Political Watchdog » ELECTION REFORM

Powers of the Jury

John Conway — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:19:37 +0000

Many people asked me for the jury rulings in PDF Format. Here is a link that can do just that below. Here is another link that shows you the power of using the ability to judge the law to restore our republic. Please please pass this information on.

Fundamental #26-Jury

We all want smaller and less intrusive government. Here is how we get just that. This is our best tool. The supreme Court decision referred to here was Sparf & Hansen V. the U.S. The Court ruled that, “the jury does not have to be informed of their power to judge the law.” The Congress has the power to over rule this decision. Until then, it is up to you to educate your neighbor
I have met very informed citizens that were uninformed of this power. The below is a short read, but essential to the peaceful restoration of our republic.

If you haven’t seen it yet, here is the supreme Court ruling affirming this power:
Georgia V. Brailsford 3.US.1 (Dall) (1794)
“The Jury has the power to judge the law in bringing a general verdict.”

In Liberty,
John Conway

Ethics and Morals

John Conway — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:12:26 +0000

Fundamental #25

{Before I go any further, you should know that there is no provision in our Constitution all;owing the transients occupying our Federal government to give our tax dollars in foreign aid.}

My fellow freedom fighters,
There is something very concrete that we can all do if we want our republic back. Now that we all understand that a republic is the rule of law, you must also understand that we can’t have the rule of law if every one doesn’t respect the law. People don’t respect the law, each other, themselves and private property or anything else unless they have a good base in morals and ethics. Other wise, we are begging for the rule of force. You now understand why government attacks religion. Government types understand that government is nothing but force. Those that are in government want bigger government, more power, and more money for themselves.
They have ran the teaching of morals out of public schools under the some made up doctrine of the”separation of Church and State.” That is an all out attack on the first Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” That is the separation of the State from religion. They can’t prohibit the free exercise anywhere. There is no “except on government property” clause here. It also doesn’t say, “unless it offends someone else.”

“…governing powers have ever shown disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind for instance, is freedom of Religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free press.” Thomas Jefferson to N. Webster, 1790 (bold mine) Now you know why government attacks religion first. Government by its very nature is evil. That’s why we wrote a Constitution to try and limit its scope. The Bill of Rights would have better lent itself to our understanding if it had been called the “Bill of Further Limitations on this Government.” I mean look at it, the tenth Amendment says that if we forgot anything, you can’t do that either!

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, ” Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

I have found a wonderful little booklet that I have personally seen turn around the lives of everyone that has the good fortune to get their hands on. Each chapter is only one or two pages for those of the short attention span. It has no connection to any religion and can be read anywhere. It has chapters with titles like:”Take Care of Yourself,” Be Temperate” “Don’t be Promiscuous, “Love and Help Children” “Be Industrious” “Be Worthy of Trust” “Support a Government Designed And Run For All The People” and more..

People of all ages need direction today, particularly our children. Now you know why. We the People are under siege from every quarter, we always are. Here is how to obtain these wonderful pamphlets:

“The Way to Happiness Foundation.” 1-800-255-7906 or 1-818-254-0600

201 E. Broadway,

Glendale, CA 91205 USA

For all of you already holding “The way to Happiness” classes for kids, you don’t know how integral you are to restoring our Republic..

Do not do nothing!

John Conway

Constitution’s basic meaning

John Conway — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:00:46 +0000

Fundamental #24

Constitutional Quotes

The following quotes make some important points about the principles of constitutional republican government:

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;… — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government. — Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.

In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. — Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. — Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.

The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments. — Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).

To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. “In expounding the Constitution of the United States,” said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, “every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary…when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. — Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108.

The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.

It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.

Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.

If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repitition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.

A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. — Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.

Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.

Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. — State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.

When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. — (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.

I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. — Opinion of Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).

First Amendment

John Conway — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:38:53 +0000

Fundamental #19

Amendment (article) # I

Our Bill of Rights was agreed on by us all at Conventions in the United States. Those that consider themselves the ruling elite, go psychotic at the thought of you having any power whatsoever. You are considered live stock by them. The Rothschilds (banking cartel) call us Goya, which means cattle or property in Yiddish. These elite need to degrade us at every turn to keep us weak so as not to become a threat to them. All manner of distractions have to be hurled at us at every turn. Here is one:
Your religions have come under attack of late by a doctrine called the “Separation of Church and State.” This does not exist. If it did, then that would be a law. Here is what we said:

Amendment I “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof…”

You have to learn what your rights are citizen. You cannot go around allowing government to tell us what we meant by these. Read this section again, it says that the State shall be separated from the religion. It doesn’t say, unless it happens to be on government land, in a school or government building. It says that Congress cannot make ANY laws to curtail the free exercise of religion, ANYWHERE! Hang your crucifix or Torah on the white house front door, or anywhere else for that matter.
So what does Congress do? Why, they just create an entity called the IRS and you have to meet their criteria to start a religion. you have a right to be a religion and can lose that status if you use your right to peacefully assemble and practice your freedom of speech and talk about government.
The most feared symbol of these degraders is the Ten Commandments. They are afraid that someone might actually put two and two together and wise up. When Moses came down from the mount, he didn’t have a crown on his head, he had two tablets of laws. You could say that even God wants us to have a republic.
So why would these criminals in our midst attack our religions? Here is what George Washington had to say on the matter:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of duties of men and citizens…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principal.” George Washington’s Farewell Speech
Here is the rest of our first Amendment”…or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“ABRIDGE”, v.t. abridj”, [G. short, or its root, from the root of break or a verb of that family.]

