What has also become increasingly important is the right to a trial by jury. Win or lose in my case won�t matter as much as understanding the necessity of my right to demand a jury rather than leaving my fate to one lone person who just happens to be in the same bureaucracy as those making the accusations.

Many people well-versed in law recommend to rely on the judge. Well, I don�t agree. One of the reasons is that people waiving their right to a jury trial has led to the sad state of the judicial system and the omnipotent �victimless� crimes robbing us of our liberty. It has become a question of �who watches the watchers when the watchers are the watched.� And we know from the government investigating itself what this leads to.

Waiving the right has had a negative effect in the justice system. In fact, one could conclude it has contributed mightily to the disintegration of the common law system established by 6000 years of recognition of human rights, the foundation of our nation. Courts and prosecutors as a result now ignore the rights of fair and impartial hearings and essentially do as they will whether lawfully or legally correct. They act as if they are captains of a ship.

By not demanding a jury, people give up the best non-violent, last possible defense against an oppressive government. It may be many won�t agree but whether many know it or not, government people work together to make sure the intent of one becomes the intent of all.

Officials further make an assumption that people will fold against their oppressive and abusive use of unlawful authority. The system is so corrupt that the judge in the writer�s city ordinance case apparently did not know any person accused of violating a city ordinance has the right to demand a trial by jury even though a state statute deals with this specifically. Even if confronted, he, as would the prosecutor, would rely on the �clean hands� doctrine of government officials.

Speaking of the �clean hands� doctrine which means, for the uninitiated, basically that an official commits no violation if he acts in good faith even if he does break the law as it is assumed he thought he was acting properly. Isn�t this rather a huge load of crap?

Remember the old saying that �ignorance of the law is no excuse� that applies to each of us?� If we private citizens are expected to know thousands of laws, why doesn�t the same hold true for officials who should know more since their primary duty is to protect the rights of the people they represent? But, try pleading immunity since you didn�t know about a law and see what happens. I can tell you from experience (illegal left turn in 1974 or �75) - you�ll be fined or imprisoned or both.

Is this equal treatment under the law secured by the 14th Amendment? Not hardly. So, why does such a stupid doctrine exist?

Why, it exists because the officials who make needless and rather dim-witted laws want to protect themselves. Since courts are part of the same bureaucracy, just a different office down the hall, so to speak, the courts support the doctrine. After all, it protects judges and court clerks alike. And bureaucrats know they need protection when it comes to depriving citizens of rights through under color of law statutes and ordinances.

What has happened is people leave their fate up to judges who may or may not uphold the constitution and state statutes. The fact is that many do not. One only has to read the rulings from any area or case type to verify this. If a judge doesn�t uphold the law established through the Constitution, then how in the world can one receive a fair and impartial hearing? What is to stop a judge from ruling any old way his tyrannical heart wishes? To answer this ~ absolutely nothing. Thus, the prisons are full of people convicted for victimless crimes.

Can it be stopped? Sure - a jury can stop all the senseless, expensive prosecutions of people who have not committed a crime, meaning a situation in which one has infringed upon the rights of others. Juries can stop any and all rights from being violated. Juries can judge by common law and what seems right, rather than what has been determined right or wrong by men supporting the idiocy of the legal profession and the judicial system.

Juries can even insist on getting questions answered - that is, if it is a common law court. It is a bit tougher in the Admiralty/military courts we are being subjected to. And why shouldn�t a jury be able to get every fact it needs rather than the spouting of some prosecuting or defense attorney? Can a jury not make a better decision with all its questions answered?

Since prosecutors and judges alike are required to uphold the Constitution or be impeached or removed under some other lawful action, even sued and possibly prosecuted, then doesn�t it stand to reason each would want the truth known to the jury so Justice can prevail?

But, these people having the responsibility of defending the rights of the citizens are trying to rid the courts of juries and go so far as to declare people in contempt of court for bringing up constitutional rights (if many sources have reported accurately). As to judges preventing questioning by jurists and juries and NOT being informed of their responsibility to serve justice, not convictions, we should be asking why? What is it the courts and prosecutors fear from juries?

The answer is simple. A well-informed jury knows it does not have to obey the orders of a judge in regards to their deliberations. Judges nor prosecutors are supposed to make any statement recommending conviction. It biases the jury. But, this practice is in vogue because people have forgotten that to protect their rights, they must also remain vigilant against the courts by willingly serving on juries and -- demanding their rights to a jury trial along with proper instructions to the jury concerning its power to nullify.

A prosecutor is supposed to do nothing more than illicit facts from witnesses, not this stuff of creating emotional responses and the like in members of the jury. If he does this, it removes due process, the right of a impartial hearing from the accused. Recall. How many well-known cases have been decided by manipulations of the jury by either prosecutors or defense attorneys or both?

Such manipulations are not in the interest of justice but only serve to confuse justice. Facts should be the basis in deliberations by a jury. Introducing thoughts against or for an accused just to get the thought in the minds of the jury is not only wrong, it is actually a nasty, dirty. and illegal ploy that has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. But, lawyers get by with it by immediately withdrawing the biasing statement or question following the objection by the opposition.

One well-informed jurist can educate the other jurists to the facts concerning their power of nullification and push for jurists to be able to question rather than just relying on questions from the prosecution or defense. Then, each of them can educate friends to the power of and the need for juries. Eventually, all who serve on juries would know the truth concerning the power the courts try to hide from them. Consider. If one told two and two told two and so on, eventually every citizen would know.

Also, due process is denied with prosecutors and judges just doing whatever they have been taught concerning violations and courtroom procedures whether constitutional or not. It is a system that hasn�t anything to do with justice but simply a procedure to collect revenues from citizens and establish increased control over them through victimless (usually) crimes.

The result is the people step up to the bench, get fined, pay their fine, and go on never questioning whether or not their rights were violated. Or, so they won�t be bothered, they pay the fine in advance to avoid going to court. Well, every instance of this is a case to embroil every last one of us in an Admiralty/military type court rather than a common law court.

I saw a young man approach the bench during one of my sessions who looked as if he didn�t have two nickels to rub together. What was his violation? He had had to drive his wife to work before daylight and had a tail light out on his vehicle. Did it cause an accident? No. Did it harm anyone? No. Did he receive a verbal warning or just told of the problem as was the practice a few years ago? No. What he received was a fine and court costs adding up to $80.

Would a jury have ruled against him? I don�t know but I do know the court was ran as if it was a business without consideration of justice. Extenuating circumstances meant nothing right along with the fact there was not a "crime" committed. The young man wasted his breath; the decision was in before he spoke.

Anyway, it made me almost ill to think of the young family having to pay out money he obviously couldn�t spare. Justice would have been for the judge to give the young man time to fix the light, if no more than an hour. Injustice was to take money his family didn�t have. And, do you know what else? This writer would bet that had the young man (the actual victim) been a friend of the officer, or other person in city government or backers or friends of government officials, or a popular person or businessman around town, that the ticket would not even have been issued, let alone proceeded to court.

The case of the young man, Ladies and Gentlemen, sums up the corruptness of the justice system and the need to demand - and rely on - juries informed of the powers of juries in the administration of justice.

Demanding a jury in violations of city and traffic ordinances �tried� in municipal courts is a beginning at the lowest level. To build a new foundation, one must begin at the lowest level and build up, not at the highest level down. Besides, pull a few well-chosen blocks out from the lowest level and the upper levels of the damaged structure will topple leaving room for the new.

So, who watches the watchers? We do. We do so as well-informed, willing jurists and citizens demanding our rights in the courts. We currently have this power. We won�t, though, if we continue as we have.