Constitutional Perversions Just One of Many by Bill Holmes Faulting our jury system for sensationally stupid court decisions is like faulting the Constitution for the united States of America for the current mess we call government. Neither the jury system nor the government exist as they were intended. Both have been perverted. Practically every amendment to the constitution perverted its intent and imbalanced its finely tuned balance of powers and interests. One of the lesser known usurpations is the alleged ratification of the original 13th amendment (1 USC Introduction). It asserted more clearly the constitutional intention to eliminate privilege (titles of nobility). State records show that it was ratified, but it was ignored by congress. Were it in full force and effect, members of the American Bar Association (ABA), for example, would not have a monopoly on the judicial system, or its members would be denied law-making positions due to conflict of interest. American Medical Association (AMA) doctors would not enjoy a monopoly on medicine. We'd no longer be the victim of government sanctioned extortion by privileged organizations. Those who want to pay the price of ABA or AMA (or EPA or FDA or any other) certified help would still be free to do so, but the rest of us would be free to choose the best attorney or doctor value, regardless of membership or certification. Constitutional usurpations were made possible by convincing Americans that governance was too complicated and messy to be of concern to them. Government was better left to specialists (AKA benevolent elitists who know what's best for you). This was made possible by the de-education of Americans by the government indoctrination centers we call public schools (another constitutional perversion). The de-education accelerated after 1914 when teaching of our history was radically altered by historians hatched by the Guggenheim Foundation and placed by the Rockefeller Foundation. (See Hearings, Special Committee To Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, House of Representatives, Eighty Third Congress, H. Res. 217, chaired by Caroll Reese, 1953-55. See also a 1982 interview with Norman Dodd, who was staff director of the "Reese Commission," particularly his description of portions of the 1909-1914 minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, American Media, P.O. Box 4646, Westlake, California 91359, 805-496-1649). Corruption, fraud and concentration of power were the natural consequences. Similarly, judicial procedures were gradually made so complicated, messy and abstract that most Americans want nothing to do with them. The judicial system has become the domain of specialists. Those who profit from obfuscation love it. Those who seek equal justice for all, hate it. Once upon a time, there was no crime unless someone's person or property was damaged and that person or their survivors pressed charges. Consequently, there were relatively few trials. They were newsworthy events. Publicized trials had educational value. They reaffirmed that force, fraud or otherwise getting something for nothing is wrong, and that people would be held responsible for their actions. Thanks to the criminalization of victimless behavior (alcohol, gambling, prostitution, etc.), the government created powerful criminal organizations that intimidated victims and witnesses. That gave government the excuse to press charges itself. Now the judicial system is so busy prosecuting victimless crimes and crimes against the state (e.g. traffic, seat belt and helmet violations), that fewer than 10% of violent crimes are punished. Americans are so disgusted that they bothered to report only 46% of such crimes from 1973 to 1988. Personal thefts and household crimes are even less likely to be punished, so correspondingly only 25%% and 39% of those crimes were reported. Our judicial system is teaching people that they will not be held responsible for their actions. Crime pays. Our government and its subsidies regulations, zoning laws and unequal duties and taxation have taught Americans that force, fraud or otherwise getting something for nothing is OK as long as the government is used as the thug for the theft (See Frederick Bastiat's "The Law"). Practically every city council meeting is a theft negotiation: "partially deny me use of my property, but please don't deny all uses of it" sounds very much like "take my money but please don't take my wallet." Once upon a time, jurors called the witnesses and did the questioning. The judge merely maintained order. The facts of a case were quickly determined by the jury. Justice was swift, so there was a direct correlation between bad behavior and punishment. Now trials are orchestrated by private attorneys paid by the hour and by prosecutors paid by taxpayers. Neither has an interest in justice. Both have a vested self-interest in protracted judicial proceedings. Private attorneys make more