MOM 4 of 9 "Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite. Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court. By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about that power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resolve this paradox. More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effec- tively as the "conscience of the community," jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say "No" to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most impor- tant institutions. Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then citizens called for jury duty could teach the judges a needed lesson in civics." This is all fine and good. But remember this article appeared in a major newspaper, which has millions in circulation, back in 1984 - TEN YEARS AGO! It hasn't made one bit of difference, has it? If this is not enough, how about Thomas Jefferson in 1821 stating: "...The Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of power, it will render power- less the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." Cases are popping up all over America, where jurors are threatened with "contempt of court" if they do not follow the rules as set by the judge. In other words, they are threatening jurors with jail time if they do not vote the way the court wants them to. Why? As we have stated above the government has declared the Consti- tution dead. Once again, under the Natural Law, the people created the Constitution, the Constitution created the government and the government created corporations. The corporations now control the government and the government now acts outside of the Consti- tution, so therefore, the people must enforce the Natural Law in order to put the government back inside the chains of the Consti- tution. This is RESPONSIBILITY - THIS IS THE WAY OF THE MILITIA!! We must become what our forefathers were: FREEDOM FIGHTERS! We must become what the Afghanistan militia units are: FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Neither the Afghans, nor our forefathers, had any legal, lawful or constitutional right to wage a war for our independence. But they did it anyway. Where was their authori- ty? In the NATURAL LAW. The Natural Law is our foundation. This is where our country sprang up from. This is where our authority lies. This is where our duty of reassuming our responsibility in stopping this gov- ernment-gone-made lies -- within the NATURAL LAW. The Natural Law was the foundation from which our forefathers formed this nation, therefore, the Natural Law is the foundation from which we must restore our nation. The government has broken the law over and over again. We can see this by the level of crime in the private sector. Government sets the example for the citizens of the country. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 227 U.S. 485 (1928) stated: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands of the citizens. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Why would Justice Brandeis state that the existence of the government will be imperiled and that when the courts accept the philosophy that the end justifies the means (we have seen this philosophy at work in Waco, Texas and Naples, Idaho) in the administration of the criminal law, that this would bring a terrible retribution? He says this, because he knows that it would not take a very long time for the people to rise up and say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This is the basic job of the militia. To enforce the Natural Law upon those who have broken the law, when the normal course of judicial proceedings cannot do so. (Continued)