1. To make shorter; to epitomize; to contract by using fewer words, yet retaining the sense in substance – used of writings.

Justin abridged the history of Trogus Pompeius.

2. To lessen; to diminish; as to abridge labor; to abridge power of rights.

3. To deprive; to cut off from; followed by of; as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. to abridge from, is now obsolete or improper.”

“REDRESS”, n.

1. Reformation; amendment.

For us the more necessary is a speedy redress of ourselves.

[This sense is now unusual.]

2. Relief; remedy; deliverance from wrong, injury or oppression; as the redress of grievances. We applied to government, but could obtain no redress.

There is occasion for redress when the cry is universal.”

As you can see, the Bill of Rights is all about what this government can not do. One of the first things we need to accomplish is to make every State adopt these rights as part of every State Constitution. This would serve to stop the onslaught of gun laws in States like California.
The ruling elite (League of Just Men) have a problem and commissioned two scum bags named Karl Marx and Frederic Engles to show them how to overcome these written guarantees we call Constitutions. This idea of the people governing ourselves had to be stopped at all cost. Once you know these rights and have an appreciation for them, then we let the world know that they aren’t just for American citizens, they are for all mankind–Tyrant game over!
If you have been keeping up, you should feel more powerful by now.

Next, Amendment (article) II Two parts.

Citizen Conway

Sixth Amendment

John Conway — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:30:58 +0000

Fundamentals #18

The Bill of Rights Amendment VI (six), or who is running this show?

Remember, we are a self governed people. That means that we have a government that serves us, not
the other way around. The nature of a government that can get all the money it wants uses that money
to gain power over the people. Then. it has its lawyers to take power from the people and give that power
to themselves. Here is a good example.

Amendment 5
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense
to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of

law;
nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."

"on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

An Indictment is handed down when a case is presented to the Grand Jury by a prosecutor.
A Presentment is handed down when the Grand Jury takes an independent action that originates
in the jury.

You see, a Grand jury can investigate the government without tipping it off by having a
government lawyer in the room. This represents another way for the people to have the power
over this government. Can't have that!
Here is what they did:
In 1946 the lawyers in Washington wrote up the "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
Say what?
In rule #7 no mention of presentments.
Rule #4 Says that as far as Federal Courts are concerned, presentments are obsolete.
rule #6 says that independent Grand Jury investigations cause a "run-away" Grand

Jury
further
denigrating the Grand Jury, and the people in general.
By now, I don't have to tell you that this is an act of war. Any time one of our rights
gets attacked, it is an act of war on we the people.
Here is the 1828 definition of a capital crime: "Capital crime, a crime punishable with
death." Now you know why they want to do away with the death penalty. It goes and then no
more cases have to go to a Grand Jury to be prosecuted. Life W/O parole is the order of the
day.
You can not be tried twice for the same crime. Great Britain was infamous for trying an
individual until they got the desired results. We said enough of that and stated here that you
get one crack at us and that's it.
You cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself: COMPELLED, pp. "Forced;
constrained; obliged." The word 'compelled' was completely removed from the 1913 edition of
the
new
"Webster's
Dictionary."
When a cop takes your property because drugs were found there, he has just
violated your right to due process.
Just compensation for your property has been added to by the Federal government when they
say they have "imminent domain." That term is not in our Constitution. If the Federal wants
a piece of property in one of the States, it has to have the permission of that State.
Because we don't study and understand our rights it's voila, stroke of the pen and another
power shift takes place in favor of the criminals.

Note: Why the 1828 Dictionary? The first "Blacks Law Dictionary wasn't published until
1891, a hundred years after the writing of our Constitution.
Daniel Webster was the expounder of our Constitution, and his Dictionary was in the works
for seventy years before being published 1828.

Citizen

Conway

Presidential Powers

John Conway — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:14:36 +0000

Subject: Fundamentals #11

Look at the emphasis we are putting on electing one person as a President. You would think that we were electing our next dictator. Here are the both of them telling us how they are going to raise or lower taxes. The president doesn’t have that power, only the House can submit Bills for raising revenue.
The only voice our Constitution has is you. The game government plays is get power. The only document we have to prevent them from taking complete control of our lives is our Constitution. It created the branches of government we have in D.C. Without it, that government doesn’t exist. Government knows full well that it cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. It is time for us all to elevate this document back into its place of importance. It is the Genesis of the Union in which we live, and we have let it be relegated to the trash heap of history by the very people it was written to give us control “OVER.”
Here are all the powers we gave a President.

"Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

 and
 he shall
nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,
and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein
otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress
may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during
the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End
of their next Session.

Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the
Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge
necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene

 both
Houses,
 or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he
shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he
shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.

Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "

You see here where the President is Commander and chief of the armed forces. That is to ensure civilian control over the military. It is not within the power given to the President to be able to mobilize these forces. That power is reserved to the Congress.
Article In section 8: Congress shall have the power;

"To
declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;"

Did Congress vote to send the Militia or anyone else to Waco? You see,
Congress sees someone

HERE violating the laws of the Union. It calls forth
the Militia. Then the President becomes the commander and chief of that Militia.

Congress is suppose to call the militia to execute the laws of the union, not have a President issue
Executive orders to armed thugs like the BATF and IRS an be able to aim his agencies at the heart of our
Citizens. It is the duty of the MILITIA to execute the laws of the Union!
It didn't take the tyrants long to turn us into a dictatorship.

The President was given the red phone to be able to authorize the military to respond to a missile attack
timely. The President has zero authority to take our ground forces to war, only Congress can do that.

See the "Dick Act of 1903." for a heads up about the Militia.

In Liberty,
John Conway