money, and government prosecutors, particularly those of the IRS, FDA, EPA and FTB, can eventually exhaust the resources of those they attack with long trials. Although our government judges may complain of crowded calendars conflicting with their golf games, they too are paid by taxpayers and have no vested self-interest in swift justice. All must belong to the same club, the ABA to play the justice game. Like the members of the AMA, they have a vested self-interest in protecting each other from charges of corruption, misconduct or incompetence. Once upon a time the role of jurors was significant, honored and sought. Now, our petite jurors are muzzled, denied requested information and confined to the jury lounge while the attorneys and judge privately determine the conduct and outcome of the trial. Jurors are little more than caged animals forced to endure the endless theatrics of ABA members. Our grand jurors are the lap dogs of district attorneys. Attempts to indict government officials are ignored. The Branch Dividian jury is but one of many whose verdicts have been ignored by federal magistrates, who then pronounce their own penalty. Consequently, jury duty is usually avoided by working, intelligent, common sense Americans. Only masochists and those who are the beneficiaries of welfare or government paychecks seek jury duty. For them, jury duty is a welcome relief from the monotony of unproductive behavior. Consequently, jury bias in tax cases is expected. Once upon a time, jurors were informed of their right to judge the law and its applicability as well as the facts of a case. Bad laws were effectively nullified by juries repeatedly acquitting those accused of violating them (e.g. Crown taxes, Whiskey Rebellion, Prohibition, labor laws). Legislators eventually realized the stupidity or futility of their statutes and repealed them. Jury nullification was well-known as a critical element of the balance of power. Now our government de-education system has deprived Americans of that knowledge as well. [Time to fully privatize all education.] Judges compound the problem by refusing to fully inform jurors of their rights. Attempts by others to inform jurors are met by forceful expulsion or arrest. [Fully Informed Jury Association members are working to pass amendments in each State to require judges to inform jurors of all of their rights.] Once upon a time, juries determined guilt or innocence, and separately decided the punishment appropriate for the circumstances of a crime. Now punishment is mandated by legislation. Juries ignorant of their right to ignore such statutes find themselves forced to acquit rather than have an inappropriately severe penalty imposed upon the guilty. Once upon a time, jurors were randomly selected. There was a good chance that the jurors were in fact peers of the accused. Now prospective jurors are carefully selected for their ignorance, pliability and submissiveness. Those who let it be known that they are aware of jury nullification, the Constitution or unalienable rights are quickly dismissed. Once upon a time, it took only one juror in twelve to acquit, and a person could be tried only once for a crime. Now the government can repeatedly prosecute until it wins. What was an acquittal is now a "hung jury." A man in Lancaster, California is being tried a third time at taxpayer expense for allegedly murdering his wife. Two juries have acquitted him, but the prosecutor is not to be denied. The financial resources of the defendant's family have been exhausted. An innocent man will likely be imprisoned to satisfy a prosecutor's ego while the real murderer goes unpunished and is free to strike again. There is a lot wrong with the current judicial system, but none of it has to do with juries. All of it has to do with government privilege. Concentrating the power to decide wealth or impoverishment, or life or death into fewer hands, particularly those of government employees is exactly the wrong thing to do. Given the statement by a federal judge, "I cannot deny my employer income" before issuing a guilty verdict in a tax case, government employees should be forbidden to adjudicate cases in which the government is the plaintiff or defendant. It's clearly a conflict of interest. Hire private judges for such cases. Better yet, government should never be a plaintiff. Just as it is wise to review the patent library before reinventing the wheel, it is also wise to review historical attempts at government and judicial systems before inventing a "new" form. The historical record is clear. Peer juries and minimum government work. Elitist judiciary and large, invasive or centralized government don't. Power devolved to all individuals works. Power concentrated in the hands of a few doesn't. Fully inform and empower randomly selected juries. Bill Holmes is the San Diego Region Representative of the California Libertarian Party. He can be reached at: WTHolmes@compuserve.com