As most of you in the legal profession are quite aware, our current federal and state court rules leave a lot to be desired. In fact, these rules are bias and unfair, giving the advantage to the government’s side of the legal dispute. As such, these rules are unconstitutional since they violate our Constitution’s amendments on “due process” and a “fair trial”. This makes them not only illegal and unethical, but a detriment to our society and our nation.
Please consider this my ‘shout-out’ for help. I am requesting your legal assistance to challenge the ‘Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures’ and the ‘Federal Rules of Evidence’. I wish to put these court rules on trial. I believe that a preliminary injunction is the proper legal vehicle to challenge these rules, but I am only a layman and do not know if I am correct. Your legal assistance would be greatly appreciated.
My research into these laws started approximately 9-months ago. Despite my limited resources, I have uncovered some interesting and deeply disturbing facts.
Fact Number One:
We have the ‘Administrative Conference of the United States’ (ACUS) formed in 1964, to thank for these rules. At least on the surface. If you read the statute that created the ACUS and gave them their mandate, you’ll find a clause that states the federal government must retain a majority of the seats on this “conference”. The clause gives them the controlling majority of votes, allowing them to vote in or out any court rules they choose with in the “conference”. Congress then “rubberstamps” these rules.
Fact Number Two:
Once in control, one of the first and most dramatic changes they incorporated into our new court rules concerned the jury’s function. No longer was the jury allowed to act as the “conscience of the community”. No longer were our juries allowed to perform their true and historic duty, to judge the laws themselves, the reasonableness of the punishment and the facts of the case. Instead, these court rules outlawed judging the laws themselves and even the reasonableness of the punishment the crime called for. Further, the facts of the case the jury was allowed to hear and see was reduced, when these new court rules deemed the other facts “irrelevant”. This change has reduced and limited the power and scope of our juries.
Our founding fathers set up our jury system as they did, to act as the common man’s protection from the tyranny and oppression of their government’s arbitrary laws and statutes. Our federal government has intentionally rewritten our courtroom rules in order to prevent this important and vital function, effectively nullifying our juries. Thus I find it ironic that our courts use the term “jury nullification” when describing the attempts of Americans to bring back (by educating) the juries to their original duties and historic function. Especially in light of the fact that it is these new court rules which have actually ‘nullified’ our juries. I am not 100 % positive, but I believe the term “jury nullification” was coined after the 1964 creation of the ACUS.
Fact Number Three:
A defendant’s First Amendment rights are violated under these new courtroom rules. A defendant is restricted, even prohibited from having their say in our courts. Despite the ‘swearing-in’ of a defendant or witness, neither is allowed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.” Any attempt to do so will be met with resistance. Under these new court rules, a defendant or witness is only allowed to narrowly answer the questions put to them. Attempting to expand on their answers in order to “tell the whole truth” will elicit a threat of “contempt” from the judge. Further, a defendant or witness can and will be removed from the courtroom for this violation. In the case of the defendant, the judge has the option of physically gagging them. So much for our First Amendment right of ‘free speech’.
Can you think of a time more important to retain free speech than when standing in front of a jury, accused of a crime?
These are only three facts concerning our government’s new court rules. As legal professionals, I am sure you have numerous other areas within these court rules, that you can site as bias and unfair, I know I can! The ‘Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures’, and the ‘Federal Rules of Evidence’ have been corrupted by our federal government. Because of this violation of our founding fathers’ trial by jury rules, they now enjoy a 98% conviction rate. This ridiculously high percentage rate shows how well their corrupted rules are working for them. This ridiculously high rate proves that defendants are not currently receiving “due process” or “fair trials”.
Please give my plea for your legal assistance serious consideration. I am a defendant in a non-violent victimless crime (marijuana). Because of the volume, it has been picked-up by our federal government. Whether you agree with the legalization of marijuana or not, you can agree that we must protect our Constitution.
Edited by FindLaw_AHK, 16 November 2012 - 02:22 PM.
This post has been edited to remove personal or identifying information. -Moderator