THE RYAN JURY ON TRIAL

 

 

     The Ryan jury and the controversy surrounding its verdict have brought to mind a very famous trial in American history.   The same conditions exist.  The same liberties are at stake.

 

     November 17, 1734, New York City.  John Peter Zenger, a newspaper publisher, was arrested and charged with libel.

 

     He had printed in his newspapers that the Governor of the State of New York was corrupt, crooked, and tyrannical.

 

     The Governor of the State of New York was truly, corrupt, crooked, and tyrannical.  But the law at the time declared that it was libel to say so, anyway.

 

     The jurors on the Zenger trial jury stood up for decency, integrity, truth, and freedom.

 

     They declared Peter Zenger Not Guilty.

 

     This verdict paved the way for the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing Freedom of Speech for all Americans.

 

     It also declared some other freedoms, which you might not be aware of.

 

     You have these freedoms, won for you at the Zenger Trial, but you have not been taught of them, and you probably don’t know they exist.

 

     Let’s take a look at some of the words spoken by the defense attorney at the Zenger Trial.

 

 

     PETER ZENGER PRINTED IN HIS PAPER:

 

     “We, the people of the Province of New York, see men’s deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily displaced, new courts erected without the consent of the legislature-----by which it seems to me, trials by jury are taken away when a Governor pleases.  Men of known estates denied their votes, contrary to the received practice”.

 

 

     THE PROSECUTOR SAID;

 

 

     ---he did not know what could be said in defense of a man that had so notoriously scandalized the Governor, and principal magistrates-----by charging them  with depriving the people of their rights and liberties, and taking away trial by juries—“

 

 

     THE COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW THE ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT PETER ZENGER WAS PRINTING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

     SO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY APPEALED TO THE JURORS FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE, WHICH THEY GOT BY SIMPLY BEING MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND KNOWING THAT THE ACCUSATIONS OF ZENGER WERE TRUE.

 

     THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THE JURY HAD THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE JUDGE’S ORDERS, AND RULE ON THAT WHICH THEY KNEW WAS RIGHT, CORRECT, AND JUST.

 

      READ SOME HIS STATEMENTS TO THE JURY:

 

   

     Mr. Hamilton said:  I have not, in all my readings, met with an authority that says we cannot be admitted to give the truth in evidence  upon information for a libel---

 

          Modern English:  I have never heard of anything that says that the Truth cannot be presented as a defense against the charge of libel.

 

Mr. Hamilton said:  Gentlemen of the jury, it is to you we must now appeal, for witnesses to the truth of the facts we have offered, and are denied the liberty to prove.

 

     Let it not seem strange that I apply myself to you in this manner.  I am warranted to do so by Law and Reason.

 

     Modern English:  Gentlemen of the Jury , I must appeal to the  fact that  you yourselves are witnesses to the truths which I am not allowed to present before you in this court.  I have to do this because it is lawful and it is Common Sense.

 

 

     Mr. Hamilton said:  The law supposes you to be summoned out of the neighborhood where the fact is alleged to be committed, and the reason for your being taken out of this neighborhood, is because you are supposed to have the best knowledge of the fact that is to be tried.

 

     Modern English:  You have all been summoned to be jurors from the neighborhood where these alleged crimes were supposed to have been committed, and are expected to have the best knowledge of what really happened.

 

 

 

     DO YOU BEGIN TO SEE IT?     IN ACTUAL FACT, A JUROR IS SUPPOSED  TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTER BEING TRIED, BY SIMPLE FACT OF BEING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE AND WHEN IT HAPPENED.

 

     WHERE DO OUR MODERN JUDGES GET THE NOTION THAT THEY CAN ORDER JURORS NOT TO READ THE NEWSPAPERS?   DO YOU BEGIN TO SEE WHAT YOUR RIGHT AS A JUROR IS, AND HOW MODERN JUDGES ARE FORBIDDING YOU TO EXERCISE THEM?

 

 

               LET’S GO ON:

 

 

     Mr. Hamilton:   the facts which we offer to prove were not committed in a corner---they were notoriously known to be true.   Therefore in your justice lies our safety.

We were denied the liberty of giving evidence to prove the truth of what we have published.  I will beg leave to lay it down as a standing rule in such cases, that the suppressing of evidence aught always to be taken for the strongest evidence.

 

     Modern English:  The evidence we want to enter into this court happened in the community where all of you were witnesses to it.  I put to you that the very refusal of the court to allow  the evidence to be admitted is proof that it happened.

 

 

     DOES THAT SURPRISE YOU?  A JUROR IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DRAW ON HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION.  THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS HE MUST HAVE NEVER READ OF THE CASE, OR HEARD OF THE CASE, AND HAS NOT FORMED AN OPINION ON THE CASE.  THESE ARE ALL MADE UP NOTIONS THAT ARE ENFORCED IN TODAY’S COURTROOMS, IN ORDER TO BETTER BRAINWASH JURORS INTO DELIVERING THE VERDICT WANTED BY THE COURT.

