man. One should be able to state his case to the jury without all the needless crap forced on them by the system as it now exists. One can be quite brief when presenting a defense based on the constitutionality of a law.

Then, there are those judges and prosecutors who just flat out lie. For example, I was told recently by a judge and prosecutor (also, found out the prosecutor was impersonating an officer of the court) that I couldn�t have a trial by jury in a municipal ordinance violation case. Well, this is absolutely false. Not only does the 6th Amendment assure this but so does the Missouri Constitution and applicable state statutes.

I knew it was false but chose not to debate it in court at the time because of the power judges have concerning contempt charges. I waited to file a motion so that my demand would be in writing within the procedures required by the state and my rights secured by both constitutions. If I am not given a trial by jury, then I will have recourse against the court and all officials involved. Yes, I know - and then tried by a judge hell bent on supporting the first.

Even with a jury, though, since jurists can�t be informed of �jury nullification� and aren�t permitted to hear the basic facts (including the Constitution), it is likely this person will be ruled against. The ruling will be unconstitutional and make a farce of justice. Another American will be struck down by the treason of the court and government officials.

Here is a quote from the site of Larry Dodge, co-founder of the �Fully Informed Jury Association� (FIJA) concerning the veto and nullification power of juries:

�Since 1895, when the Supreme Court decided that judges needn't inform juries about their power to nullify, and empowered judges to punish any attorney who tried to inform them anyway, this last check upon governmental prosecutorial power has all but withered away. That is where FIJA comes in. FIJA teaches American citizens that, as grand jurors, they possess the power not to indict, and that as trial jurors, they hold the last possible opportunity to halt further abuse of the accused by the government.�

So easy to correct if people would just start demanding that all courts be common law courts as they are supposed to be. If you read this, you can search for �jury nullification� and be led to various sites. Then use a site that allows for easy communication with your congressmen. If you don�t know of one, email me and I will send you a link to one.

It only takes a few minutes to write: "Please make it the law that judges must inform the jurists of the power to nullify. If not, I will help assure you are not re-elected to office" ~ or something along those lines (and perhaps with a bit more tact since one shouldn�t offend). More officials pay attention to snail than email but, as we turn increasingly to computer usage, it seems this may be changing somewhat. Several email campaigns against unconstitutional congressional bills have been quite successful in the past year or so.

Why is jury nullification so important? Juries represent the people. Only the people can make and interpret law. Judges cannot interpret, nor can prosecutors, except as citizens outside the courtroom. These people are elected or appointed only to get information in an orderly fashion to the jury, not to state what they think is fact and certainly not to lie.

Juries and the justice of common law must be restored. This is almost always reflected by one�s feelings of right and wrong, values seemingly forgotten by the courts. We must stop allowing judicial officials to assume that all other people (other than the judge and attorneys) are dumb and do not have the ability to make a judgment. It is imperative if we are to restore our rights.

Besides, don�t you know that if juries began ruling for defendants who are in court based on violations of false laws (under the color of law laws), that the case load would begin immediately decreasing. This is because the courts (and prisons) are now full of people who have not actually committed a crime - the so-called �victimless crimes� - that are costing untold billions annually.

Help get rid of the corrupted in robes and those attorneys hiding behind the title of �prosecutor.� Do your part to restore justice and rid this nation of injustice. Help restore nearly all the unalienable, self-evident rights of people.

Most of all, don�t think one can�t get it done. Too many other great people have proved people with this idea on �one� being helpless as wrong. Remember this from Gandhi, a man who changed the thinking of 200,000,000 people:

"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."

So, get at it and make this the �Ides of March� for those intent on taking all our rights.