Lawfully and jurisprudently speaking, we are in a terrible state in this union of States. The judicial system is not conducting its duties in a manner befitting justice and is, instead, serving the injustice of federal, state, and political subdivision supremacy over the sovereign.

How it has gotten that way has been a matter of attorney/judicial proceedings based not on the common law and jurisdiction established in Constitution for the United States of America but, instead, on admiralty/military law. Or at least at on what is other than the common law established by human rights doctrines nearly 6000 years old. What is legal has superceded what it lawful.

Part of the problem is related to the fact that many people, in fact most, do not demand a trial by jury and, instead, leave their fate up to a judge. The judge, being an official of the State, may or may not obey his oath to uphold the Constiution securing our rights. In fact, I suspect that if one attends such tribunals as traffic and municipal ordinance proceedings, it will be found that in most cases, possibly 99 percent, the rights of the individual are violated and/or there is actually not a crime to try.

I have read on many sites concerning this matter that it is recommended for the most part that people leave cases up to a judge. The reasons given may be valid but those reasons are usually based on the fact that we have gotten away from the original purpose of courts and are far removed from what is lawful.

Because we have gotten away from the original purpose, that of trying as to whether or not one individual infringed upon the rights of another, courts have become a system of injustice based on case law and what a judge/prosecutor combo thinks is law.

Example. A manmade law states that it is illegal to carry a firearm. But, the Constitution for the United States states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.

What is legal is to not carry a concealed firearm. What is lawful, however, is to carry a firearm, concealed or otherwise. Case law has seen many thousands of convictions based on the manmade law. However, the manmade law infringes upon the rights of the individual.

Because prosecutors want to convict, and because judges (who may in reality know less about what is lawful than the average person on the street) basically obey what they believe to be law based on past cases and the like, the person is convicted legally but has had a crime committed against him by the judge and prosecutor. And people say, �Well, it�s just not right� and let it go.

What has been forgotten or ignored is that there is a basic procedure for establishing a law. First and foremost, any level of government considering making a law that will affect citizens, one must ask this question:

�Will such a law infringe with the rights of even one citizen?�

For example, does the prohibition of carrying a concealed weapon infringe upon the rights of a citizen? Well, obviously it does. Because it does, it is not a valid law and has been enforced under color of law. Law enforcement, not understanding or possibly not caring about the rights of their fellow citizens arrest a person for carrying a concealed weapon. Thus, an arrest is made and a constitutional right is criminalized.

The prosecutor, possibly because of not knowing the difference between lawful and legal, or not wishing to make a stand for his oath of office (bound to protect the rights of the citizen first), prosecutes.

The judge, not wishing to make a constitutional decision of justice or perhaps being ignorant of the Constitution and the rights of man, rules guilty and then fines and/or imprison the �criminal'.

Now, did the person carrying a concealed weapon commit a crime? There must be a victim for a crime to have been committed. Where is the victim? You see, in this nation, only a victim may sue for his rights having been violated. It is not a function of government. Without a victim, no rights of another citizen have been violated and THERE IS NO CRIME The result of like procedures occurring thousands of thousands of times have resulted in the hundreds of thousands of victimless crimes that are now on the books. Every last stinking one of them, from bearing arms to drugs are unconstitutional and should be made null and void by any court encountering these atrocities against justice and human rights.

But, judges and prosecutors don�t pay any attention as to whether a law is unconstitutional or not. It is as if the written law, whether good or bad, whether in fact written as they think it is or not, is their god and they will rule no matter what against what is righteous and against the balance of the scale of justice. Because of this, the importance of juries cannot be overstated.

Juries have the most important function of all the people present in the court room. Juries have power that no level of government has, that no level of the judicial system has, that prosecutors wish they had but don�t, and a power that scares the hell out of those in law enforecement, prosecutoral positions, and judges.

The power juries has is to determine justice, whether the prosecutor or judge wants it or not. It has the power to look at the facts, weigh in their conscience, ignore orders such as �it is your duty to convict� and the like, consider what is lawful rather than what is legal, and make a decision guided not only by what is lawful but also by what their feelings of right and wrong are.

Their job is also the most important because prosecutors forget their number one priority which is to protect the rights of citizens. They take an oath to do so but, in order to get convictions, ignore their oath right along with the rights they are sworn to protect.

Judges often forget they are nothing more than flesh-and-blood human beings with the failings of human being, that they are not gods sitting on a perch higher than the people they hear tried. He may not be a attorney; he may not have any training in the Constitution nor the law. He has been merely elected or appointed to his position. His position may be due only to who he knows, not what he knows, nor his sense of fair play and justice.

A judge is but a public servant with the sacred duty of preserving justice, not destroying it. His integrity must be pure.

Sadly, the history of our courts prove this to be a fantasy. Therefore, juries of knowledgeable people, especially knowledgeable of the fact that judges and attorneys do not determine law or the responsibilities of juries, people who have the fortitude to nullify oppressive decisions against the Constitution, and, hence, the People of this nation, must control the courts once again.

Not a tall order, actually, just a righteous one in which judges and prosecutors are limited to Constitutional authority.