 

 

     Mr. Hamilton said:  I know they have the right beyond all dispute, to determine both the LAW and the FACT--- 

     It is a right which all freemen claim—to publicly remonstrate the abuses of power

     To assist with courage the sense they have of the blessings of  liberty--

 

     For I must insist, that when a matter of LAW is complicated with matter of FACT, the JURY have  RIGHT to determine both.

 

     Modern English.   All free men have the right to fight against abuses of power.  One of those rights we have to do this is to judge the LAW as well as the FACT when tyrants attempt to impose unjust laws.

 

     Mr. Hamiliton cites another case, in which two preachers were accused of  causing a public disturbance by holding a public religious meeting.

 

     He recalls to the jury that the jury in that case “took it upon them, to their immortal honor, to determine both law and fact, and therefore found them Not Guilty.”

 

     In this other case he refers to, the judge FINED the JURY 40 Marks and wouldn’t let them go home before they paid the fine! 

 

     One of the jurors, a Mr. Bufhel, refused to pay the fine, and spent time in jail until by writ of habeus corpus he was freed.

 

 

     HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO THE RYAN JURY?

 

 

     The Zenger Jury established the freedom of jurors to know certain evidence in the case from outside sources, despite modern day efforts to isolate juries and forbid them to read papers and watch TV.

 

     The Zenger jury was told repeatedly that they had the right to judge the Law—whether it was a just law, or an unjust law, and whether it applied in this particular case.

 

    

     The case of Juror Mr. Befhel established the right of a juror to deliver his verdict without fear of being punished by the judge of the case.

 

 

     What is being done to the RYAN JURORS?

 

 

     The Defense is trying to say that the Ryan Jurors were all deceiving liars, because they did not disclose deeply personal irrelevant instances that happened in their private lives, in some cases many, many years ago.

 

     One juror stated it was unfair for the jurors to be put on trial.

 

     That is exactly what is being done. 

 

 

     IT IS A SLOW BUT DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF THE FREE JURY SYSTEM, TO SUBJECT POTENTIAL JURORS TO UNREASONABLE  QUESTIONS OF THEIR PRIVATE LIVES, THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO THE CASE AT THEY ARE HEARING.

 

 

     THE ISOLATION OF JURIES FROM NEWSPAPERS AND TV AND OTHER FORMS OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IS A  DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO ISOLATE THE MIND OF THE JUROR AND ROB HIM OF HIS ABILITY TO THINK FREELY AND OBJECTIVELY, AND CAUSE HIM TO VOTE WITH THE OTHERS, JUST SO HE OR SHE CAN GO  HOME.

 

 

     LAWYERS AND JUDGES USE THE TERM ”CONTAMINATE” WHEN SPEAKING OF A JUROR WHO HAS BEEN TOUCHED WITH AN  IDEA THAT THE COURT HAS NOT GIVEN HIM, AND HAS NOT ALLOWED HIM TO THINK.

     

     THINKING FREELY  IS NOT A DISEASE.

 

     JURORS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDERS GIVEN BY JUDGES

THAT FORBID THEM TO HAVE OUTSIDE COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION DURING A TRIAL ARE UNLAWFUL IN THAT THEY RESTRICT THE FREE THOUGHTS OF THE CITIZEN CALLED UPON TO BE A JUROR, AND CONFINE HIM OR HER IN A SITUATION THAT CAN PRODUCE THE FAMOUS “STOCKHOLM SYNDROME”, WHERE HE BECOMES INCAPAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.

 

     JURORS SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT  IN CASES WHERE THE LAW A PERSON IS BEING TRIED FOR BREAKING, IS AN UNJUST LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY MUST VOTE NOT GUILTY, NO M ATTER HOW THE JUDGE HAS INSTRUCTED THEM OTHERWISE.

 

     THIS RIGHT IS CALLED ‘JURY NULLIFICATION”.

 

     JURORS SHOULD  UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS UNAMERICAN AND ANTI-AMERICAN FREEDOM, TO SUBJECT JURORS TO POST TRIAL HARRASSMENT, AS IS BEING DONE TO THE RYAN JURY.

 

     WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS TIME FREE AMERICAN JURORS TAKE BACK THE COURTROOM AND START VOTING OUR FREE CONSCIENCES INSTEAD OF LETTING OURSELVES BE PROGRAMMED AND BRAINWASHED BY COURTS WHO ONLY WANT US TO RUBBER STAMP THEIR OPINIONS.

 

 

FREE CITIZENS SHOULD EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON  JUST WHAT OUR FREEDOMS ARE, AND THEN INSIST ON EXERCIZING THOSE FREEDOMS

DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS OF PEOPLE IN POWER.

 

 

YOU AGREE?  Let me know if I’ve educated  you on something important.

 

reslpb@lycos.com