Currently Browsing: Constitution

Complaint Dismissed in Indiana – Prosecution Withdraws

A big congrats to Dale in Indiana for taking a principled stand against the predators and getting a prosecutor to withdraw their false charges. Dale was accused of violating the code in Indiana. Dale defended against the accusation by challenging the prosecutor’s foundation claim, that since Dale was physically in Indiana, the rules created by men and women called “government” apply to him. This is the basis of their claims of jurisdiction, the court’s and police, and an essential element of the alleged code violation. Because no matter how much you believe otherwise, it’s not possible to prove a rule was violated unless you prove it applies in the first place. Dale filed a discovery/Brady request with the motion to dismiss. The prosecution offered to drop the charges if Dale complied with their rules. Dale didn’t accept, he wanted the motion and discovery request addressed. The judge decided to give the prosecution thirty days to respond to the motion and provide the evidence requested. Again, this included evidence the constitution applied to Dale because he is physically in Indiana and the witness with personal knowledge of that evidence. Instead of providing the evidence the prosecution said they needed thirty days to provide, they moved to dismiss. The motion as you can see, was granted. Why would it take thirty days to provide the evidence proving the constitution applied? Why couldn’t she give Dale the name of her witness with personal knowledge of evidence proving the code applied? She didn’t have it, it doesn’t exist and she had to know that before she told the judge she needed thirty days to comply. Why didn’t she object to having to provide such discovery saying her claim the constitution applied doesn’t require evidence, didn’t need to be proven and is irrefutable so she wasn’t required to provide any such evidence? Why not argue, as the critics do, that whether the constitution applied is a theoretical issue of law requiring no evidence? The prosecutor should have objected to anything that was not relevant discovery material. If asking for evidence the constitution and code apply and the witness with personal knowledge of such are not legitimate items of discovery, then the judge would have ruled that when giving the prosecution thirty days to respond. The judge was obviously aware of the discovery request, asking the prosecutor twice if they had read it, even suggesting to read it thoroughly. Could it have been “too much... read more

Law Proposed To Let Police Enter Homes Without Warrants

Are you awake yet? You better start waking up soon. A new bill has been proposed which would allow police officers to enter any home, regardless of whether or not they have a warrant. This bill effectively removes any protections people have from unreasonable search and seizure, and opens the door for unprecedented abuse of powers. Are we still the United States> A warrantless search is just wrong. There is no reason to kick in someones door and search their home. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, which provides that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” When are we going to stand up America? When are we going to speak. “When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.” The quote above speaks volumes. The February 2015 newsletter is almost done and we’ll be discussing this very topic on America chooses to remain silent, even in the face to a tyrannical government. We only speak up when it affects us directly. Our liberties and our freedoms are under attack from a thousand different directions and they are being stripped away from us at a blinding pace. Are you going to wait till there is nobody left to speak up. Are you awake Yet? As a reader you deserve to know the truth behind the disasters America and the rest of the world faces. If you want to learn more about what is going on in America then consider joining America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. These newsletters are free and we encourage you to distribute to your friends and family.JOIN US TODAY If you are already a member you can, sign in... read more

Jury Nullification: What You Need to Know

Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right Did you know that the trial jury was intended by America’s Founders to be a political institution? Did you know that jurors under our system of justice have the responsibility to protect our rights from infringement by the government? Did you know that jurors can judge the fairness or constitutionality of the law itself? Did you know that judges, prosecutors, and many lawyers don’t want you to know the truth about your power as a juror? When the jury or even you, a single conscientious juror, decide that the law itself is unjust or it is being applied improperly, you may decide not to enforce the law in the case before you, no matter the evidence. If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then the juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen’s safeguard of liberty. This is known as jury nullification. Basically, it’s the jury’s way of saying, “By the letter of the law, the defendant may be guilty, but we disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.” Ultimately, the verdict serves as an acquittal. Haven’t heard of jury nullification? Don’t feel bad; you’re far from alone. If anything, your unfamiliarity is by design. Generally, defense lawyers are not allowed to even mention jury nullification as a possibility during a trial because judges prefer juries to follow the general protocols rather than delivering independent verdicts. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has routinely agreed that judges have no obligation to inform juries about jury nullification. I wonder why this is never talked about in courtrooms? If you serve on a jury, you should KNOW YOUR RIGHTS AS A JUROR! Did you know that when you sit on a jury, you may vote on the verdict according to your conscience. It is true. But then… Why do most judges tell you that you may consider “only the facts” — that you must not let your conscience, opinion of the law, or the motives of the defendant aἀect your decision? In a trial by jury, the judge’s job is to referee the event and provide neutral legal advice to the jury, properly beginning with a full explanation of a juror’s rights and responsibilities. But judges only rarely “fully inform” jurors of their rights, especially their right to judge the... read more

