JURIES ARE BEING HELD BACK

To the Editor:

What was the original intent of a jury of one's peers?

The story goes back to the Magna Carta, the English Common Law, the
Constitution of the United States, and the original Constitution of the
State of California (1849).

The jurors were the final word of the people to convict or acquit the
accused. The guard against overbearing accesses of government and
overzealous prosecution the jury was entrusted with the power to judge the
law and the facts in controversy.

The Founding Fathers' intent was to use the people to protect them- selves.
The people would acquit one of the people when they were facing bad laws.
The Founders perceived this process to come along given time. They were
right.

Today, every year burdens the people with more than one thousand newly
enacted laws, causing worry that the government would convict one of the
people.

I assert that the jury of today is tainted in favor of the government and
prosecution. This is true.

A few important quotes:

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the facts in
controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justicde U.S. Supreme Court.

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts," Samuel
Chase U.S. Supreme Court 1796, signer of "The Unanimous Declaration."

Notice the hallmark of the American jury.

The jury's power of extends to judging the law itself! This way the bad laws
can be eliminated in one particular case, and it will not set case-law or
precedent.

Let's look at the jury of today. The judge instruct the jury and mistakenly
tells them that they can only judge the facts of the case as it is
presented, but the law will be determined by the judge.

It is easy to see that the people are neutralized by these instructions. The
overzealous court wants control and that control is affirmed by an oath of
the jurors that they must convict, if the facts are proven by the
prosecution. Never mind bad law, which is morally wrong, or the "offense" is
void of injury or lacks a complaining injured party.

If the controversy is in excess of $20 you have a right to a jury trial if
it is a civil trial. Most traffic "violations" have no victims, but you as
one of the People of California have a right to a jury trial, be it criminal
or civil.

Listen to the jury instructions and you be the judge if all people are
getting "due process" or "justice for all." Let's not allow our courts to be
used as collection agencies. Demand a fully informed, it is our heritage and
your Constitutional right.

One may have to learn about the law and our great documents, to which the
people have no access by not insisting on its protection. Now if you smelled
the coffee and want to run with the Big Boys like George Washington, Samuel
Adam and Abraham Lincoln, there is room for you.

John Demeter Santa Maria

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst