Due Process of Law

Due Process of Law is a phrase with a self explained, self evident definition - but that has been perverted by Attorneys and Judges.

It is a PROCESS that is governed by LAW to give what is DUE.

The Defendant is DUE the PROTECTION of the LAW by a PROCESS where the Government Attorneys, and the Jury, and the Judge, MUST comply with the LAW.

But it has become a process where Government Attorneys and Judges flagrantly violate the law with ABSOLUTE impunity called ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

Absolute Immunity for Government Actors is a TITLE OF NOBILITY prohibited by our Constitution.

Absolute / Sovereign Immunity for the Artificial Person known as Government, or known as Official, deprives the people (as individuals / defendants) of Inherent & Inalienable Rights. It deprives PEOPLE of the intent that PEOPLE have the sovereignty previously vested in a King. Rather than one King held accountable by the Law; our system has devolved to where every person living off the public dole, given the title of cop, prosecutor, or Judge, is a King - free to do whatever they choose without any limitation or restraint of law. It is worse than a Monarchy. It is known as Totalitarian Authoritarianism. A system of justice that previously existed in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Now established in our U S of A.

Juries were in the Soviet Uniont and in Nazi Germany. But here, as there & then, They have been reduced to nothing more than window dressing for a show trial. Judges & Prosecutors make up the law as they go along. Jury Charges are, in criminal trials, a JOKE. Questions the Jury blindly follows. Questions designed to lead to a conclusion already established by the Judge & Prosecutor. Questions only an Defense Attorney of a price very few can afford has any say in.

If [today's] Jury Trials were not simply SHOW TRIALS - Each Jury would be given a copy of the entire penal code, before the trial even starts, to guide them in deliberations. With instructions that they may NOT violate the law that protects the defendant, but MAY nullify laws that violate inherent & inalienable, or Constitutionally secured Rights of the Individual.

Jon Roland, Constitution Society


www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/potter1.html

In the Pursuit of Justice, Do We Need Trials?
by Joseph Potter

The US is the world’s greatest prison state; of that there can be little debate.

By any method of counting we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country in the world. Even China has fewer total prisoners than the US, and China’s per capita rate is also much smaller than the US rate. Yes my friends, even China has less criminals in jail than we do. Surprised?

"Statistics released today by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), a branch of the US Department of Justice, show that at the end of 2006, more than 2.25 million persons were incarcerated in US prisons and jails, an all-time high. This number represents an incarceration rate of 751 per 100,000 US residents, the highest such rate in the world. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s incarceration rate is 148 per 100,000 residents; the rate in Canada is 107; and in France it is 85. The US rate is also substantially higher than that of Libya (217 per 100,000), Iran (212), and China (119)." (Human Rights Watch)

The question is whether the law is a shield that protects "the people" or a club that is used to beat down them down. If we incarcerate many times as many of our citizens per capita than our European allies, can we find an explanation for this difference? Are we really that much more criminally inclined here in the good old USA than populations abroad that seem to be very similar to us?

Paul Craig Roberts once wrote that the principles that make our law a shield of protection for the citizens, and not a weapon of tyranny in the hands of prosecutors, are called "the Rights of Englishmen." The Rights of Englishmen were listed by Mr. Roberts as: due process, the attorney-client privilege, equality before the law, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the prohibitions against attacking a person through his property, bills of attainder, self-incrimination, retroactive law, and crimes without intent. He claimed these rights are the bedrock of our legal system.

Let us look at due process; what is it? The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic right to life, liberty or property, without due process of law. I suppose one could say that "due process" is basic fairness. You could say that due process means that the state must prove its case in a manner that is just and moral in a court of law while respecting the other rights as outlined above. In our system we expect that the truth will come out in the court trial of the accused, and we believe that everyone accused will have their day in court. At least, that is our hope.

I invited a criminal defense attorney to speak to a class of 8th grade students in a private school a few years ago. He was a parent of one of the children and after he was done he recommended another parent who was also a defense attorney to speak; and I gave that other attorney equal time.

The talks by both men were simply amazing. They both eventually got to the fact that over 97 percent of the cases in our town are settled by plea bargain. Both had stories of men who pleaded guilty to avoid trial even though they were innocent. These stories would immediately get the attention of the children, "why would someone say they were guilty when they were not"?

The answer has to do with the awesome power of the prosecutor's office and the idea of piling criminal counts on top of other criminal counts until any matter could net one untold years in jail. We were told by both attorneys that for centuries on end criminal charges were not arbitrary. We in America would charge a horse thief with theft, but not with conspiracy to steal horses, willful evasion of taxes on stolen horses, cruelty to animals and diminishing the civil rights of horse owners; but this is no longer true.

The prosecutor's office is also funded by the taxpayer and can spend untold fortunes on "expert witnesses" that are paid to testify in court to whatever the prosecutor's theory is in the matter. The prosecutor can also offer time off or immunity to convicted criminals if they will testify against the defendant in the case. The criminals will often say whatever is necessary to help their own situation and the truth or justice has nothing to do with it.

We were told that it is a fiction that the government will not retaliate against you if you demand your constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case. That was the most shocking statement of the day to my young charges.

The class and I were left with the distinct impression that the courts were rigged to fill jails and that justice was not on the agenda. When one of the children asked, "how is that fair?"; the answer was that the fair came to town in October and was at the fairgrounds on west Highway 50. This seems to be a well-known joke among lawyers, but it was a real comedown for the children and myself.

We were left with the idea that our system is founded on the idea that only in a proper court case tried by a jury of our peers could justice even have a chance of prevailing. The famous rights of Englishmen identified by Mr. Roberts are without meaning as long as there is no trial. That means in my town there is no justice in at least 97 percent of the cases. No wonder the jails are full. As long as we circumvent the court trial by jury with the plea bargain there will be no justice in America for the accused, be he innocent or guilty.

Do we really not care that justice is arbitrary in our country? I know I care; but what can be done? I suppose for now we try to inform our fellow citizens and hope that they see that an injustice in any one case is an injustice for everyone.

March 26, 2008
Joseph Potter [send him mailjmpotter@linuxmail.org] lives in Florida and teaches in a small private school.


Jon Roland, Constitution Society
7793 Burnet Road #37
Austin, Texas 78757
512/299-5001

www.constitution.org

jon.roland@constitution.org

NOTICE: Neither Jon Roland, Constitution Society, lewrockwell.com or Joseph Potter are affiliated with Freedom School in any way.

NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
       Specialty Areas
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!


Freedom School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.

Freedom School information served for educational purposes only, no liability assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to unlawful action. Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and defend all law which is particularly applicable.

The noteworthy failure of the government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and third parties affiliated or otherwise. If the government wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements that are not factual appearing on this website are in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.


Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2016
All Rights Reserved

H O M E