Trial by Jury

In response to a loved one who challenged me by saying, "these are the laws we have now ..." - meaning we are not allowed to break an unlawful law.  I am here to make a case to the contrary.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state ... and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

The 6th Amendment gives us the openly stated right to a trial by jury and the assistance of counsel for our defense.  I say, "openly stated right" to point out that we have many other rights and duties given by our Creator that are not openly stated and those rights may not be infringed by the state any more than the stated rights.  However, the stated rights give us a firm standing point on which to push back the encroaching government machinery.


So now for the story.  In Florida in 1994 there was an abortionist, his bodyguard and his nurse who performed 20-35 late term abortions every Friday at a local clinic.  He had been convicted and fined $1000.00 on several occasions for breaking the law by killing unborn babies past the state sanctioned definition of when they could be called babies.  He always came back and killed more babies, going so far as to bear a sign on his truck proclaiming "I DO ABORTIONS"-I can't recall the exact wording it was something like that.


Local activists in trying to save the lives of the babies would go to the dumpster where their bodies were thrown and take pictures of their intact little bodies with their arms, legs, fingers, toes and torsoes lying next to the head that had been wrenched from their bodies.  They would take the pictures to court when they tried to get the court to stop the atrocities from happening.  The court refused to honor their grievances but to clear their unconscious consciences would make the evil doctor pay a fine.


Mr. Paul Hill, a virtuous and moral human being, was deeply grieved about this continuing to happen.  He was a moral human being and accountable to his Creator for the fact that he was standing by and allowing these babies to be murdered every Friday.  20 to 30 little babies being decapitated, dismembered, burned with chemicals, their hearts injected with poison, ripped from their mother's bodies and tossed into a dumpster!  Finally, he came to a decision.  He had to do something.  But, he loved his wife and his children!  Was this really what God would want him to do?  He would be executed or thrown in jail for life.  But, maybe if the jury could hear his defense maybe there might be the possibility that he could be acquitted.  Maybe, they would see that he was defending the life of the innocent.  But, either way, he had to stop the massacre of the unborn babies that was occurring every Friday at that clinic.  I will spare you the details, suffice it to say, he took a rifle executed the abortionist, his bodyguard and his nurse, then put his gun down put his hands in the air and waited for the police to arrive.


Now I am not prepared to argue on behalf of Paul Hill's decision, because it is not something that I would promote or condone.  That was just a background story for making my case:
 
In a world where the serial killer, Ted Bundy, was given the right to defend himself, Paul Hill was denied the right to present his defense at court. The reason why:  his counsel advised him to defend his actions as necessary in the defense of the life of others.  The judge refused to allow the defense.  The judge didn't want the jury to see the pictures of the babies with their heads ripped off next to their beautifully formed little bodies.  The judge was afraid the jury would declare the man innocent and in so doing would convict the court rather than the accused.  While Roe V Wade isn't a law it is still at the crux of the issue.   This ruling was not just an abomination before God, it was unconstitutional in that it denies the right to life to babies as long as they are in their mother's womb. Judges have prostituted themselves by taking an oath to the bar association and an oath to the Constitution.  No man can serve two masters.  When the choice comes between upholding the Constitution or upholding their lucrative bar association connections, their bar association connections win the day.  The background knowledge of this issue is too tedious for the average socialist to sustain.

Socialists need to know that juries have the authority to nullify laws based on the fact that the people of the states are the ones who grant the authority for laws to be passed in the first place.  The courts are usurping the authority of the people of the states without letting it reach the court transcripts.  If it reaches the court transcripts it becomes officially documented.  Courts want people to remain ignorant of their responsibility to judge not just the person accused by the evidence presented but also the law used to accuse the accused.
 
Judges routinely avoid letting jurors know the power they have in the jury box.  This is an American freedom issue.  This is the problem with a federal government that is run amok with unlawful power.  Socialists keep unlawful authorities in authority because it is easier to pretend there is nothing we can do about the evil than it is to actually stop the evil.  It comforts us to pretend the evil isn't happening.  If we can just block it from our minds, we don't have to do anything about it.  The reality is, if we do something about evil, it could cost us our lives.  If we don't do anything about evil, it will cost us our lives.  It is a lot more convenient in the short run not to know what is going on. 

The accused in this case was in fact executed in Florida in 2004(?).  It seems it was a bright sunny day in Florida and all the news trucks headed to the prison to get their pictures.  There was a dark, dark cloud over the prison, when Mr. Hill was executed there was lightening and thunder and heavy darkness over the prison and sunshine outside the prison.  They could look over past the prison gates and see the beautiful Florida blue skies and sunshine.  I guess it is possible God may not enjoy watching the criminal execuition of a man who saved the lives of between 10,400 and 18,000 innocent babies who would have gotten decapitated, dismembered, burned, given heart attacks and ripped from their mother's bodies by a doctor and his assistants during the ten years he tried to obtain a pardon.  Ten years while his children grew up without him, his wife was left to fend for them, and he wrote his story from the time that he performed his unlawful execution until the time the state performed their equally unlawful execution.  The state executed him after having denied him a legitimate trial by jury.  He may have been found guilty anyway, he did kill three people. The point is the judge denied him his Constitutionally stated right to a trial by a jury of his peers and the right to council in his defense.

You think I sound strange?  Think about it.  Where do righteous standards originate?  From God.  He says in his word, "I the Lord declare what is right."  The judge refused to allow Paul Hill to present his defense.  The judge said he could present any other defense except his actual defense.  The judge wiped his completely darkened conscious clean of any wrong doing by pretending his bar oath was a greater responsibility than his responsibility to uphold the Constitution.  The reason we have a jury system is to prevent the judge from having more power than the people.  That is part of the separation of powers designed into the framework of the Constitution.  As long as people remain ignorant of how that framework operates and what is required to keep it operational.  Presidents, judges and politicians will continue to ride roughshod over our Constitution and the freedom every person on earth has been born with:  the freedom to worship God and practice our religion.  In America when the state tries to take that freedom away from us, they are exalting themselves against the authority we have granted to them by the republic through the Constitution and under the final authority of God.  When we demand more government intervention and in essence call out for a king to rule over us, we are forsaking our God given responsibilities to govern ourselves according to his commandments.

When we allow government to sanction the massacre of unborn babies, we are allowing them to do it under our authority and we in effect sanction those murders.  We must rule over the government or the government will rule over us.  The only way we can rule over the government is to submit ourselves to God's sovereign authority and obey his commandments.  The freedom to govern ourselves according to the laws of nature and of nature's God is derived from our individual willingness to submit to those laws.  When we obey his commandments government is not given the power to grow into our caretaker because we do not need to demand a civil government to provide us with safety from one another.  When society rejects the commandments of God they are demanding government intervention into their lives by the very fact that without God's controlling power and authority anarchy would reign upon the face of the earth.