Constitution Day

On September 17, 1787, the greatest and most unique political and legal document in the history of mankind was signed by 39 brave men, the United States Constitution. Today, we as patriotic Americans celebrate, honor and promote this time-honored document, the longest standing Constitution in world history, 227 years later, and have made each September 17 Constitution Day. Our Constitution, signed by patriot heroes at the threat of death, was written both to create the federal government, with certain enumerated powers being delegated by the various states to this new federal government, but, perhaps more importantly in the minds of our Founding Fathers, it was written to limit the power of the federal government. It is the only document that separates us from tyranny, the type of government tyranny which is the rule and not the exception throughout history. Those limitations that our brave founders fought and died for, including our military heroes over the many decades since its establishment, are quickly eroding. We must be as diligent as our founders were in fighting for our freedom, or they will be gone, as human history as proven repeatedly. As former President Ronald Reagan both accurately and brilliantly warned: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” We must make sure it is not our generation. Today would be a great day to pull out your pocket U.S. Constitution, read it, and educate your children and grandchildren as to why it must be restored, then adhered to as written, not interpreted as a “living and breathing document” that can be twisted into meaning whatever power-hungry politician or judge desires it to mean, depending on which way the political winds are blowing. Patriotic Americans are doing their part to restore our Constitution and we must be equally as diligent. Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you think observing the U.S. Constitution is more important now than it ever has been. Are you awake Yet? Stay in touch and receive more insights with the America’s Great Awakening Newsletter. To sign up click... read more

You have the right to bear arms… sort of.

When Ray Rice beat his wife unconscious in an elevator, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain agreed to put him in a diversion program for 1st-time offenders to keep him out of jail. But when Pennsylvania single mom Shaneen Allen was pulled over for a traffic violation and volunteered to a New Jersey police officer that she was carrying a legally-owned handgun with a Pennsylvania permit, the response of Donio and McClain was to deny her the same opportunity as Rice. Allen lives in Philadelphia, right across the river from New Jersey. She has a Pennsylvania permit to carry a handgun. She thought it was recognized in New Jersey, just as it is recognized in over 30 other states. She was wrong. When she told the officer that she had the gun, she was arrested. Now she faces a felony conviction and a mandatory 42 months in prison. Both Donio and McClain have been unwilling to dismiss the charges, or send Allen to a pretrial diversion program. They seem to want to make an example of her. The problem is, she’s being punished for something the Constitution says — and the Supreme Court has agreed — is a constitutional right. And the super-stiff penalties and abusive prosecution she’s experiencing are pretty clearly intended to chill people from exercising that right. “Fortunately, the notoriety of this case will make it less likely Pennsylvanians will carry concealed and loaded handguns in New Jersey, thereby making them and the Garden State safer from gun violence.” Well, no. Shaneen Allen wasn’t committing gun violence, and civilians with gun permits are a very law-abiding bunch, who have passed a background check and undergone training; no sensible state would want to discourage them from visiting. New Jersey Superior Court Judge Michael Donio and New Jersey District Attorney Jim McClain apparently care far more about protecting domestic violence-prone NFL millionaires than they do young mothers attempting to protect themselves and their children from violence. Both men are a disgrace to their profession, and to the very concept of justice. Considering the prosecutorial malpractice underway in the Allen case by anti-gun activists masquerading as a judge and district attorney, I think that Second Amendment-supporting politicians in the U.S. House and Senate should begin crafting stand-alone legislation deemed “Shaneen’s Law” immediately. Better yet, toss out the laws that infringe on our rights to bear arms. Are you awake Yet? Stay... read more